Placer County Grand Jury 2023-2024 Final Report Auburn Public Cemetery District:

All Placer County Cemetery Districts are well managed financially, and most annual budgets keep expenditures below revenues.

budgets keep expenditures below revenues. All cemetery districts have reserves in accordance with their size, population, and

tax income base. The two smallest districts, Colfax and Tahoe, have very limited cash and endowment

reserves. All Placer County Cemetery Districts are well-maintained in accordance with their

surroundings including the historical cemeteries.

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