Placer County Grand Jury
2023-2024
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 (13)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
All Placer County Cemetery Districts are well managed financially, and most annual budgets keep expenditures below revenues.
F2:
budgets keep expenditures below revenues. All cemetery districts have reserves in accordance with their size, population, and
F3:
tax income base. The two smallest districts, Colfax and Tahoe, have very limited cash and endowment
F4:
reserves. All Placer County Cemetery Districts are well-maintained in accordance with their
F5:
surroundings including the historical cemeteries.
F6:
All Placer County Cemetery Districts are properly staffed and managed. All Placer County Cemetery Districts have adequate expansion acreage to Recomacmcomenmdoadatitoe nress:id ential growth within their district. T he grand jury has no recom mendations. Colfax Cemetery District Auburn, CA 95604-4357 Attention: Nancy Hagman, Trustee PO Box 231 Newcastle-Rocklin-Gold Hill Colfax, CA 95713 Cemetery District Attention: Mark Riemer, Chairperson 850 Taylor Rd Placer County Cemetery District #1 Newcastle, CA 95658 Attention: Joe Vigil, Chairperson PO Box 546 Roseville Cemetery District Lincoln, CA 95648 Attention: Steven Howe, Chairperson 421 Berry St Tahoe Cemetery District Roseville, CA 95678 Attention: Jill Pomin, President PO Box 6178 Local Agency Formation Commission Tahoe City, 96145 Attention: Michelle McIntyre, Executive Officer 110 Maple St Auburn, CA 95603 123 Special Districts’ Compliance With Form 700 and Ethics Training 124 and Ethics Training Summary Individual board members of Placer County Special Districts are required to submit Form 700 on an annual basis and complete ethics training biannually if any board member of the special district receives any financial compensation (salary, stipend, or reimbursement for expenses). The 2023-2024 Placer County Grand Jury investigated the thirty-seven special districts in Placer County to ensure all special districts were compliant with the submission and training requirements. The Placer County Grand Jury verified that 97 percent of special district board members were compliant with Form 700 submission and 91 percent were Gcolmopslsiaanrt yfo r biannual ethics training as of December 31, 2023. Ethics Training: A course to educate public officials biannually on the ethical standards required of an individual who works in state and local government. The training is mandated by California Gover nment Code § 53235 for all board members of special districts when any member of that board receives compensation, salary, stipend, or rFeaiimr bPuorlsietimcaeln Pt froarc etixcpeesn sCeos.mmission: Created by the California Political Reform Act to administer and enforce the ethics law, as well as inform and assist public officials, Femorpmlo y7e0e0s:, and candidates to comply with its provisions. Statement of Economic Interest, Fair Political Practices Commission, State of California. It must be filed by designated board and commission members as defined by LCaolcifaolr nAiga eGnocvye rFnomremnat tCioodne C §o 8m72m0i0s.s ion: State-mandated, quasi-judicial countywide commissions whose purview is to oversee boundary changes of cities and special districts, formation of new agencies, consolidation, or reorganization for special districts and/or cSiptieesc.i al District: A political subdivision of the state, established to provide a single public s ervice within a specific geog raphic area. Special district board members are required by California Government Code § 87200 to 2 submit a Form 700 to the Placer County Clerk-Recorder’s Office each year they are on the board. In addition, if any board member receives any financial remuneration, such as a stipend or expense reimbursement, then all board members are required to take biannual ethics training and retain documentation evidencing compliance. The Placer County Grand Jury (PCGJ) investigated the Form 700 submission and ethics training compliance of the sMpeectihalo ddisotrliocgtsy’ b oard members. During the grand jury’s investigation, a letter and survey form were emailed to each dist•r ict. The survey requested the following information: • • names of board members, • length of term, • term start date, • term end date, • date of ethics training and who provided the training, • submission of Form 700, date of Form 700 submission, and copy of certification of completion of ethics training. A deadline of December 31, 2023 was set for the receipt of the requested information. The data received by December 31 was used for the tabulation of compliance in this report. Based on the survey responses, the PCGJ subsequently validated with the Placer County Clerk-Recorder’s Office the submission of the Form 700 by the special district board members. The PCGJ also verified a majority of the special district members’ ethics training w ere satisfied by reviewing c opies of certifications received for completion. Title 9. Political Reform (81000 – 91014). Chapter 7. Conflicts of Interest [87200 – 87210]. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=87200.&lawCode=GOV Accessed February 20, 2024. 2 2023-2024 Statement of Economic Interests. Form 700. https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/form700.pdf. Accessed February 20, 2024. 126 , and is not included in any of the analysis of this report. There are thirty-six active special districts with a total of 181 board members. The table below lists the Placer County Special Districts, inclusive of the inactive Suburban Pines Community Services DistNruicmtb:e r Form 700 Ethics Training Special District of Board Submission Verified Members 1 Alpine Springs County Water District 5 5 5 2 Alta Fire Protection District 5 4 5 3 Auburn Cemetery District 5 5 2 4 Auburn Recreation & Park District 5 5 5 5 Auburn Valley Community Services District 4 4 4 6 Christian Valley Park Community Services District 5 5 5 7 Colfax Cemetery District 2 2 2 8 Donner Summit Public Utility District 5 NA 5 9 Foresthill Fire Protection District 5 5 NA 10 Foresthill Public Utility District 5 5 3 11 Heather Glen Community Services District 5 5 5 12 McKinney Water District 5 5 5 13 Meadow Vista County Water District 5 5 5 14 Midway Heights County Water District 4 4 4 15 Newcastle Fire Protection District 4 4 2 16 Newcastle-Rocklin-Gold Hill Cemetery District 5 5 5 17 North Tahoe Fire Protection District 5 5 5 18 North Tahoe Public Utility District 5 5 5 19 Northstar Community Services District 5 5 5 20 Olympic Valley Public Service District 5 5 5 21 Penryn Fire Protection District 5 5 5 22 Placer County Cemetery District 1 5 5 5 23 Placer County Resource Conservation District 7 5 5 24 Placer County Water Agency 5 5 5 25 Placer Hills Fire Protection District 5 5 5 26 Placer Mosquito Vector Control District 7 7 5 27 Roseville Cemetery District 5 5 5 28 Sierra Lakes County Water District 5 5 5 29 South Placer Fire Protection District 7 7 7 30 South Placer Municipal Utility District 5 5 5 31 Suburban Pines Community Services District NA NA NA 32 Tahoe Cemetery District 5 2 1 33 Tahoe City Public Utility District 5 5 5 34 Tahoe Forest Hospital District 5 5 5 35 Tahoe-Truckee Sanitation Agency 6 6 6 36 Talmont Resort Improvement District 5 5 5 37 Truckee Tahoe Airport District 5 5 5 The completion and return of the surveys by the special districts were inconsistent. After the initial contact was made, some districts responded immediately and others not at all. Some districts provided all the information requested while others provided partially completed surveys and/or did not provide the ethics training completion confirmation. Subsequent emails were sent, and phone calls were made, to each district not providing all 127
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
The grand jury found that: Thirty-four percent of the twenty-one recommendations were implemented within
F2:
staff-to-youth ratio under the Board of State and Community Corrections standards. The Placer County Juvenile Detention Facility works with Placer County Office of Education to provide educational programs allowing youth to continue their
F3:
education while in custody. The Placer County Juvenile Detention Facility works with many service providers to
F4:
provide health and wellness programs to improve behaviors and rehabilitate youth. The Juvenile Detention Facility uses technology to streamline processes enabling
F5:
staff to spend more time monitoring youth. The Placer County Juvenile Detention Facility operates a clean, well-run facility for youth in Placer, Amador, El Dorado, Nevada, Plumas, and Sierra Counties. County of Placer Children’s System of Care. Children's System of Care | Placer County, CA. Accessed December 29, 2023. 157 -2024 Final Report
F6:
Advisory Council. x There are benefits available to veterans and their families of
F7:
which they may not be aware. The Promise to Address x Comprehensive Toxics Act broadens the benefits and sFe8r:vices for which veterans may be eligible. x There has been a high turnover of the County Veteran S ervice Officer over the past five years. 195 -2024 Final Report RESPONSE FROM PLACER COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FINDINGS RECOMMENDATIONS A IR D Compliance R-GADgree with Finding WI-Implemented A D RGD DNR IR WI MT WNI of -Disagree with Finding Recommendation DNR-Reason Given for MT-Will be Implemented with Response Disagreement Target Date -Did Not Respond WN-IMore Time Needed with Target Date
F8:
There has been a high turnover of the County Veteran Service Officer over the past five years. x RESPONSE FROM PLACER COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FINDINGS A-Agree with Finding D-Disagree with Finding RGD-Reason Given for Disagreement DNR-Did Not Respond A D RGD DNR
F9:
-Will Not be Implemented The grand jury found the x Veterans Service Office staff to be dedicated to their job and to the veterans seeking assistance.
F10:
Depending on the complexity of the claim, it can x take an accredited staff member up to four hours to compile required d ocumentation and manually input into VetPro. 196 -2024 Final Report RESPONSE FROM PLACER COUNTY HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES DIRECTOR FINDINGS RECOMMENDATIONS A IR D WI Compliance R-GADgree with Finding A D RGD DNR -Implemented Recommendation IR WI MT WNI of -Disagree with Finding MT-Will be Implemented with Target Response DNR-Reason Given for Date Disagreement WN-IMore Time Needed with Ta rget -Did Not Respond Date
Additional Recommendations
7
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
By April 10, 2024,the City of Auburn, City of Lincoln, and the Placer County LAFCO Board will update their response to address their agreement or disagreement with
R2:
each finding in their respective reports. By April 10, 2024, the City of Colfax will respond to the grand jury with their agreement or disagreement to each finding in the Spending on Homelessness Within RequiPrleadce rR Ceosupnotyn rseepso:r t as well as responding to the recommendation. Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, the Placer County Grand Jury requires a response from t he follo wing g overni ng bod y: Recommendations Response Requiring Response Due Date Auburn City Council
R3:
Refunds have been issued. 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 Original 2019 Response: overcharge even if it exceeds the statute of limitations. The City of Lincoln believes the Grand Jury has misinterpreted the language of the Twelve Bridges Development Agreement. The development agreement section referenced in the middle of of the Grand Jury Report and further specifically identified in
R4:
Lincoln City Council require a review every 5 years for all connection fees to determine Original 2019 Response: reasonable costs. The current executive leadership of the City of Lincoln had identified this deficiency and had been working toward this goal prior to the initiation of the Grand Jury’s investigation. Updated 2023 Response: Recommendation R4 has been implemented. This recommendation will be completed by December 31, 2019. A new Public Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study Update analysis was performed that included a review of connection fees and a Final Report was produced on August 15, 2022. The report is available on the City’s website at https://www.lincoln.ca.gov/Nexus-Study-
R5:
Final-report-(August-10221.pdf. Lincoln restructure loans made from the WFC to comply with the state regulations or Original 2019 Response: return the funds to WFC. The executive leadership of the City of Lincoln has identified alternatives that will allow the City to return all WFC funds from various inter-fund loans. The City has already returned all WFC funds that had been included in inter-fund loans to the Airport Fund. This Updated 2023 Response: Recommendation R5 has been implemented. recommendation is anticipated to be complete by December 31, 2019. This has been resolved. There are no current interfund loans owed to WFC. 164 -2024 Final Report
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 Original 2019 Response: forward. The City of Lincoln disagrees with the recommendation for retroactive performance evaluations. It serves no constructive purpose to evaluate individuals no longer employed by the City of Lincoln. This recommendation will not be implemented because it is neither Updated 2023 Response: No Response Required warranted nor reasonable. 165 -2024 Final Report Court Ordered Debt
R16-21:
that are justice involved or in foster care. Each program staff member encourages the youth to integrate the course materials as part of their daily lives in Recommendation 2 the hope they are better prepared to transition to adulthood. Original 2019 Response: R2 has been partially implemented and we will continue to Provide information on career and technical training opportunities. strengthen the opportunities for our youth while continuing to operate a safe and secure institution. • We have been working with staff from the Placer County Re-Entry Program (PREP) for any youth over the age of 18 who risk appropriately. Youth have been able to meet with a Transition Specialist prior to leaving the facility to discuss their re-entry into the community. This has included setting up classes to complete any cognitive behavior or court ordered classes needed and employment services. They work with • Golden Sierra and Northern California Construction Training (NCCT) who provide training and job placement for construction opportunities. The PREP Center staff have now extended their program to include working with youth who are in need of transition services once released. A Transition Specialist works with the identified youth one on one to provide resources and a transition • plan to support the youth once they are released. In the future, the goal is to provide life skills classes to all youth at the facility Weekly Transition team meetings have been occurring at the juvenile hall since the beginning of the year. At this meeting, we discuss the needs and transition plans for 175
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
In 2022, the Placer County Information Technology Department engaged a contractor to perform a penetration testing of the cyber and physical security of Placer County Elections Office in Auburn.
F2:
Placer County Elections Office in Auburn. Placer County Elections Office data, infrastructure and system applications are
F3:
housed in a closed network system with multiple levels of security in place. Placer County Elections Office procedures are well documented and processes for
F4:
internal controls include the use of checklists and documented procedures.
F5:
Placer County Elections Office operates as a transparent organization. Placer County Elections Office has a dedicated staff of four information technology
F6:
specialists. All Elections Office personnel, permanent and temporary, are subject to a
F7:
background check prior to employment. Placer County Elections Office is compliant with all state and federal laws and regulations. 44 -2024 Final Report
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
By October 1, 2024, the Placer County Chief Information Officer will engage with a contractor to perform a penetration testing of the cyber and physical security of Placer County Elections Office in Rocklin, California.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The county garage uses a zero-profit business model with all costs for maintenance and repairs billed to supported departments.
F2:
and repairs billed to supported departments.
F3:
U.S. Bank Voyager gas cards are used to track fuel costs and mileage. AssetWorks software is used to track and manage all costs and the lifecycle of
F4:
Department of Public Works has their own garage to internally maintain all vehicles.
F5:
Department of Public Works has their own garage to internally maintain all vehicles. The cost for any external maintenance for a vehicle out of warranty is less than 1
F6:
percent of the total $11 million budget. Department of Public Works management has taken state EV mandates into Recomcomnseidnerdaatitoino nins t heir purchasing and operational decisions. TChoep gireansd s juernyt h taos :n o recommendations. Ken Grehm, Department of Public Works Director 3091 County Center Dr, Suite 220 Colby Weisz, Placer County Garage Manager Auburn, CA 95603 11448 F Ave Auburn, CA 95603 85 Municipal Advisory Councils What is a MAC? Photo Credit: Stock Photo 86 -2024 Placer County Grand Jury decided to investigate how Municipal Advisory Councils function. Through their inves tigation, grand jurors learned Municipal Advisory Councils are different in each supervisorial district ranging from how the councils are utilized to how often mBeaectiknggsr oaruen hdel d . Municipal Advisory Councils (MACs) are advisory bodies that provide input and advisory
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
Thirteen of 176 (7 percent) special districts’ board members have not had verifiable, current ethics training.
F2:
verifiable, current ethics training. Four of 176 (2 percent) active districts’ board members have not filed a Form 700
F3:
for 2023 as of April 9, 2024. Of the thirty-six Placer County Special Districts, 172 of 176 (98 percent) of the board members are compliant with the submission of Form 700 to the Placer County RecomClemrke-nRedcaotridoenr’ss Office. TRh1e. grand jury recommends: By October 1, 2024, the Auburn Cemetery District (three board members) provide a
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
By October 1, 2024, the Auburn Cemetery District (three board members) provide a current biannual ethics training certificate for their board members.
R2:
current biannual ethics training certificate for their board members. By October 1, 2024, the Foresthill Public Utility District (two board members)
R3:
provide a current biannual ethics training certificate for their board members. By October 1, 2024, the Newcastle Fire Protection District (two board members)
R4:
provide a current biannual ethics training certificate for their board members. By October 1, 2024, the Placer Mosquito Vector Control District (two board members) provide a current biannual ethics training certificate for their board
R5:
members. By October 1, 2024, the Tahoe Cemetery District (four board members) provide a current biannual ethi cs training certificate for their board members. 130 -2024 Final Report
R6:
October 1, 2024 Copies sent to: Local Agency Formation Commission Attention: Michelle McIntyre, Executive Officer 110 Maple St Auburn, CA 95603 Ryan Ronco, Placer County Clerk-Recorder’s Office 3715 Atherton Rd Rocklin, CA 95765 Alpine Springs County Water District Board of Trustees Attention: Janet Grant, President 270 Alpine Meadows Rd Alpine Meadows, CA 96146
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
The current contract funding arrangement between Placer County Sheriff’s Office and Nevada County Sheriff’s Office is inconsistent with other jail services contracts Placer County has with other agencies.
F2:
Placer County has with other agencies. Placer County Sheriff’s Office current jail contract with Nevada County Sheriff’s
F3:
Office has not been renegotiated since 2017. The Board of Supervisors has made the Burton Creek Substation a Tier I Capital
F4:
Improvement Project to direct funding to the project. The Placer County Sheriff's Office transports detainees from Burton Creek Substation to Auburn Main Jail any time Nevada County Sheriff’s Office declines to
F5:
accept a detainee. The jail contract for fiscal year 2022-2023 cost Placer County over a half-million
F6:
dollars. The cost of the contract to Placer County automatically increases 3 percent each
F7:
year regardless of the number of Truckee Jail bookings.
F8:
Placer County is charged a flat rate per year instead of a daily per-person rate.
F9:
The Burton Creek Substation is classified as a Type I jail facility. Placer County Daily Jail Rate is $246 per day, while the contract paid over $5,700
F10:
per day at the Truckee Jail based on the actual use of the FY 2022-23 contract. The Placer County Sheriff’s Office contract with Nevada County Sheriff’s Office for Recomjaiml seernvdicaest iios nnost providing taxpayers with the best value for their money. TRh1e. grand jury recommends: By March 1, 2025, the contract between the Placer County Sheriff’s Office and the Nevada County Sheriff’s Office, providing jail services for the North Tahoe region, be
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
By March 1, 2025, the contract between the Placer County Sheriff’s Office and the Nevada County Sheriff’s Office, providing jail services for the North Tahoe region, be renegotiated annually to pay for services rendered.
R2:
renegotiated annually to pay for services rendered. By March 1, 2025, the contract between the Placer County Sheriff’s Office and the Nevada County Sheriff’s Office, providing jail services for the North Tahoe region, be
R3:
modified to a per person daily rate based upon the Placer County Daily Jail Rate. By December 1, 2024, the Board of Supervisors continue to support building a replacement Burton Creek Substation facility and see it through to completion. 76 -2024 Final Report
R4:
By December 1, 2024, Placer County Sheriff’s Office explore alternative transportation methods for moving detainees from Burton Creek to the Auburn RequiMreaidn JRaiel.s ponses Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, the Placer County Grand Jury requires a response from thRee fsoplloonwdiinngg g Eonvteirtnyi ng body: Findings Recommendations Due Date Requiring Requiring Response Response Placer County Board of F1, F2, F3, R1, R2, R3 October 1, 2024 Supervisors F4, F5, F6,
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
11 findings
F1:
The City of Lincoln does not have a dedicated Lincoln Titan 1-A Missile Site webpage on the on their website.
F2:
on the on their website. The residents in the immediate vicinity of the trichloroethylene contamination at
F3:
the former Lincoln Titan 1-A Missile Site are well-informed on this issue. It is unclear how aware residents outside Sun City Lincoln Hills are about the
F4:
Lincoln Titan 1-A Missile Site contamination. There is a new Restoration Advisory Board coordinated by United States Army Corps of Engineers which includes Lincoln residents. Those meetings are not
F5:
livestreamed or recorded. At the first Restoration Advisory Board meeting, several questions from the
F6:
community went unanswered. Health issues associated with trichloroethylene include birth defects, respiratory
F7:
illness, several types of cancers, and Parkinson’s Disease. Local Congressional offices, the City of Lincoln, and a community awareness group have been encouraging the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to begin remediation of the
F8:
trichloroethylene contamination. The City of Lincoln has included Lincoln Titan 1-A Missile Site remediation in their
F9:
2023-2025 Strategic Plan. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has been aware of trichloroethylene contamination at the Lincoln Titan 1-A Missile Site since 1991 and has assumed
F10:
responsibility for remediation. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is installing additional monitoring wells bordering
F11:
Snapdragon Lane and Prunella Court in the Sun City Lincoln Hills Community. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers abruptly ceased this project for nearly a decade to determine the source of contamination and responsibility for the cleanup from 2009 to 2018-2019. 61 -2024 Final Report
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
By October 1, 2024, the Lincoln City Council will create a dedicated Titan 1-A Missile Site page on the City of Lincoln’s website to include a link to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ website, to disseminate information to the public, including a point of contact.
R2:
contact. Beginning October 1, 2024, the Lincoln City Council will provide a quarterly status
R3:
update report on the Lincoln Titan 1-A Missile Site at Lincoln City Council meetings. By October 1, 2024, through completion of full remediation, the Lincoln City Council will request the United States Army Corps of Engineers, or their consultants, to livestream, record, publish, and archive Restoration Advisory Board meetings for
R4:
full transparency. By September 1, 2024, the Lincoln City Council will appoint a city representative to Requiartetedn dR qeusaprtoernlys Reess toration Advisory Board meetings. Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, the Placer County Grand Jury requires a response from thRee fsoplloonwdiinngg g Eonvteirtnyi ng body: Findings Recommendations Due Date Requiring Requiring Response Response Lincoln City Council F1, F3, F4, R1, R2, October 1, 2024
R28:
The facility, known as the Burton Creek Substation, provides 24/7 patrol coverage, specialized search and rescue teams, a courtroom, and holding cells. It was built in 1959 as a temporary sheriff’s substation for the 1960 Winter Olympics. The Burton Creek Substation is sixty-five years old, non-ADA compliant, too small to adequately house the department’s offices or necessary jail cells, and long overdue for 1 replacement. The Burton Creek Substation jail is a Type I facility. Its four cells are not equipped for overnight housing, but rather, used as holding cells for the courtroom during business hours. The substation has repeatedly been the subject of grand jury reports recommending the complete replacement of the facility over the past thirty years. To remedy these issues, PCSO has contracted with the NCSO to house detainees overnight at the nearby Truckee Jail. California Code of Regulations. Title 15 § 1006. https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Document/IC0E2A7406CA 011EDB5569A0BCCCD916B?%20viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=Catego ryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default). Accessed March 3, 2024. 66 ,000 was established in 2001 for jail services, which provides booking and overnight arrest holds. The contract has been renegotiated several times since its inception, with the current version in place since 2017. At present, the contracted amount is adjusted 3 percent annually and is paid in equal, quarterly payments to Nevada County. The current 2023-2024 contracted amount has grown to $517,727, with the contract service agreement remaining the same as the original contract from 2001. To date, the contract has cost taxpayers over $8.1 million for fewer than one hundred overnight holds per year at the Truckee Jail. 67 -2002 $200,000 2002-2003 * 2003-2004 * 2004-2005 $277,031 2005-2006 $285,342 2006-2007 $297,808 2007-2008 $312,698 2008-2009 $350,369 2009-2010 $358,369 2010-2011 $361,654 2011-2012 $376,120 2012-2013 $380,633 2013-2014 $385,220 2014-2015 $396,800 2015-2016 $408,700 2016-2017 $420,961 2017-2018 $433,590 2018-2019 $446,598 2019-2020 $459,996 2020-2021 $473,796 2021-2022 $488,008 2022-2023 $502,648 2023-2024 $517,727 *Data unavailable for 2002-2004 Because the Burton Creek Substation is not a Type II jail facility, and cannot house inmates overnight, all detainees must be transferred to the Auburn Main Jail or the NCSO Truckee Jail upon arrest. Due to staffing constraints and weather-related road closures, it is most convenient for PCSO to transfer detainees directly to the Truckee Jail for after-hours booking, then to the Auburn Main Jail the following day during their usual transport schedule. Detainees are regularly transported from the Auburn Main Jail to the Burton C reek Substation for court ap pearances Monday through Thursday. 68 :00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m. The office is closed on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. The chart below illustrates the Burton Creek Substation’s business hours and the contracted hours during which deputies may book detainees into the Truckee Jail. Burton Creek Substation Business Hours and Contract Hours Monday 6 a.m. -4 p.m. 4 p.m. -6 a.m. Tuesday 6 a.m. -4 p.m. 4 p.m. -6 a.m. Wednesday 6 a.m. -4 p.m. 4 p.m. -6 a.m. Thursday 6 a.m. -4 p.m. 4 p.m. -6 a.m. Friday ALL DAY Saturday ALL DAY Sunday ALL DAY Burton Creek Business Hours Detainees to Truckee Jail Detainees to Truckee Jail - All Day Friday, Saturday, Sunday Contract Details The contract provides full booking services for PCSO detainees at the Truckee Jail which includes checks for holds and warrants, photographs, after-hours housing, and an arrest file. It provides the arresting officer the option to transport the detainee directly to the Truckee Jail, where they are booked and held until the next business day for transport by PCSO to the Auburn Main Jail. If it is determined the detainee cannot be booked into the Truckee Jail, transportation must be arranged, and they are booked into the Auburn Main Jail. All services provided by NCSO comply with Minimum Standards for Adult Jail The contract stipulates: Facilities set forth in California Code of Regulations Title 15, 19, and 24, and in accordance with Federal, State, and local laws. The NCSO may refuse to book detainees for reasons stipulated in the contract. However, there are also constraints due to California Code of Regulations, Title 15, § 1016, that 69
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
R1: -Will Not be Implemented The Veterans Service Office is x x The Veterans Service Office x YES underfunded. budget be increased dramatically to reflect the importance of our veterans and their service to our
F2:
R2: country by January 1, 2024. The Veterans Service Office Additional accredited Veterans does not have adequate x x Service Office positions be added to x YES accredited veteran service process claims and answer phones representatives to answer phones by January 1, 2024. and process approved claims in a tFi3m:ely manner to receive subvention funds. There are opportunities to x partner with other programs in the Placer County Department of Health and Human Services to further support veterans. RESPONSE FROM PLACER COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FINDINGS RECOMMENDATIONS A IR D Compliance R-GADgree with Finding WI-Implemented A D RGD DNR IR WI MT WNI of -Disagree with Finding Recommendation DNR-Reason Given for MT-Will be Implemented with Response Disagreement Target Date -Did Not Respond WN-IMore Time Needed with Target Date
F3:
R3: operations. for inflation, by November 30, 2023. South Placer Fire District South Placer Fire District constituents seem unaware of increase constituents’ awareness of the district’s performance and x district performance and operating x YES operating needs. costs by proactively advising the public through town hall meetings, newsletters, social media, email, and direct mail before the next special election date by November 30, 2023. RESPONSE FROM SOUTH PLACER FIRE DISTRICT BOARD FINDINGS RECOMMENDATIONS A IR D WI Compliance R-GADgree with Finding A D RGD DNR -Implemented Recommendation IR WI MT WNI of -Disagree with Finding MT-Will be Implemented with Target Response DNR-Reason Given for Date Disagreement WN-IMore Time Needed with Ta rget -Did Not Respond Date
F4:
-Will Not be Implemented The Veterans Service x Office’s social media presence is insufficient in providing online information and promotion of their services.
F5:
The Veterans Service Office x is working to increase their outreach through the Veterans
F6:
Advisory Council. x There are benefits available to veterans and their families of
F7:
which they may not be aware. The Promise to Address x Comprehensive Toxics Act broadens the benefits and sFe8r:vices for which veterans may be eligible. x There has been a high turnover of the County Veteran Service Officer over the past five years. RESPONSE FROM PLACER COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FINDINGS RECOMMENDATIONS A IR D Compliance R-GADgree with Finding WI-Implemented A D RGD DNR IR WI MT WNI of -Disagree with Finding Recommendation DNR-Reason Given for MT-Will be Implemented with Response Disagreement Target Date -Did Not Respond WN-IMore Time Needed with Target Date
F9:
-Will Not be Implemented The grand jury found the x Veterans Service Office staff to be dedicated to their job and to the veterans seeking assistance.
F10:
Depending on the complexity of the claim, it can x take an accredited staff member up to four hours to compile required documentation and manually input into VetPro. RESPONSE FROM PLACER COUNTY HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES DIRECTOR FINDINGS RECOMMENDATIONS A IR D WI Compliance R-GADgree with Finding A D RGD DNR -Implemented Recommendation IR WI MT WNI of -Disagree with Finding MT-Will be Implemented with Target Response DNR-Reason Given for Date Disagreement WN-IMore Time Needed with Ta rget -Did Not Respond Date
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
By April 10, 2024, the City of Auburn, City of Lincoln, and the Placer County LAFCO Board will update their response to address their agreement or disagreement with
R2:
each finding in their respective reports. By April 10, 2024, the City of Colfax will respond to the grand jury with their agreement or disagreement to each finding in the Spending on Homelessness Within RequiPrleadce rR Ceosupnotyn rseepso:r t as well as responding to the recommendation.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
27 findings
F1:
The only jail facility where all deputies were observed wearing department-issued body-worn cameras.
F2:
The stairs to the holding cells are dirty and need cleaning.
F3:
The stairs to the holding cells are dirty and need cleaning. New scanner technology near the entrance is being installed and funding for this Placerp Croojuenctt yh aMs abiene nJ aaipl p roved. TF4he. grand jury found: No correctional staff or sheriff’s deputies were observed wearing department-
F4:
No correctional staff or sheriff’s deputies were observed wearing department- issued body-worn cameras.
F5:
issued body-worn cameras.
F6:
The upper control booth was cluttered with staff personal items. This facility is not compliant with The Americans with Disabilities Act, and all inmates who require this accommodation must be transferred to South Placer Adult Correctional Facility. 146 -2024 Final Report
F7:
F8. The kitchen meets standards for cleanliness The intake of all incoming mail is scanned first to find any contraband that may be
F8:
The intake of all incoming mail is scanned first to find any contraband that may be sent to inmates from outside the facility.
F9:
sent to inmates from outside the facility.
F10:
This is the only Placer County Jail electronically scanning incoming mail. The correctional staff who maintain the mail room and incoming mail are highly
F11:
trained and are being asked to train other agencies. Future mail technology may include all correspondence being electronically scanned Tahoe aSnudb ssetnatt tioo nin mates via email. TF1he2 .g rand jury found: The evidence logging software used to record and categorize evidence is over ten
F12:
The evidence logging software used to record and categorize evidence is over ten years old.
F13:
years old. There is limited roadway traction for vehicles to reach the small parking lot safely
F14:
during inclement weather. There is no covered entry or walkway to protect staff, visitors, detainees, or evidence from inclement weather, and is not compliant with The Americans with
F15:
Disability Act. The Placer County Board of Supervisors recently authorized land use consulting, project planning, and entitlements to facilitate the design of the new Tahoe Justice South CPelnatceerr. Main Jail FT1h6e .grand jury found: Training programs that are taught at this facility include sewing, printing,
F16:
Training programs that are taught at this facility include sewing, printing, embroidery, crafts, culinary arts, and landscaping.
F17:
embroidery, crafts, culinary arts, and landscaping. There is ongoing construction which will expand mental health services and provide
F18:
a larger vocational training building for welding and other trades. The jail has an impressive kitchen operation, serving one million meals a year to Placer County Main Jail, Meals on Wheels, Placer County Juvenile Detention Facility, and in the event of an emergency, the facility can provide meals for the community-
F19:
at-large. New rehabilitation programs are added as officers seek additional ways to help
F20:
inmates transition back to life outside the jail. This jail facility is well-designed, well-maintained, and all areas were clean and 147 organized. he1 .g rand jury found: This facility is used for the temporary housing of inmates waiting to appear before
F21:
This facility is used for the temporary housing of inmates waiting to appear before the courts.
F22:
the courts. The inmates enter the facility via an underground tunnel that runs from South
F23:
Placer Main Jail booking to the courthouse.
F24:
Inmates are held in holding cells based on classification. The main floor of the courtroom holding area was open and has an officer’s station
F25:
in the center of the room.
F26:
The environment was exceedingly clean, brightly lit, calm, and quiet. The staff demonstrated the elevator system that moves from the holding area to the
F27:
actual courthouse. The building design was extremely well thought-out for the security and Recomcomnveennidenactei oonf ms oving inmates about the facility. Placer County Main Jail TRh1e. grand jury recommends: While on duty, all uniformed staff wear department-issued body-worn cameras by
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
While on duty, all uniformed staff wear department-issued body-worn cameras by October 1, 2024.
R2:
October 1, 2024. Respiratory Personal Protection Equipment will be easily accessible for staff by
R3:
October 1, 2024. The upper control booth will be cleared of all unnecessary staff personal items and
R4:
the remaining items be organized by October 1, 2024. The Placer County Sheriff’s Office expand the incoming mail scanning equipment Tahoe aSnudb psrtoacteiodnur es to all jail facilities by July 1, 2025. : TRh5e. grand jury recommends The ten-year-old current software program used to record and categorize evidence
R5:
The ten-year-old current software program used to record and categorize evidence be updated by July 1, 2025.
R6:
be updated by July 1, 2025. By January 1, 2025, the Placer County Board of Supervisors will continue moving the process of replacing the Tahoe Substation. 148 .05, the Placer County Grand Jury requires a response from thRee fsoplloonwdiinngg g Eonvteirtnyi ng entitiesF: indings Recommendations Due Date Requiring Requiring Response Response Sheriff Wayne Woo F4, F5, F6, R1, R2, R3, R4, R5 September 3, 2024 Placer County Sheriff F11, F14,
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The classification decision tree does not consider the charges filed against the inmate.
F2:
the inmate. The one-deputy escort of Abril was based on the classification decision tree, which did not consider the seriousness of the charges or the potential
F3:
sent ence those charges carried. ThePlacer County Sheriff’s Office provides no formal training for
F4:
transporting an inmate to a location or for observing a hospitalized inmate.
F5:
The expense to taxpayers of Placer County was over $109,000. . The deputy’s complacency and violations of policies and procedures, which allowed a violent felon to escape, put the public, fellow law enforcement,
F6:
medical staff, and patients at risk. The radius of Everbridge/Placer Alert system notifications did not cover the Recomenmtiree nsoduathti oPlnacse r region. RTh1e. grand jury recommends: By October 1, 2024, the classification decision tree be modified to include additional factors as set forth in the Scott Jones, Esq. report. This should include charges an inmate is facing and the potential sentence range assuming conviction, including sentencing enhancements, and pending out-
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
By October 1, 2024, the classification decision tree be modified to include additional factors as set forth in the Scott Jones, Esq. report. This should include charges an inmate is facing and the potential sentence range assuming conviction, including sentencing enhancements, and pending out- of-county charges.
R2:
of-county charges. By October 1, 2024, the Placer County Sheriff’s Office will require command staff approval prior to any reclassification of any inmate currently charged with an aggravated felonies pursuant to Penal Code § 1192.7(c). 29 -2024 Final Report
R3:
By January 1, 2025, the Placer County Sheriff’s Office will develop a curriculum and commence a formal training program for Placer County deputies for out of custodial facility transportation and monitoring duties, Requiprreiodr Rtoe dseppuotny sasessig nment, which includes hands-on, practical training. Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, the Placer County Grand Jury requires a response frRoems pthoen dfoilnlogw Einntgi tgyo verning F binoddiyn: g s Recommendations Due Date Requiring Requiring Response Response Sheriff Wayne Woo F1, F2, F3, R1, R2, R3 September 3,
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
I (we) agree with the finding(s) numbered: _______________.
F2:
I (we) disagree wholly or partially with the finding(s) numbered: ___________. Describe any portions of the finding(s) that are disputed or not applicable; include an explanation of the reason(s).
Additional Recommendations
14
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
have been (Describe the implemented actions.) Recommendations numbered _____________ implemented.
R2:
have not yet been Recommendations numbered _____________ implemented but will be implemented in the future, with a targeted Per Penal Code 933.05(b)(2), a time frame for implementation must completion date of _______________________. be included. §
R3:
require further analysis Recommendations numbered _____________ . The Describe the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a further analysis will be completed by ________________________. timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or director of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six (6) months from the date of publication of the grand jury report.
R4:
will not be Recommendations numbered _____________ implemented Provide an explanation. because they are not warranted or are not reasonable. Signature: ____________________________________________ Date: _________________________ Number of pages attached _______. 9 .05 (a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. with a timeframe for implementation (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, . (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for
R5:
two counts of attempted murder,
R6:
using a human shield to avoid arrest,
R7:
possession of a firearm by a felon,
R8:
carrying a loaded firearm for the purposes of committing a felony,
R9:
assault with a deadly weapon, assault with a deadly weapon, a firearm, and escape from the hospital. All criminal charges against Eric Abril are still pending (People vs Abril case number 62-191073) as of the date of this report. Califor nia Penal Code § 919 states in pertinent parts: (a)The grand jury may inquire into the case of every person imprisoned in the jail of the county on a criminal charge and not indicted. (c) The grand jury shall inquire into the willful or corrupt misconduct in the office of public officers of every description within the county. The grand jury determined during their investigation of the escape, there was willful misconduct and negligence. The grand jury is not alleging that there was intended willful corrupt misconduct by any individual. The misconduct and negligence, which resulted in Abril’s escape, was committed by a public officer within the meaning of Penal Code § 919(c), since the Attending 2 Deputy (AD) was appointed to his position by the elected sheriff of Placer County, and that appointment was for the purpose of exercising a governmental function, namely, to enforce the laws of the state and Placer County. Powers and Duties of Grand Jury. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?section Num=919.&lawCode=PEN. Accessed March 27, 2024. Public Officer. (n.d.). Dictionary. Retrieved April 2, 2024, from https://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/public%20officer. Accessed April 2, 2024. 19 , 2023, insofar as they pertain to the policies and procedures of the Placer County Sheriff’s Office, in place at that time, regarding prisoner classification and transportation as well as the conduct, actions and/or inactions of the AD on that day. The grand jury also made a determination as to what duties and conduct should have been reasonably expected of the AD under same or similar circumstances. Therefore, the policies and procedures regarding the classification and transportation of prisoners and the AD’s conduct, actions and/or inactions leading uMpe ttoh aondd odulorigngy the escape, are legitimate areas of inquiry by the grand jury. The Placer County Grand Jury conducted interviews with PCSO staff and other
R10:
sources familiar with the escape, and reviewed:
R11:
• PCSO’s policies and procedures. Various video recordings. Scott Jones, Esq. report titled, “Final Report and Recommendations, Escape 3 Discufsrosmio Cnu stody, July 9, 2023.” On April 6, 2023, Eric James Abril was arrested and initially charged with having committed numerous serious felony violations of the California Penal Code in connection with his criminal conduct at Mahany Park in the City of Roseville. Abril was thereafter housed at the Placer County Main Jail in Auburn in the custody of the PCSO. Abril was known to law enforcement, having previously been convicted of multiple crimes in Santa Clara and San Luis Obispo Counties and having an open warrant in SacrSaamnetnat Co lCaoruan Ctyo. unty Crimes
R12:
2008 – Larceny, burglary, possession of deadly weapons. 2010 – Second-degree burglary conviction. San Lu2i0s1 O3 b–i sCponov Cicotiuonnt fyo rC craimrreyisn g a concealed knife.
R13:
2014 – Intimidating/threatening a witness, burglary, robbery, assault with a deadly weapon, assault causing great bodily injury, resisting arrest, and possession of a switchblade knife. Served two years of a six- year sentence. Final Report and Recommendations, Escape from Custody, July 9, 2023. https://www.placer.ca.gov/ DocumentCenter/View/73520/July-9-2023-Inmate-Escape-from-Custody-Report. Accessed October 17, 2023. 20 -2024 Final Report Sacramento County Pending Charges
R14:
2023 – Felony warrant for attempted murder after a freeway shooting in 4 Placer CoFuenbtryu Sarhye 2r0if2f’3s. Office Policy - Classification of Inmates After initially being medically cleared by SRMC, the inmate was classified by PCSO staff as Ad-Sep per the criteria set forth in the California Board of State and 5 Community Corrections manual, Title 15 § 1050. Ad-Sep is the highest inmate classification level requiring a higher level of security than is usual. This classification level typically requires a two-officer escort for inmate movement inside the custodial facility and for transportation outside the custodial facility. This initial classification was the direct result of the seriousness of the charges the inmate was initially arraigned on. Thirty-three days after his initial incarceration, for reasons within the discretion of the PCSO, the inmate’s classification was modified to allow a downgrade from a two- officer to a one-officer escort/transportation security status. Consistent with the terms contained within the classification decision tree, this downgrade was primarily due to the inmate not having had any notable disciplinary issues since being initially incarcerated. This classification was never meant for use outside the jail including transportation to other outside locations. Strict adherence contained in the classification decision tree, has led to the practice of officers applying this internal classification to transportation outside of the custodial setting, including Abril’s transportation to SRMC. The error in judgement of this security status downgrade meant any time Abril spent outside the jail would only require a single deputy to ensure he would not escape. This possibility existed for the duration of time he was outside the jail, be it during transportation, or in this case, the several days the inmate was at SRMC under medical observation immediately prior to his escape. The grand jury was told during an interview, inmate classification is a routine task for the Corrections Division of the PCSO, and “there was no policy for classification because each circumstance and inmate were different.” However, PCSO exercised a standard application of this policy as a rule. A review of the documentation provided shows weekly evaluation of the inmate’s classification and security status was regularly performed. CBS News Sacramento. https://www.cbsnews.com/sacramento/news/failed-policies-part-3-the-escape/. Accessed April 1, 2024. Title 15 Minimum Standards for Local Detention Facilities. https://www.bscc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/ Attachment-C-Title-15.pdf. Accessed March 27, 2024. 21 , 2023, Abril was transported from the Placer County Main Jail to SRMC for observation and to monitor him for potential seizure activity. When Abril was transported, per the classification tree, it was by ambulance under the supervision of a single sheriff’s deputy. The single-deputy low-level supervision continued from the time Abril was admitted, over a period of approximately three days, until Abril managed to escape custody of the PCSO in the early hours of July 9, 2023. While at SRMC Abril was guarded in a single-bed room, wearing a belly chain that was not attached to the bed, and was required to have at least one hand always handcuffed to the frame of the bed. A video camera was trained on Abril for the eAnbtririle’s t iEmsec haep we afsr oumnd Seru mtteerd iRcaols oebvsiellrev aMtieodni cata Sl RCMenC tuenr t–il Jthuel yti 9m,e 2 o0f2 h3i,s 3e:s0c0a pe. a.m. Investigation and video evidence has shown that on July 8, 2023, a shift change occurred in the early evening with the outgoing deputy conducting a briefing to the incoming deputy. The investigation also found the AD spent extended periods of time outside Abril’s room, with no line of sight on the inmate. During one instance, a nurse entered the room and one minute later the AD exited the room for over six minutes, leaving the nurse alone with an unguarded and dangerous inmate. The AD took a total of twelve trips outside the room to make phone calls, pace the halls, and chat with nurses and other patients. Another two trips were to the inmate’s hospital room bathroom where the AD can be seen closing the door the first time. On the 22 , 2023, until approximately 3:00 a.m. on July 9, 2023, shows Abril removing the small metal EEG leads attached to his head. In this case, EEG feeds were not monitored by medical staff at the nursing station, nor were alarms activated when the leads were removed. He eventually removed all of them. When the deputy left the room, Abril slowly worked to remove his only handcuff. Once he got his right hand free, there were no other restraints to keep him in his bed. The AD whose responsibility was to see this inmate was physically secured failed to do so, violating several PCSO policies and procedures. Once the inmate’s hands were no longer restrained, there was nothing to keep him from escaping. Videos show that Abril waited for the AD to lose line of sight again while the AD was in the bathroom. When this opportunity presented itself, for the fourteenth time, Abril walked out of his room and escaped the SRMC campus. The first law enforcement officer to notify dispatch of a possible escape was a CHP officer, who was on the SRMC campus at the time. The highway patrol officer advised CHP dispatch, who in turn advised PCSO dispatch of “subject in orange jumpsuit, possibly escaped.” The grand jury was unable to verify whether the AD failed to ask medical staff to call 911. The table below details video evidence taken from July 8, 2023, to July 9, 2023, observed by the Placer County Grand Jury. Video Evidence Sequence of Events July 8, 2023 to July 9, 2023 Time (24-hour Event clock) 21:36 Attending Deputy removes his LBV. Attending Deputy adjusts body-worn camera on LBV, causing the 22:00 body-worn camera to not capture the inmate or immediate area. Inmate succeeds in manipulating his right hand out of the single 23:15 handcuff. When the inmate’s right hand is free, he covers it up with his blanket. 23
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
The Lincoln City Council agreed with the 2023 Raftelis Water and Wastewater Study Report and findings.
F2:
Report and findings. The Lincoln City Council raised water rates due to a lack of funds to maintain the water utility according to the 2023 Raftelis Water and Wastewater Study Report
F3:
The City of Lincoln was sued by a citizens’ group in 2016.
F4:
The City of Lincoln was sued by a citizens’ group in 2016. The Lincoln City Council gave some customers credits due to overcharging and
F5:
raised water rates in 2017.
F6:
The City of Lincoln was audited by the California State Auditor’s Office in 2019.
F7:
The Lincoln City Council reduced water rates by 95 percent in 2021. RecomThme Leinncdoalnt iCointys C ouncil properly and transparently increased water rates in 2023. TRh1e. grand jury recommen ds: By March 1, 2025,the Lincoln City Council will continue to support the ten-year
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
By March 1, 2025, the Lincoln City Council will continue to support the ten-year water rate increase outlined in the Raftelis Water and Wastewater Study Report.
R2:
water rate increase outlin ed in the Raftelis Water and Wastewater Study Report. Beginning March 1, 2025,the Lincoln City Council will review the ten-year water Requirraeteds pRlaens apnonnuaslelys a t a public meeting. Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, the Placer County Grand Jury requires a response from thRee fsoplolonwdiinngg g Eonvteirtnyi ng body: Findings Recommendations Due Date Requiring Requiring Response Response Lincoln City Council F1 R1, R2 October 1, 2024 Attention: Dan Karleskint, Mayor th 600 6 St Lincoln, CA 95648 109 -2024 Final Report Requested Reponses TRhee sPplaocnedri Cnogu Enntyti tGyr and Jury Rreeqsupeosntss ea responRsee sfrpoomn sthe e following eDnutiet iDesa:t e Requested to Requested to
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
The Municipal Advisory Councils of Placer County Handbook was first developed in 1998 and has not been updated since 2013.
F2:
1998 and has not been updated since 2013. Municipal Advisory Council boundaries do not align with current supervisorial
F3:
district boundaries. Municipal Advisory Councils, within some supervisorial districts, could be
F4:
consolidated for greater efficiencies.
F5:
Informing residents of Municipal Advisory Committee meetings is ineffective. Municipal Advisory Council board members are unaware of how they receive
F6:
information on pending projects in advance of receiving the m eeting agend a. Municipal Advisory Councils are not provided annual training,specificallyon zoning
F7:
laws and changes, land use regulations, and Brown Act rules and procedures. Municipal Advisory Council meeting minutes are not posted consistently on the
F8:
Municipal Advisory Council webpages.
F9:
Many Municipal Advisory Councils are not set up for virtual meetings. There are no term limits for how long a Municipal Advisory Council board member
F10:
can serve. There is no specific budget or definable costs for Municipal Advisory Councils. 96 -2024 Final Report
Additional Recommendations
8
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
By January 31, 2025, the Placer County Board of Supervisors will update the Municipal Advisory Council handbook.
R2:
Municipal Advisory Council handbook. By October 1, 2024, the Placer County Board of Supervisors will commence a study
R3:
to consolidate Municipal Advisory Councils within supervisorial districts. By January 31, 2025, the Placer County Board of Supervisors will realign Municipal
R4:
Advisory Council district boundaries to match the supervisors’ district boundaries. . By January 1, 2025, each Placer County Supervisor will increase public outreach of Municipal Advisory Council meetings through social media, newsletters, and email
R5:
blasts. By November 1, 2024, the Placer County Planning Services Division will develop written procedures to inform Placer County Supervisors, Municipal Advisory
R6:
Councils, and county staff how information is transmitted among these parties. Beginning in February 2025, the Placer County Board of Supervisors will authorize mandatory annual training on the Brown Act and new rezoning laws and procedures relevant to the Municipal Advisory Councils. Beginning in February 2025, the Placer County Board of Supervisors will ensure mandatory annual training on the Brown Act and new rezoning laws and procedures relevant to the
R7:
Municipal Advisory Councils board members occurs. By September 1, 2024, the Placer County Board of Supervisors will ensure all current and past meeting agendas and approved minutes are posted to the
R8:
Municipal Advisory Council webpages. By January 1, 2025, the Placer County Board of Supervisors will provide virtual Requiarcecdes sR feors apllo Mnusneicsip al Advisory Councils meetings to the public. Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, the Placer County Grand Jury requires a response from thRee fsoplloonwdiinngg g Eonvteirtnyi ng body: Findings Recommendations Due Date Requiring Requiring Response Response Bonnie Gore F1, F2, F3, R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, September 3, 2024 Placer County Board of F4, F5, F6, R6, R7, R8 Supervisors District One F7, F8, F9 175 Fulweiler Ave Auburn, CA 95603 97 , F2, F3, R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, September 3, 2024 Placer County Board of F4, F5, F6, R6, R7, R8 Supervisors District Two F7, F8, F9 175 Fulweiler Ave Jim Holmes F1, F2, F3, R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, September 3, 2024 Auburn, CA 95603 Placer County Board of F4, F5, F6, R6, R7, R8 Supervisors District Three F7, F8, F9 175 Fulweiler Ave Suzanne Jones F1, F2, F3, R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, September 3, 2024 Auburn, CA 95603 Placer County Board of F4, F5, F6, R6, R7 Supervisors District Four F7, F8, F9 175 Fulweiler Ave Cindy Gustafson F1, F2, F3, R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, September 3, 2024 Auburn, CA 95603 Placer County Board of F4, F5, F6, R6, R7, R8 Supervisors District Five F7, F8, F9 175 Fulweiler Ave CAoupbuierns, CsAe n95t 6t0o3: Donner Summit Municipal Advisory Council Attention: Stewart Wells 175 Fulweiler Ave Foresthill Municipal Advisory Council Auburn, CA 95603 Attention: Chase Dowling, Chairperson 175 Fulweiler Ave Granite Bay Municipal Advisory Council Auburn, CA 95603 Attention: Nick Johnson, Chairperson 175 Fulweiler Ave Horseshoe Bar-Penryn Municipal Advisory Council Auburn, CA 95603 Attention: Susan Mahoney, Chairperson 175 Fulweiler Ave 98 Auburn, CA 95603 Fulweiler Ave Newcastle-Ophir Municipal Advisory Council Auburn, CA 95603 Attention: Karen Green, Chairperson 175 Fulweiler Ave North Auburn Municipal Advisory Council Auburn, CA 95603 Attention: Larry Farinha, Chairperson 175 Fulweiler Ave North Tahoe Municipal Advisory Council Auburn, CA 95603 Attention: Fulda Hanson, Chairperson 175 Fulweiler Ave Olympic Valley Municipal Advisory Council Auburn, CA 95603 Attention: David Stepner 175 Fulweiler Ave Rural Lincoln Municipal Advisory Council Auburn, CA 95603 Attention: Richard Lewis, Chairperson 175 Fulweiler Ave Sheridan Municipal Advisory Council Auburn, CA 95603 Attention: Dan Cook, Chairperson 175 Fulweiler Ave Weimar-Applegate-Colfax Municipal Advisory Council Auburn, CA 95603 Attention: David Johnson 175 Fulweiler Ave West Placer Municipal Advisory Council Auburn, CA 95603 Attention: Walt Wyllie, Chairperson 175 Fulweiler Ave Auburn, CA 95603 99 A Review of the 2023 Water Rate Increase by the City of Lincoln Photo Credit: City of Lincoln Website 100 Water Rate Increase by the City of Lincoln