📋
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 • 2022-2023

Placer County Grand Jury Responses to the 2021-2022 Final Report State

Published: November 10, 2022 100 pages
View PDF View Full Original

Findings 17 findings

F1 Page 63
The grand jury found that: Lincoln has significant financial issues and needs to find additional ways to increase
F2 Page 17
overlapping services. Placer County officials were repeatedly unable to provide the grand jury with requested detail and information about the homeless problem, resulting in a lack of
F3 Page 17
transparency. No Placer County official was able to provide the grand jury with accurate statistics related to costs, funding, and population of the homeless, making analysis of the
F4 Page 17
homeless issue difficult. The Placer County Board of Supervisors allocated a $195,000 contract with Moore Iacofano Goltsman to provide facilitation, planning, and technical assistance to a regional workgroup. Despite repeated requests for information gathered by the consultants, the grand jury was refused access to the draft report, revealing a lack of
F5 Page 17
transparency. Martin v. Boise mandates that campers cannot be removed from their place of encampment if there are no adequate shelters available to house them, thus facilitating continued growth of hazardous encampments on county property. Responses to -2022 Final Report
F6 Page 18
The creation of low barrier shelters would fulfill the requirements of Martin v. Boise and the Placer County Housing Element 2021 – 2029, HE-41. Low barrier shelters could resolve many of the homeless problems Placer County and local jurisdictions
F7 Page 18
a re faced with today. A local non-profit entity proposes a facility that, if approved, might address some of
F8 Page 18
the needs of the homeless in Placer County. The State of California Assembly Bill 2630 if passed, would require all cities and counties to declare all homeless funds received and how those funds were spent, which would force Placer County executives to be transparent about funding
F9 Page 18
received and spent. The approved camping ordinance is inadequate in discouraging the continued use of encampments. As written, the “clean and clear” provision will allow the campers’ homesite to be improved with no cost or responsibility placed on the camper. Allowing the campers to remain without accountability deters them from seeking
F10 Page 18
help through county services. The passing of this revised camping ordinance does not resolve the issue of how to
F11 Page 18
reduce the number of campers and encampments in Placer County. Campers migrate to Placer County due to the lax camping ordinance. Only 55-60 percent of the campers in the PCGC encampment at the DeWitt Center are from
F12 Page 18
Placer County, placing a burden on local taxpayers and public safety. The DeWitt Center encampment is rampant with crime including assaults, batteries, sales and usage of narcotics, domestic violence, and possession of deadly weapons,
F13 Page 18
creating an unsafe environment. Not all homeless individuals make the choice to accept support services or enter
F14 Page 18
shelters due to mental health or behavioral anomalies. There is a lack of leadership, responsibility, and accountability among Placer County
F15 Page 18
officials in dealing with the homeless situation. The Placer County Sheriff’s Office Homeless Liaison Team is doing an effective job interacting with and controlling the situation at the DeWitt Center. The officers have
F16 Page 18
excellent rapport and are caring and compassionate in dealing with the campers. The Placer County Sheriff’s Office Homeless Liaison Team would be strengthened
F17 Page 18
with the addition of more deputies. All three of the previously contracted consultant reports, across nearly three decades and costing taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars, address the same issues and appear to have similar findings and recommendations, and have been ignored by previous and current county officials. Responses to -2022 Final Report

Recommendations 9