Placer County Grand Jury
2024-2025
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
19 findings
F1:
Placer County uses a third-party vendor to identify properties subject to Transit Occupancy Tax compliance. Since moving to third party vendors for this process, more than 1,500 properties have been identified which were previously unknown to the county and have operations subject to Transit Occupancy Tax compliance. Identification of such properties improves compliance and Transit Occupancy Tax revenue for Placer County.
F2:
Audits of individual properties for Transit Occupancy Tax compliance are not effective; audit volume is low, and the third-party vendor audit reports lack professionalism. The Treasurer - Tax Collectors Office is investigating the benefits of discontinuing the contract with HdL and using the Placer County Audit Department to better meet audit needs.
F3:
The Transit Occupancy Tax remittance process is not efficient. The Treasurer's office is reviewing software vendors to allow property owners to easily remit Transit Occupancy Tax dollars online. 179 -2025 Final Report
F4:
The Placer County Auditor- Revenue Services for fiscal year 2021-22 identified several recommendations regarding the Transit Occupancy Tax and Tourism Business Improvement District programs, including Transit Occupancy Tax oversight, Transit Occupancy Tax audit, and Tourism Business Improvement District agreement compliance.
F5:
The Placer County website has extensive information on the North Lake Tahoe Tourism Business Improvement District, managed by the North Tahoe Community Alliance. However, the website has very limited information on the Olympic Valley Alpine Meadows Microtransit District, only addressing the lodging Tourism Business Improvement District rate on one webpage.
F6:
The Transit Occupancy Tax and Tourism Business Improvement District programs have provided a significant boost to funds available for investment in the North Lake Tahoe region, benefiting both Placer County residents and visitors.
F7:
The South Placer Main Jail demonstrates a commitment to inmate health by providing access to medical, dental and mental health services.
F8:
recidivism by equipping inmates with practical skills for employment upon release.
F9:
The South Placer Main Jail is enhancing its mental health services with newly designed facilities, providing the care and support detainees which have mental health challenges need.
F10:
No maintenance records for the ductless fume hood were found. 205 -2025 Final Report
F11:
All of the facilities at this location were found to be well maintained and controlled by staff. Historical Auburn Courthouse The grand jury found:
F12:
Although the historic Auburn courthouse is old, it has been well maintained and remains in good condition
F13:
The historical Auburn courthouse provides excellent educational outreach and engages the community in preserving its history through guided tours, school programs, and community events which highlight its rich history.
F14:
While the facility met expectations for cleanliness and maintenance overall, the staircase leading to the holding cells lacks cleanliness. Hon. Howard G. Gibson Courthouse The grand jury found:
F15:
This facility was found to be well maintained and controlled by staff.
F16:
Supports collaboration with the Placer County Probation Department, legal proceedings.
F17:
inmate transportation and courtroom security, promoting safety and efficiency. Tahoe Substation The grand jury found:
F18:
Several previous Grand Jury reports have cited potential liability issues which are shared by the current Grand Jury.
F19:
While this facility is well maintained and operated by staff, the facility is outdated and in need of renovation or replacement.
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Treasurer-Tax Collector should develop Transit Occupancy Tax audit expectations and an audit solution which are both effective and cost-wise by November 1, 2025.
R2:
The Treasurer-Tax Collector should pursue approval and installation of new technology solutions to revamp the Transit Occupancy Tax and Tourism Business Improvement District collection process by December 31, 2025.
R3:
The Treasurer-Tax Collector should complete the follow-up review of the fiscal year 2021-22 internal audit and report on any corrections or additional action to be taken by October 31, 2025.
R4:
The Treasurer-Tax Collector should oversee an update to the Placer County website to include detailed information on the Olympic Valley Alpine Meadows Microtransit District Tourism Business Improvement District by November 1, 2025. 180 -2025 Final Report
R5:
The staircase leading to the holding cells should be cleaned and maintained on a regular basis. The grand jury recommends Placer County Sheriff maintain and clean the staircase no later than September 1, 2025. Tahoe Substation The grand jury recommends:
R6:
The Placer County Board of Supervisors should review and update plans for the renovation or replacement of this facility by December 1, 2025. The Board of Supervisors should continue to support building a replacement Burton Creek Substation facility and see it through to completion. Hon. Howard G. Gibson Courthouse The grand jury has no recommendations.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
18 findings
F1:
Due to incomplete information regarding human traf�icking, there may not be
F2:
adequate resources dedicated to human traf�icking. Roseville Police Department is addressing human traf�icking via social media
F3:
platforms with increased cyber work and sting operations. Placer County District Attorney’s Of�ice and Roseville Police Department have taken
F4:
an active leadership role in tackling the issue of Human traf�icking in Placer County. Placer County is a known transit and destination area for human traf�icking due to its proximity to major highways/freeways and tourist spots. Responses to -2025 Final Report
F5:
Placer County has done a good job of creating and funding support for human
F6:
traf�icking victims. Placer County Of�ice of Education provides support and training to its individual school districts and relies strictly on annual certi�ication (CARS) data to determine if
F7:
the districts are in compliance with AB 1227. Roseville Police Department and Placer County Sheriff’s Of�ice are partnering with
F8:
the Sacramento Regional Task Force to address human traf�icking issues. The Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children Task Force does not have Recomrmepernedsaetnitoantisv es from all Placer County local law enforcement agencies.
F9:
California Community Schools Partnership Program. Heat map data suggests expanded busing could improve overall attendance, Recomfmaveonrdabaltyio imnsp acting student performance and increased revenue from the state.
F10:
700 or complete Assembly Bill 1234 Ethics Training. Auburn, Colfax, Lincoln, Loomis, and Rocklin do not include enforcement authority in their con�lict of interest codes, leaving no de�ined consequences if a designated individual fails to timely �ile Form 700 or complete Assembly Bill 1234 Ethics Form 7T0r0a ining.
F11:
Across all local agencies, most of the individuals who did not timely �ile Form 700
F12:
were designated �ilers. For Colfax, Lincoln and Loomis, incomplete information in recordkeeping for designated Form 700 �ilers prevented the grand jury from accurately assessing the
F13:
timeliness of the �ilings. As a general matter, insuf�icient oversight by the local agencies has contributed to Ethics uTnratiimnienlyg Form 700 �ilings for designated �ilers.
F14:
Auburn and Rocklin currently place responsibility for Assembly Bill 1234 Ethics
F15:
Training on their Human Resource/Administrative Services staff. Across all local agencies, insuf�icient oversight resulted in many individuals not receiving ethics training by the deadline set by State law. Responses to -2025 Final Report
F16:
Across all local agencies, overreliance on the individual to schedule and receive
F17:
ethics training resulted in untimely training. All local agencies’ recordkeeping was dif�icult to review and often failed to contain
F18:
necessary information. A lack of enforcement authority within all local agencies led to failures to receive Recomtmimeenldy aettihoincss training.
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
All Placer County law enforcement agencies and Placer County Health and Human Services should increase efforts to identify and record human traf�icking cases to
R2:
better allocate resources by December 31, 2025. Placer County Children’s System of Care should encourage the Placer County Probation Department and all Placer County law enforcement agencies within Placer County be included in the Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children Task Force to improve enforcement, communication, training, and recordkeeping by November 1,
R3:
easily accessible on Code Enforcements’ website. The Placer County Board of Supervisors should request Code Enforcement to develop procedures for handling chronic complainers by October 31, 2025. The
R4:
November 1, 2025. Placer County Of�ice of Education should develop a certi�ication/veri�ication system to ensure staff involved with middle and high school students are properly trained in
R5:
human traf�icking identi�ication and prevention by December 31, 2025. Placer County Board of Supervisors should require Health & Human Services to provide a written evaluation and assessment from each of the four non-pro�it organizations (Stand Up Placer, Crisis Intervention Services, Child Advocates of Placer County, and KidsFirst) to determine if their individual outreach efforts had an
R6:
impact within the community by December 31, 2025. Placer County District Attorney’s Of�ice should continue its efforts in obtaining funding for Victim Services from the California State Legislature by appropriating critical funds effective July 1, 2026. Responses to Responses to Responses to Responses to Responses to Responses to Responses to Responses to Responses to Responses to Responses to Responses to Responses to Responses to Responses to Responses to Responses to Responses to Responses to Responses to Responses to Responses to Responses to Responses to Responses to -2025 Final Report Placer County Code Enforcement Services: Residents’ Code Enforcement Complaints The mission of Placer County Code Enforcement Services is to promote and maintain a safe and desirable living and working environment. Code Enforcement is a complaint-driven process, with the sole purpose of maintaining established norms and standards for the community. The Placer County Grand Jury sought to determine whether Code Enforcement conducts its investigations in a timely and appropriate manner, providing complainants with proper noti�ications, resolving alleged violations in accordance with the code, and reducing its complaint backlog. As part of the investigation into complaints regarding the lack of response or status regarding open complaints, the grand jury reviewed staf�ing, organizational structure, procedure and policies and the various reporting responsibilities of the unit in order to ascertain its ef�iciency and effectiveness. While the grand jury found Code Enforcement is committed to resolving all complaints as quickly as possible, the grand jury determined Code Enforcement could improve its performance and public image by providing residents with more information on the status of cases. The current reporting structure may need to be reassessed so delays in the resolution of complaints are reduced. The grand jury also found a need for updated and standardized procedures for handling chronic complainers and identi�ied the potential for eFfi�nicdiienngcsy improvements for hazardous vegetation management services.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
18 findings
F1:
Placer County uses a third-party vendor to identify properties subject to Transient Occupancy Tax compliance. Since moving to third party vendors for this process, more than 1,500 properties have been identi�ied which were previously unknown to the county and have operations subject to Transient Occupancy Tax compliance. Identi�ication of such properties improves compliance and Transient Occupancy Tax
F2:
revenue for Placer County. Audits of individual properties for Transient Occupancy Tax compliance are not effective; audit volume is low, and the third-party vendor audit reports lack professionalism. The Treasurer-Tax Collector’s Of�ice is investigating the bene�its of discontinuing the contract with HdL Companies and using the Placer County Audit Department to better meet audit needs. Responses to -2025 Final Report
F3:
The Transient Occupancy Tax remittance process is not ef�icient. The Treasurer's of�ice is reviewing software vendors to allow property owners to easily remit
F4:
Transient Occupancy Tax dollars online. The Placer County Auditor-Controller’s Of�ice internal audit report of Revenue Services for �iscal year 2021-22 identi�ied several recommendations regarding the Transient Occupancy Tax and Tourism Business Improvement District programs, including Transient Occupancy Tax oversight, Transient Occupancy Tax audit, and
F5:
Tourism Business Improvement District agreement compliance. The Placer County website has extensive information on the North Lake Tahoe Tourism Business Improvement District, managed by the North Tahoe Community Alliance. However, the website has very limited information on the Olympic Valley Alpine Meadows Microtransit District, only addressing the lodging Tourism Business
F6:
Improvement District rate on one webpage. The Transient Occupancy Tax and Tourism Business Improvement District programs have provided a signi�icant boost to funds available for investment in the North Lake RecomTmaehnoed aretigoionns, bene�iting both Placer County residents and visitors.
F7:
The South Placer Main Jail demonstrates a commitment to inmate health by
F8:
providing access to medical, dental and mental health services. The South Placer Main Jail’s new vocational training facility will help reduce
F9:
recidivism by equipping inmates with practical skills for employment upon release. The South Placer Main Jail is enhancing its mental health services with newly designed facilities, providing the care and support detainees which have mental
F10:
health challenges need.
F11:
No maintenance records for the ductless fume hood were found. All of the facilities at this location were found to be well maintained and controlled Historibcya ls tAauffb. urn Courthouse
F12:
Although the historic Auburn courthouse is old, it has been well maintained and
F13:
remains in good condition The historical Auburn courthouse provides excellent educational outreach and engages the community in preserving its history through guided tours, school
F14:
programs, and community events which highlight its rich history. While the facility met expectations for cleanliness and maintenance overall, the Hon. Hsotwaiarrcdas Ge .l eGaibdisnogn t oC othuer thhoolduisneg cells lacks cleanliness.
F15:
F16. This facility was found to be well maintained and controlled by staff. Supports collaboration with the Placer County Probation Department, District Attorney’s Of�ice, and Public Defender’s Of�ice to provide support for legal
F17:
proceedings. The courthouse works closely with the Placer County Sherriff’s Of�ice for inmate Tahoe tSruabnsstpaotritoanti on and courtroom security, promoting safety and ef�iciency.
F18:
Several previous Grand Jury reports have cited potential liability issues which are
F19:
shared by the current Grand Jury. While this facility is well maintained and operated by staff, the facility is outdated and in need of renovation or replacement. Responses to -2025 Final Report
Additional Recommendations
11
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Treasurer-Tax Collector should develop Transient Occupancy Tax audit expectations and an audit solution which are both effective and cost-wise by
R2:
November 1, 2025. The Treasurer-Tax Collector should pursue approval and installation of new technology solutions to revamp the Transient Occupancy Tax and Tourism Business
R3:
Improvement District collection process by December 31, 2025. The Treasurer-Tax Collector should complete the follow-up review of the �iscal year 2021-22 internal audit and report on any corrections or additional action to be
R4:
taken by October 31, 2025. The Treasurer-Tax Collector should oversee an update to the Placer County website to include detailed information on the Olympic Valley Alpine Meadows Microtransit District Tourism Business Improvement District by November 1, 2025. Responses to Responses to Responses to Responses to -2025 Report Inspections of Jails and Holding Facilities, Community Update on Coroner’s and District Attorney’s Offices As part of its statutory responsibility, the Placer County Grand Jury conducted on-site inspections of three county jails and three holding facilities to assess their condition, operations, and adherence to state and local standards. The inspections included detailed observations of cleanliness, maintenance, safety protocols, and the overall treatment of detainees. The grand jury also visited the Placer County Sheriff’s Coroner’s Of�ice and the Placer County District Attorney’s Of�ice. The Placer County Grand Jury found Placer County’s correctional facilities to be well- maintained and operating at a satisfactory level. The correctional staff demonstrated professionalism, courtesy, and a strong understanding of their responsibilities. Facilities were clean, bright, and organized, re�lecting a commitment to safety and professionalism. While most locations met high standards, the Placer County Main Jail in Auburn and the Tahoe Substation in Tahoe City presented some areas for improvement. The grand jury found the former in need of certain maintenance and the latter to be outdated and in need oFfi nredninogvsa tion, which impacts the ef�iciency of the services provided. Placer County Main Jail (Auburn)
R5:
The staircase leading to the holding cells should be cleaned and maintained on a regular basis. The grand jury recommends Placer County Sheriff maintain and clean Tahoe tShueb ssttaaitricoanse no later than September 1, 2025.
R6:
The Placer County Board of Supervisors should review and update plans for the renovation or replacement of this facility by December 1, 2025. The Board of Supervisors should continue to support building a replacement Burton Creek Hon. HSouwbasrtadt Gio.n G fiabcsiloitny Caonudr steheo iut steh rough to completion. The grand jury had no recommendations. Responses to Responses to Responses to Responses to Responses to Responses to - 2025 The Placer County Probation Department oversees the operation of the Juvenile Detention Facility. The Placer County Grand Jury inspects the Placer County Juvenile Detention Facility annually; that inspection was conducted on October 22, 2024. The grand jury found the Juvenile Detention Facility to be maintained in a professional manner. The staff was observed to be polite and engaging, demonstrating genuine concern for the youths in their charge. The staff was focused on offering educational opportunities, addressing mental health issues, and providing positive reinforcement for good behavior. The housed youths readily interacted with the staff in a respectful and collegial manner. The overall impression was, through a focus on education opportunities and the development of life skills, the incarcerated would bene�it from their stay. Juvenile Detention Facility staff displayed an optimism that through their efforts, the chances of recidivism would be greatly decreased. The grand jury identi�ied a need to recoup the actual cost of housing youths from outside of PFilancdeirn Cgos unty.
R8:
Foresthill Public Utility District expenditure approvals should adhere to stated amounts in the Policy Handbook immediately, with acknowledgement to the Placer
R9:
County Grand Jury no later than September 1, 2025. The Foresthill Public Utility District should review its investment strategy and
R10:
realized asset returns at the next review cycle or no later than December 31, 2025. The Foresthill Public Utility District Board of Directors should update the status of
R11:
securing its water right permit expired in 2011 no later than September 30, 2025. The Foresthill Public Utility District Board of Directors should review Form 700 �iling requirements for district and board individuals no later than September 30,
R12:
2025, and review annually thereafter. The Foresthill Public Utility District Board of Directors should schedule a meeting to establish performance goals and objectives for the General Manager no later than September 30, 2025, and for each �iscal year thereafter. Responses to Responses to Responses to Responses to Responses to Responses to Responses to million a year for the last three �iscal years. This revenue has allowed the county to invest in a variety of projects bene�iting the North Lake Tahoe area residents and visitors. Transient Occupancy Tax revenue also results in a sizable addition to the county’s general fund, roughly $11 million a year. The Tourism Business Improvement District programs also play a key role for the Lake Tahoe region, an additional bene�it for the county. The grand jury identi�ied several concerns with the TOT and TBID programs, and county leadership shared both their concern and thoughts on �inding solutions. The audit program for Transient Occupancy Tax compliance needs work, as both the audit volume and con�idence in the vendor are lacking. Transient Occupancy Tax revenue collection also nFieneddisn agns overhaul, both in terms of technology and staff direction.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
Code Enforcement sends a letter when a complaint is received but, does not provide follow up information to complaint filers resulting in community dissatisfaction.
F2:
The Geographic Information System mapping link needs to be reviewed and updated on the Code Enforcement website and should be made more easily accessible to residents.
F3:
There is no procedure for handling chronic complainers, causing inefficiencies and could contribute to the chronic complaints.
F4:
Through multiple interviews, the grand jury learned there are different priorities which impacts the effectiveness of Code Enforcement. 91 -2025 Final Report
F5:
There is duplication with other agencies regarding the education and enforcement of hazardous vegetation. Elimination of this function from Code Enforcement could free up staff to handle the caseload backlog.
F6:
Code Enforcement is committed to resolving all complaints as quickly as possible and reducing the complaint backlog.
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Placer County Board of Supervisors should request Code Enforcement Services to develop procedures for informing citizens on the status of complaints by October 31, 2025. The Policy and Procedures Manual should be updated to include this procedure which should include the provision of written correspondence to both complainants and violators.
R2:
The Placer County Board of Supervisors should request Community Development Resource Agency to update its Geographic Information System
R3:
The Placer County Board of Supervisors should request Code Enforcement to develop procedures for handling chronic complainers by October 31, 2025. The Policy and Procedures Manual should be updated to include this procedure.
R4:
The Placer County Board of Supervisors should consider the placement of Code Enforcement directly under the Community Development Resource Agency similar to Tahoe-Truckee Code Enforcement by December 31, 2025. This could reduce the conflicting priorities and increase efficiency.
R5:
The Placer County Board of Supervisors should ask Code Enforcement to review its hazardous vegetation management services for potential efficiency improvement by December 31, 2025. 92 -2025 Final Report
R21-22:
2nd Int 9.5% 9.0% 20.2% FY 2022-2023 16.3% 23.5% 25.4% FY 2023-2024 1.1% 3.8% 0.4% FY 2024-2025 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% Actual Y/E 16.3% 18.7% 24.6% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% Initial multi-year (3) budget generated in July for the ensuing school year. The 1st Interim Budget is presented and reviewed in October and the 2nd Interim Budget is presented and reviewed by the BOT in March. Unreported but correct reserve percentage. Not meeting State mandated minimum unappropriated reserves The unappropriated values for 2024-2027 are based on current and projected total cash fund balance, minus restricted and other appropriated funds. Adding in discretionary reserves decided upon by the district office reveal reserve percentages of 17.3% for FY 2024-25, 14.2% for FY 2025-2026 and 13.8% for FY 2026-2027. As stated in the multi-year 2024-2027 AUSD budget, the discretionary reserves coupled with the forecasted year-end cash balances through FY 2027 indicate a solid financial basis for AUSD beyond 2027.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
Due to incomplete information regarding human trafficking, there may not be adequate resources dedicated to human trafficking.
F2:
Roseville Police Department is addressing human trafficking via social media platforms with increased cyber work and sting operations.
F3:
have taken an active leadership role in tackling the issue of Human trafficking in Placer County.
F4:
Placer County is a known transit and destination area for human trafficking due to its proximity to major highways/freeways and tourist spots.
F5:
Placer County has done a good job of creating and funding support for human trafficking victims.
F6:
Placer County Office of Education provides support and training to its individual school districts and relies strictly on annual certification (CARS) data to determine if the districts are in compliance with AB 1227.
F7:
with the Sacramento Regional Task Force to address human trafficking issues.
F8:
The Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children Task Force does not have representatives from all Placer County local law enforcement agencies. 74 -2025 Final Report
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
All Placer County law enforcement agencies and Placer County Health and Human Services should increase efforts to identify and record human trafficking cases to better allocate resources by December 31, 2025.
R2:
should encourage the Placer County Probation Department and all Placer County law enforcement agencies within Placer County be included in the Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children Task Force to improve enforcement, communication, training, and recordkeeping by November 1, 2025.
R3:
Placer County Office of Education should establish and implement a plan to ensure and assess each middle and high school within the district are following the mandate to provide human trafficking awareness and prevention education by November 1, 2025.
R4:
Placer County Office of Education should develop a certification/verification system to ensure staff involved with middle and high school students are properly trained in human trafficking identification and prevention by December 31, 2025.
R5:
Placer County Board of Supervisors should require Health & Human Services to provide a written evaluation and assessment from each of the four non- profit organizations (Stand Up Placer, Crisis Intervention Services, Child Advocates of Placer County, and KidsFirst) to determine if their individual outreach efforts had an impact within the community by December 31, 2025.
R6:
obtaining funding for Victim Services from the California State Legislature by appropriating critical funds effective July 1, 2026. 75 -2025 Final Report
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
Placer County Office of Education has not clearly communicated the plans for community schools effectively. Community outreach strategies, including parent involvement and engagement efforts in local schools, are not widely publicized or standardized across all districts.
F2:
Information provided by the Placer County Office of Education has not objectives and implementation strategies.
F3:
Community Schools is an educational strategy encouraged by, but not mandated, by the California Department of Education. Adoption is up to each school district and their board of education.
F4:
California Department of Education is encouraging, but not mandating, the implementation of wellness centers and school-based mental health services using Children and Youth Behavioral Health Initiative grants funded by the Department of Health and Child Service and the Multi-payer Fee Schedule.
F5:
The California Community Schools Partnership Program grant corresponded with the demographics and socioeconomic characteristics of Western Placer Unified School District students and families in specific schools within the district.
F6:
Some mental health disorders can be diagnosed by certain school based personal such as credentialed school counselors or wellness staff with appropriate training or licensure even if they are not licensed to provide mental health services.
F7:
Students can access school-based behavioral health services through Medi- Cal or the Multi-payer Fee Schedule without real time parental notification. Parents are informed later through an insurance statement, which may exclude specific service details due to FERPA/HIPPA regulations for students 12 years and older. 149 -2025 Final Report
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Placer County Office of Education should develop and implement transparent and broader communication about their involvement in the Community Schools program and associated initiatives (Children and Youth Behavioral Health Initiative, Multi-payer Fee Schedule) which reaches not just the educational community, but the wider community they serve by October 31, 2025.
R2:
Placer County Office of Education should put all Memorandums of Understanding for community schools on their website, so the community understands what Placer County Office of Education is agreeing to by taking the grant funding. by October 31, 2025.
R3:
Placer County Office of Education should develop a dedicated, comprehensive Community School page on their website with a section linking to Regional Transformational Assistance Center, Children and Youth Behavioral Health Initiative and any other organizations which has access to
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The number of applications for public benefits administered by Health & Human Services has increased.
F2:
Human Services Division staffing levels are insufficient to handle the increase in applications, denials, and requests for hearing.
F3:
Current software, California Statewide Automated Welfare System, is not fully capable of determining actual overpayments or losses due to its inability to accurately identify violators.
F4:
There is an increase in EBT fraudulent activity which requires new
F5:
Revenue Services is not fully able to recover all known or potential overpayments with existing procedures and ineffective software.
Additional Recommendations
7
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Health & Human Services should direct staff from the Human Services Division to develop a plan increasing staffing within the Program Integrity Unit by November 1, 2025.
R2:
Health & Human Services should coordinate with California Department of Social Services to re-evaluate the current software California Statewide Automated Welfare System to improve the identification of overpayments and the exact amounts needing to be collected by December 31, 2025. This may require identifying or determining if a new software system would be more beneficial. Response should address proposed timeline for implementation.
R3:
Health & Human Services should conduct a cost analysis of the Revenue efficient than maintaining collection efforts within Health & Human Services for better oversight and continuity by December 31, 2025. Response should address proposed timeline for implementation. 34 -2025 Final Report
R20-21:
$ 479,796 2 $ 239,898 $ 79,966
R21-22:
$ 488,008 11 $ 44,364 $ 14,788
R22-23:
$ 502,648 14 $ 35,903 $ 11,968
R23-24:
$ 517,727 3 $ 172,576 $ 57,525 24-25* $ 189,315 1 $ 189,315 $ 63,105 * 24/25 is for July 1 - October 31, 2024. Annual contract prorated for 4 months # Cost/Booking/Day assumes a 3-day jail time - i.e. booked on Friday The data provided shows the excessive cost of the contract and monies paid explicitly for law enforcement officers should be used to fund PCSO officers, not those of Nevada County. Funding PLACER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE BUDGET Total Fiscal Total Allocated Allocated Allocated Allocated Total Year Allocated Personnel Sworn Correctional Professional Allocated YOY Staff Budget Budget* Officers Officers Staff Staff Change % 20/21 $154,946,022 $108,590,122 271 133 173 577 21/22 $161,101,835 $114,310,688 272 137 172 581 0.69% 22/23 $169,048,811 $115,738,004 281 137 166 584 0.52% 23/24 $177,120,783 $130,406,654 289 138 167 594 1.71% 24/25 $193,545,975 $135,794,293 294 134 167 595 0.17% *Allocated personnel budget includes benefits & overtime PCGJ was informed allocated positions do not align with funded and filled positions. Some allocated positions are not funded and there are some which are funded but not filled. PCSO also provided the number of new hires and the number of those exiting positions for the past five years for each category of staff. 46
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
Correctional Facility procedures to adapt to the change in inmate classifications and accommodate for longer potential incarceration of inmates.
F2:
The implementation of Prop 47 added an additional challenge to Placer from felonies to misdemeanors.
F3:
The passage of Prop 36 partially reversed Prop 47 and added a heavier consequence to petty theft and shoplifting offenses, which increased the number of bookings.
F4:
population continues to increase as predicted.
F5:
number of mandatory overtime hours over the past five years to adequately manage the jail facilities, thereby reducing the number of deputies in the field, which also affects staff morale and leads to burnout. 54 -2025 Final Report
F6:
for jail services is not providing taxpayers with the best value for their money.
F7:
The Vanir report produced numerous recommendations involving Office needs to address.
F8:
Recruiting is impacted by low quality applicants, competing salaries with local law enforcement agencies and public perception of law enforcement agencies.
F9:
and lateral transfers during the recruitment process, as well as incentives to retain existing staff.
F10:
has less than 10% sworn female officers and faces challenging issues in recruiting females.
Additional Recommendations
9
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
needs to develop a plan(s) responding to legislative changes for operational efficiency by developing training programs for staff to better navigate and adapt to evolving laws such as AB109, Prop 47, and Prop 36. also needs to review booking procedures and jail capacity planning to accommodate fluctuations in inmate classifications and incarceration durations by November 1, 2025.
R2:
should take steps to promote the hiring of and retention of sworn officers to mitigate cost increases associated with overtime pay and providing services to a rapidly increasing County population by November 1, 2025.
R3:
should take steps to promote the hiring of and retention of correctional officers to mitigate cost increases associated with overtime pay and reduce the need for sworn officers to serve jail rotations by November 1, 2025.
R4:
basis starting with fiscal year 2026-2027 to ensure the actual cost of jailing a detainee is per person based upon Placer County Daily Jail Rate, until the Tahoe Justice Center is completed by December 31, 2025. 55 -2025 Final Report
R5:
Placer County Board of Supervisors should have a plan including completion dates for the replacement of the Tahoe Justice Center/Burton Creek Tahoe Substation by December 31, 2025.
R6:
Vanir Report to streamline jail operations and staffing efficiencies, which would reduce overtime and improve work-life balance for current staff by December 31, 2025.
R7:
developing targeted recruitment campaigns to attract a larger pool of quality applicants by November 1, 2025.
R8:
incentives, as well as advancement and mentorship opportunities to retain quality officers by November 1, 2025.
R9:
enforcement organizations, and by evaluating policies and work environments to ensure they are inclusive and supportive of female officers by November 1, 2025. 56 -2025 Final Report
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
11 findings
F1:
The Foresthill Public Utility District Finance Manager position has been vacant since April 2023.
F2:
An outside service provider (accounting firm) is providing services previously handled by the Finance Manager, a position described in the Foresthill Public Utility District Policy Handbook. 165 -2025 Final Report
F3:
The Foresthill Public Utility District General Manager has assumed certain financial and administrative roles previously assigned to the Finance Manager.
F4:
The Foresthill Public Utility District does not have a comprehensive strategic plan outlining future years including risks and opportunities.
F5:
Foresthill Public Utility District job descriptions (excluding pay scales) were last revised in 2014.
F6:
Prior to the election of the new Foresthill Public Utility District Board of Directors and during interviews with multiple stakeholders, individuals expressed a lack of cohesion, and disunity amongst the Board members hampered the effectiveness and public trust of the Board of Directors.
F7:
The Foresthill Public Utility District Enterprise Systems disclosure posted on the district website was last updated in 2015 and is outdated.
F8:
Foresthill Public Utility District information contained on the Local Agency Formation Commission website is outdated.
F9:
A review of Foresthill Public Utility District expenditures noted deviations from the Policy Handbook requiring Board of Directors approval.
F10:
The Foresthill Public Utility District water right permit 15375 extension expired in 2011.
F11:
The Foresthill Public Utility District has not filed all Form 700 filings on a timely basis.
Additional Recommendations
12
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Foresthill Public Utility District Board of Directors should evaluate the benefits of staffing the vacant Finance (or Business) Manager position in- house or execute an engagement letter with an accounting services provider no later than September 30, 2025.
R2:
The Foresthill Public Utility District Board of Directors should prepare and approve a strategic plan at the next fiscal planning cycle (2025-2026) and update annually.
R3:
Foresthill Public Utility District job descriptions should be updated and approved by the Board of Directors no later than September 30, 2025.
R4:
The Foresthill Public Utility District Board of Directors should develop a plan (timeline and milestones) to update its Policy Handbook no later than September 30, 2025. 166 -2025 Final Report
R5:
The Foresthill Public Utility District General Manager responsibilities should be decoupled from minute taking no later than September 30, 2025.
R6:
The Foresthill Public Utility District Enterprise System(s) disclosure on the District website should be updated for current business systems no later than September 30, 2025.
R7:
The Foresthill Public Utility District should provide the Local Agency Formation Commission with updated information no later than September 30, 2025.
R8:
Foresthill Public Utility District expenditure approvals should adhere to stated amounts in the Policy Handbook immediately, with acknowledgement to the Placer County Grand Jury no later than September 1, 2025.
R9:
The Foresthill Public Utility District should review its investment strategy and realized asset returns at the next review cycle or no later than December 31, 2025.
R10:
The Foresthill Public Utility District Board of Directors should update the status of securing its water right permit expired in 2011 no later than September 30, 2025.
R11:
The Foresthill Public Utility District Board of Directors should review Form 700 filing requirements for district and board individuals no later than September 30, 2025, and review annually thereafter.
R12:
The Foresthill Public Utility District Board of Directors should schedule a meeting to establish performance goals and objectives for the General Manager no later than September 30, 2025, and for each fiscal year thereafter.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
The current strategic plan from 2021 does not align with the thinking and priorities of the community, newly elected (November 2022 and 2024) Auburn Union School District Board of Trustees and the recently hired (July 2024) Superintendent.
F2:
Beginning balances for multi-year budgets do not match or align with prior years.
F3:
The Fiscal Year 2024-2025 multi-year budget appropriately reflects Auburn Union School District financial health.
F4:
Auburn Union School District is facing budget deficits over the next three years.
F5:
Auburn Union School District treasury account is stated at $10,543,476 as of March 31, 2025.
F6:
Auburn Union School District administration, staff and Board of Trustees demonstrate transparency, collaboration, commitment and passion in their job responsibilities.
F7:
Auburn Union School District has additional opportunities to monetize district assets.
F8:
There is concern within the Board of Trustees regarding accepting funding from the California Community Schools Partnership Program.
F9:
Heat map data suggests expanded busing could improve overall attendance, favorably impacting student performance and increased revenue from the state.
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Board of Trustees and Auburn Union School District Superintendent should complete a strategic plan which aligns with the community values and expectations for student education and well-being.
R2:
The Board of Trustees should direct the Auburn Union School District to footnote any Auburn Union School District submitted budget where the ending balances for all multi-year budgets by September 1, 2025.
R3:
The Board of Trustees for Auburn Union School District should respond and implement the recommendations of the 7-11 Committee to generate additional revenue from district assets by December 31, 2025. 115 -2025 Final Report
R4:
The Board of Trustees for Auburn Union School District should actively communicate to the Auburn community specific plans and concerns regarding pursuit of California Community Schools Partnership Program funds. Include this information in the strategic plan and Board of Trustee minutes by September 1, 2025.
R5:
The Board of Trustees for Auburn Union School District should continue to pursue additional funding to expand on existing district transportation services by December 31, 2025.
Findings & Recommendations
14 findings
F1:
The classification decision tree does not consider the charges filed against the inmate. Response to F1: Partial Disagree. The decision tree is used to determine the initial classification and does consider charges filed. However, as the inmate remains in custody for extended periods of time the decision to reclassify mostly considers the inmates behavior patterns and psychological stability.
F2:
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 sentence those charges carried. Response to F2: Partially Disagree: The Deputy escort was based on behavioral history while in custody. As a result of AB109, inmates are spending more time in jail and in more restrictive conditions than they would in prison. In response, the Prison Law Office of California filed a class action lawsuit against Santa Clara County, leading to a settlement where the County agreed to reclassify inmates based on their in-custody behavior rather than their original offenses. This settlement has influenced how jails classify inmates, with ongoing reviews focusing on placement, improved conditions, and opportunities for inmates to demonstrate good behavior to remain in less restrictive housing.
F3:
transporting an inmate to a location or for observing a hospitalized inmate. Response to F3: Agree: Corrections Policy 1-18 currently addresses this finding. Additionally, as of July 2024 training has been implemented into the Field Training Officer program.
F4:
The expense to taxpayers of Placer County was over $109,000. Response to F4: Partially Disagree: Based on the information we had, the estimated cost is approximately $102,000. Without more detailed information on how the Grand Jury arrived at the figure of "over $109,000", we cannot fully agree or disagree with the Grand Jury's assessment.
F5:
allowed a violent felon to escape, put the public, fellow law enforcement, medical staff, and patients at risk. Response to F5: Agree: The deputy's complacency and violations of policies and procedures, which allowed a violent felon to escape, put the public, fellow law enforcement, medical staff and patients at risk.
F6:
The radius of Everbridge/Placer Alert system notifications did not cover the entire south Placer region. Response to F6: No response Other than F6, which was a statement of fact, the responses and date of responses met compliance requirements of Penal Code 933.05.
F7:
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 trichloroethylene contamination. Responses to F7: The City agrees with this finding.
F8:
The City of Lincoln has included Lincoln Titan 1-A Missile Site remediation in their 2023-2025 Strategic Plan. Responses to F8: The City agrees with this finding.
F9:
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 responsibility for remediation. Responses to F9: Without making admissions on behalf of the Army Corps, the City and Mr. Scully believe this statement to be correct.
F10:
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is installing additional monitoring wells bordering Snapdragon Lane and Prunella Court in the Sun City Lincoln Hills Community. Responses to F10: Without making admissions on behalf of the Army Corps, the City and Mr. Scully believe this statement to be correct.
F11:
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. Responses to F11: Without making admissions on behalf of the Army Corps, the City and Mr. Scully believe this statement to be correct. Follow-up to F1 F11 Responses: The City Council and City Manager of Lincoln, Ca, have met Compliance requirements for their responses to the Findings within the 2023-2024 Grand Jury report.
F14:
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 Disability Act. Response to F14: Partially agree - There is no covered entry or walkway to inclement weather. protect staff, detainees, or evidence from inclement weather. We do have a covered entry in the front of the building for visitors and the two records clerks who generally use that entrance.
F15:
The Placer County Board of Supervisors recently authorized land use consulting, project planning, and entitlements to facilitate the design of the new Tahoe Justice Center. Response to F15: The Board of Supervisors agree with this finding. Sheriff Woo agrees - Facilities has agreed that they are working with a land use consultant to start the EIR and entitlements process for this project in Tahoe. This will be a long and slow process.
F16:
Training programs that are taught at this facility include sewing, printing, embroidery, crafts, culinary arts, and landscaping. Response to F16: Agree - Training programs that are taught at this facility include sewing, printing, embroidery, crafts, culinary arts and landscaping. Responses to the Findings meet compliance requirements.
Additional Recommendations
9
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. Response to R1: The recommendation will not be implemented. The Placer County's Sheriff's Office acknowledges the recommendation to create a Guard-Duty matrix that includes factors in accordance with Penal Code section 1192.7(c). As of July 16, 2024, the Corrections Manual contains a policy that includes current charges and prior convictions. However, the Placer County Corrections Division Classification Unit does not have access to the potential sentences an inmate is facing or any sentence enhancements. This function is under the jurisdiction of the Courts. Additionally, the Corrections Unit lacks access to information on pending charges in other jurisdictions, except for known out-of-county warrants.
R2:
staff approval prior to any reclassification of any inmate currently charged with an aggravated felonies pursuant to Penal Code section 1192.7(c). Response to R2: The recommendation has been implemented. The Placer County's Correctional Manual Policy 1-18, Guarding inmates, was modified on July 16, 2024, to include a process for downgrading inmates guard with jail commander approval.
R3:
curriculum and commence a formal training program for Placer County deputies for out of custodial facility transportation and monitoring duties, prior to deputy assignment, which includes hands-on, practical training. Response to R3: The recommendation has been implemented. Deputies assigned to Field Operations who have not yet been jail trained will be trained by their Field Trainer on Jail Policy 1-18. The responses and date of responses to the Grand Jury recommendations met compliance requirements of Penal Code section 933.05.
R4:
By September 1, 2024, the Lincoln City Council will appoint a city representative to attend quarterly Restoration Advisory Board meetings. Responses to R4: By September 1, 2024, the City Council will appoint the City Manager or designee as the representative to attend meetings of the Restoration Advisory Board. The 2024-2025 PC-GJ contacted the Lincoln City Manager on October 9, 2024 and confirmed implementation. Follow-up to R1 R4 Responses: The City Council and City Manager of Lincoln, Ca, have met Compliance requirements for their responses to the 2023-2024 Grand Jury report recommendations.
R5:
By November 1, 2024, the Placer County Planning Services Division will develop written procedures to inform Placer County Supervisors, Municipal Advisory Councils, and county staff how information is transmitted among these parties. Response to R5: Recommendation No. 3 requires further analysis. District 1- The Grand Jury (GJ) has requested that I, an individual Supervisor, respond. However, the GJ's recommendations is directed to the "Placer County Board of Supervisors", as a legislative body, to take specific actions. As an individual supervisor, I cannot bind or commit the Board to act (repeated in every Board of Supervisor response and will be omitted for Districts 2-5). Speaking as an individual Supervisor, I favor this recommendation. It makes sense for Planning Services, which primarily interacts with the MACs, to set standards that the MACs would follow. District 2 No additional submittal. District 3 - Speaking as an individual Supervisor, my opinion of this recommendation is that it would be best to discuss this as a hearing body as it may need to be pushed further out to give staff adequate time to update. A realistic date would be further out to early-mid 2025. District 4 - Speaking as an individual supervisor, my opinion of this recommendation is that further analysis is required to determine the necessity and/or feasibility of such an undertaking. District 5 - Speaking as an individual supervisor, my opinion of this recommendation is that it should be implemented in the given timeframe. Follow up to the responses to R5: As of December 31, 2024, the BOS have not included any action item in the bi-monthly Board meetings to address the recommendations to address having the Planning Services Division develop written procedures to inform Placer County Supervisors, Municipal Advisory Councils, and county staff how information is transmitted among these parties.
R6:
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 Municipal Advisory Councils board members occurs. Response to R6: Recommendation No. 6 requires further analysis. District 1- The Grand Jury (GJ) has requested that I, an individual Supervisor, respond. However, the GJ's recommendations is directed to the "Placer County Board of Supervisors", as a legislative body, to take specific actions. As an individual supervisor, I cannot bind or commit the Board to act (repeated in every Board of Supervisor response and will be
R7:
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 Municipal Advisory Council webpages. Response to R7: Recommendation No. 7 requires further analysis. District 1- The Grand Jury (GJ) has requested that I, an individual Supervisor, respond. However, the GJ's recommendations is directed to the "Placer County Board of Supervisors", as a legislative body, to take specific actions. As an individual supervisor, I cannot bind or commit the Board to act (repeated in every Board of Supervisor response and will be omitted for Districts 2-5). Speaking as an individual Supervisor, I favor this recommenda period. District 2 - Speaking as an individual Supervisor, my opinion of this recommendation is it is important to have meeting agendas and minutes available and updated regularly. District 3 - Speaking as an individual Supervisor, my opinion of this recommendation is that although a good idea, we are short-staffed, and this is not a realistic timeline to get this completed. Late 2024 to early 2025 would be a more realistic timeline. District 4 - Speaking as an individual supervisor, my opinion of this recommendation is that further analysis is needed to determine the necessity for this step. District 5 - Speaking as an individual supervisor, my opinion of this recommendation is that this has already been handled by county staff.
R8:
By January 1, 2025, the Placer County Board of Supervisors will provide virtual access for all Municipal Advisory Councils meetings to the public. Response to R8: Recommendation No. 8 requires further analysis. District 1- The Grand Jury (GJ) has requested that I, an individual Supervisor, respond. However, the GJ's recommendations is directed to the "Placer County Board of Supervisors", as a legislative body, to take specific actions. As an individual supervisor, I cannot bind or commit the Board to act (repeated in every Board of Supervisor response and will be omitted for Districts 2-5). Speaking as an individual Supervisor, I believe this recommendation is unreasonable. MACs are primarily in rural areas with unreliable internet, making it difficult to hold compliant public meetings. For instance, if a MAC meeting loses power or internet, it must be adjourned and rescheduled, which is highly inefficient. While recording and posting meetings online is a viable alternative, it would demand substantial county resources. District 2 -Speaking as an individual supervisor, my opinion of this recommendation is virtual meetings are costly to host and virtual access is limited in much of the rural parts of the County where the Municipal Advisory Councils exist. During Covid, we provided virtual access, and did not see as increase in attendance. I believe the public is more likely to attend when an issue that impacts them directly is on the agenda, and providing virtual access will be a large expense to taxpayers, without a lot of benefit. District 3 - Speaking as an individual supervisor, my opinion of this recommendation is that t believe it will be effective in drawing in additional citizens to this meeting. Follow-up to R1 R8 Responses: The Placer County Board of Supervisors have met Compliance requirements per Penal Code § 933.05 for their responses to the
R29:
R4. transportation methods for moving detainees from Burton Creek to the Auburn Main Jail. Responses to R4: Sheriff Woo stated that Recommendation No. 3 requires further analysis. The cost of funding full-time transport deputies would exponentially outweigh the cost of the contract between Placer and Nevada County. Placer County is responsible for providing allied agencies such as CHP, CA State Parks and Probation with a booking facility for arrests made within Placer County. The contract with Nevada County Jail ensures that officers making arrests in the eastern part of the county do not need to drive to the western end for booking. This arrangement not only saves time and resources but also allows officers to remain in their respective areas, maintaining a higher level of public safety and efficiency. By preventing long travel times for bookings, the contract helps keep law enforcement presence consistent across the country, avoiding the potential gaps in coverage that could arise if deputies were required to transport arrestees across significant distances. Follow-up to R1 R4 Responses: Supervisors, have met Compliance requirements for their responses to the Recommendations within the 2023-2024 Grand Jury report.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
The fee paid to house out-of-county youths is far below actual service, staffing, and maintenance costs to operate the Juvenile Detention Facility.
F2:
The new 2025 tablet computer program has the potential to deliver academic and other skill building tools.
F3:
The Juvenile Detention Facility is well staffed and operated. Staff show a genuine concern for the wellbeing of the incarcerated youths.
F4:
The Juvenile Detention Facility staff are committed to providing programs which address mental health and educational needs.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Placer County Probation Department should assess whether its supervision of out-of-county youth at the current contract rate is resulting in unreimbursed or excess costs for the County. Probation should provide its assessment to the Placer County Board of Supervisors by December 31, 2025.
R2:
Placer County Probation Department should establish and implement written goals and metrics to evaluate the success of the tablet program by October 31, 2025.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
18 findings
F1:
Auburn, Lincoln, Loomis, Rocklin, and Roseville reviewed, amended, and/or adopted conflict of interest codes in 2024, in compliance with Government Code 87306 and 87306.5.
F2:
Since Colfax did not provide a resolution showing its Conflict of Interest Code was reviewed in 2024, the Placer County Grand Jury was unable to determine whether Colfax conducted a biennial review of its Conflict of Interest Code in 2024.
F3:
Auburn, Colfax, Lincoln, Loomis, Rocklin, and Roseville have incorporated the State of California Model Code into their conflict of interest codes, bringing them into compliance with State law.
F4:
Auburn, Colfax, Lincoln, Loomis, Rocklin, and Roseville designate Form 700 filers in their conflict of interest codes, ensuring compliance with State law.
F5:
Auburn, Colfax, Lincoln, Loomis, Rocklin, and Roseville identify the city clerk as the filing officer for Form 700 filers.
F6:
Roseville includes Assembly Bill 1234 Ethics Training in its Conflict of Interest Code.
F7:
Roseville assigns responsibility to the city clerk for Assembly Bill 1234 Ethics Training.
F8:
Auburn, Colfax, Lincoln, Loomis, and Rocklin do not include Assembly Bill 1234 Ethics Training requirements in their conflict of interest codes.
F9:
Roseville does address enforcement authority in its Conflict of Interest Code, which states there may be consequences if a designated individual fails to timely file Form 700 or complete Assembly Bill 1234 Ethics Training.
F10:
Auburn, Colfax, Lincoln, Loomis, and Rocklin do not include enforcement authority in their conflict of interest codes, leaving no defined consequences 130 or complete Assembly Bill 1234 Ethics Training. Form 700
F11:
Across all local agencies, most of the individuals who did not timely file Form 700 were designated filers.
F12:
For Colfax, Lincoln and Loomis, incomplete information in recordkeeping for designated Form 700 filers prevented the grand jury from accurately assessing the timeliness of the filings.
F13:
As a general matter, insufficient oversight by the local agencies has contributed to untimely Form 700 filings for designated filers. Ethics Training
F14:
Auburn and Rocklin currently place responsibility for Assembly Bill 1234 Ethics Training on their Human Resource/Administrative Services staff.
F15:
Across all local agencies, insufficient oversight resulted in many individuals not receiving ethics training by the deadline set by State law.
F16:
Across all local agencies, overreliance on the individual to schedule and receive ethics training resulted in untimely training.
F17:
contain necessary information.
F18:
A lack of enforcement authority within all local agencies led to failures to receive timely ethics training.
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Auburn, Colfax, Lincoln, Loomis, and Rocklin review, amend, and/or adopt their conflict of interest code to specify those positions who shall receive Assembly Bill 1234 Ethics Training pursuant to Government Code section 53234-53235.2 by October 1, 2025.
R2:
Auburn, Colfax, Lincoln, Loomis, and Rocklin review, amend, and/or adopt their conflict of interest code to specify the city clerk is the responsible official to administer the Assembly Bill 1234 Ethics Training program, and function as the recordkeeper for ethics training records by October 1, 2025.
R3:
Auburn, Colfax, Lincoln, Loomis, Rocklin, and Roseville should specify in their conflict of interest code actionable enforcement authority against individuals who fail to timely file Form 700 and/or fail to timely receive Assembly Bill 1234 Ethics Training by October 1, 2025. 131 -2025 Final Report
R4:
Colfax, Lincoln, Loomis, and Roseville should create and maintain an annual database for all designated Form 700 filers in alignment with the FPPC filing year by December 31, 2025. The Placer County Grand Jury recommends the database include: the name of each Form 700 filer, the date of hire or initial service, the type of filing (assuming, annual, leaving), the deadline for filing, the date the form was filed, and whether the filing was timely.
R5:
Auburn, Colfax, Lincoln, Loomis, and Rocklin should create and maintain a database of all individuals required to receive Assembly Bill 1234 Ethics Training by December 31, 2025. The Placer County Grand Jury recommends the database include: the name of each individual required to receive ethics training, the date of hire or the date the position was assumed which required ethics training, the deadline for receiving ethics training (one year/two years), the date ethics training was received, and whether ethics training was timely. The training records should be maintained for five years.
R6:
Auburn, Colfax, Lincoln, Loomis, Rocklin, and Roseville should create a plan to increase oversight with a goal to achieve 100% timely Form 700 filings and ethics training, by November 1, 2025.