📋
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 • 2015-2016

Findings and Recommendations

Published: November 23, 2016 105 pages Consolidated Report
View PDF View Full Original

Findings 26 findings

F1
The student handbook and the dance contract do not contain the necessary policies and procedures concerning the use of the alcohol detection device and the subsequent consequences.
F2
Staff and administration should have written policies and procedures concerning training and use of the alcohol detection device.
F3
All agencies have a cooperative working relationship and coordination of child abuse/neglect reporting and investigation. This is reflected in the establishment of the Multi-Disciplinary Interview Center and Suspected Child Abuse and Neglect Team. This enhances the effectiveness and efficiency of child abuse/neglect reporting and investigation.
F4
The Grand Jury was unable to verify that the agencies provide training for volunteers related to child abuse/neglect reporting.
F5
Residents of the Town of Loomis value their library services to the extent they have proposed a ballot measure to increase local sales tax to keep their library.
F6
Loomis and Meadow Vista residents’ needs regarding library services were not addressed. These communities were not included in the community conversations as conducted by the Placer County Library Services consultants.
F7
Both communities conducted their own surveys to address their needs and concerns. The majority of survey participants in each community indicated support to keep libraries open (See Attachments A and B).
F8
Colfax does not have a formal procedure to notify complainant of resolution.
F9
At the time of this report, Colfax is implementing a web-based citizen reporting system.
F10
Lincoln has a defined process in the Municipal Code for handling code enforcement complaints.
F11
Lincoln utilizes an informal bullet list as their guidelines for dealing with code enforcement complaints.
F12
Lincoln tracks complaints and actions in a spreadsheet, however it was not being kept current.
F13
Lincoln has multiple methods for a citizen to lodge a complaint.
F14
Lincoln does not have a formal procedure to notify complainant of resolution.
F15
Loomis has a defined process in the Municipal Code for handling code enforcement complaints.
F16
Loomis has informal procedures for dealing with code enforcement complaints, but they are not detailed in a written document.
F17
At this time residents of Loomis are limited to filing their complaint over the phone or in person at City Hall.
F18
The Town of Loomis website does not explain how to file a complaint while the new system is under development. Findings and Recommendations -2016 Final Report
F19
Loomis does not have a formal procedure to notify complainant of resolution.
F20
Rocklin has a defined process and tracking system for handling code enforcement complaints.
F21
Rocklin has informal procedures for dealing with code enforcement complaints, but they are not detailed in a written document.
F22
Rocklin has multiple methods for a citizen to lodge a complaint.
F23
Rocklin does not have a procedure to notify complainant of the resolution to their complaint.
F24
Roseville has a very good process in place to manage code enforcement complaints, including a tracking system.
F25
Roseville has an exceptional computer-based system to support code enforcement activities and accountability.
F26
Roseville keeps complainant informed regarding the status of their complaint.

Recommendations 11