📋
Extracted from Consolidated Report

This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.

Placer County Grand Jury • 2008-2009

Placer County

Published: June 24, 2009 119 pages
View PDF View Full Original

Findings 8 findings

F1 Page 29
The MRF, with its updated equipment and use of technology, is a very well managed and efficient recycling facility. Its recyclable recovery program is improved marginally, if at all, by the Blue Bag Programs.
F2 Page 29
Making residents aware of the value of recycling is beneficial. However, Jurors found no evidence the time, effort or money spent on the Blue Bag Programs by residents contributed anything significant toward achieving the recycling goals of the jurisdictions.
F3 Page 29
Since the MRF is classified as “dirty”, any handling of separated recyclables, such as filled blue bags, adds to processing costs. Jurors found the blue bags added to the total cost of recycling programs in at least three ways. a) The bags cost the residents money either directly by purchase or indirectly through town or city purchase. b) Extra time and labor are required to retrieve bags placed alongside full containers. c) Extra time and labor are required to process saved bag contents at a later time. Blue Bag Recycling Program Assessment 6 Final Report 2008–2009 Grand Jury
F4 Page 30
One negative aspect to eliminating the Blue Bag Program is that in some jurisdictions residents will lose the benefit of placing blue bags next to the full container. The extra space can save residents money by allowing more trash to be disposed of without paying for an additional container.
F5 Page 90
Especially because the documentation involved in refinancing a bond issue does not normally disclose explicitly the details about the bond proceeds and what is done with the money, refinancings present a high potential for abuse. This can include cash being taken out of the transaction without being authorized, excessive fees Refinancing School District Bonds 67 Final Report 2008–2009 Grand Jury being charged for issuance, taxpayer savings being much less than expected when the effort was approved, etc.
F6 Page 91
No timely, reliable State oversight exists for the refinancing process. School boards generally accept the recommendations of district personnel, and these are generally guided significantly by the investment bankers and bond counsels whose opinions can be, by their nature, self-serving.
F7 Page 91
Existing State law does not require the office of the Treasurer to be involved early in the process of issuing GO bonds, or to be involved at all in bond refinancings. However, the Treasurer can provide valuable services to school districts regarding their proposed bond issues. The Treasurer’s office can offer an impartial viewpoint on alternatives and provide access to others in the financial community with different points of view. The Treasurer can help structure the many variables of a bond offering to be in the best interests of the district. The Treasurer can help evaluate the fee structure to ensure issuance costs are not excessive, and can help make sure that the terms of the proposed issue are well understood and do not include cash out provisions or other inappropriate features. A school district and its property taxpayers would benefit from taking advantage of the Treasurer’s knowledge, experience and capabilities. In the absence of any State statutes that require this communication to take place, this arrangement may best be established by mutually voluntary agreement.
F8 Page 91
The currently outstanding GO bonds in Placer County school districts represent a significant potential opportunity for taxpayers to benefit from refinancing those bonds when market conditions permit.

Recommendations 6

Conclusions 6