Agenda packet — Roseville City Council, September 21, 2022 (part 1 of 2)

AGENDA
September 21, 2022
VIDEO

CITY COUNCIL
6:00 p.m.

Council Chambers
311 Vernon Street
Roseville, California
www.roseville.ca.us
The meeting may be viewed on Comcast channel 14, Consolidated Communications channel 73, and AT&T U-Verse. City Council meetings are also video streamed live on the City’s website at roseville.ca.us/watch and roseville.ca.us/agenda, and the City’s YouTube channel at youtube.com/CityofRosevilleCa.

If you need a disability-related modification or accommodation to participate in this meeting, please contact Voice: 916-774-5200, TDD: 916-774-5220. Requests must be made as early as possible.

THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE WELCOMES YOUR PARTICIPATION
If an agenda item is open to public comment, such public comment shall be addressed to the chair of the meeting.

Public Comment
- Speakers have three minutes under Public Comment to speak on issues that
are not listed on the agenda and are within the City's jurisdiction. The Brown Act does not permit any action or discussion on items not listed on the agenda.

Consent Calendar
- If applicable, the Consent Calendar consists of routine items that may be approved by one motion. Any person can remove an item from the Consent Calendar to be discussed separately.

Agenda Items
- Speakers have five minutes to address items that are listed on the agenda.

Americans with Disabilities Act
- Notify the City Clerk or Secretary at least 72 hours in advance if special assistance is required to participate in a meeting including the need of auxiliary aids or services.

Audio/Visual Presentations
- If making a presentation regarding an agenda item, audio/visual materials must be submitted to the City Clerk or Secretary at least 72 hours in advance.

Security procedures are in place to attend Roseville City Council meetings.

All attendees must
successfully pass through a security metal detector.

Any person with a prohibited item will not be
allowed entry.

Prohibited items include, but are not limited to: firearms (even with valid CCW), knives, pepper spray/mace, explosives of any kind/ any weapons and/or dangerous devices of any kind, illegal drugs and alcohol.

Roseville City Clerk 311 Vernon Street, Roseville, CA 916-774-5200 TDD 916-774-5220

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. ROLL CALL

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

4. MEETING PROCEDURES

5. PUBLIC COMMENTS

6. CONSENT CALENDAR

BEGINNING OF CONSENT CALENDAR
Bids / Purchases / Services

6.1. Roseville Energy Park Water Treatment Clarifier - Sole Source Purchase Order Memo from Power Plant Engineer Michael Zasso and Electric Utility Director Daniel Beans recommending the City Council
adopt RESOLUTION NO. 22-
372 APPROVING A SOLE SOURCE PURCHASE ORDER FOR A

SPECIALIZED WATER TREATMENT CLARIFIER
. This item
requests
approval of a sole source purchase order to Hoffland Environmental, Inc. for a specialized water treatment clarifier in the amount of $99,500. Staff additionally requests authority for the City Manager or his designee to approve change orders for the purchase, not to exceed twenty percent (20%) of the contract price ($19,900) for a total not to exceed amount of $119,400. Funding is included in the Electric Department's FY2022-23 budget in the Electric Fund.

CC #:
2309
File #:
0800-03
CONTACT:

Michael Zasso 916-746-1665 [email protected]

6.2. Bridge Preventative Maintenance Project - Award of Contract and Budget Adjustment
Memo from Assistant Engineer Joseph Arino and Public Works Director Jason Shykowski recommending the City Council adopt RESOLUTION NO. 22-361

APPROVING AN AGREEMENT, BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF

ROSEVILLE AND AMERICAN CIVIL CONSTRUCTORS WEST COAST

LLC, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE IT ON
BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE; and adopt ORDINANCE NO. 6553 AUTHORIZING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO THE FISCAL YEAR
2022-23 BUDGET AND DECLARING THIS ORDINANCE TO BE
IMMEDIATELY EFFECTIVE AS AN APPROPRIATION MEASURE. Staff requests Council award an agreement to American Civil Constructors West Coast LLC for $985,000.93. The project will repair, treat, and seal approximately 250,000 square feet (over 8 miles) of bridge decking. Staff also requests approval of a budget adjustment in the amount of $942,600 to augment the existing project budget and fully fund construction; and provide change order authority of 10% of the contract amount or $98,500.09. The estimated total cost of the project of $1,802,157, which also includes design, construction management and staff time, will be fully funded with $1,301,550 of Highway Bridge Program Grant Funds and $500,607 from the City Roadway Fund. No General Fund resources will be used for the project.

CC #:
2308
File #:
0900-04 & 0201-01
CONTACT:

Joseph Arino 916-774-5460 [email protected]

6.3. Wastewater Collections Warehouse Project Forklift Purchase – Budget Adjustment
Memo from Materials Technician Loni Randolph and Environmental Utilities Director Richard Plecker recommending the City Council adopt ORDINANCE NO. 6554 AUTHORIZING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO THE FISCAL
YEAR 2022-23 BUDGET AND DECLARING THIS ORDINANCE TO BE
IMMEDIATELY EFFECTIVE AS AN APPROPRIATION MEASURE. Staff requests Council approve a budget adjustment for $41,500 to fund the purchase of a forklift for the Wastewater Collections Warehouse Project. There is sufficient funding in the
Wastewater Collections Warehouse project, budgeted in
the Wastewater Construction Fund,
to cover the cost of this vehicle. Once the
forklift is operational, the cost of its ongoing rent and replacement will be budgeted in the Wastewater Collections cost center in the Wastewater Operations Fund.

CC #: 6554
File #:
0203-09 & 0201-01
CONTACT:

Loni Randolph 916-746-1898 [email protected]

6.4. Intrinsically Safe Radios - Purchase Order
Memo from Fire Division Chief Jason Rizzi and Fire Chief Rick Bartee recommending the
City Council approve a purchase order for the purchase
of
intrinsically safe portable radios for use by the Fire Department approved in the
FY2020-21 budget. The total cost is $144,301.

The Roseville Fire
Department operates a Type I Hazardous Materials Response Team and a Type II Rescue Team. The radios currently used by these teams are not rated as intrinsically safe for use in hazardous or flammable atmospheres. Intrinsically safe portable radios are designed not to spark a fire or explosion when utilized in hazardous or flammable atmospheres. On May 18, 2022 City Council approved a $200,000 appropriation from the FY2020-21 General Fund year-end surplus for the purchase of the intrinsically safe portable radios for use by the Fire Department.

CC #: 2313
File #:
0203-12
CONTACT:

Jason Rizzi 916-774-5802 [email protected]

6.5. LifePak Monitor/Defibrillators - Purchase Order and Budget Adjustment Memo from Fire Division Chief Jason Rizzi and Fire Chief Rick Bartee recommending that the City Council adopt ORDINANCE NO. 6555 AUTHORIZING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2022- 23 BUDGET AND DECLARING THIS ORDINANCE TO BE
IMMEDIATELY EFFECTIVE AS AN APPROPRIATION MEASURE. Staff requests Council approval of the purchase of thirteen defibrillators and a budget adjustment of $105,000 to increase the existing budget for the Defibrillator Replacement Project approved during the FY2021-22 budget from FY2020-21 General Fund year-end surplus funds. The total cost of the defibrillators is $854,480.

CC #:
2315
File #:
0203-12 & 0201-01
CONTACT:

Jason Rizzi 916-774-5802 [email protected]

6.6. Network Firewalls Subscription and Support - Purchase Order Memo from Information Security Administrator Cesar Gamez and Chief Information Officer Hong Sae recommending the City Council approve a purchase order with CDW-G for subscription and support of the City's network firewalls using the competitively-bid contract Naspo ValuePoint AR3229 California Addendum 7-14-7047-06. The annual subscription and support cost of $122,388.82 is included in the approved FY2022-23 Information Technology Operations Fund budget.

CC #:
2314
File #:
0203-06
CONTACT:

Cesar Gamez 916-774-5408 [email protected]

Resolutions

6.7. Response to 2021-2022 Grand Jury Final Report: Homelessness in Placer County
Memo from Assistant City Manager Dion Louthan and City Manager Dominick Casey recommending the City Council adopt RESOLUTION NO. 20-365

AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE
THE RESPONSE TO THE 2021-22 GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT ON
BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE.

Staff requests Council approve a
response to the Placer County Grand Jury’s 2021-22 Final Report: Homelessness in Placer County which was issued on June 30, 2022. The report included seventeen (17) findings and nine (9) recommendations, based on the Grand Jury’s investigations, as required by law. Of the nine (9) recommendations, the Roseville City Manager was directed to provide a response, along with the Mayor, to recommendation #5 only. Upon approval by the City Council, the response will be provided to the Presiding Judge of the Placer County Superior Court and to the Placer County Grand Jury. There is no fiscal impact associated with this particular request.

CC #:
2317
File #:
0102
CONTACT:

Dion Louthan 916-774-5362 [email protected]

6.8. Sierra Vista Specific Plan Mitigation Fee Program Administration - Professional Service Agreement
Memo from Management Analyst Stacie Marchetti and Development Services Director Mike Isom recommending the City Council adopt RESOLUTION NO. 22-362 APPROVING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT, BY

AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE AND ECONOMIC AND
PLANNING SYSTEMS INC., AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE IT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE. Staff requests Council approval of a professional service agreement with Economic & Planning Systems, Inc for Sierra Vista Specific Plan Mitigation Fee Program administration. The total cost of the service is $200,000 annually. Funding is included in the developer-paid Sierra Vista Infrastructure Fee program.

CC #:
2310
File #: 0400-04-12 & 0800-06 & 0215
CONTACT:

Stacie Marchetti 916-774-5278 [email protected]

6.9. Regional Water Authority and Bureau of Reclamation - Biological Opinion
Services and Support Program Agreement, Common Interest and Cost Share Agreement, and Memorandum of Understanding
Memo from
Assistant Environmental Utilities Director
Sean Bigley and
Environmental Utilities Director Richard Plecker recommending the City Council adopt RESOLUTION NO. 22-369 APPROVING THE REGIONAL WATER

AUTHORITY PROGRAM AGREEMENT FOR BIOLOGICAL OPINION

SERVICES AND SUPPORT, THE COMMON INTEREST AGREEMENT
FOR COORDINATED PARTICIPATION: RECONSULTATION ON

BIOLOGICAL OPINION FOR THE CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT AND

RELATED MATTERS, AND THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

WITH THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF THE

INTERIOR, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, AND AUTHORIZING THE

CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THEM ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF
ROSEVILLE. Staff
requests Council approve the Regional Water Authority’s (RWA) Biological Opinion Services and Support Program Agreement, the Common Interest and Cost Share Agreement and the Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and various American River parties. Collectively, these agreements will allow the City, working with other American River water agencies and RWA, to protect the City's collective interests during the development of updated Biological Opinions to operate the Central Valley Project and the State Water Project.

Roseville’s cost for
participation in this coordinated effort is $95,750. The total cost of the regional effort is $861,750 with participation by the City of Folsom, City of Sacramento, El Dorado Irrigation District, El Dorado Water Agency, Placer County Water Agency, Sacramento County Water Agency, Sacramento Municipal Utilities District, and Sacramento Suburban Water District.

Roseville’s $95,750 share will be paid from
the existing budget within the Water Utility Administration budget funded from the Water Operations Fund which receives revenue from water utility sales.

CC #:
2320
File #:
0800-02
CONTACT:

Sean Bigley 916-774-5513 [email protected]

6.10. Dry Creek Greenway East Trail Project – Agreement for Sale of Conservation Credits
Memo from Associate Engineer Cathy Gosalvez and Public Works Director Jason Shykowski recommending the City Council adopt RESOLUTION NO .
22-368 APPROVING AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF CONSERVATION

CREDITS, BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE AND

RIPARIAN RANCH, LLC, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE IT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE.

Staff requests
Council approval of an Agreement for Sale of Wetland Mitigation Credits from Riparian Ranch, LLC in the amount of $267,200 as mitigation for impacts to riparian salmonid habitat due to the construction of the Dry Creek Greenway East Trail Project over portions of Dry Creek, Cirby Creek, and Linda Creek, as required by a permit with the National Marine Fisheries Service.

The purchase of the credits is
included in the project budget.

No General Fund resources will be used for this
project.

CC #:
2319
File #:
0721-05
CONTACT:

Cathy Gosalvez 916-746-1300 [email protected]

6.11. Electrical Engineering Services - On-Call Professional Design Services Agreements
Memo from Design & Construction Project Manager Rjahja Canlas and Public Works Director Jason Shykowski recommending the City Council adopt RESOLUTION NO. 22-366 APPROVING A PROFESSIONAL DESIGN

SERVICES AGREEMENT, BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF
ROSEVILLE AND CAPITAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC., AND

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE IT ON BEHALF

OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
; and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 22-
367 APPROVING A PROFESSIONAL DESIGN SERVICES AGREEMENT, BY

AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE AND GLUMAC, AND

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE IT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE. Staff requests Council approve professional design services agreements for on-call electrical engineering services with Capital Engineering Consultants, Inc. and GLUMAC. The intent is to utilize these electrical engineering professional design services agreements to meet project demands. The on-call agreements will allow for more responsiveness to the City’s needs along with greater quality control. The on-call agreements do not guarantee an annual amount of work and are in place on an “as-needed” basis. The initial term (approximately 3 years) commences on the date of award and runs through June 30, 2025. The authorization for the initial three-year term is a not-to-exceed amount of $450,000.

Staff request authority for two additional one-year renewals without further City Council approval, provided that the applicable budget is approved by the City Council each year, or until City staff determines that continuing with the same vendor is not in the City’s best interest. The authorization for the two optional one-year renewals is a not-to-exceed amount of $150,000 per year. Work performed under these agreements will utilize capital rehabilitation funds and/or capital improvement project funds in the approved City budget.

CC #:
2318
File #:
0800-04
CONTACT:

Rjahja Canlas 916-774-5740 [email protected]

6.12. Mechanical Engineering Services - On-Call Professional Design Services Agreements
Memo from Design & Construction Project Manager Rjahja Canlas and Public Works Director Jason Shykowski recommending the City Council adopt RESOLUTION NO. 22-363 APPROVING A PROFESSIONAL DESIGN

SERVICES AGREEMENT, BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF
ROSEVILLE AND CAPITAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC., AND

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE IT ON BEHALF
OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE;
and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 22-
364 APPROVING A PROFESSIONAL DESIGN SERVICES AGREEMENT, BY

AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE AND GLUMAC, AND

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE IT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE. Staff requests Council approval of a professional design services agreement with Capital Engineering Consultants, Inc and GLUMAC for on- call mechanical engineering services. The intent is to utilize these agreements to meet project demands. The on-call agreements will allow for more responsiveness to the City’s needs along with greater quality control. The on-call agreements do not guarantee an annual amount of work and are in place on an “as-needed” basis. The initial term (approximately 3 years) commences on the date of award and runs through June 30, 2025. Two additional one-year renewals are requested without further City Council approval, provided that the applicable budget is approved by the City Council each year, or until City staff determines that continuing with the same vendor is not in the City’s best interest. The authorization for the initial term is a not- to-exceed amount of $450,000. The authorization for the two optional one-year renewals are a not-to-exceed amount of $150,000 per year. Work performed under these agreements will utilize capital rehabilitation funds and/or capital improvement project funds in the approved City budget.

CC #:
2316
File #:
0800-04
CONTACT:

Rjahja Canlas 916-774-5740 [email protected]

Ordinances (for introduction and adoption - appropriation/urgency measures)

6.13. 1415 Vernon Street Property and Vehicle Purchase - Budget Adjustment Memo from Interim Electric Finance Administrator Joanna Cucchi and Electric Utility Director Dan Beans recommending the City Council adopt ORDINANCE NO. 6552

AUTHORIZING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO THE FISCAL YEAR
2022-23 BUDGET AND DECLARING THIS ORDINANCE TO BE
IMMEDIATELY EFFECTIVE AS AN APPROPRIATION MEASURE. Staff request Council
approval of a budget adjustment in the amount of $434,504 from the Electric Fund to cover costs for the acquisition of 1415 Vernon Street and purchase of a bucket truck. The Electric Utility Department anticipates the need for a future expansion of the Vernon Street Substation and has acquired the parcel directly adjacent to the substation site. The parcel acquisition was approved by City Council and initiated in FY2021-22, and the transaction was finalized in FY2022-23. The Electric Department is also adding a bucket truck for the City's troubleshooting crew in the amount of $140,000. There are adequate resources in the Electric fund for this expenditure increase.

CC #:
2306
File #:
1002 & 0203-01 & 0201-01
CONTACT:

Joanna Cucchi 916-746-1609 [email protected]

6.14. Prospera at Fiddyment, Affordable Rental Housing
- Housing Trust Fund Loan
Agreement, Promissory Note, Deed of Trust, and Regulatory Agreement and Budget Adjustment
Memo from Housing Analyst
Suzanne Acrell and Economic Development
Director Melissa Anguiano recommending the
City Council adopt
RESOLUTION 22-371

APPROVING A HOUSING TRUST FUND LOAN

AGREEMENT, PROMISSORY NOTE, DEED OF TRUST AND

REGULATORY AGREEMENT AND DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE

CONVENANTS, BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE AND

FIDDYMENT AFFORDABLE PARTNERS, LP, AND AUTHORIZING THE

CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THEM AND ANY RELATED
DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE;
and
adopt ORDINANCE NO. 6556 AUTHORIZING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2022-23 BUDGET AND DECLARING THIS

ORDINANCE TO BE IMMEDIATELY EFFECTIVE AS AN
APPROPRIATION MEASURE.

Staff requests Council approval of the
necessary loan documents and regulatory agreement
between the City and
Fiddyment Affordable Partners, L.P.
to fund the Prospera at Fiddyment affordable
housing project, in the West Roseville Specific Plan, in the amount of $2.5 million.

The Prospera at Fiddyment will include 94 units. The recommended loan documents and regulatory agreement support the City's General Plan in meeting affordable housing goals. The City's Local Housing Trust Fund receives funding from developer in-lieu fees, payoffs from resales and payoffs from developer subsidy loans. The Housing Division has funding available in the Local Housing Trust Fund and will pair it with the recently increased State Housing & Community Development Local Housing Trust Fund award of $2.8 million. The recommended budget adjustment appropriates the grant award of $2.8 million in the Grants Fund and the required matching funds of $2.8 million in the City's Local Housing Trust Fund, providing a total of $5.6 million for projects. The spending plan for the remaining grant funds will be brought forward to the City Council at a later date. No General Fund resources will be used in the development of this project.

CC #:
2322
File #:
0709-03-02 & 0400-04-09-1 & 0201-01
CONTACT:

Suzanne Acrell 916-774-5469 [email protected]

Reports / Requests

6.15. Staffing Changes
Memo from Human Resources Manager Linda Hampton and Human Resources Director Stacey Peterson recommending the City Council approve the citywide position allocation schedule reflecting one new Senior Engineer position and the reclassification of two vacant positions as part of an ongoing assessment of the appropriate staffing levels to provide a high level of service to the community.

For the remainder of FY2022-23, the total impact to the Information Technology Operations Fund is $6,359 and to the Environmental Utilities funds is $132,288.

CC #:
2311
File #:
0600-01
CONTACT:

Linda Hampton 916-774-5215 [email protected]

END OF CONSENT CALENDAR

7. PUBLIC HEARING

NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
City Council, when considering the matter scheduled for hearing, will take the following actions:

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

Open the Public Hearing
Presentation by Staff
Presentation by applicant or Appellant
Accept Public Testimony
Appellant or Applicant Rebuttal Period
Close the Public Hearing
City Council Comments and Questions
City Council Action

In the future, if you wish to challenge in court any of the matters on this agenda for which a public hearing is to be conducted, you may be limited to raising only those issues, which you, or someone else raised orally at the Public Hearing or in written correspondence received by the City or before the hearing

Public Hearings listed for continuance will be continued as noted and posting of this agenda serves as notice of continuation.

7.1. Community Development Block Grant 2021 Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report
Memo from Housing Analyst Kristine Faelz and Economic Development Director Melissa Anguiano recommending the City Council adopt RESOLUTION NO. 22-370 APPROVING THE 2021 CONSOLIDATED

ANNUAL PERFORMANCE AND EVALUATION REPORT (CAPER) AND

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO SUBMIT
THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) 2021
CAPER TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING & URBAN
DEVELOPMENT (HUD). Staff requests Council a
pproval of the City's
Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) for the federal Community Development Block Grant Program and authorization to submit the CAPER to the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development. CDBG funds are a federal entitlement grant provided annually to the City of Roseville.

These funds are used to offset potential costs to the General Fund and to serve the community. This item does not result in any impact to the City's General Fund.

CC #:
2321
File #:
0113-02 & 0709
CONTACT:

Kristine Faelz 916-774-5451 [email protected]

8. COUNCIL REPORTS / PUBLIC COMMENTS

9. ADJOURNMENT

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #:
2309
File #:
0800-03
Title:

Roseville Energy Park Water Treatment Clarifier - Sole Source Purchase Order Contact:

Michael Zasso 916-746-1665 [email protected]

Meeting Date: 9/21/2022
Item #: 6.1.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution to approve a sole source purchase order to Hoffland Environmental, Inc. for a specialized water treatment clarifier. Staff additionally requests authority for the City Manager or his designee to approve change orders for the purchase, not to exceed twenty percent (20%) of the contract price.

BACKGROUND
The Roseville Energy Park (REP) Zero Liquid Discharge (ZLD) system produces demineralized water for steam production and treats the REP's process waste water. Within the ZLD system, the clarifier receives and treats process waste waters from various filters and softeners. The clarifier is specifically sized to treat this process waste water and was designed by Hoffland Environmental, Inc. The foundation design for the clarifier is specific to the existing clarifier’s weight and dimensions.

The existing clarifier is at end of life and needs to be replaced to maintain proper ZLD system operation. A quote from Hoffland Environmental, Inc. was obtained for a like-in-kind replacement of the existing clarifier with a material upgrade to extend asset life.

Hoffland Environmental Inc. manufacture their own products and is the City’s only available source for procurement. Hoffland Environmental Inc. has provided a letter stating that they are the manufacturer of their own products.

FISCAL IMPACT
Total cost of the equipment is $99,500, with change order authority not to exceed twenty percent (20%) of the contract price ($19,900) for a total not to exceed amount of $119,400. Funding is included in the Electric Department's FY2022-23 departmental budget in the Electric Fund.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to activities that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, or is otherwise not considered a project as defined by CEQA Statute §21065 and CEQA State Guidelines §15060(c)(3) and §15378. The purchase of a Water Treatment Clarifier at the REP meets the above criteria and is not subject to CEQA. No additional environmental review is required.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal E - Deliver exceptional city services
Goal F - Invest in well-planned infrastructure and growth

Respectfully Submitted,
Michael Zasso, Power Plant Engineer
Daniel Beans, Electric Utility Director

_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Resolution No. 22-372
Vendor Quotation
RESOLUTION NO. 22-372

APPROVING A SOLE SOURCE PURCHASE ORDER FOR

A SPECIALIZED WATER TREATMENT CLARIFIER

WHEREAS, a sole source purchase order with Hoffland Environmental, Inc., for a specialized water treatment clarifier, has been reviewed by the City Council; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roseville that said purchase order is hereby approved; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager or his designee is authorized to approve change orders for the purchase, consistent with the contract terms, provided that the net cost of all change orders shall not exceed twenty percent (20%) of the contract price.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Roseville this ___ day of ______________, 2022, by the following vote on roll call:

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

______________________________
MAYOR

ATTEST:

________________________
City Clerk

May 26, 2022

Roseville Energy Park Phone #: 916-746-1656
5120 Philip Road Email: [email protected]
Roseville, CA 95747

Contact: Tony Johnson
Reference: HEI Quotation No. 19069 R7
Equipment: Clarifier
HEI Clarifier Model: 440/60/SC, Custom designed with extended sludge storage and w/o Flash/Floc Chamber

Hoffland Environmental, Inc. is pleased to provide the following inclined plate clarifier quotation.

Refer to HEI's web page www.heienv.com for more information on the clarifier, engineering specifications and installation drawings.

HEI is a leader in designing, manufacturing, and installing industrial wastewater treatment equipment throughout the U.S. and several foreign countries. In addition to wastewater treatment, HEI is a pioneer in the metal recovery, closed loop and water reuse systems. HEI ha s manufactured and installed over 1000 wastewater treatment systems.

The 440/60/SC has been custom design ed with an extended cone bottom for increased sludge capacity and a “Clarifier Only” configuration without an attached flash mix and flocculation tank.

We appreciate your interest in our products and look forward to the opportunity of supplying this equipment. Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to call.

Regards,

David Hajduk

David Hajduk
[email protected]
970-261-1819 (M)
936-856-4515 Ext 208

HOFFLAND ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
10391 Silver Springs Road, Conroe, TX, 77303
Phone: (936) 856-4515
www.heienv.com
2 440/60/SC CLARIFICATION UNIT

HEI shall provide an inclined plate clarifier according to the attached design specification. The clarifier described in this proposal is constructed of ¼” ASTM A36 Structural carbon steel. The inclined plates are Stainless Steel 304L

Specifications (Refer to web page at www.heienv.com)

Model Number:

M= Motorized Rake C= 120” Long plates
440/60/SC
Horizontal Projected Settling Area: 480
Total Settling Surface Area: 960
Design Flow Rate @ 0.25 gpm/sq.ft. 120 gpm
Peak Flow Rate @ 0.50 gpm/sq.ft 240 gpm

Construction

One (1) HEI 440/60/ SC high-rate inclined plate clarifier with 4 80 sq. ft. of horizontal projected settling area, maximum flow rate 110 - 200 gpm. The Stainless-Steel Inclined Plates are supported by rigidly mounted 2" stainless steel combs. All metal fasteners are constructed of 316 series stainless steel. The inclined plates are supported the full length on both sides and center.

To enhance solids removal, the inclined plates are set on a 60o angle. The clarifier sizing is based upon an influent stream not exceeding 1500 ppm suspen ded solids. If the suspend ed so lids exceed 1500 mg/l, the underflow must be increased proportionately.

The inlet compartments are specifically designed to dissipate hydraulic momentum. Uniform flow through the pack is assured by the use of SS plate adjustable Orifice Plate which imposes up to 1" static head.

The Clarifier has an inverted pyramid bottom compartment.

To enhance the corrosion resistance and extend the units service life, sacrificial zinc anodes have been installed in the steel tank.

HOFFLAND ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
10391 Silver Springs Road, Conroe, TX, 77303
Phone: (936) 856-4515
www.heienv.com
3 Equipment Calculations

Hydraulic Loading Rate:

Total Surface Area = 960 ft²
2 Plate Pack Section – 46 total plates
Each plate – 2’ x 10’ SS plate
Total Surface area – 10 x 46 x 2’ = 960 ft²

Horizontal Projected Area:

Inclined Plates are Inclined at 60º Angle
Cosine of 60º Angle = 0.500
Horizontal Surface Area = Cosine 60º Angle x Surface Area = 480 ft²

Hydraulic Loading Rate:

Max. Flow ÷ Horizontal Projected Area = Hydraulic Loading Rate 220 gpm ÷ 480 ft² = 4.5 gpm/ft² = Max Loading
Average Flow = 60 gpm ÷ 440 ft² = 0.125 gpm/ft² = Average Loading

Max Flow Rate in Plate Pack:

Flow Rate per Plate = 220 ÷ 46 plates = 4.7 gpm/plate

4.7 gpm/Plate = 0.627 ft³/min = 0.01047 ft³/sec
Cross Section Area of Plate 2” x 24” = 0.33 ft²
Flow Rate 0.01047 ft³/sec ÷ 0.33 ft² = 0.031732 ft/sec

Velocity in Feed Bay:

Cross Section Area of Feed Bay
5’ x 9’ = 99 45²
Max. Flow Rate 220 gpm = .49 ft³/sec
Velocity 0.49 ft³/sec ÷45 ft² = 0.01 ft/sec

Velocity in Feed Ducts:
2 @ Feed Ducts – 0.5 ft wide x 4 ft high
Total area of Feed Ducts 3 x 0.5 x 4 = 4.0 ft²
Max Flow Rate 220 gpm = .49 ft³/sec
Max Velocity – 0.49 ft³/sec ÷ 40 ft² = 0.1225 ft/sec

Calculation Summary:

Velocity in Feed Bay – 0.01 ft/sec
Velocity in Feed Ducts – 0.1225 ft/sec
Velocity in Plate Pack – 0.031732 ft/sec

HOFFLAND ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
10391 Silver Springs Road, Conroe, TX, 77303
Phone: (936) 856-4515
www.heienv.com
4 Induced Laminar Flow

The Flow rate of the effluent throughout the inclined plate pack is controlled by a series of orifice plate overflow weirs.at the top of the inclined plate pack. A stainless-steel orifice plate is installed in the overflow weir b oxes to force uniform flow through -out the plate pack. The ¾” orifices naturally adjust for small leveling differences with in the four plate packs and laterally within the plate packs by inducing up to a 1” static head.

The orifice weir plates are constructed of 304 Stainless Steel to eliminate corrosion.

Hoffland Environmental established the method of flow control over 35 years ago. Since that time HEI has produced over 1000 functioning clarifiers with this orifice design.

HOFFLAND ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
10391 Silver Springs Road, Conroe, TX, 77303
Phone: (936) 856-4515
www.heienv.com
5 Clarifier Components

A. Plates:

1. Minimum of 18 gauge thick 304 Stainless Steel (Alternate FRP .125 Thickness).

2. 120 inches long by 24 inches wide.

3. Stiffeners are placed on maximum 24-inch centers.

B. Inclined Plate Settler Tank:

1. Fabricated from ASTM A36 steel.

2. Minimum tank thickness is 1/4-inch.

C. Inclined Plate Settler Sludge Hopper:

1. The inclined plate settler has an integral sludge hopper located below the plate zone.

The sludge compartment has a flat bottom and has a motorized rake to direct sludge to a central discharge compartment.

2. The sludge hopper has three sludge sample ports with ¾” NPT nipples.

3. The sludge hopper has a 24 -inch manway on the side to allow access and removal of rake equipment.

4. Fabricated from ASTM A36 steel.

5. Minimum hopper thickness is: 1/4-inch.

6. Sludge hopper provides a minimum of 589 gallons of sludge storage.

D. All structural and ta nk steel stresses are within allowable limits as shown in the Steel Construction Manual of the American Institute of Steel Construction, latest edition.

1. Two (2) @ zinc rods are mounted in the sludge hopper for galvanizing protection.

“The Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank”

HOFFLAND ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
10391 Silver Springs Road, Conroe, TX, 77303
Phone: (936) 856-4515
www.heienv.com
6 Optional Equipment

Ladder and Platform

Ladder and platform are included as options to view the operation of the clarifier.

HEI EQUIPMENT SURFACE PREPARATION

Tank Coating

The carbon steel surfaces shall be dried and cleaned in accorda nce with the following requirements. Remove all grease , oils, and contaminants as outlined in SSPC SP1. Re move all weld spatter and grind burrs on cut edges and rough welds smoo th. Blast clean all surfaces after fabrication in accordance with SSPC with profile depth of 1.5 – 2.5 mils. Apply first coating before any rust bloom forms.

All exterior non seal welded joints will be filled with rubber caulking before painting.

Exterior surfaces shall be coated per the following procedures.

Shop first coat
Primer: Hempel Hempadur Mastik 45881 Gray Subpart # 11480 Curing Agent Hempel 95881 Clear

Apply one coat, dry film thickness of 5.0 mils; apply to all steel surfaces except the areas within two inches adjacent to field welds and surfaces specified to be hot dip galvanized.

Shop finish coat:

Finish Coat: Hempel Urethane # 5595U Safety Gray Subpart # 30840 Curing Agent Hempel # 931US Clear

Apply one coat, dry film thickness o f 2.0 mils; apply to all steel surfaces except the areas within two inches adjacent to field welds and surfaces specified to be hot dip galvanized.

The total dry film thickness shall be a minimum average of 7.0 mils.

Interior surfaces shall be coated per the following procedure:

Apply two coats, dry film thickness of 4.0 mils: of an immersion grade high build Hempel 15509 epoxy. App ly to all steel surfaces except the areas within two inches adjacent to field welds and surfaces specified to be hot dip galvanized.

The dry film thickness shall be a minimum average of 8.0 mils.

The Coatings shall be Hempel 15500

1st coating Hempel 15509 Red subpart # 50900
2nd coating Hempel 15509 Off White subpart # 11630

HOFFLAND ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
10391 Silver Springs Road, Conroe, TX, 77303
Phone: (936) 856-4515
www.heienv.com
7 Curing Agent Hempel 97580 Clear

All liquid contact surfaces that are not coated shall be made of a corrosion resistant ma terial and left uncoated.

FABRICATION (METAL TANKS ONLY)

Welding shall be in accordance with AWS and adheres to Section 9 of the ASME code.

ELECTRICAL ASSEMBLY

All electrical components shall meet National Electrical Code (NEC) and National Electrical Manufactures Association (NEMA).

OSHA

Guard rails and work platforms furnished will comply with OSHA standards.

Note: Eye wash stations are not included.

“The Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank”

HOFFLAND ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
10391 Silver Springs Road, Conroe, TX, 77303
Phone: (936) 856-4515
www.heienv.com
8 SUMMARY

QUANTITIY EQUIPMENT MODEL PRICE EACH TOTAL
One (1) HEI Model 440/60/SC Custom 99,500.00 $ 99,500.00 - Ladder and Platform
- Seismic Calculations
- Cost of materials Increase
(expiration 7/1/2022)

One (1) * Management Reserve (20%) $ 19,900.00

TOTAL PRICE $ 119,400.00
* Management reserve funds are exempt from the 30%, 30%, 35%, and 5% installment payments and are to be used at the sole discretion of the City of Roseville.

DELIVERY

Shipment: 14 to 18 weeks after approval drawings

F.O.B. Conroe, Texas, Freight charges billed direct to customer

Taxes: Prices quoted are exclusive of taxes, duties, and other ancillary charges.

Terms of Payment: 30% with Purchase Order,
30% with Drawing Submittal
35% @ Shipment
5% @ Start-Up or 90 Days after receipt of Equipment

Terms and Conditions: Attached

Delivery time specified is based on our current knowledge of orders in progress and suppliers’ best efforts; therefore, it is subject to change in accordance with these factors.

HOFFLAND ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
10391 Silver Springs Road, Conroe, TX, 77303
Phone: (936) 856-4515
www.heienv.com
9 GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS 2022
(DUE TO VENDOR SUPPLY ISSUES EQUIPMENT DELIVERY MAY BE DELAYED) ACCEPTANCE AND AGREEMENTS:

Acceptance of this quotation is not effective unless in strict conformity with the terms set forth herein. Any changes in specifica tions, equipment, or any of the terms hereof proposed by Buyer are subject to acceptance by Sel ler. Seller shall have the right to substi tute parts, components, and/or equipment in instances of unavailability of sam e, p rovided they are of equal grade and quality as those referred to herein, and further provided the overall efficiency of the unit is not decreased. Any material substitution must be cleared by Buyer.

This offer, when accepted, shall constitute the enti re agreement between the Buyer and Selle r, and Buyer agrees that there have been no verbal understandings or agreements reached between the parties hereto other than the conditio ns stated in this quotation. However, any and all representations made by Sel ler to Buyer about the fitness of the su bject equipment for the use intended are merged herein. If there is any inconsistency or confl ict between any of the terms, provisions or conditions of this quotation and the Buyers acknowledgement, acceptance or Purchase Order, the provisions of this quotation shall govern and control.

EXPIRATION OF OFFER:

This quotation expires thirty (30) days f rom the date appearing on the summary page hereof unless earlier withdrawn by Seller by written notice to Buyer.

TERMS OF PAYMENT:

Payments are to be made in U.S. currency as stated in the quotation.

Hoffland Environmental, Inc. (HEI) pricing is based upon receiving payment for goods the day of the sale. Date of shipment is the date of sale. HEI will extend the courtesy of receiving net payment up to ten ( 30) days after th e date of sale. All payments later than ten (30) days shall incur interest charges and a one-time late payment penalty fee. P ayments received later than ten (45) days but not to exceed thirty ( 60) days w ill be subject to 2.0% interest. Payme nts received more than thirty (30) days after date of sale shall incur interest at the rate of 2.0% per month plus a 5% one-time late payment fee.

TITLE AND RIGHT OF POSSESSION:

The title and right of possession of described articles in this proposal shal l remain ve sted in supplier's company until Buyer shall have made full payment as specified in th e above Terms of Payment. This right sha ll not be waived by attachment of said articles to the real estate of the Buyer. Upon failure to make agreed payments, or any part thereof, supplier is to retain any and all partial payments which may have been mad e as liquidated damages and shall be enti tled to take immediate possession of said materials.

DELIVERY:

Since the equip ment purchased under this proposal is sp ecially des igned and manufac tured for this particular application delivery schedules are approximated to the best of our knowledge at the time of this proposal. The delivery schedule is subject to review by the Sell er at the time this offer is accepted by the Buyer. Delivery is subject to extension for delays caused by fire, flood, acts of

HOFFLAND ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
10391 Silver Springs Road, Conroe, TX, 77303
Phone: (936) 856-4515
www.heienv.com
10 God, labo r d isputes, civil or military authority, riot, non -delivery of materials or supplies by subcontractors or suppliers or any other reasons beyond the reasonable control of Seller. Seller will not be liable for any loss of damage, consequential or otherwise resulting from late delivery or non-delivery due to any of said causes.

Delivery time specified is based on our current knowledge of orders in progress and suppliers’ best efforts; therefore, it is subject to change in accordance with these factors HEI res erves the right to make design improvements, or to change third party suppliers if it is deemed of interest to improve equipment design/performance, without obligation to give prior notice of these changes. ***NOTE*** STEEL COST ESCALATION
Current market c onditions have resulted in increased vola tility in the price of carbon steel and alloys such as stainless steel. Producers have instituted surcharges, applied at the time of actual shipment of the s teel. As a result, the above pricing will be subject to a djustment based on any escalation in the price of carbon and alloy steel. The price adjustment will be calculated by indexing the cost of the steel based on t he following prices from the date of thi s proposal to the date that the steel is actually received.

FREIGHT, TAXES AND DUTIES:

Prices quoted are F.O.B. Conroe, Texas. The major portion of the equipment in this propo sal is manufactured in Conroe, Texas. S ubject to a vailability, shipments will b e s ent on an exclusive truck. Prices quoted are exclusiv e of taxes, duties and other ancillary ch arges. All such charges are the responsibility of Buyer, unless otherwise noted in this quotation.

TECHNICAL INFORMATION:

All drawings, plans, specifications , designs and other engineering and manufacturing informa tion furnished to Buyer by Seller (includ ing that embodied herein) are furnished exclusively for use by Buyer in connection with installing, maintaining or ope rating the Equipment. Buyer shall not u se, sell, or otherwise make available to third parties an y s uch information except to the extent necessary to assist in such installation, maintenance or operation.

CANCELLATION:

Buyer may not cancel this order for any reason except for unreasonable delay or negligence in the completion of the installation, caus ed by the act of Seller, or his represent atives. In the event of such cancellation, Buyer reserves the right to make s ettlement of all sums due Seller at that time and complete the installation of the equipment itself.

In the event of cancellation, Buyer shall compensate Seller for all costs inc urred in the acquisition of material, doing engineering and manufacturing, be it total or partial for the contracted system or equipment. It shall not be limited to said labor, material, components and/or engineering costs, but shall consider a 20% mark u p on such expenditures, in addition to a 20% cancellation charge to the gross aggregate original sale price.

CHANGES:

Changes in the equipment shall be reque sted by Buyer in writing. If any charge is made which results in an increase or decrease in the co st to the Seller of fulfilling this agreement, the price specified in the quot ation s hall be increased or decreased ac cordingly o n an equitable basis determined by Seller and approved by Buyer.

HOFFLAND ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
10391 Silver Springs Road, Conroe, TX, 77303
Phone: (936) 856-4515
www.heienv.com
11 SERVICE BY SELLER:

Seller shall furnish the services of a comp etent field technician or engineer at Buyer's plant to instruct Buyer's person nel in the installation, operation, and maintenance of the equipment only when such servic e becomes an essential requirement, and the buy er agrees to pay all cost, provided that the
Buyer shall have given Seller at least five days prior notice of the date of which such services will be needed and that Buyer accepts paying the travel and living expenses of this technician. In the event the services of Seller's field technician or engineer are required for any period of time, and these services are contracte d as part of a project, Buyer shall pay Seller for such services at the rate of $1200.00 per eight-hour working day, plus travel and livi ng expenses, or as stated on HEI quotation, for each field technician or engineer furnished by Seller.

WARRANTY:

Equipment manufactured by Seller is warranted to be free from defect in materials or workmanship for a period of the lesser of (I) twelve month s, from the date of Buyer's receipt of the equipment or (II) 260 working days, but only if such equipment is installed, operated and maintained in accordance with the instructions furnished by Seller to Buyer, provided, however, that no warranty is given w ith respect to items which have a normal useful life of less than twelve months. For purposes of the foregoing warrant y, e ach eight-hour shift (or portion the reof) durin g which the equipment is operated shall be considered one working day. Defective items must be returned to Hoffland Environmental Inc. within 15 days at expense of buyer, if not buyer is responsible for payment o f replacement items. Items furni shed by Sel ler but manufactured by oth ers are warranted by Seller only in accordance with warrant y extended by the manufacturer. HEI is no t responsible for performance or process of equipment that is not maintained o r co ntrolled by Hoffland Environmental Inc.

BUYER'S REMEDIES:

Buyer's sole and exclusive remedy in respect of any claim against Seller re lating to or arising out of this quotation or the sale or installation of the equipment (including, but not limited to claims for breach of any warranty) shall be limited to Seller's repair or repl acement cost , or any part or material proved to be defective during the warranty period provided, ho wever, that Seller shall not be responsible for labor costs incurred for remov al a nd reinstallation of any parts, or a ny equipment rented by Buyer, or mater ial in conne ction with such repair or replacement. In no event, be it due to a breach of any warran ty or guarantee here under or any other cause arising out of performance or no n-performance of the proposal or contrac t, shall th e Seller be liable for consequential or
indirect loss or damage, including but not li mited to, loss of profits, equipment rent ed by Buyer, plant downtime or suits by third parties against Buyer.

Seller sh all protect, defend, indemnify and hold buyer harml ess from and against any an d al l liabilities or expenses arising out of or associated with the negligence or intentional misconduct of seller, its agents, employees and contractors, while on Buyers premises.

Seller shall provide buyer documentation of insurance evidencing the following coverage:
a) Workman's liability (non-certified equivalent of workman's compensation).

HOFFLAND ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
10391 Silver Springs Road, Conroe, TX, 77303
Phone: (936) 856-4515
www.heienv.com
12 b) General liability including contractual liability - $ 500,000.00 per occurrence.

INSTALLATION:

In the event Seller has expressly provided in this quotation that it will install the equipment, the following provisions shall be applicable:
(a) Seller shall have the right to subcontract all or any part of the installation work to others selected by Seller in its sole discretion.
(b) Unless requested by B uyer, no Saturday, Sunday, o r holiday o r other overtime labor will be provided in conn ection with installation work; and if pro vided, all premium wage costs incurred will be added to the contract price and paid by Buyer. (c) Seller shall maintain a Workman's C ompensation insurance and/or an employer's liability insurance as required by the laws of the State of Texas, which may be deem ed valid within the State where work is to be performed. Insurance certificat es a re available on request.

ENTIRE AGREEMENT; APPLICABLE BY LAW:

The terms and conditions set forth in this quotation shall constitute t he entire agreement between the parties a nd supersede all prior written or oral representations and understandings. Th is agreement shall be governed by and co nstructed i n accordance with the laws of t he State of California including the Uniform Commercial Code as in effect therein.

These Terms and Conditions apply to all Purchase Orders recei ved by Seller. Seller’s receipt of any P urchase Ord er constitutes Buyer’s acceptance of th ese Terms and Conditio ns set forth herein.

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #:
2308
File #:
0900-04 & 0201-01
Title:

Bridge Preventative Maintenance Project - Award of Contract and Budget Adjustment Contact:

Joseph Arino 916-774-5460 [email protected]

Meeting Date: 9/21/2022
Item #: 6.2.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Award the
Bridge Preventative Maintenance Project
to American Civil Constructors West Coast
LLC for $985,000.93;

2. Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreement; and provide change order authority of 10% of the contract amount ($98,500.09); and

2. Adopt the attached ordinance for a budget adjustment in the combined amount of $942,600 of
Highway Bridge Program (HBP) Grant Funds and City Roadway funds to fully fund project
construction.

BACKGROUND
The scope of this project includes the application of methacrylate bridge deck treatment, which is intended to seal and protect the structural integrity of bridges and extend their service life. This project includes 16 bridge locations on the following roads: 3 locations on Roseville Pkwy, 2 locations on Harding Blvd, 2 locations on Foothills Blvd, Atkinson St, Blue Oaks Blvd, Lincoln St, N Sunrise Ave, Old Auburn Rd, Secret Ravine Pkwy, Vernon St, Wills Rd, and Woodcreek Oaks Blvd. Exact locations may be seen in the attached Exhibit A. Other spot repairs include minor concrete surface repairs, joint seal replacement, and minor bridge approach paving.

At their March 21, 2021 meeting, Council approved the plans and specifications for the project and authorized staff to call for bids. The bid opening was held on July 11, 2022, and a total of five bids were received.

The engineer's estimate and bids are as follows:

Engineer's estimate:

$1,584,490.00
Truesdell Corporation:

$ 721,721.00
American Civil Constructors:

$ 985,000.93
TPA Construction:

$1,180,801.13
Meyers & Sons:

$1,251,269.00
Viking Construction:

$1,597,786.85

Upon review of the bids, it was discovered that the apparent low bidder failed to provide the required federal forms to be submitted with the proposal package. As a result, staff found the bid from Truesdell Corporation incomplete. Staff has reviewed the second-lowest bid from American Civil Constructors West Coast LLC and found it to be complete and in order.

The Bridge Preventative Maintenance Project is anticipated to begin in early October of 2022 and be completed by the end of spring 2023. Temporary lane closures and road detours may be required to facilitate construction. Working hours will vary depending upon the specific traffic characteristics of each roadway. Due to high traffic volumes on arterial segments during the day, night work may be necessary along most roadways.

Public Outreach

Staff will be working with the Public Affairs & Communications Department to share the latest project information through the City's communication channels. About two weeks before the planned work, digital message boards will be placed at locations throughout the project area to notify the traveling public about the project, dates/times, and any potential traffic impacts expected with the work. Mailers will be sent to residents and businesses adjacent to the project area explaining the planned work, the type of pavement treatment that will be used, and what the recipients can expect before, during, and after the project.

FISCAL IMPACT
The estimated total cost of the project of $1,802,157, including design and construction, will be fully funded with $1,301,550 of Highway Bridge Program (HBP) Grant Funds and $500,607 from the City Roadway Fund. A budget adjustment of $942,600 [$597,600 of HBP grant funds and $345,000 of Roadway Funds] is required to fully fund construction, change order authority, construction management, and staff costs.

Currently, HBP grant funds for construction are programmed but not yet awarded. Obligation of the funds is anticipated to occur in the fall of 2022 or spring of 2023. In the unlikely event the anticipated HBP grant funds are not obligated to the project, staff will return to Council with a recommended alternative funding source.

No General Fund resources will be used for this project.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed project involves the repair and maintenance of existing facilities. This activity is categorically exempt from CEQA as a Class 1 Exemption (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301). The Exemption has been prepared and no further CEQA action is required.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal F - Invest in well-planned infrastructure and growth

Respectfully Submitted,
Joe Arino, Assistant Engineer
Jason Shykowski, Public Works Director

_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Resolution 22-361
Agreement
Exhibit A - Area Map
Ordinance 6553
Budget Adjustment
Bid Summary
RESOLUTION NO. 22-361

APPROVING AN AGREEMENT, BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE AND

AMERICAN CIVIL CONSTRUCTORS WEST COAST LLC, AND AUTHORIZING THE

CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE IT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE

WHEREAS, an Agreement regarding the Bridge Preventative Maintenance Project, by and between the City of Roseville and American Civil Constructors West Coast LLC, has been reviewed by the City Council; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roseville that said Agreement is hereby approved and that the City Manager is authorized to execute it on behalf of the City of Roseville.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager, or his designee, is authorized to approve change orders for the project, consistent with the contract terms, provided that the net cost of all change orders shall not exceed ten percent (10%) of the contract price.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Roseville this ___ day of ______________, 2022, by the following vote on roll call:

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

______________________________
MAYOR

ATTEST:

________________________
City Clerk

I80 E
I80 W
HW
Y
65S
HWY 65 N

CIRBY W
Y

JUNCTION BL

BASELINE RD

FIDDYMENT RD

WASHINGTON BL

ROSEVILLEPW

VERNON ST
PLE
ASANT
GR
OVE
BL

SUNRISE AV

ATKINSON ST

DOUGLAS BL

TAYLORRD
LEAD
HILL

BLROCKYRIDGE
DR

INDUSTRIAL AV
DEL
W
EBBBL

RIVERSIDE AV

UPLAND DR

E ROSEVILLE
PW
N
CIRBY
W
Y

HARDINGBL

NSUNRISE
AV
M

CANALLY
DR
C

HURCHST

SIERRACOLLEGEBL

S UN CITY
BL

OAK RIDGE DR

S CIRBY WYSECRETRAVINE
PW
A

LEXANDRADR

COUNTRYCLUBDR

RE SERVE DR

OLYMPUS
DR

VINEYARD RD
FAIRW
AY
DR
M
CLAREN
D
R

ATLANTIC ST

ORLANDO
AV

MELODYLN
GIBSO
N
DR

EUREKA RD

FOOTHILLS BL

FOLSOM RD

HALLISSYDR

BLUE OAKS BL
M
AIN ST
HIG
HLAND
PARK
DR
HAYD
EN
PW

ROSEVILLE RD
JO
HNSON

RANCH DR
OLD

AUBURNRD

PAINTED DESERT DR
JUDAH
ST
W

ESTHILLS DR

N GRANT ST

ROSEVILLE PW

ROSEVILLE
PW
OLD
AUBURN
RD
[
0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000
Feet
PW - Engineering
2019 Bridge Preventative Maintenance Project
S:\Arcdata\publicworks\CIP\BPMP Map.mxd Date Saved: 1/31/2018 2:34:42 PM Legend
Project Location

ORDINANCE NO. 6553

ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
AUTHORIZING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2022-23

BUDGET AND DECLARING THIS ORDINANCE TO BE IMMEDIATELY

EFFECTIVE AS AN APPROPRIATION MEASURE

THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ORDAINS:

SECTION 1. The City of Roseville Annual Budget, Fiscal Year 2022-23, is hereby amended as listed on the attached budget adjustment for the Bridge Preventative Maintenance project.

SECTION 2. This ordinance is hereby declared to be an appropriation measure, immediately effective pursuant to the provisions of Section 5.03 of the Charter.

SECTION 3. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to post a true copy of the foregoing ordinance in each of three (3) conspicuous locations in the City and she shall immediately after such posting enter in the ordinance book, under the record of the ordinance, a certificate under her hand stating the time and place of such publication by posting.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Roseville, this ______________ day of _________________, 2022, by the following vote on roll call:

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:
_______________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:

__________________________
City Clerk

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #: 6554
File #:
0203-09 & 0201-01
Title:

Wastewater Collections Warehouse Project Forklift Purchase – Budget Adjustment Contact:

Loni Randolph 916-746-1898 [email protected]

Meeting Date: 9/21/2022
Item #: 6.3.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt an ordinance to approve a budget adjustment for $41,500 to fund the purchase of a forklift for the Wastewater Collections Warehouse project.

BACKGROUND
Through the current Wastewater Collections Warehouse project, the Environmental Utilities Department’s Wastewater Collections Division is building a parts warehouse to store construction material, tools, and spare parts at the Wastewater Collections Maintenance Yard located at the Dry Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant. The planned equipment for this project included a new forklift to manage the storage and inventory of heavy construction material. The forklift will be purchased through the Fleet Replacement Fund so a budget adjustment is required to increase Fleet’s appropriations authority.

FISCAL IMPACT
The Wastewater Collections Warehouse project, budgeted in the Wastewater Construction Fund, has enough remaining budget (approximately $306,000) to cover the cost of this $41,500 forklift purchase. Once the forklift is operational, the cost of its ongoing rent and replacement will be budgeted in the Wastewater Collections cost center in the Wastewater Operations Fund. This vehicle will be purchased via the Fleet Replacement Fund. There will be no net impact to that fund since this budget adjustment will increase both its revenue and expenditure budgets by $41,500.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal F - Invest in well-planned infrastructure and growth

Respectfully Submitted,
Loni Randolph, Materials Technician
Richard Plecker, Environmental Utility Director

_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Ordinance 6554
Budget Adjustment

ORDINANCE NO. 6554

ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
AUTHORIZING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2022-23

BUDGET AND DECLARING THIS ORDINANCE TO BE IMMEDIATELY

EFFECTIVE AS AN APPROPRIATION MEASURE

THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ORDAINS:

SECTION 1. The City of Roseville Annual Budget, Fiscal Year 2022-23, is hereby amended as listed on the attached budget adjustment for the purchase of a forklift for the Wastewater Collections Warehouse project.

SECTION 2. This ordinance is hereby declared to be an appropriation measure, immediately effective pursuant to the provisions of Section 5.03 of the Charter.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Roseville, this ______________ day of _________________, 2022, by the following vote on roll call:

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:
_______________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:

__________________________
City Clerk

8/25/202210:35 AM
1 REQUEST FOR BUDGET ADJUSTMENT
REQUESTER NAME & TITLE: Dan Pruden, Wastewater Collections Supervisor FISCAL YEAR: 2022-23 PREPARER NAME & TITLE: Nancy Rothlisberger, Sr. EU Business Analyst COUNCIL DATE (if applicable): 9/21/2022 DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: EU/Wastewater ORDINANCE:

EXPENDITURES/EXPENSES/TRANSFERS OUT
BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
6220 6587 84001 500220 (41,500)
6220 5516 84001 500220 41,500
4005 6552 62601 000000 41,500
41,500

REVENUES/TRANSFERS IN
BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
4005 4254 62601 000000 41,500
41,500
-

FUND BALANCE
BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
-
Justification for Budget Adjustment:

REQUESTING DEPARTMENT HEAD / DESIGNEE DATE BUDGET MANAGER / DESIGNEE DATE

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER / DESIGNEE DATE CITY MANAGER / DESIGNEE DATE

POSTED BY DATE
Revised: June 24, 2019
The Environmental Utilities Department (EU) needs a new forklift for the Wastewater Collections Warehouse project (500220) currently under construction at the Dry Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant. The project, budgeted in the Wastewater Construction Fund (6220), has sufficient funding to cover the $41,500 cost of this vehicle. This adjustment establishes the budgets to purchase the forklift through the Fleet Replacement Fund (4005) and properly charge it to project #500220. Since this vehicle is not likely to arrive until close to the end of the fiscal year, the associated FY23 rent and replacement is not included here. When operational, ongoing rent and replacement will be budgeted in Wastewater Collections (74330).

TOTAL
Establish revenue budget (internal service charges -
vehicle shortage) in the Fleet Replacement Fund to
purchase a forklift for project #500220

ACCOUNT STRING DESCRIPTION
REQUIRED APPROVALS:

BUDGET DEPARTMENT USE ONLY:

Establish expenditure budget (automotive - vehicle
shortage) to purchase a forklift for project #500220
TOTAL
TOTAL

ACCOUNT STRING DESCRIPTION
Reduce expenditure budget (capital outlay - CIP
projects) for project #500220 to move it to 5516
(automotive - vehicle shortage)
Establish expenditure budget (capital outlay - vehicles) in the Fleet Replacement Fund to purchase a forklift
for project #500220

NET ADJUSTMENT

ACCOUNT STRING DESCRIPTION
8/29/22

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #: 2313
File #:
0203-12
Title:

Intrinsically Safe Radios - Purchase Order
Contact:

Jason Rizzi 916-774-5802 [email protected]

Meeting Date: 9/21/2022
Item #: 6.4.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the purchase of intrinsically safe portable radios
for use by the Fire Department.

BACKGROUND
The Roseville Fire Department operates a Type I Hazardous Materials Response Team and a Type II Rescue Team. The radios currently used by these teams are not rated as intrinsically safe for use in hazardous or flammable atmospheres. Intrinsically safe portable radios are designed not to spark a fire or explosion when utilized in hazardous or flammable atmospheres.

The total
cost of the radios and related accessories quoted from a public competitive procurement conducted by
Houston-Galveston Area Council (
H-GAC) contract was $144,301.

FISCAL IMPACT
On May 18, 2022 City Council approved a $200,000 appropriation from the FY2020-21 General Fund year-end surplus for the purchase of
intrinsically safe portable radios for use by the Fire
Department. The total cost of the radios and related accessories quot ed from a public
competitive procurement contract was $144,301.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal A - Maintain a safe and healthy community

Respectfully Submitted,
Jason Rizzi, Fire Division Chief
Rick Bartee, Fire Chief

_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Motorola Solutions Quote Roseville Fire

QUOTE-1789594

ROSEVILLE, CITY OF

08/16/2022

The design, technical, pricing, and other information (“Information”) furnished with this submission is confidential proprietary information of Motorola Solutions, Inc. or the Motorola Solutions entity providing this quote (“Motorola”) and is submitted with the restriction that it is to be used for evaluation purposes only. To the fullest extent allowed by applicable law, the Information is not to be disclosed publicly or in any manner to anyone other than those required to evaluate the Information without the express written permission of Motorola.

MOTOROLA, MOTO, MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, and the Stylized M Logo are trademarks or registered trademarks of Motorola Trademark Holdings, LLC and are used under license. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. © 2020 Motorola Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.

08/16/2022

ROSEVILLE, CITY OF
316 VERNON ST STE #300
ROSEVILLE, CA 95678

Dear ,

Motorola Solutions is pleased to present ROSEVILLE, CITY OF with this quote for quality communications equipment and services. The development of this quote provided us the opportunity to evaluate your requirements and propose a solution to best fulfill your communications needs.

This information is provided to assist you in your evaluation process. Our goal is to provide ROSEVILLE, CITY OF with the best products and services available in the communications industry. Please direct any questions to Julia Cole at [email protected].

We thank you for the opportunity to provide you with premier communications and look forward to your review and feedback regarding this quote.

Sincerely,

Julia Cole

QUOTE-1789594

Billing Address:

ROSEVILLE, CITY OF
316 VERNON ST STE #300
ROSEVILLE, CA 95678
US

Quote Date:08/16/2022
Expiration Date:10/16/2022
Quote Created By:

Julia Cole
julia.cole@
motorolasolutions.com
End Customer:

ROSEVILLE, CITY OF

Contract: 17724 - HGAC (TX)-RA05-21

Line #

Item Number

Description

Qty

List Price

Disc %

Sale Price

Ext. Sale Price

APX™ 8000 Series

APX8000XE

1 H91TGD9PW7AN

APX 8000 ALL BAND
PORTABLE MODEL 3.5

16 $7,475.00

27.0%

$5,456.75

$87,308.00

Q806CB

ADD: ASTRO DIGITAL CAI

OPERATION

16 $567.00

27.0%

$413.91

$6,622.56

Q361AN

ADD: P25 9600 BAUD

TRUNKING

16 $330.00

27.0%

$240.90

$3,854.40

Q667BB

ADD: ADP ONLY (NON-P25

CAP COMPLIANT) (US
ONLY)

16 $0.00

0.0%

$0.00

QA02006AC

ENH: APX8000XE RUGGED
RADIO

16 $880.00

27.0%

$642.40

$10,278.40

QA05509AA

DEL: DELETE UHF BAND

16 -$800.00

0.0%

-$584.00

-$9,344.00

Q887AU

ADD: 5Y ESSENTIAL

SERVICE

16 $227.00

0.0%

$227.00

$3,632.00

H38BS

ADD: SMARTZONE

OPERATION

16 $1,650.00

27.0%

$1,204.50

$19,272.00

G996AP

ADD: PROGRAMMING
OVER P25 (OTAP)

16 $110.00

27.0%

$80.30

$1,284.80

H64BK

ALT: APX8000/XE

HOUSING YELLOW

16 $28.00

27.0%

$20.44

$327.04

2 PMNN4504A

BATT IMPRES 2 LIION
UL2054 DIV2 R IP68 3400T

16 $212.30

50.54%

$105.00

$1,680.00

QUOTE-1789594

Any sales transaction following Motorola's quote is based on and subject to the terms and conditions of the valid and executed written contract between Customer and Motorola (the ""Underlying Agreement"") that authorizes Customer to purchase equipment and/or services or license software (collectively ""Products""). If no Underlying Agreement exists between Motorola and Customer, then Motorola's Standard Terms of Use and Motorola's Standard Terms and Conditions of Sales and Supply shall govern the purchase of the Products.

Motorola Solutions, Inc.: 500 West Monroe, United States - 60661 ~ #: 36-1115800

Page 3 ends

Line #

Item Number

Description

Qty

List Price

Disc %

Sale Price

Ext. Sale Price

3 NNTN8860A

CHARGER, SINGLE-UNIT,
IMPRES 2, 3A, 115VAC,
US/NA

16 $169.56

25.0%

$127.17

$2,034.72

4 NNTN8575ABLK

AUDIO ACCESSORY-

REMOTE SPEAKER

MICROPHONE,IMPRES XE

RSM XT CABLE BLACK

16 $581.04

25.0%

$435.78

$6,972.48

Subtotal
$133,922.40

Estimated Tax

$10,378.99

Grand Total

$144,301.39(USD)

Notes:

QUOTE-1789594

Motorola Solutions, Inc.: 500 West Monroe, United States - 60661 ~ #: 36-1115800

Page 4 ends

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #:
2315
File #:
0203-12 & 0201-01
Title:

LifePak Monitor/Defibrillators - Purchase Order and Budget Adjustment Contact:

Jason Rizzi 916-774-5802 [email protected]

Meeting Date: 9/21/2022
Item #: 6.5.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff recommends that the City Council approve
the purchase of thirteen
defibrillators
and adopt
an ordinance to approve a budget adjustment
of $105,000 to increase the existing budget for the
Defibrillator Replacement Project (500293) approved during the Fiscal Year (FY) 2021-22 budget from FY2020-21 General Fund year-end surplus funds. The total cost of the defibrillators is $854,480.

BACKGROUND
The Fire Department currently utilizes defibrillators that are over ten years old and nearing the end of their service life. These devices are a critical component of advanced life support and are located on each fire engine and ladder truck. These devices monitor a patient's vital signs and can provide life-saving treatments for those in cardiac arrest.

FISCAL IMPACT
On May 18, 2022 City Council approved a $750,000 appropriation from the FY2020-21 General Fund year-end surplus for the purchase of defibrillators for use by the Fire Department. The total cost of the defibrillators and related accessories is $854,480. The recommended budget adjustment will cover the $105,000 difference from the initial estimate with $56,000 in remaining funds from the purchase of intrinsically safe radios and $49,000 from the Equipment Replacement Fund.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to activities that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, or is otherwise not considered a project as defined by CEQA Statute §21065 and CEQA State Guidelines §15060(c)(3) and §15378. Approval of a purchase order and budget adjustment meets the above criteria and are not subject to CEQA. No additional environmental review is required.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal A - Maintain a safe and healthy community
Goal E - Deliver exceptional city services

Respectfully Submitted,
Jason Rizzi, Fire Division Chief
Rick Bartee, Fire Chief

_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Stryker Contract
Ordinance 6555
Budget Adjustment

ORDINANCE NO. 6555

ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
AUTHORIZING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2022-23

BUDGET AND DECLARING THIS ORDINANCE TO BE IMMEDIATELY

EFFECTIVE AS AN APPROPRIATION MEASURE

THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ORDAINS:

SECTION 1. The City of Roseville Annual Budget, Fiscal Year 2022-23, is hereby amended as listed on the attached budget adjustment for LifePak Monitors/Defibrillators for the Fire Department.

SECTION 2. This ordinance is hereby declared to be an appropriation measure, immediately effective pursuant to the provisions of Section 5.03 of the Charter.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Roseville, this ______________ day of _________________, 2022, by the following vote on roll call:

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:
_______________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:

__________________________
City Clerk

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #:
2314
File #:
0203-06
Title:

Network Firewalls Subscription and Support - Purchase Order Contact:

Cesar Gamez 916-774-5408 [email protected]

Meeting Date: 9/21/2022
Item #: 6.6.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff recommends Council approve a purchase order with CDW-G for the renewal of Palo Alto Networks subscription and support for the City's firewalls which provide critical security protections for all City systems and applications.

BACKGROUND
The City's systems and applications are protected from cyber attacks by these network firewalls.

These firewalls allow the public to securely access City services hosted internally, allow City employees to securely access the internet to perform their job duties, and provide remote access for employees working from home. These firewalls constantly monitor all internet access and use advanced technology for protection against cyber threats.

The cost for annual subscription and support of these firewalls is $122,388.82 through CDW-G using the competitively-bid contract Naspo ValuePoint AR3229 California Addendum 7-14-7047- 06 which is valid through September 9, 2024.

FISCAL IMPACT
The subscription and support cost totaling $122,388.82 is included in the approved FY2022-23 Information Technology Operations Fund budget.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to activities that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, or is otherwise not considered a project as defined by CEQA Statute §21065 and CEQA State Guidelines §15060(c)(3) and §15378. Approval of a purchase order for subscription and support of the City's network firewalls meet the above criteria and is not subject to CEQA. No additional environmental review is required.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal C - Maintain a safe and healthy community
Goal F - Invest in well-planned infrastructure and growth

Respectfully Submitted,
Cesar Gamez, Information Security Administrator
Hong Sae, Chief Information Officer

_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Palo Alto Networks Renewal CDW-G Quote

Page 1 of 4 ends

QUOTE CONFIRMATION

DEAR WES PHILPOTT,
Thank you for considering CDWG LLC for your computing needs. The details of your quote are below.

Click here to convert your quote to an order.

QUOTE # QUOTE DATE QUOTE REFERENCE CUSTOMER # GRAND TOTAL MWWQ348 8/4/2022 PAN RNWL 5344025 $122,388.82

QUOTE DETAILS
ITEM QTY CDW# UNIT PRICE EXT. PRICE
Palo Alto Networks Premium Support Program - technical
support (renewal) -
1 3060294 $1,746.00 $1,746.00
Mfg. Part#: PAN-SVC-PREM-PRA-25-R
UNSPSC: 86101601
Electronic distribution - NO MEDIA
Contract: California Palo Alto NVP Data Com - AR3229 (AR3229 7-14-7047-06)
Palo Threat Prevention for PA-850 - subscription license renewal (1 year) -
1 4884466 $1,418.14 $1,418.14
Mfg. Part#: PAN-PA-850-TP-HA2-R
UNSPSC: 43233205
Contract: California Palo Alto NVP Data Com - AR3229 (AR3229 7-14-7047-06)
Palo Alto Networks Premium Support - extended service
agreement (renewal) -
1 4884469 $1,746.00 $1,746.00
Mfg. Part#: PAN-SVC-PREM-850-R
UNSPSC: 81111811
Contract: California Palo Alto NVP Data Com - AR3229 (AR3229 7-14-7047-06)
Palo Alto Networks Premium Support - extended service
agreement (renewal) -
1 4884469 $1,746.00 $1,746.00
Mfg. Part#: PAN-SVC-PREM-850-R
UNSPSC: 81111811
Contract: California Palo Alto NVP Data Com - AR3229 (AR3229 7-14-7047-06)
Palo Threat Prevention for PA-850 - subscription license renewal (1 year) -
1 4884466 $1,418.14 $1,418.14
Mfg. Part#: PAN-PA-850-TP-HA2-R
UNSPSC: 43233205
Contract: California Palo Alto NVP Data Com - AR3229 (AR3229 7-14-7047-06)
Palo Alto Networks Advanced URL Filtering - subscription license renewal (1
1 6762756 $0.00 $0.00
Mfg. Part#: PAN-PA-820-ADVURL-HA2-R
Electronic distribution - NO MEDIA
Contract: California Palo Alto NVP Data Com - AR3229 (AR3229 7-14-7047-06)
Palo Threat Prevention for PA-820 - subscription license renewal (1 year) -
1 4994237 $672.52 $672.52
Mfg. Part#: PAN-PA-820-TP-HA2-R
UNSPSC: 43233205

Page 2 of 4 ends

QUOTEDETAILS(CONT.)Contract: California Palo Alto NVP Data Com - AR3229 (AR3229 7-14-7047-06)Palo Standard Support - extended service agreement (renewal) - 1 year1 5193995$558.00$558.00Mfg. Part#: PAN-SVC-STND-820-RUNSPSC: 81111811Contract: California Palo Alto NVP Data Com - AR3229 (AR3229 7-14-7047-06)Palo Alto Networks Advanced URL Filtering - subscription license renewal (11 6762756$1,173.00$1,173.00Mfg. Part#: PAN-PA-820-ADVURL-HA2-RElectronic distribution - NO MEDIAContract: California Palo Alto NVP Data Com - AR3229 (AR3229 7-14-7047-06)Palo Threat Prevention for PA-820 - subscription license renewal (1 year) -1 4994237$672.52$672.52Mfg. Part#: PAN-PA-820-TP-HA2-RUNSPSC: 43233205Contract: California Palo Alto NVP Data Com - AR3229 (AR3229 7-14-7047-06)Palo Standard Support - extended service agreement (renewal) - 1 year1 5193995$558.00$558.00Mfg. Part#: PAN-SVC-STND-820-RUNSPSC: 81111811Contract: California Palo Alto NVP Data Com - AR3229 (AR3229 7-14-7047-06)Palo Alto Threat Prevention Subscription, PANDB URL Filtering1 4953016$100.00$100.00Mfg. Part#: PAN-PA-220-BND-LAB4-RUNSPSC: 43233205Contract: California Palo Alto NVP Data Com - AR3229 (AR3229 7-14-7047-06)Palo Premium Support Program - extended service agreement (renewal) - 1 yea1 4757481$8,500.00$8,500.00Mfg. Part#: PAN-SVC-PREM-5220-RUNSPSC: 81111811Contract: California Palo Alto NVP Data Com - AR3229 (AR3229 7-14-7047-06)Palo Alto Networks DNS Security - subscription license renewal (1 year) - 11 5979168$8,644.50$8,644.50Mfg. Part#: PAN-PA-5220-DNS-HA2-RContract: California Palo Alto NVP Data Com - AR3229 (AR3229 7-14-7047-06)Palo GlobalProtect Gateway for PA-5220 - subscription license renewal (1 ye 1 4757496$8,644.50$8,644.50Mfg. Part#: PAN-PA-5220-GP-HA2-RUNSPSC: 43233204Contract: California Palo Alto NVP Data Com - AR3229 (AR3229 7-14-7047-06)WildFire for PA-5220 - subscription license renewal (1 year) - 1 device in 1 4757567$8,644.50$8,644.50Mfg. Part#: PAN-PA-5220-WF-HA2-RUNSPSC: 43233204Contract: California Palo Alto NVP Data Com - AR3229 (AR3229 7-14-7047-06)Palo Alto Networks Advanced URL Filtering - subscription license renewal (11 6744350$12,962.50$12,962.50Mfg. Part#: PAN-PA-5220-ADVURL-HA2-RElectronic distribution - NO MEDIAContract: California Palo Alto NVP Data Com - AR3229 (AR3229 7-14-7047-06)

Page 3 of 4 ends

QUOTE DETAILS (CONT.)
Palo Threat Prevention for PA-5220 - subscription license renewal (1 year)
1 4757498 $6,500.00 $6,500.00
Mfg. Part#: PAN-PA-5220-TP-HA2-R
UNSPSC: 43233204
Contract: California Palo Alto NVP Data Com - AR3229 (AR3229 7-14-7047-06)
Palo Alto Networks Advanced URL Filtering - subscription license renewal (1
1 6744350 $12,962.50 $12,962.50
Mfg. Part#: PAN-PA-5220-ADVURL-HA2-R
Electronic distribution - NO MEDIA
Contract: California Palo Alto NVP Data Com - AR3229 (AR3229 7-14-7047-06)
Palo Premium Support Program - extended service agreement (renewal) - 1 yea
1 4757481 $9,144.00 $9,144.00
Mfg. Part#: PAN-SVC-PREM-5220-R
UNSPSC: 81111811
Contract: California Palo Alto NVP Data Com - AR3229 (AR3229 7-14-7047-06)
Palo Threat Prevention for PA-5220 - subscription license renewal (1 year)
1 4757498 $8,644.50 $8,644.50
Mfg. Part#: PAN-PA-5220-TP-HA2-R
UNSPSC: 43233204
Contract: California Palo Alto NVP Data Com - AR3229 (AR3229 7-14-7047-06)
WildFire for PA-5220 - subscription license renewal (1 year) - 1 device in
1 4757567 $8,644.50 $8,644.50
Mfg. Part#: PAN-PA-5220-WF-HA2-R
UNSPSC: 43233204
Contract: California Palo Alto NVP Data Com - AR3229 (AR3229 7-14-7047-06)
Palo Alto Networks DNS Security - subscription license
renewal (1 year) - 1
1 5979168 $8,644.50 $8,644.50
Mfg. Part#: PAN-PA-5220-DNS-HA2-R
Contract: California Palo Alto NVP Data Com - AR3229 (AR3229 7-14-7047-06)
Palo GlobalProtect Gateway for PA-5220 - subscription license renewal (1 ye
1 4757496 $8,644.50 $8,644.50
Mfg. Part#: PAN-PA-5220-GP-HA2-R
UNSPSC: 43233204
Contract: California Palo Alto NVP Data Com - AR3229 (AR3229 7-14-7047-06)
PURCHASER BILLING INFO SUBTOTAL $122,388.82
Billing Address:

CITY OF ROSEVILLE

ACCOUNTS PAYABLES
311 VERNON ST
ROSEVILLE, CA 95678-2649
Phone: (916) 774-5720
Payment Terms: Net 30 Days-Govt State/Local
SHIPPING $0.00
SALES TAX $0.00
GRAND TOTAL $122,388.82
DELIVER TO Please remit payments to:

Page 4 of 4 ends

Shipping Address:

CITY OF ROSEVILLE

WES PHILPOTT
316 VERNON ST STE 300
ROSEVILLE, CA 95678-2635
Shipping Method: DROP SHIP-GROUND
CDW Government
75 Remittance Drive
Suite 1515
Chicago, IL 60675-1515
Need Assistance? CDWG LLC SALES CONTACT INFORMATION
Jeff Butchko | (877) 853-0557 | [email protected]

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #:
2317
File #:
0102
Title:

Response to 2021-2022 Grand Jury Final Report: Homelessness in Placer County Contact:

Dion Louthan 916-774-5362 [email protected]

Meeting Date: 9/21/2022
Item #: 6.7.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute a response to the Placer County Grand Jury’s 2021-22 Final Report: Homelessness in Placer County.

BACKGROUND
On June 30, 2022, the Placer County Grand Jury issued its 2021-22 Final Report:

Homelessness in Placer County.

The report included seventeen (17) findings and nine (9) recommendations (mostly directed to Placer County), based on the Grand Jury’s investigations, as required by law. Of the nine (9) recommendations, the Roseville City Manager was directed to provide a response, along with the Mayor, to recommendation #5 only. Upon approval by the City Council, the response will be provided to the Presiding Judge of the Placer County Superior Court and to the Placer County Grand Jury.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this particular request.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal B - Support community engagement and advocacy
Goal C - Maintain a safe and healthy community

Respectfully Submitted,
Dion Louthan, Assistant City Manager
Dominick Casey, City Manager

_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Resolution 22-365
Draft Response to 2021-22 Grand Jury Final Report
2021-2022 Grand Jury Final Report
RESOLUTION NO. 22-365

AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE RESPONSE TO THE 2021-22 GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT

ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE

WHEREAS, on June 30, 2022, the Placer County Grand Jury issued a final report entitled “Homelessness in Placer County”; and

WHEREAS, the report included seventeen (17) findings and nine (9) recommendations (mostly directed to Placer County), based on the Grand Jury’s investigations, as required by law; and

WHEREAS, of the nine (9) recommendations, the Roseville City Manager was directed to provide a response, along with the Mayor, to recommendation #5 only; and

WHEREAS, upon approval by the City Council, the responses will be provided to the Presiding Judge of the Placer County Superior Court and to the Placer County Grand Jury; and

WHEREAS, the response to the 2021-22 Grand Jury Final Report, has been reviewed by the City Council; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roseville that the Mayor and the City Manager are hereby authorized to execute the response to the 2021-22 Grand Jury Final Report on behalf of the City of Roseville.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Roseville this ___ day of ______________, 20__, by the following vote on roll call:

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

______________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:

________________________
City Clerk
916.774.5362 • Fax • 916.774.5485 TDD 916.774.5220 • [email protected] • www.roseville.ca.us September 21, 2022
The Honorable Alan V. Pineschi
Presiding Judge
Superior Court County of Placer
P.O. Box 619072
Roseville, CA 95661
The Honorable Suzanne I. Gazzaniga
Advising Grand Jury Judge
Superior Court County of Placer
P.O. Box 619072
Roseville, CA 95661
Lorena Sims
Foreperson
2021-2022 Placer County Grand Jury
11532 B Avenue
Auburn, CA 95603
R
e: Response to 2021-2022 Grand Jury Final Report
Homelessness in Placer County
D
ear Honorable Judge Pineschi, Honorable Suzanne I. Gazzaniga, and Placer County Grand Jury:

We w
ould like to thank the Placer County Grand Jury for your continued dedication to the citizens of Placer County. We are pleased to submit our response to the 2021 -2022 Grand Jury Final Report:

Homelessness in Placer County.

Report Title: Homelessness in Placer County
Report Date: Released to the public on June 30, 2022
Response By: Krista Bernasconi, Mayor and Dominick Casey, City Manager F

INDINGS
T
he 2021-2022 Grand Jury Final Report: Homelessness in Placer County contains 17 specific findings. Pursuant to Penal Code §933(c), we provide the following responses to those findings “pertaining to matters under the control” of ourselves and the City of Roseville. For those findings that are not “pertaining to matters under the control” of ourselves or the City of Roseville, the response will note that.

W
e agree with the finding numbered: F13.

W
e partially disagree with the findings numbered: F1, F5, F6, F7, F8.

As
to findings numbered F2, F3, F4, F9, F10, F11, F12, F14, F15, F16, F17 we are unable to provide a response because the matter is not under the control of ourselves or the City of Roseville (per Penal Code § 933(c)) and we lack personal knowledge as to the findings.

City Council
311 Vernon Street
Roseville, California 95678
F
1: There is no single entity, departm ent, or individual providing oversight and leadership in Placer County for the homeless issue resulting in uncoordinated or overlapping services.

W
e agree with the initial part of the findings that says: “[t]here is no single entity, department, or individual providing oversight and leadership in Placer County for the homeless issue”, but disagree with the statement that this has resulted in “uncoordinated or overlapping services”.

W
ithin the scope of its jurisdiction, the City of Roseville has coordinated with local non-profits, governmental stakeholders, including Placer County, businesses, and other community groups to provide a multitude of services, including mental health and substance abuse services, food and housing, veteran services, and transportation services (see response to recommendation R5 below for specific details). While some of these services do overlap, it is intentional, so as to ensure these critical services are available to the unsheltered.

F
5: 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.

W
e partially disagree with this findings because Martin v. Boise expressly says that individuals can be moved in many situations. Specifically, the Court held: “Naturally, our holding does not cover individuals who do have access to adequate temporary shelter, whether because they have the means to pay for it or because it is realistically available to them for free, but who choose not to use it. Nor do we suggest that a jurisdiction with insufficient shelter can never criminalize the act of sleeping outside. Even where shelter is unavailable, an ordinance prohibiting sitting, lying, or sleeping outside at particular times or in particular locations might well be constitutionally permissible.” Martin v. Boise (2019) 920 F.3d 584, fn8.

F
6: The creation of low barrier shelters would fulfill the requirements of Martin v. B oise 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 are faced with today.

W
e partially disagree with this finding insofar as it suggests low barrier shelters would fulfill the requirements of Martin v. Boise. What qualifies as acceptable shelter under Martin v. Boise is still an open and unsettled question of law. The Court in Martin v. Boise made clear that if a condition for staying at a shelter “functionally limits access” to that shelter, then that shelter cannot count towards the number of shelter beds required under Martin v. Boise. Meaning, if a low-barrier shelter has conditions that require Placer County residency, being clean and sober, etc., those conditions likely result in the shelter space not counting towards the required shelter under Martin v. Boise.

A
dditionally, because of this lack of ability to place conditions on a shelter, we partially disagree with the finding insofar as it says, “[l]ow barrier shelters could resolve many of the homeless problems Placer County and local jurisdictions are faced with today.” It is likely you are trading one issue for another, without elimination of the root issues.

La
stly, with regard to the reference to Placer County’s Housing Element 2021-2029, HE-41, we are unable to provide a response because the matter is not under the control of ourselves or the City of Roseville (per Penal Code § 933(c)) and we lack personal knowledge as to the findings.

F
7: A local non-profit entity proposes a facility that, if approved, might address some of the needs of the homeless in Placer County.

We disagree with this response, insofar as it states that the proposed facility “might address some of the needs of the homeless in Placer County”. There has been no final plan or concept provided for this facility in order for the City of Roseville to evaluate what needs it may or may not ultimately address (and whether it will create new issues and needs). At this point in time it is premature to comment on whether the proposed facility will address needs, and so we disagree insofar as it assumes the facility will adequately address needs of the homeless.

F8: The State of California Assembly Bill 2630 if passed, wou ld 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 received and spent.

We partially disagree with this finding, insofar as it implies Placer County is not being transparent about funding. In addition, Assembly Bill 2630 was not enacted in the California legislature this session and has not advanced in any final form to allow for comment about what it will or will not do.

RECOMMENDATIONS

R5 – By January 1, 2023, all cities and jurisdictions in Placer County shall identify and apply for grants, allocate funds, and establish their own municipal low barrier facilities.

Response to R5 – The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not reasonable. This response assumes that the Grand Jury is recommending that the grants to be identified, applied for, and allocated, are specific to operation of a low barrier facility. This clarification is made because the City of Roseville actively identifies grants, applies for grants, and allocates those funds to issues related to homelessness. Specifically, the City of Roseville has actively sought and applied Rapid Rehousing and Homeless Prevention grant funds, Community Development Block Grant Funds (CDBG), Permanent Local Housing Allocation funds, and many other State and Federal grant funds towards homelessness.

The reason that this recommendation is not reasonable is because, legally and fiscally, it is not possible to apply for, receive, and allocate, mid-budget year, the funding necessary to operate a municipal low barrier facility of any size, especially by January 1, 2023. Even if all funding for the “establishment” of such a municipal low barrier facility was secured before the end this calendar year (which is mid-fiscal year) there is no allocation of funding for ongoing operation of such a municipal facility (as no grant fund source can guarantee funding for indefinite future years).

Additionally, a municipally operated low barrier facility does not have historical success at addressing the long-term nature of homelessness (based on national and statewide data). There has historically been unwillingness by those experiencing homelessness to access congregate shelter models, as noted in the Grand Jury Final Report itself. For this reason, many years ago the City of Roseville invested in and allowed the land use and zoning for, Permanent Supportive Housing (“PSH”). PSH is a proven housing method that reduces homelessness and allows for permanent housing, not just temporary shelter. The Roseville Housing Division grants approximately $700,000 annually to local service providers who support those experiencing homelessness or are at risk of homelessness and invest in capital improvement projects, many of which provide emergency and PSH to formerly homeless individuals.

Furthermore, the Roseville Housing Division works closely with the Placer Built for Zero (BFZ) team to address the top 100 persons who had been on the Veteran’s By Name List (BNL) the longest. The BNL is a comprehensive list of every veteran in Placer County experiencing homelessness. The intention of the list is to remove barriers and permanently house every person, using supportive services as necessary. This goal is to reduce both the average length of stay in homelessness and the number of those on the list who are chronically homeless. The list is updated monthly at team meetings. As of spring 2022, at least 24 individuals have been permanently housed.

Moreover, the Roseville Housing Authority oversees the Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCV) to ensure safe and affordable housing for residents. Through monthly rental assistance payments, the HCV invests over $7 million into the local rental economy annually. With the addition of Emergency Housing Vouchers (EHVs), the Roseville Housing Authority currently has authorization to lease up to 815 vouchers. Special vouchers currently equal 168 EHVs, VASH (which are for veterans), and Mainstream vouchers and must serve those who are homeless or at risk of homelessness.

Roseville’s Development Services Department processes the entitlements, which result in the production of both affordable and market rate housing opportunities. An average of 100 affordable units and 900 market-rate single-family homes are produced annually. While production remains close to average, the City has seen a significant increase in applications for affordable housing projects in the past year. In the 2021 calendar year, the City processed plans/building permit applications for a total of 560 affordable rental units. During the same period the City processed applications for 2,240 market rate housing units. The affordable housing projects were processed through the City’s new Objective Design Standards process, which is a streamlined ministerial process. Based on last year’s data, affordable housing represents 20% of the total approved units when comparing affordable units to market rate single-family units, which is a much higher share than typical.

In addition to these strong housing programs aimed at addressing the long term success of those experiencing homelessness and working to keep people from becoming homeless in the first place, the City of Roseville focuses its efforts on wrap-around services, addressing all aspects of homelessness, not just housing.

For example, the Roseville Police Department maintains a Social Services Unit (SSU), which is a Problem-Oriented Policing (POP) Unit. SSU consists of two full-time POP Officers, a practitioner, multiple embedded county liaisons and one full-time Sergeant. Individuals who are at high risk with mental health needs, substance use, or chronic offenders, are often referred to SSU. The goal of SSU is to proactively address various issues in our community through innovation, collaboration, and solution-focused policing methods, while striving for long-term and meaningful results. SSU uses a blended model of enforcement and services to create impactful results throughout the community.

In 2020, the Roseville Police Department created two Homeless Outreach positions to work with the SSU, whose focus is linking homeless individuals to services throughout the county. The project was funded through CDBG funds, and the Downtown Roseville Partnership (DRP). There were no General Fund dollars used for this project. The contract provides two part-time Homeless Outreach Workers from Placer County Health and Human Services that are embedded within the SSU.

This collaborative social worker/police team contact the highest-risk community members each month to increase the potential for their participation in housing, programs and services that will help them overcome homelessness or other challenges they may have.

The Roseville Police Department and Code Enforcement work in partnership with enforcement of the City’s municipal codes and controlling blight. We have embedded a Code Enforcement Inspector within the SSU. The City is now more effective in handling quality of life issues and homeless-related concerns. In the first three months of the program, 75 code enforcement and blight related issues were addressed.

The Parks, Recreation & Libraries Department (PRL) continues to balance the needs of those experiencing homelessness in our community with daily maintenance duties, in an effort to provide safe spaces for all Roseville residents and to protect Roseville’s natural resources. PRL’s efforts are primarily based on addressing the results of homelessness, rather than the prevention.

PRL has been very successful conducting homeless camp debris cleanup. PRL’s success is due to its excellent partnership with the Roseville Police Department’s SSU and patrol division. This is done through GIS technology and a mobile application to track data. Adopting this technology has improved efficiencies and assists with data collection. The SSU then coordinates with the PRL Open Space team to clean the identified location after all required outreach and legal notices are completed.

Some location cleanups require coordination with outside agencies, including Caltrans, Placer County Sheriff’s Office and Placer County Probation. Communication with these outside agencies provides efficiencies through the sharing of information and a better understanding of each agency’s methods for addressing homelessness impacts.

Since the legal landscape is a factor in what options local government has to address homelessness, the Roseville City Attorney’s Office is constantly monitoring the ever changing laws that impact our daily life and ensuring that Roseville complies with those laws and avails itself of all options available to it.

Roseville’s Government Relations team has a robust state and federal legislative advocacy program which continues to actively support legislation that provides resources to programs for those experiencing homelessness and their families. Over the past 3 years this effort has included advocating on more than 62 bills and attending more than 39 meetings with state and federal representatives, departments, and agencies.

The efforts also include working with the Invest Health team that is focused on finding innovative solutions to the issues facing the city’s core neighborhoods. The Invest Health team is working collaboratively with service providers, health care systems, non-profits, schools and others to address the impacts of homelessness in community parks and the surrounding neighborhoods.

As you can see from the programs and services provided above, the City of Roseville takes the issue of homelessness very seriously. It has implemented a multi-faceted approach to addressing homelessness and the issues caused by homelessness. We again would like to thank the 2021-2022 Placer County Grand Jury for its report and service to the City of Roseville.

Sincerely,

Krista Bernasconi Dominick Casey
Mayor City Manager

Cc: Roseville City Council
Roseville City Attorney
Roseville City Clerk
Placer County Board of Supervisors
Placer County Executive Officer

PLACER COUNTY GRAND JURY
2021-2022 FINAL REPORT

STATE OF

CALIFORNIA
June 2022

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
ii
Cover Photos
(Clockwise from top left)
Truckee Tahoe Airport – Norma J. Worley
Lincoln City Hall – Bob Bettencourt
Schuyler Colfax Statue – Bill Oudegeest
Auburn Historical Courthouse – Joe Sledge
DeWitt Homeless Encampment 1 – Norma J. Worley
South Placer Adult Correctional Facility – Joe Sledge
DeWitt Homeless Encampment 2 – Norma J. Worley
Distance Learning Student – Monica Gavia
Auburn Juvenile Detention Facility – Joe Sledge
Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
iii

The Honorable Alan V. Pineschi
Presiding Judge, Superior Court
County of Placer
P.O. Box 619072
Roseville, CA 95661
The Honorable Suzanne I. Gazzaniga
Advising Grand Jury Judge, Superior Court
County of Placer
P.O. Box 619072
Roseville, CA 95661

and Citizens of Placer County

Subject: 2021 – 2022 Grand Jury Final Report

Dear Judge Pineschi, Judge Gazzaniga, and Citizens of Placer County:

With great pride I present the final report of the 2021-2022 Placer County Grand Jury. On behalf of all of the members of the grand jury, I would like to acknowledge the advice and guidance provided by our Advising Judge, the Honorable Suzanne I. Gazzaniga and our Presiding Judge, the Honorable Alan V. Pineschi. We also appreciate the assistance from Emily Taylor, Deputy County Counsel, who provided us with legal counsel, wisdom, and advice. Our gratitude also goes to the Grand Jury Office Manager, Shane Campbell-Kaslin, for her invaluable assistance throughout the year and without whom we would be lost.

In late June of 2021, nineteen Placer County residents, together with fifteen alternate jurors, volunteered and were sworn in to serve as the 2021-2022 Placer County Grand Jury.

It has been an honor to serve with such an outstanding group of citizens. Each individual contributed valuable experience and dedication in carrying out our function as watchdog over city and county government.

This final report contains the results of investigations required by law, those requested by citizens, and those internally generated. It is the culmination of investigations that began when the jury was empaneled last July. Many of the issues, however, are on-going and concerns raised during the investigations may be resolved by the time of this publication.

Sincerely,

Lorena Sims, Foreperson
2021-2022 Placer County Grand Jury

PLACER COUNTY GRAND JURY
11532 B Avenue, Auburn, CA 95603 Phone: (530) 886-5200 Email: [email protected]

FAX: (530) 886-5201

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
iv

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
v
MEMBERS OF THE 2021-2022 GRAND JURY
June 8, 2022

Thank you, citizens of Placer County, for granting us the privilege to serve on the 2021-2022 Placer County Grand Jury.

Lorena Sims – Foreperson
Auburn
Bob Bettencourt
Roseville
Jan Borrego
Sgt.-At-Arms
Lincoln
Mark Brown
Tech Coordinator
Roseville
Dennis Dohner
Roseville
Marti Fischer
Secretary
Auburn
Wayne Fiske
Foresthill
Monica Gavia
Penryn
Gail Graybeal
Roseville
Phil Hermanson
Lincoln
Paul Jessen
Lincoln
Larry Langham
Granite Bay
Bill Oudegeest
Soda Springs
Chuck Phillips
Rocklin
Sherry Rutledge
Roseville
Joe Sledge
Roseville
Sheral Manges Tennell
Roseville
Norma J. Worley
Pro Tem
Gold Run
Lupine
Future Service Dog
Roseville
Photo Credit: Cynthia Soszka, Placer County Communications and Public Affairs Not Pictured: Jan Borrego, Phil Hermanson, Paul Jessen, Joe Sledge Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
vi

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
vii
Table of Contents
Introduction 1
Instructions for Respondents 7
Final Report Summaries 11

Reports

City of Colfax - Citizen Complaint Process 15
Cybersecurity - Is Placer County Prepared for Cyber Threats? 25 Homelessness in Placer County 39
Lincoln, California - A City in Transition 71
Livestreaming of Classes – Rapid Response from Public Schools 83 During the COVID-19 Pandemic
Placer County Jails and Holding Facilities - Annual Inspection 89 Report 2021-2022
Placer County Juvenile Detention Facility and Rocklin Police 105 Department Juvenile Holding Facility - Annual Inspection Report 2021-2022
Truckee Tahoe Airport District - A Model Airport 115
Continuity and Accountability - Review of Placer County Grand 125 Jury Reports from 2020-2021

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
viii

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
1 Introduction to the Grand Jury
What is the Grand Jury?
The grand jury is an investigatory body with the authority to act as a watchdog over local government, to investigate citizen complaints, and to assist in criminal matters at the request of the district attorney.

The grand jury is part of the county judicial system as authorized by the California State Constitution. It is advised by the Placer County Superior Court and is not accountable to elected officials or government employees. Its findings and recommendations are unbiased and impartial. Grand jurors are sworn to secrecy and, other than final reports, their work is kept strictly confidential.

History
The jury system is rooted in English common law and dates from the eleventh century.

In 1215, the Magna Carta stated that “No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.”

In 1635, the Massachusetts Bay Colony impaneled the first grand jury in North America to consider cases of murder, robbery and wife beating. The U.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment and the California Constitution Article 1 call for grand juries. Grand juries were established throughout California during the early years of statehood. As constituted today, criminal and civil grand juries are a part of the judicial branch of government and function as arms of the court system.

Investigations
The grand jury is an investigatory body created for the protection of society and the enforcement of the law. The grand jury in California is unusual because its duties include investigation of local and county governments as provided by statutes passed in 1880.

The primary duty of the grand jury is to evaluate local government entities through a systematic fact-finding process. The objective of the investigations is to produce beneficial reports that persuade local officials to run agencies more effectively and efficiently. The final report is the result of investigative efforts and is the only public record of that endeavor.

Anyone may ask a grand jury to investigate a civil issue that falls within the grand jury’s jurisdiction. Whether it chooses to investigate such a complaint is entirely in the jury’s discretion and may be affected by workload, resource limitations, or jurisdictional issues.

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
2 By law, all proceedings of a grand jury are confidential. Findings and recommendations are published in its final report. After a final report is published, the official or governing body of an agency covered in the report must respond to the grand jury within a given period of time as prescribed by California law. Elected officers or agency heads must respond within 60 days. Governing bodies of public agencies must respond within 90 days. The following year’s grand jury publishes the responses to the final report.

Upon occasion, the district attorney asks a grand jury to hold hearings in criminal investigations to determine whether evidence presented by the district attorney is sufficient to indict an individual, who would then stand trial in court. A minimum of twelve grand jurors must vote for an indictment in any criminal proceeding.

Placer County Grand Jury Committees
The 2021-2022 Placer County Grand Jury served a one-year term from June 29, 2021 through July 11, 2022. In performing its duties, it examined county government, special districts, school districts, and city governments and inspected jails and holding facilities.

Most grand jury work is done by committee. A typical juror serves on three committees and may be an officer on two of those committees. Committees usually meet at least twice each month.

Audit and Finance
This committee may audit county government offices, departments, agencies, and districts as needed and as mandated by law. It also reviews monthly grand jury expenses against the budget.

Cities
This committee may investigate incorporated cities and towns within Placer County. The c
ommittee investigates the operations or functions of one or more city departments or functions. The six cities and towns are Auburn, Colfax, Lincoln, Loomis, Rocklin, and Roseville.

Continuity and Editorial
This committee is responsible for ensuring that the written reports of the grand jury are f
actual, clear, concise, and readable. Editing includes proper punctuation, spelling, grammar, and formatting. This committee also leads the ongoing task of updating the Placer County Grand Jury Handbook so that subsequent grand juries may make a smooth transition into a new term.

County Administration
The scope of this committee is all Placer County government not specifically assigned to ano
ther committee. This includes investigations of appointed boards and commissions, the Board of Supervisors, Assessor, County Executive Office, and others.

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
3 Criminal Justice
This committee is mandated to inspect jails and holding facilities in Placer County each y
ear. It also may investigate matters concerning criminal justice. This committee also considers all matters concerning law enforcement and public safety.

Health and Welfare
This committee investigates issues related to the social services of Placer County. In ad
dition, it has oversight responsibility for the Juvenile Detention Facility inspection.

Schools and Libraries
This committee investigates public educational institutions and public libraries. It has no ju
risdiction over school policies or personnel.

Special Districts
This committee investigates special districts, agencies, boards, commissions, and joint p
owers agencies serving Placer County. Examples of these special districts include water agencies, cemetery districts, fire districts, and hospitals. A nonprofit corporation established by or operated on behalf of any public entity over which the grand jury has jurisdiction may also be investigated.

Jurisdiction
The areas within the investigatory jurisdiction of the Placer County Grand Jury include:
• persons imprisoned in the county jail on a criminal charge and not indicted; • the condition and management of the public jails within the county; • willful or corrupt misconduct in office of public officers of every description within the county;
• county government, city government, special districts, school districts, agencies, and authorities;
• criminal hearings upon request of the district attorney.

The areas which are not within Placer County Grand Jury jurisdiction include:
• Federal agencies;
• State agencies;
• Superior court system;
• School district personnel records, curriculum, and policy.

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
4 Grand Juror Qualifications
Prospective grand jurors must possess the following qualifications per California Penal Code § 893:
• applicant is a citizen of the United States, 18 years or older, who has been a resident of Placer County for one year immediately before being selected and sworn in;
• applicant is in possession of his or her natural faculties, of ordinary intelligence, of sound judgment, and of fair character;
• applicant is possessed of sufficient knowledge of the English language.

A person is not allowed to serve as a grand juror if:
• serving as a trial juror in any California court;
• convicted of a felony;
• discharged as a grand juror in any court of this state within one year; • convicted of malfeasance in office or any felony or other high crime; or • serving as an elected public officer.

Desirable qualifications for a grand juror include:
• computer and Internet communication skills;
• good health;
• open-minded with concern for the views of others;
• ability to work with others;
• genuine interest in community affairs; and
• investigative skills and an ability to write reports.

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
5 Juror Selection
In the spring of each year, the Presiding Judge of the Placer County Superior Court solicits applications from citizens of the county. Applicants should expect that a criminal records check will be conducted. Applications are reviewed and an interview is scheduled with the presiding and supervising judges as well as the foreperson of the outgoing grand jury.

After the interview process, prospective applicants are required to appear for the final selection which is held in a Placer County Superior Court courtroom. With outgoing grand jurors in attendance, the court clerk draws nineteen names at random. A minimum of ten names are drawn to form a list of alternate jurors.

The presiding judge then swears in the new nineteen grand jury members and gives them a description of their duties and responsibilities. The jurors begin a one-year term in July.

Commitment
Persons selected for grand jury service can expect to serve forty or more hours per month for a period of one year, generally, from July 1 through June 30. Jurors may opt to serve a second consecutive year, if approved by the court.

Remuneration
Grand jurors receive a nominal payment for meetings they attend and are reimbursed for mileage to attend meetings and training.

Orientation
New jurors are encouraged to attend an orientation program about grand jury functions and receive information about county, city, and special district governments.

Why Become a Grand Juror?
Those who volunteer and are accepted for grand jury service should feel privileged to be selected. They enter this service with interest and curiosity to learn more about the administration and operation of Placer County government. Serving as a grand juror requires many hours and serious effort and reflects a generous commitment to public service.

How to Apply to Serve as a Grand Juror
Download a Prospective County Grand Jury Application, available at http://www.PlacerGrandJury.org. Fill it out and follow the directions at the end of the application.

Grand Jury Reports
The Placer County Superior Court maintains web pages for the grand jury on its website. Past and present final reports, and responses to those final reports, may be found at http://www.PlacerGrandJury.org.

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
6 How to Submit a Confidential Citizen Complaint
All complaints must be submitted in writing. A confidential citizen complaint form is available online at http://www.placergrandjury.org a nd may be submitted electronically. The form may also be mailed, faxed, or hand-delivered to the grand jury office at the address below. The citizen will receive a letter acknowledging receipt of the complaint.

All grand jury documents, including citizen complaints, are secret and cannot be s
ubpoenaed in court or revealed to the public. Complainants’ names are held in strictest confidence.

How to Contact the Grand Jury
By Mail: Placer County Grand Jury
11532 B Avenue
Auburn, CA 95603
In Person: Materials can be placed in a drop box located by the entrance door to the above address.

Online: http://www.placergrandjury.org
By Phone: (530) 886-5200
By Fax: (530) 886-5201
Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
7 INSTRUCTIONS FOR RESPONDENTS

The legal requirements affecting respondents and responses to Grand Jury findings and recommendations are contained in California Penal Code § 933.05. The full text of the law is provided at the end of this document.

Two different time periods for responses, and to whom you must respond is defined in California Penal Code § 933(c). They are as follows:

Type of Agency Time Frame To Whom
Government
Boards
Ninety (90)
Days
• Presiding Judge of the Superior Court
Elective Office or
Agency Head
Sixty (60) Days • Presiding Judge of the Superior Court • Information copy to Board of
Supervisors

An original signed copy of the response must be provided to both of the following:

1. Presiding Judge of the Placer County Superior Court at the address listed below:

The Honorable Alan V. Pineschi
Presiding Judge of the Superior Court
County of Placer
P.O. Box 619072
Roseville, CA 95661

2. Placer County Grand Jury at the address listed below:

Placer County Grand Jury
11532 B Avenue
Auburn, CA 95603
When responding to more than one report, respondents must respond to each report separately.

You are encouraged to use the Response to Grand Jury Report Form, attached, to help format and organize your response. An electronic version of the form is available upon request from the Grand Jury.

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
8 RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY REPORT FORM
Report Title:

Report Date:

Response By: Title:

FINDINGS
• I (we) agree with the findings, numbered: _______________. • I (we) disagree wholly or partially with the findings, numbered:
___________.
(Describe here or attach a statement specifying any portions of the f
indings that are disputed or not applicable; include an explanation of the reasons therefore.)

RECOMMENDATIONS
• Recommendations numbered _____________ have been implemented. (Describe here or attach a summary statement regarding the implemented actions.)

• Recommendations numbered _____________ have not yet been implemented but will be implemented in the future, with a target date of _________________________. (Per Penal Code § 933.05(b)(2), a time frame for implementation must be included.

Describe here or in an attachment.)
• Recommendations numbered _____________ require further analysis. This analysis will be completed by _______________________.
(Describe here or attach an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or director of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six (6) months from the date of publication of the grand jury report.)

• Recommendations numbered _____________ will not be implemented because they are not warranted or are not reasonable.
(Describe here or attach an explanation.)
Date: Signed:

Number of pages attached _____

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
9 CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE § 933.05
(emphasis added)
(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Penal Code § 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following:
(1) T he respondent agrees with the finding.
(2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding; in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore.
(b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Penal Code § 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions:
(1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action.
(2) The recommendation ha s not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation.
(3) The recommendation re quires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report.
(4) The recommendation wi
ll not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation, therefore.
(c) However, if a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel ma
tters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the board of supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the board of supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision-making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department.
(d) A grand jury may request a subject person or entity to come before the grand jury for the purpose of reading and discussing the findings of the grand jury report that relates to that person or entity in order to verify the accuracy of the findings prior to their release. (e) During an investigation, the grand jury shall meet with the subject of that investigation regarding the investigation, unless the court, either on its own determination or upon request of the foreperson of the grand jury, determines that such a meeting would be detrimental. (f) A grand jury shall provide to the affected agency a copy of the portion of the grand jury report relating to that person or entity two working days prior to its public release and after the approval of the presiding judge. No officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency shall disclose any contents of the report prior to the public release of the final report.

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
10 Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
11 Final Report Summaries
City of Colfax - Citizen Complaint Process
The 2021-2022 Placer County Grand Jury received a citizen complaint alleging “harassment,” “bullying,” and “slander” by a City of Colfax elected official as described by the complainant on their completed Placer County Grand Jury Confidential Complaint Form. The citizen first addressed these concerns with the Placer County Assistant to the Undersheriff, was directed to the Colfax city manager, and then told to bring the concern to city council members or the grand jury. This was also detailed on the complainant’s grand jury complaint form.

California Penal Code § 919(c) states, in part, “The grand jury shall inquire into willful or corrupt misconduct in office of public officers of every description within the county.” The grand jury determined after interviews with the complainant and witnesses that the alleged behavior did not rise to the level of “willful or corrupt misconduct.” As a result of information uncovered in the course of this investigation, the grand jury instead focused on the city’s complaint process and not the alleged misconduct activity by any public official.

Cybersecurity - Is Placer County Prepared for Cyber Threats? Government entities and private businesses face the daily risk of cyber attacks. In the Sacramento region, both the Lodi School District and Sierra College experienced system shutdowns in 2021 due to unauthorized access with resulting sabotage. The Placer County Grand Jury investigated the exposure that Placer County information systems might be facing. The grand jury found that the Placer County Information Technology (PCIT) department has an excellent program to protect their information systems. The effort is well staffed and well managed. The grand jury did identify some improvements that should be evaluated for adoption.

Homelessness in Placer County
In Placer County, on any given night, approximately seven hundred unhoused men, women, and children sleep in tents, cars, shelters, or on sidewalks. Point-in-time (PIT) reports, together with Placer County Health and Human Services (HHS) data, indicate that the majority fall into the category of chronic homelessness of one year or more.

Placer County Animal Services (PCAS) is located less than a half mile away. Although the DeWitt Center is the focal point of this investigation, it is an indicator of a county-wide problem.

The grand jury set out to investigate the challenges experienced by the homeless and the barriers for individuals entering shelters and utilizing services available to them.

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
12 Lincoln, California – A City in Transition
The city of Lincoln is a rapidly growing city. Its population increased 282.1 percent between 2000 and 2010, making it the fastest growing city with over 10,000 people in the United States. As a result of this significant growth, Lincoln is at a crossroads.

The confluence of events potentially impacting Lincoln’s financial stability are (1) citizen mistrust of its government, and (2) urban sprawl that has farmers at odds with city council.

A 2019 state auditor’s report on the city of Lincoln, titled Fiscal Mismanagement, Insufficient Accountability and Lax Oversight Threaten the City’s Stability (the state auditor’s report), pinpoints many issues of this fast-growing city.

In the past few years, Lincoln has made noticeable changes to its city government with the election of new city council members, a commitment to greater government transparency, and more recently, hiring a new, experienced city manager. Despite these advances, some residents and a few generational farmers are at odds with the Lincoln City Council (LCC) and the Lincoln Planning Commission (LPC). Other citizens have pointed out continuing concerns that have not been addressed. These include financial issues, lack of transparency, prior grand jury reports, the current city plan, and overall approach to growth and other governing problems.

Livestreaming of Classes
Rapid Response from Schools During the COVID-19 Pandemic The COVID-19 pandemic that began in 2020 forced Placer County public schools to readjust how students were to be taught. Superintendents, principals, teachers, students, and parents participated in the necessary shift from in-class learning to distance learning, coordinated by the Placer County Office of Education. Numerous obstacles were overcome by the persistence and ingenuity of all involved. The experience and knowledge gained by Placer County educators will be useful if and/or when future disasters occur, such as fires, floods, and disease outbreaks.

The pandemic brought to focus the need for developing and increasing the use of technology in the education of students, not only in a classroom setting, but in off-site settings as well. Livestreaming of neighborhood school classes during the pandemic months demonstrated it to be a workable learning option. Once students returned to the school setting, the use of this technology, was discontinued. The Placer County Grand Jury (PCGJ) researched how Placer County school districts handled implementation of alternative teaching methods during the pandemic and if livestreaming of a neighborhood campus is subsequently being considered as an alternative mode of instruction available to students who choose to continue to study at home but still be a part of the local campus.

Placer County Jails and Holding Facilities
Inspection Report 2021-2022
Placer County Grand Jury conducted required inspections at the seven Placer County jails and holding facilities in Roseville, Rocklin, Auburn, and Tahoe City between the months of July and November 2021. The grand jury found these facilities to be secure, orderly, and well-run.

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
13 Placer County Juvenile Detention Facility and Rocklin Police Department and Juvenile Holding Facility
California grand juries are mandated by California Penal Code § 919(b) to inspect and report on juvenile detention facilities. The 2021-2022 grand jury inspected both the Rocklin Juvenile Detention Facility and the Placer County Juvenile Detention Facility (PCJDF) on September 15 and November 4, respectively. The grand jury found both facilities to be well-organized, neat, well maintained, and run by dedicated and knowledgeable staff. The grand jury was particularly impressed by the programs for juveniles in the PCJDF and the philosophy behind the programs.

Truckee Tahoe Airport District - A Model Airport
The Truckee Tahoe Airport District (TTAD) is one of the largest special districts in Placer County. The 2021 annual budget for the TTAD was $18.9 million. The major funding sources include property taxes, fuel sales, and federal aviation subsidies. Although all homeowners pay property taxes, not all residents utilize the airport.

The Placer County Grand Jury investigated the budgeting process of the TTAD and was particularly interested in how funds were utilized that were received via property taxes.

We found that the funds received were directed appropriately. The TTAD utilizes a transparent budget process which provides multiple opportunities for citizens to share concerns and suggestions on potential uses of these funds.

Continuity and Accountability
The primary duty of the Placer County Grand Jury is to investigate the functions of city and county government, schools, and special districts. Each year in June, the grand jury issues its final report which includes reports on inspections and investigations done during the term.

The report provides findings and recommendations for each investigation and inspection.

Traditionally, a response report is issued in the November timeframe by the grand jury containing the responses from the investigated entities to their respective recommendations.

The 2021-2022 grand jury believes it is important to verify that the responses were compliant with Penal Code § 933.05, which outlines what each response is to include. The intent of this report is to confirm that entities comply with the penal code. The Placer County Grand Jury produced its first continuity report in June 2021. This is the grand jury’s second continuity report.

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
14 15
City of Colfax
Citizen Complaint Process

Photo Credit: Bill Oudegeest
Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
16 Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
17 City of Colfax
Citizen Complaint Process
Summary
The 2021-2022 Placer County Grand Jury received a citizen complaint alleging “harassment,” “bullying,” and “slander” by a City of Colfax elected official as described by the complainant on their completed Placer County Grand Jury Confidential Complaint Form. The citizen first addressed these concerns with the Placer County Assistant to the Undersheriff, was directed to the Colfax city manager, and then told to bring the concern to city council members or the grand jury. This was also detailed on the complainant’s grand jury complaint form.

Background
The grand jury began the investigative process in September 2021. By law, grand jury proceedings are confidential. Findings and recommendations are published in its annual report, which will not be available to the public until June 2022, a full nine months after the initial complaint was received. It is the opinion of the grand jury that a timelier review would have been in the best interest of the complainant and the City of Colfax. In this case, in an August 2021 email to the city manager (copy received by the grand jury), a citizen described alleged misconduct of an elected official. The city manager acknowledged to the grand jury receipt of the email. These incidents allegedly occurred while the elected official was acting as a private citizen. The official was still bound by the Code of Ethics while acting as a private citizen.
1 In the grand jury’s interview of the city manager, he acknowledged that he directed the complainant to city council or the grand jury. He commented that he felt it was out of the scope of his authority to chastise the elected public official at issue. The citizen was provided all names and email addresses of council members and a date for the next council meeting. The city manager stated to the complainant that staff or the council would have little ability to address their concerns. The city manager provided copies of the related email exchange to the grand jury and acknowledged the discussion took place.

1 City of Colfax Responsibilities of Public Office, accessed May 20, 2022, Chapter 2.44 - CO DE OF ETHICS | Code of Ordinances | Colfax, CA | Municode Library
Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
18 Methodology
The grand jury:
• Interviewed the complainant, the Colfax city manager, and several Colfax citizens • Interviewed the Colfax city attorney
• Contacted several other non-elected Placer County city officials regarding internal policies and procedures
• Reviewed Colfax internal policies and procedures:
o Code of Ethics Chapter 2.44.020—Responsibilities of Public Office o Chapter 2. City Manager, Code of Ordinances: Citizen Complaints o City of Colfax online Confidential Complaint Form. See Appendix A. • Reviewed relevant email communications
Discussion
If a complaint is filed against a public official, a
course of action could be to conduct a preliminary
investigation. With respect to the City of Colfax
policies as they relate to a citizen complaint, the
grand jury found there were existing written
policies, a complaint process (Appendix B), and a
complaint form accessible online (Appendix A).

As he disclosed in his interview, the city manager
did not direct the complainant to the complaint
form. The city manager stated there have been no
other citizen complaints regarding council members
during his tenure. It was difficult for the grand jury
to find the complaint form. The grand jury
discovered it only by conducting a search on the City
of Colfax website. It was not available in the site’s
main drop-down menu. Further, the grand jury
found that the complaint form is missing
instructions and the process itself is lacking
initiation and closure steps and setting expectations
about timeliness of the process. The form can only
be printed out and submitted via fax or mail, versus
submitted electronically online.

The grand jury interviewed the city attorney regarding the complaint process. The city attorney was apprised of the citizen’s complaint by the city manager. The city attorney stated that the City of Colfax policy is informal when dealing with issues related to elected city officials, with no requirement to follow-up, with no clear guidance for the citizen, nor formal training for city employees.

Photo Credit: Bill Oudegeest
Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
19 Conclusion
The Placer County Grand Jury received and investigated a complaint regarding inappropriate conduct by a City of Colfax elected official. In the course of its investigation the grand jury determined the City of Colfax has an ineffective citizen complaint process.

This conclusion stems from written and oral evidence gathered in the course of the jury’s investigation. The complaint process in question is based on a form available on the city’s website, but which is difficult to locate. Also, while the form is accessible online, it required the complainant to print and send the form to the city rather than submitting it online. The complaint process itself is incomplete, with little guidance provided to the complainant and no process resolution or conclusion. While this complaint process may technically and legally comply with relevant city and state codes, it does not promote civic transparency for the City of Colfax.

Findings
The grand jury found that:

F1: The City of Colfax has an incomplete complaint process.

F2: The City of Colfax does not provide training on its complaint process to city employees.

F3: The Colfax City Complaint Form is not easily accessible on the City of Colfax website and it is not clear on what happens to the complaint once filed.

F4: The city manager stated that he lacked knowledge of the city’s citizen complaint process, as he disclosed in his interview with the grand jury.

Recommendations
The grand jury recommends that:

R1: By October 1, 2022, the city manager and other City of Colfax officials shall review and publish documented policies and processes on managing citizens’ complaints.

R2: By October 1, 2022, the city shall provide training to management staff and city officials on the citizen complaint process and their responsibilities on how to handle complaints.

R3: By October 1, 2022, the City of Colfax shall make the complaint form and instructions easily accessible and available in a drop-down menu on the city’s main web page.

R4: By November 1, 2022 the Colfax City management will communicate the new complaint process and inform Colfax citizens about the process and how to file a complaint.

R5: By November 1, 2022 all complaints shall follow a written complaint process utilizing the confidential complaint form.

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
20 Request for Response
Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, the Placer County Grand Jury requests a response from the following governing bodies:

Recommendations Response
Requiring Response Due Date
Wes Heathcock R1, R2, R3, R4, R5 October 1, 2022
City Manager
City of Colfax
P.O. Box 702
Colfax, CA 95713
Trinity Burruss R1 September 1, 2022
Mayor
City of Colfax
P.O. Box 702
Colfax, CA 95713
Copies Sent To:

Alfred Cabral, Esq.

City Attorney
City of Colfax
P.O. Box 702
Colfax, CA 95713

21 Appendix A

22 Appendix B: Confidential Complaint Form Process

23 24

25 Cybersecurity
Is Placer County Prepared for Cyber Threats?
26 Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
27 Cybersecurity
Is Placer County Prepared for Cyber Threats?
Summary
Government entities and private businesses face the daily risk of cyber attacks. In the Sacramento region, both the Lodi School District and Sierra College experienced system shutdowns in 2021 due to unauthorized access with resulting sabotage. The Placer County Grand Jury investigated the exposure that Placer County information systems might be facing. The grand jury found that the Placer County Information Technology (PCIT) department has an excellent program to protect their information systems. The effort is well staffed and well managed. The grand jury did identify some improvements that should be evaluated for adoption.

Glossary
SaaS (Software as a Service) – allows users to connect to and use cloud-based apps over the Internet. Common examples are email, calendaring, and office tools (such as Microsoft Office 365).2
Cloud storage – a model of computer data storage in which the digital data is stored in logical pools, said to be on "the cloud." The physical storage spans multiple servers (sometimes in multiple locations), and the physical environment is typically owned and managed by a hosting company. These cloud storage providers are responsible for keeping the data available and accessible, and the physical environment secured, protected, and running.
3 Phishing – a type of social engineering where an attacker sends a fraudulent (e.g., spoofed, fake, or otherwise deceptive) message designed to trick a person into revealing sensitive information to the attacker or to deploy malicious software on the victim's infrastructure like ransomware.4, 5
Ransomware – a type of malicious software that infects a computer and restricts users’ access to it until a ransom is paid to unlock it. Ransomware variants have been observed for several years and often attempt to extort money from victims by displaying an on- screen alert. Typically, these alerts state that the user’s systems have been locked or that the user’s files have been encrypted.6
Enterprise (Network) – the IT infrastructure that midsize and large organizations use to provide connectivity among users, devices, and applications. The goal is to support the

2 Azure, “What is SaaS? Software as a service”, accessed on April 22, 2022, https://azure.microsoft.com/en- us/overview/what-is-saas/
3 Wikipedia, “Cloud storage”, accessed on April 22, 2022, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_storage 4 Phishing.org, “What is Phishing?”, accessed on April 22, 2022, https://www.phishing.org/what-is-phishing 5 Wikipedia, “Phishing”, accessed on April 22, 2022, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phishing 6 UC Berkeley, “Frequently Asked Questions – Ransomware”, accessed on April 22, 2022, https://security.berkeley.edu/faq/ransomware/
Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
28 organizations' objectives by consistently delivering connected digital services reliably and securely to workers, partners, customers, and, increasingly, also things.7 Hack – an act or instance of gaining or attempting to gain illegal access to a computer or computer system.8 A hardware or software change not approved by the manufacturer or developer that makes it do something it wasn't intended to do. For example, with software updates and modifications, users can make their Xbox gaming console more of a media center. Because the developer does not support these modifications, hacks void your warranty and prevent you from getting manufacturer support. 9 Whitelisting – a cybersecurity strategy under which a user can only take actions on their computer that an administrator has explicitly allowed in advance. Instead of trying to keep one step ahead of cyber attackers to identify and block malicious code, IT staff instead compiles a list of approved applications that a computer or mobile device can access. In essence, the user has access to only a limited set of functionality, and what they can access has been deemed safe by the administrator.
10 Whitelisting only allows an approved list of
applications, programs, websites, Internet Protocol (IP) addresses, email addresses, or IP domains, to run in a protected computer or network.
11 Data theft – The unauthorized taking or interception of computer-based information.12 Sabotage – deliberate attack intended to disable or modify computers or networks for the purpose of disrupting operations or transactions, accessing or destroying files, or otherwise compromising an organization.13
NCSR – The Nationwide Cybersecurity Review is a no-cost, anonymous, annual self- assessment designed to measure gaps and capabilities of state, local, tribal, and territorial governments’ cybersecurity programs. The NCSR data is tabulated by the Center for Internet Security, Inc. (CIS®), which is a community-driven nonprofit, responsible for the CIS Controls® and CIS Benchmarks™, globally recognized best practices for securing IT systems and data.14

7 Cisco, “What Is an Enterprise Network?”, accessed on April 22, 2022, https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/enterprise-networks/what-is-an-enterprise-network.html 8 Merriam-Webster, “hack” (Entry 2.6.a), accessed on April 22, 2022, https://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/hack
9 ComputerHope, “Hack”, accessed April 22, 2022, https://www.computerhope.com/jargon/h/hack.htm 10 CSO, “Whitelist meaning and definition”, accessed on April 22, 2022, https://www. csoonline.com/article/3562429/whitelisting-explained-how-it-works-and-where-it-fits-in-a-security- program.html
11 Webopedia, “Whitelisting”, accessed on April 22, 2022, https://www.webopedia.com/definitions/whitelisting/ 12 Cybercrime.org.za, “Data Theft Definition”, accessed on April 22, 2022, https://cybercrime.org.za/data- theft/#:~:text=Data%20Theft%20Definition%20The%20unauthorized%20taking%20or%20interception,intent%20o f%20compromising%20privacy%20or%20obtaining%20confidential%20information. 13 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury, “CYBER-ATTACKS THREATEN SANTA BARBARA COUNTY”, accessed on April 22, 2022, http://www.sbcgj.org/2020/CyberSecurity.pdf 14 Center for Internet Security, “Nationwide Cybersecurity Review (NCSR)”, accessed on April 22, 2022, https://www.cisecurity.org/ms-isac/services/ncsr
Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
29 Background
Recent reports15 show that in the United States hackers attack and disable a computer system every thirty-nine seconds, affecting millions of people. Government-run organizations can be shut down and services denied to citizens. An article in Forbes magazine16 stated that businesses and government agencies face over four thousand attempted attacks every day using ransomware alone.

Cyber attacks can be motivated by money, revenge, mischief, politics, or terrorism. The cost to respond and recover can be significant. These attacks can be in the form of data theft, ransomware, and/or sabotage.

Examples of ransomware attacks in California in 2021:
• Ransomware group Vice Society leaked Los Angeles-based Barlow Respiratory Hospital’s patient data onto the dark web after an August attack according to a September 11
th ZDNet report.17
• In April, the University of California issued a warning to its students and staff that a ransomware group might have stolen and published their personal data.18 The cybersecurity attack targeted a vulnerability in Actelion, a third-party vendor that is used to transfer files.
• On May 21st, Sierra College, located in Rocklin, confirmed that the outage of the college website and online systems was the result of a ransomware attack.19 • On October 4th, the phone lines were down for three days at the Lodi Unified School District after a cybersecurity incident disabled their network, computers, and phone lines.20
Methodology
The grand jury investigated the PCIT readiness and preparation against cyber attacks. This investigation included interviewing knowledgeable Placer County information systems managers and reviewing the reports and documents they provided. The following reports were reviewed:
• Countywide Information Security Charter
• Placer County Nationwide Cybersecurity Review 2021

15 A. James Clark School Study, University of Maryland, “Study: Hackers Attack Every 39 Seconds”, accessed on April 13,2022, https://eng.umd.edu/news/story/study-hackers-attack-every-39-seconds 16 Lee, Mathews, “City of Atlanta Computers Hit by Ransomware Attack”, Forbes, March 23, 2018 17 ZDNet, “Ransomware groups continue assault on healthcare orgs as COVID-19 infections increase”, accessed on April 13, 2022, https://www.zdnet.com/article/ransomware-gr oups-continue-assault-on-healthcare-orgs-as-covid- 19-infections-increase/
17 Los Angeles Times, “University of California victim of nationwide hack attack”, accessed on April 13, 2022, https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2021-04-02/university-of-california-victim-of-nationwide-hack-attack 19 Sacramento Bee, “Ransomware attack shut down Northern California community college’s computer system”, accessed on April 13, 2022, https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article251564398.html 20 DataBreaches.net, “CA: Lodi schools lose internet access due to ‘cyber security’ issue”, accessed on April 13, 2022, https://www.databreaches.net/ca-lodi-schools-lose-internet-access-due-to-cyber-security-issue/ Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
30 • Placer County Enterprise System Catalog
• Information Technology 2021 Strategic Plan
• Placer County Emergency Operations Plan – Cyber Annex • Security Incident Reports
• Cyber Insurance Application
• Information Security Working Committee Charter
One juror was fully recused from the investigation.

Discussion
Organization and Responsibilities
The Placer County Information Technology department provides IT services to most c
ounty departments and employees; however, three departments have their own IT employees (help desks): Sheriff, Elections, and Child Support Services. Although these IT teams are separate, they maintain data that are part of Placer County’s data center and networks and utilize the remote backup protection.

Cities in Placer County are not in the cybersecurity protection program managed by the county IT team. In the event of a cyber attack on a city-managed application, PCIT would provide consulting assistance to cities if requested.

Information Security Charter
The Placer County Information Technology Department has created an Information S
ecurity Charter. This charter was approved by the Placer County Board of Supervisors on May 29, 2019. The most recent update to this charter was completed on May 3, 2021. Six major themes of the Information Security Charter are:
• Information Security Policies
• Risk Assessment
• Data Classification
• Business Continuity and Operational Recovery Planning • Security Awareness Training
• Monitoring and Assurance
The 2019 charter also established an information security officer position. Under general direction from the chief information officer, the information security officer position plans, organizes, and directs the countywide Information Security Program, including security awareness, risk assessment, business impact analysis, disaster recovery, and business continuity. This position is also responsible for the day-to-day management of the county IT security team and countywide information security functions. The information security officer has a team of five employees among the eighty-one employees in the Information Technology Department. On January 11, 2022, the Placer County Board of Supervisors approved the re-evaluation of the information security officer to Chief Information Security Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
31 Officer (CISO). The re-classification was triggered by the Placer County Human Resources Department to recognize the responsibilities of the position.

Nationwide Cybersecurity Review
Every year, PCIT completes a self-assessment of cybersecurity called the Nationwide Cybersecurity Review (NCSR). This questionnaire is quite detailed and uses a model to evaluate organization cybersecurity that has five categories – identify, protect, detect, respond, and recover. A score is assigned to each category based on the answers. All California counties perform this same assessment. The NCSR is submitted to the Multi-State Information Sharing and Analysis Center which is an arm of the Department of Homeland Security. Completion of the NCSR is now required from all entities that are eligible for Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) funds. The NCSR results are delivered to the United States Congress every other year to report on cyber security preparedness. The graphs from Placer County’s most recent NCSR assessment are displayed in Appendix 1.

These graphs were obtained from Placer County’s Information Security department. They were created by the department to provide a visual way to represent the changes in cyber- security maturity scores over time.

Information Technology Strategic Plan
Placer County Information Technology produces an annual report called the Information Tec
hnology Strategic Plan. This plan sets the strategic direction for the department and county. The 2021 plan identified five initiatives to improve information security. One of the initiatives was to enhance service access and improve user authentication because more employees are working remotely.

Placer County Emergency Operations Plan
Placer County maintains an emergency operations plan. The emergency operations plan is u
sed to guide efforts when significant emergencies occur, such as forest fires and floods.

One of the sections of the emergency operations plan documents how to respond to a cyber attack. This response plan is extensive with seventeen pages presenting the organization, responsibilities, actions, and policies for a coordinated, multi-disciplinary approach to prepare for, respond to, and recover from cyber related incidents.

Placer County Security Incident Report
The Placer County Information Technology department maintains a log of all reported security incidents. Examples of security incidents include lost laptops and employees responding to phishing emails. Each incident is documented, reviewed, and potential prevention tactics detailed. In 2021, Placer County decided to increase password security by requiring passwords of at least fourteen characters. This action was taken, in part, from the review of security incidents that occurred in 2020. Recurring incidents, such as phishing attacks, are used to update security awareness training that all county employees are required to complete.

Annual Cyber Insurance Application
Like most counties, Placer holds an insurance policy to mitigate any losses resulting from a cyber attack. This policy provides Placer County with twenty-five million dollars in general Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
32 liability coverage. A requirement for annual coverage is to submit an application which includes documentation of Placer’s assessment of cybersecurity preparedness maturity.

Placer County uses the information from the NCSR to complete the insurance application.

Placer County pays lower insurance premiums as a direct result of its current state of cybersecurity readiness.

Placer County Enterprise System Catalog
Placer County uses over six hundred software applications. These applications are run from a Pl
acer County owned data center. Each night, all data are backed up and stored in a separate data center managed by Microsoft. If a ransomware attack were to occur, the only risk to Placer County is that day’s transactions. A potential strategy would be to restore all data to the previous night’s backup. Microsoft provides this service to many governments and businesses to address cybersecurity and disaster (fire, flood, etc.) risks.

Back Up Methodology
The Microsoft data center that PCIT has contracted with, uses a delivery strategy called “
Software as a Service” (SaaS). Many of Placer County’s applications are deployed on SaaS.

If a cyber attack or disaster impacted an SaaS application, the vendor (Microsoft) would address the issue and fix the application in the cloud. With SaaS, it is the vendor’s responsibility to maintain the application. PCIT maintains a backup of all county data, and once Microsoft has resolved the software issue, PCIT would work with Microsoft to load the backup data onto the repaired application.

Some of the PCIT applications are not hosted as an SaaS but are installed in the county- owned data center. PCIT maintains backup servers in a cloud disaster recovery site. In the event of a failure or cyber attack, PCIT would follow their disaster recovery procedures to switch over to the cloud disaster recovery server. PCIT tests their disaster recovery procedures for the different applications that they manage. They have run two successful switchover disaster simulations in the past twelve months.

Penetration Testing
The industry best practice for assessing cybersecurity preparedness is to run penetration tes
ts. The penetration tests that PCIT conducts are also called “security assessments.” PCIT utilizes multiple reputable third-party vendors, who conducted enterprise-wide penetration tests in Spring 2019 and Spring 2020. They elected to rotate vendors (rather than utilizing only one) to get different viewpoints and attack techniques. The penetration tests include an external test (attempting to hack into the network), an internal test (when the tester puts a device on the network inside a facility and attempts to steal credentials and access confidential files), and an email phishing test. In 2021, PCIT engaged a vendor to assess the Placer County Child Support Services network (which is separate from the Placer network) and in January 2022, PCIT conducted a penetration test specifically on the Placer County Elections Department applications. PCIT is currently scoping the 2022 enterprise- wide assessment from a new, nationally recognized vendor.

Application Failure History
Although PCIT applications have experienced attempted hacks from external agents, none h
ave been successful. PCIT has only had to utilize its Disaster Recovery Procedure for an Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
33 actual disaster once in the past five years. On Sunday, February 27, 2022, the environmental controls in the data center failed in the early morning. PCIT utilized its Critical Incident Response Procedure. On-call facilities staff and electricians responded to remedy the situation. All services were restored by noon.

Examples of Best Practices
The Placer County Information Technology department utilizes industry-l eading methodology to protect the assets of the county. Some of the controls are based on restricting the behaviors of the county employees, while others use automated processes that monitor specific activities. For example, every employee is required to take Security Awareness Training and is subjected to practical exercises like social engineering that simulate actual cyber attacks. The PCIT department utilizes special software to trap possible breaches that were intentional or accidental. Some of these tools include:
• detection of changes to software and firmware
• whitelisting of applications that only allow specific software that has been approved to be installed
• spam protection that monitors emails to trap incoming and outgoing messages • auto-detection of sensitive information being sent out of the protected network via email and data devices, such as USB memory sticks
Information Technology Governance
The Placer County Chief Information Officer leads a committee composed of executives fr
om many county departments (Auditor-Controller, Sheriff, County Executive Officer, Probation, Health and Human Services, Community Development and Resources, Human Resources, Treasurer/Tax Collector, and County Counsel). This committee is called the Leadership Committee and has the following responsibilities:
• reviews and updates the IT Strategic Plan
• reviews and provides endorsement to the Board of Supervisors for projects under $250,000
• receives and reviews system requests, project status reports, and project workload reports from working committees
• reviews and advises the working committees on any issues with multi- departmental efforts on shared and integrated system selection, implementation, and maintenance
• prioritizes and recommends approval of proposed key projects There is a separate committee called the Security Working Committee (SWC) that reports to the Leadership Committee. The Chief Information Security Officer leads the SWC, which is comprised of county department representatives. The SWC was formed in 2020, meets quarterly, and has made two reports to the Leadership Committee since its inception. The report’s format and content are not standardized. As such, these reports did not include a roster of attendance of the department representatives who participated in the quarterly Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
34 meetings, nor is attendance required. As a result, there are county departments that did not have a representative attending these meetings.

Shift to Laptops Triggered by COVID-19
Starting in 2020, the CEO provided direction that all county employees should be on a l
aptop unless there was a specific need to have a workstation. This was done for business continuity and disaster recovery and to allow for social distancing. This shift has provided significant flexibility but has also increased cyber risks as many employees are accessing Placer County information systems from remote networks instead of logging directly onto the county network.

The shift to laptops and more people working from home has increased information security risks. Some employees may have unsecured Wi-Fi at home. The Placer County information security team educated users on how to change the password on their home internet router. The county’s web proxy service can detect unsecured networks and has blocked some users from accessing Placer County web services until they can secure their home network. Placer County Information Technology also mitigates the security risk by only allowing county-issued laptops to access the network. An employee-owned laptop cannot access Placer County networks. PCIT controls the configuration on all county-issued devices to ensure there is advanced and up-to-date antivirus protection.

The Placer County Information Technology department launched additional security training in 2020 and 2021 in the form of “Lunch and Learn” events. The workshops provided valuable information on home Wi-Fi risks and recommended actions to secure home networks. These improvement actions are also communicated in the employee newsletters.

Conclusion
Placer County information systems are well protected from cyber attacks. The Information Technology department has invested significant resources in protection and personnel training.

Findings
The grand jury found:

F1: Attendance at the quarterly meetings of the Security Working Committee is not a priority for all departments, and attendance is not 100 percent. As a result, strategies developed and implemented by the committee are not as robust as they could be.

F2: There is no formal requirement for report updates by the Security Working Committee to the Leadership Committee, resulting in a lack of prioritization by county departments and potential cybersecurity weaknesses.

F3: Placer County data, infrastructure, and applications are well protected from cybersecurity attacks.

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
35 Recommendations
The grand jury recommends:

R1: By October 1, 2022, the County Executive Officer shall create a policy requiring all departments to send a representative to all Security Working Committee meetings.

If the department designated representative has a conflict, a substitute should be sent to the committee meeting.

R2: By November 1, 2022, the Chief Information Officer shall create a policy to require that the Chief Information Security Officer provide semiannual updates to the Leadership Committee on cybersecurity. These two semiannual updates should include a report on attendance to the quarterly meetings. In this way, the department executives would be confident that their department’s concerns were represented in the Security Working Committee quarterly meetings.

Request for Response
Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, the Placer County Grand Jury requests a response from the following governing bodies:

Recommendations Response
Requiring Response Due Date
Jane Christenson R1 October 1, 2022
Acting County Executive Officer
175 Fulweiler Ave.

Auburn, CA 95603
Jarrett Thiessen R2 October 1, 2022
Chief Information Officer
3091 County Center Dr.

Suite 160
Auburn, CA 95603
Copies sent to:

Deborah Curtis
Chief Information Security Officer
2986 Richardson Dr.

Auburn, CA 95603

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
36 Appendix 1
Graph 1 – Maturity results for the five categories
Five categories of cybersecurity from Placer County 2021

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
37 Graph 2 – Steady progress in cybersecurity maturity from 2018 to 2021 The chart below shows that Placer County has demonstrated steady improvement in all measured areas: identify, protect, detect, respond, and recover.

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
38 Graph 3 – Placer County NCSR scores to scores of peer counties One interesting use of the results is to compare Placer County cybersecurity maturity to the average of other California counties. Placer County’s scores are much higher than the average of other counties. See graph and table below:

39 Homelessness in Placer County

Photo Credit: Norma J. Worley

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
40 Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
41 Homelessness in Placer County
Summary
In Placer County, on any given night,
approximately seven hundred
unhoused men, women, and children
sleep in tents, cars, shelters, or on
sidewalks. Point-in-time (PIT)
reports, together with Placer County
Health and Human Services (HHS)
data, indicate that the majority fall
into the category of chronic
homelessness of one year or more.

Since 2019, the DeWitt Center in
Auburn has been home base for a
group of individuals living on these
county owned grounds. This tent
encampment is home to
approximately one-hundred men
and women, and thirty pets. The
impromptu campground consists of over sixty occupied informal tent-like homesteads, twenty abandoned tents, five porta-potties, a dumpster, mounds of trash, used drug paraphernalia, and deposits of human and animal waste. The DeWitt Center is also the headquarters for county services such as HHS and The Welcome Center, as well as the non- profit program The Gathering Inn Mid-Placer’s one-hundred bed shelter (currently housing ninety-two due to COVID-19 restrictions). Placer County Animal Services (PCAS) is located less than a half mile away. Although the DeWitt Center is the focal point of this investigation, it is an indicator of a county-wide problem. The grand jury set out to investigate the challenges experienced by the homeless and the barriers for individuals entering shelters and utilizing services available to them.

Glossary
Camping by necessity: Camping at a time where there is no available shelter for an individual to utilize.21
CEO: County Executive Officer.

CoC: A Continuum of Care is the group organized to carry out the responsibilities prescribed in the CoC Program Interim Rule for a defined geographic area.22

21 Placer County CEO Memorandum, March 8, 2022, www.placer.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/58893/04A , Accessed April 18, 2022
22 HUD, Exchange What Is A Continuum of Care? Date Published: July 2014, WWW.HUDEXCHANGE.INFO/FAQS/PROGRAMS/CONTINUUM-OF-CARE-COC-PROGRAM/PROGRAM-

ADMINISTRATION/GENERAL/WHAT-IS-A-CONTINUUM-OF-
CARE/?MSCLKID=5FB1F99CC11311EC8556F559750802E1, Accessed A pril 20, 2022 Photo Credit: Norma J. Worley
Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
42 Chronic homeless: Either (1) an unaccompanied homeless individual with a disabling condition who has been continuously homeless for a year or more, or (2) an unaccompanied individual with a disabling condition who has had at least four episodes of homelessness in the past three years.
23, 24
Emergency shelter: Housing with minimal supportive services for homeless persons that is limited to occupancy of six months or less by a homeless person. No individual or household may be denied emergency shelter because of an inability to pay.25 For example, a local non-profit operates a nomadic nightly dinner and bed program facilitated by local churches.

High barrier shelter: Also referred to as abstinence-based or dry shelter. Hi gh barrier shelters place requirements on their guests.26
Homeless: Individual or family who lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence, meaning: (1) Has a primary nighttime residence that is a public or private place not meant for human habitation; (2) Is living in a publicly or privately operated shelter designated to provide temporary living arrangements (including congregate shelters, transitional housing, and hotels and motels paid for by charitable organizations or by federal, state, and local government programs); or (3) Is exiting an institution where an individual has resided for 90 days or less and who resided in an emergency shelter or place not meant for human habitation immediately before entering that institution. 27 Homeless Management Information System (HMIS): A local information technology system used to collect client level data, and data on the provision of housing and services to homeless individuals and families, and persons at risk of homelessness. 28 HUD: Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Low/no-barrier shelter: An overnight or temporary housing accommodation for individuals who are homeless, provided directly by or through contracted service agencies, for the purpose of providing shelter to individuals without the imposition of identification, time limits, or any other program requirements.
29 23 CoC At A Glance Chronic Homelessness Status https://files.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/virtual- binders-at-a-glance-chronic-homelessness-status.pdf, Accessed A pril 18, 2022 24 Hud’s Homeless Assistance Program “Defining Chronic Homelessness: A Technical Guide For Hud Programs” Hud’s Homeless Assistance Program September 2007
https://files.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/definingchronichomeless.pdf, Acce ssed April 18, 2022 25 Law Insider, Emergency Shelter Definition Www.Lawinsider.Com/Dictionary/Emergency-Shelter, Acce ssed April 18, 2022
26 UGM Impact Blog, Low Barrier Vs. High Barrier Shelter, Barbara Comito, July 12, 2021, https://blog.uniongospelmission.org/the-impact/low-barrier-vs.-high-barrier-shelter, Accessed April 18, 2022 27 Hud Homeless Definition
https://files.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/homelessdefinition_recordkeepingrequirementsandcriteria.pdf?m sclkid=d2095ac6c11811eca0ace3d3c55dfba4, accessed A pril 20, 2022 28 Hud Exchange, Homeless Management Information System (HMIS), https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/hmis/, Acce ssed March 7, 2022 29 Law Insider, Low barrier shelter definition, www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/low- barrier-shelter, accessed A pril 20, 2022
Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
43 Martin v. Boise: The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruling held that a city ordinance in Boise, Idaho violated the Eighth Amendment by imposing criminal sanctions against homeless individuals for sleeping outdoors on public property, when no alternative shelter was available to them. Six current or formerly homeless residents brought this suit alleging that the issuance of citations under the city's camping and disorderly conduct ordinances constituted cruel and unusual punishment, because they had no home or other shelter to go to. Agreeing with their arguments, the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's summary judgment order.30 NIMBY: Not In My Back Yard.

Ninth Circuit: The United States Courts for the Ninth Circuit is comprised of the following judicial districts: Alaska, Arizona, Central District of California, Eastern District of California, Northern District of California, Southern District of California, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Northern Mariana Islands, Oregon, Eastern District of Washington, Western District of Washington.31
PCGC: Placer County Government Center.

PC § 290: California Penal Code statute that makes it a crime for certain convicted sex offenders to fail to register with local authorities. The state requires sex offenders to register (1) every year within five working days of their birthday, and (2) every time they move to a new address.32
PIT: Point-in-time count is a head count conducted on one night, typically in January, of sheltered and unsheltered individuals experiencing homelessness. 33 Transitional housing: A supportive type of accommodation that is meant to bridge the gap from homelessness to permanent housing by offering structure, supervision, support for addictions and mental health, life skills, and, in some cases, education and training. 34

30 FindLaw for Legal Professionals, United States Ninth Circuit, https://caselaw.findlaw.com/summary/opinion/us- 9th- circuit/2018/09/04/284140.html, accessed A pril 18, 2022 31 United States Courts for the Ninth Circuit, “What is the Ninth Circuit?”, www.ca9. uscourts.gov/judicial -council/what- is-the-ninth-circuit/, accessed A pril 18, 2022
32 Robert Miller and Associates, “Failure to Register as a Sex Offender Penal Code 290”, www.expertlawfirm.com/failure-to-register-as-a-sex-offender-pc-290-penal-code, a ccessed April 18, 2022 33 HUD Exchange, “Point-in-Time Count and Housing Inventory Count”, www.hudexchange.info/programs/hdx/pit- hic/, accessed A pril 18, 2022
34 Homeless Hub, Solutions, Supporting communities to prevent and end homelessness, Transitional Housing, www.homelesshub.ca/solutions/housing-accommodation-and-supports/transitional-housing, a ccessed April 18, 2022 Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
44 Background
A yearly point-in-time count is conducted by the Homeless Resource Council of the Sierras.

Homeless individuals are counted across the county from Roseville to North Lake Tahoe.35 Year Number of Homeless
Individuals
2018 584
2019 617
2020 744
2021 708
These counts are not a broad comprehensive measure of an area's homeless population, but rather snapshots of a single day used to approximate trends. Typically, they are viewed as undercounts of a community's yearly overall homeless population, given that individuals may move in and out of homelessness during the year. Also, individuals may intentionally avoid being counted, and some are not locatable. This report bases its findings on the 2021 count. The results of the most recent count, completed on February 24, 2022, are expected to be available in the summer timeframe. PIT counts are used to determine funding allocated to counties from various sources.

More than 80 percent, or thirty-seven of California’s forty-four Continuums of Care (CoCs) did not conduct a January 2021 PIT count after receiving approval from HUD. This was based on safety precautions related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Three CoCs, Placer County, Sutter County, and Nevada County, are using their “by-name” list or “active” list, that is updated, at least monthly, to conduct a modified unsheltered PIT count. This was required if a CoC wanted to submit their unsheltered data to HUD through the Homelessness Data Exchange.
36 Along with grant funding received based on the PIT count, the Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Placer County budget, adopted at $1,020,071,376, funds the HHS department. Current HHS funding is $243,065,397 which comprises 24 percent of the total county budget. This amount is then allocated to nine departments within HHS, an undetermined amount of which goes to homeless services. No county official was able to articulate in grand jury interviews the amount spent directly on homeless programs.

35 County of Placer, Health and Human Services, State of Homelessness, Study on Homelessness, www.placer.ca.gov/4002/State-of-Homelessness, a ccessed April 18, 2022 16 Joe Colletti, PhD for Urban Initiatives Homeless and Housing Strategies for California February 2021, www.hudhdx.info, a ccessed March 9, 2022
Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
45 HHS Service/Agency
FY 2021-2022 County
Funding by
Department
Adult System of Care $69,081,806
Children’s System of Care $55,615,345
Public Health $19,382,878
HHS Administration $3,330,501
Human Services $44,199,902
Client Aid $37,549,343
Environmental Health $7,327,292
Animal Services $5,769,284
Veteran Services $809,046
HHS Budget TOTAL $243,065,397
These nine departments administer programs that provide services for many of the needs of the homeless. In addition, a large portion of these estimated seven hundred homeless individuals receive help from various grant funded programs and private non-profit entities, including but not limited to:

Private or Non-profit Program Year Revenue
Acres of Hope 2019 $1,408,636
Advocates for the Mentally Ill Housing, Inc. 2019 $4,106,553 The Gathering Inn 2019 $3,226,117
Lazarus Project Roseville 2019 $215,172
Roseville Home Start Inc. 2018 $703,479
Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
46 Private or Non-profit Program Year Revenue
Stand Up Placer 2019 $4,918,830
Methodology
The grand jury conducted numerous interviews with county officials as well as non-profit executives. The goals of these interviews were:
• To identify who in Placer County takes ownership of and acknowledges full responsibility for the strategies used in supporting the homeless • To understand the challenges and barriers the homeless experience in entering shelters and utilizing the services available to them
• To gain an insight into the day-to-day personnel and operations that work directly with the homeless
Besides the interviews, three consultant reports contracted by HHS were also reviewed.

The 2020-2021 Placer County Grand Jury Report detailing housing resources and funding of supporting programs was referenced for background information. Additionally, grand jury members attended several public forums.

Discussion
Encampments vs. Shelters
In 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit ruled in Martin v. Boise37, that
persons experiencing homelessness, cannot be
cited, or arrested for sleeping outdoors when no
shelter is available. A petition to the United States
Supreme Court was made and was denied in
2019. This decision made it unconstitutional to
criminalize homelessness in the Ninth Circuit
jurisdiction until the criteria of availability of a
low barrier shelter has been met. In contrast,
while being homeless is not a criminal offence,
the illegal behaviors of homeless individuals can be found to be criminal, such as public intoxication.

37 FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, No. 15-35845 D.C. No. 1:09-cv-00540- REB OPINION, ROBERT MARTIN; LAWRENCE LEE SMITH; ROBERT ANDERSON; JANET F.

BELL; PAMELA S. HAWKES; and BASIL E. HUMPHREY, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF BOISE, Defendant- Appellee Argued and Submitted July 13, 2017 Portland, Oregon Filed September 4, 2018, https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/09/04/15-35845.pdf, a ccessed March 9, 2022 Photo Credit: Norma J. Worley
Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
47 The percentage of those homeless in Placer County is the fourth lowest in the state38, at

18.7 per 10,000 of general population. Despite this low amount, homelessness is a visible and ongoing problem.

It is not unusual to see one or two tents set up in random areas throughout the county. At the DeWitt Center in Auburn, however, what started out as a small number of tents has now grown into a tent city. Because counts are sporadic and population is fluid, there is no hard data about the actual count of the inhabitants at this location. Based on the number of tents erected, a conservative estimate given by Placer County Sheriff’s Office (PCSO), in February 2022, was roughly one hundred campers - approximately 14 percent of the total homeless population in Placer County.

The grand jury found it difficult to understand why many of the homeless are not taking advantage of available high barrier transitional housing. Through interviews, grand jurors learned there are several factors why campers refuse to enter. One is that many of the homeless have social, medical, and mental health issues which may impede their ability to make healthy, wise decisions that would improve their overall well-being. Another factor is that most campers don’t want to conform to authority, maintain a schedule, or assume any responsibilities, as would be required in a clean and sober high barrier shelter. By comparison, low barrier shelter programs could receive persons ineligible for high barrier shelters, either through law enforcement placement or self-placement.

Complicating the homeless issue is the fact that there is no one person in Placer County providing guidance, leadership, direct oversight, and governing direction to the myriad of disparate homeless programs. This lack of oversight could lead to possible overlap and duplication of services within the nine departments of HHS, resulting in wasted energy, time, and money.

Currently, the PCSO takes responsibility for policing and enforcing laws and regulations within the encampment, monitoring it daily. Placer County Facilities Department provides and maintains fencing, porta-potties, and grounds maintenance. The Adult System of Care and PCAS units within HHS provide outreach services, attempting to enroll campers in county assistance programs. These outreach personnel also encourage residents to seek assistance from the many non-profit organizations that work with the homeless. Placer County Animal Services offers vaccinations for the pets in the encampment. While these entities deal with the immediate needs of the homeless, their efforts do not address the issue of the lack of appropriate transitional low barrier shelters needed to relocate the homeless away from county property and out of encampments.

Placer County Sheriff’s Homeless Liaison Team
In April 2021, the BOS voted to allocate up to $667,000 in additional funding for a daily PCSO Homeless Liaison Team (HLT) presence at the DeWitt Center and additional PCAS patrol. This funding also assisted with temporary fencing, cameras, portable toilets, trash

38 National Alliance to End Homelessness; State of Homelessness, https://endhomelessness.org/homelessness- in- america/homelessness-statistics/state-of-homelessness-dashboards/?State=California, accessed A pril 18, 2022

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
48 receptacles, and towing of unlawfully parked vehicles. To gather insight into the make-up of the encampment, members of the grand jury accompanied the HLT to visit the campers.

The Homeless Liaison Team regularly interacts with the homeless population and has established a rapport and trust within the encampment community. The liaison deputy escorted grand jurors throughout the encampment to observe interviews between the deputy and the residents.

The deputy stated that the residents started arriving at the site in March 2020. By October 2020, the combination of the COVID-19 pandemic and the Martin v. Boise court decision resulted in the number of homeless campers increasing substantially. The deputy also mentioned there has been a recent influx of residents from Nevada County who learned they could camp at the DeWitt Center “without any hassle.” In a separate interview, PCSO indicated approximately 44 percent of encampment residents come from outside of Placer County.

The current population of the encampment was estimated by the deputy as approximately one-hundred persons, 60 percent male and 40 percent female. The day of the tour there were no families with children residing at the encampment. If a family does appear, PCSO and HHS act quickly to ensure the family is moved to temporary housing or an appropriate shelter.

Per the deputy, drugs and alcohol are prevalent in the encampment and are usually brought in by outsiders and then sold within the camp by the residents. Drugs include heroin, methamphetamine, fentanyl, and alcohol. Of the drug users, approximately 50 percent use alcohol exclusively and 50 percent primarily use one of the other three drugs.

There is a small percentage of individuals who mix alcohol with the other drugs. On average, one overdose occurs weekly, however, many additional overdoses go unreported.

During the tour of the DeWitt Center encampment, the grand jury witnessed a few examples of behavioral health issues. One person was vigorously polishing a bag of valuable “diamonds” (quartz crystals) he had found. Another camper they encountered was asked, “Are you ready to go to a shelter?” His reply? “NO!” When asked, “Why not?” he stated, “The shelters are just like jail. I would rather live here.” When asked by the deputy if he was willing to talk with an HHS staff member, who was also on site, he said he would.

This resident wants to move out but wants to skip the shelter and HHS process and go straight into a county provided home. In a separate interview PCSO estimated that when HHS, during their twice weekly visits, makes an offer of shelter and services, 98 percent decline.

Animals are not immune from the behavioral issues of their owners. According to PCSO, some pet owners see no harm in “partying” with their animals. Recently, three dogs had to be confiscated and treated for drug overdose and abuse by their owners.

As the grand jury walked around the encampment, they observed that some campsites were neat and orderly without much in the way of personal property. Others appeared to be inhabited by hoarders. Some had a fence around their homestead clearly indicating “Keep Out.” A few dogs were noted. The premises were observed to be tidier than in the Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
49 past but not clean by any standard. There were five porta-potties and a huge dumpster available. Even with these basic accommodations, some residents continue to insist on using the ground for depositing human waste and trash.

The grand jury was told in interviews that crime is prevalent on the property, mainly assaults, thefts, drugs, and public intoxication. Most crimes go unreported through fear of retaliation and distrust of the law enforcement system.

A member of the PCSO command staff informed the grand jury there has been a large increase of complaints within the encampment. These grievances include assault, battery, sales of narcotics, animal cruelty, and domestic violence. This increase of criminal behavior has resulted in additional non-HLT deputies responding thus taking them away from community needs. The staff member also related that many weapons, including more than twenty replica guns, have been confiscated and removed from the encampments.

To help curtail crime, the sheriff’s department recently installed two camera trailers with four cameras each and three trailers with lights at the DeWitt Center. The property is now on CCTV twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. The cameras show a nearly 100 percent view of the encampment. Cameras are not monitored but everything is recorded for review by the sheriff’s staff. The large lights are on all night.

The following statistics were provided by the PCSO liaison team:

March 2021-
February 2022
Calls for
Service
Transient Related
Calls
Citizen
Initiated Calls
Deputy Initiated
Contact

Placer County
(excluding
North Auburn)
28,830

2,034
7% of PCSO
response due to
transient related calls
59% 41%

North Auburn
(includes
DeWitt Center)
13,374 4,335
30% of PCSO response
due to transient
related calls
56% 44%

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
50 There are six deputies assigned to the HLT to patrol 24/7, either on foot or by vehicle, all occurrences of
homelessness throughout unincorporated Placer
County. Looking at the statistics provided, the grand
jury questions how only six deputies can be
expected to cover the entire county without
drawing other deputies away from their assigned
communities and duties.

Placer County Sheriff’s Office command staff stated
that permanent, low barrier shelters located in local
jurisdictions would make it easier for the sheriff’s
department, local law enforcement, and HHS to
monitor and interact with their residents. These
shelters are not intended to be used as permanent residences, but a starting point in the journey towards rehabilitation and permanent housing.

Currently, there are no low barrier shelters
in Placer County. In fact, the grand jury
learned that there are very few low barrier
shelters in the State of California. Per
several interviewees, the reason for the
lack of low barrier shelters is that most
communities don’t want this type of shelter
in their neighborhoods. The public has
concerns about the eyesore of homeless
shelters, increased crime, and the visible
behavioral and mental health issues of
some shelter residents. Most citizens want the problem to be dealt with as out-of-sight, out- of-mind, or NIMBY.

Low barrier vs. high barrier shelters
The following matrix helps to define the many differences between low barrier and high barrier shelters.
39 39 Connecticut Coalition to End Homelessness (cceh.org) https://cceh.org/wp- content/uploads/2015/12/Shelter- Philosophy-Matrix.pdf, accessed M arch 9, 2022

Photo Credit: Norma J. Worley
Placer County Sheriff's Office Homeless Liaison
Team 2022. Photo Courtesy of PCSO
Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
51 Lower Barrier,
Housing
Focused
Shelter
Philosophy
Practices
High Barrier,
Transitional
Shelter
Philosophy
Practices
Safety and
Order
Consider the
safety of
households.

Believes
excessive
rulemaking can
be traumatizing
to some
survivors of
domestic
violence.

Violating rules
not necessarily
cause for
discharge.

Very few
criteria for
people they
will not accept.

Staff trained in
conflict
resolution and
de-escalation
techniques.

Try to avoid
discharge for
out-of-control
behaviors.

Consider the safety
of clients and staff
in shelter.

Addresses safety
concerns by
minimizing loss of
control over
environment.

Violation of rules
are grounds for
discharge.

Restrictive
criteria that
require sobriety.

Clients
discharged
because they are
not able to follow
the rules,
sometimes not
allowed to return
for long periods
of time.

Substance
Use
Believe
temptation for
people in
recovery is
everywhere
and that shelter
cannot protect
anyone from it.

Believes it is
not necessary
for households
to be clean and
sober to obtain
or maintain
permanent
housing.

Accepts people
who are
intoxicated.

Staff are
trained in
harm
reduction,
recognize signs
of a health
crisis when
people are
intoxicated.

Believe allowing
intoxicated people
in shelter will
threaten the
sobriety of people
in recovery.

Believe they are
better able to help
who are clean and
sober.

Does not accept
people who are
intoxicated.

Conducts
breathalyzer or
drug tests.

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
52 Lower Barrier,
Housing
Focused
Shelter
Philosophy
Practices
High Barrier,
Transitional
Shelter
Philosophy
Practices

See people
using
substances as
more
vulnerable to
harm if
unsheltered.

Case
Management
and Services
Case
management in
the shelter is
focused on
connecting
people to
housing as
quickly as
possible.

Services in
shelter are
minimal and
focused on
obtaining
housing
services once
households exit
to housing.

Housing is
homebased
and focused on
housing
stability.

Clients drive
their own case
plans and
develop their
own goals for
obtaining
housing
Continued stay
in shelter is not
Case management
in shelter is focused
on helping people
obtain employment,
increase income,
and learn life skills.

Services in
shelter are
robust as funding
allows.

Some “after care”
services once
households exit
shelters, but
these are
minimum.

Case plans are
standardized and
may be linear
regardless of
client’s unique
situation.

Clients may be
discharged for
not participating
in case
management or
accomplishing
Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
53 Lower Barrier,
Housing
Focused
Shelter
Philosophy
Practices
High Barrier,
Transitional
Shelter
Philosophy
Practices
contingent on
participation in
case
management.
goals on case
plan.

Access Weighs the
expense of
longer hours of
operation
against the
increased time
to engage with
clients and the
safety of the
clients during
the day.

Believe people
who are more
difficult to
accommodate
are least likely
to find shelter
elsewhere and
more likely to
sleep outside if
Shelter access
is 24/7.

Clients are not
required to pay
for shelter
beds.

Allow people to
store
belongings.

People are not
turned away
because they
have pets that
are not service
animals.

Believe clients
should be out
working towards
goals such as
employment and
should not remain
in the shelter.

Limitations on
space, staff time,
and other concerns
make it impossible
to accommodate
everyone.

Clients must
leave shelter
during the day.

Cannot
accommodate
people with pets.

Sleeping areas
are not conducive
to couples
without children
remaining
together.

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
54 Lower Barrier,
Housing
Focused
Shelter
Philosophy
Practices
High Barrier,
Transitional
Shelter
Philosophy
Practices
not
accommodated.

Couples
without
children can
remain
together.

The grand jury asked multiple HHS management personnel as to whom could be contacted to respond to questions regarding the implementation of low barrier shelters in Placer County. No one was able to answer that question or identify to whom to go for an answer.

One high level HHS manager, when pressed, stated that the Homeless Council of the Sierras, a non-profit organization, is the key government oversight for homeless services in the county.

Funding for Homeless Services
The grand jury sought to determine total funding spent on homeless programs by the county as part of the HHS quarter-billion-dollar budget. County officials interviewed were not able to expound on this subject because of their lack of knowledge of the financial aspect relating to homeless services. One member of the Board of Supervisors (BOS) stated that Placer County does not allocate any general fund monies specifically for the homeless.

Rather, funding for services is through the HHS budget. At a public forum, an HHS staff member was asked by a citizen whether the amount of money the county expends on homeless services was eleven million dollars. HHS staff could not confirm this amount but remarked that that figure seemed a little low.

County officials’ lack of transparency or knowledge about budget and expenditures hindered the grand jury’s investigation. Because this financial information for homeless services is not available for review, neither the grand jury, nor the public, have any basis for understanding whether funds are being spent responsibly or effectively. In contrast, non-profit programs’ funding and expenditures information is accessible online. The grand jury gathered data from IRS Form 990s filed by several local non-profits receiving grant monies. Funding amounts and sources are reported on these forms, including, but not Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
55 limited to, grants, private donations, and independent fundraising. Expenditures are also listed and categorized.

The grand jury’s investigation discovered that a lack of transparency on this subject is not just a Placer County issue. California Assembly Bill 2630 was introduced on February 18, 2022, by California State Representative Patrick O’Donnell.40 This bill would require each city, county, and city and county that has used funds from any source to assist in addressing homelessness to submit a report to the council providing specified information, thereby imposing a state- mandated local program.

SECTION 1.

Section 8257.3 is added to the Welfare and Institutions Code, to read:
8257.3.

A city, county, or city and county that has used funds from any source to assist in addressing homelessness shall submit a report on or before July 1, 2023, and annually thereafter, to the California Interagency Council on Homelessness that includes all the following:
(a) A list of each agency of the city, county, or city and county that has received or spent funds to assist in addressing homelessness. (b) The name of each program under which the city, county, or city and county received or spent funds to assist in addressing homelessness.
(c) For each program identified pursuant to subdivision (b), all the following:
(1) The amount of funding received.
(2) The amount of funding spent.
(3) A description of every service provided.
(4) The number of individuals experiencing homelessness that were housed as a result of the program.
(5) The number of individuals experiencing homelessness that occupied a bed funded by the program.

40 California Assembly Bill 2630, Housing: California Interagency Council on Homelessness:
report, https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB2630/id/2523688, ac cessed April 18, 2022

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
56 (6) The number of individuals experiencing homelessness that received services funded by the program.
(7) The number of permanent housing units created with funding from the program.
(8) The number of new shelter beds created with funding from the program.

The goal of AB 2630 is to bring accountability, as well as answers, to the many funding and exp
enditure questions posed by local citizens and this grand jury. It would require all cities and counties to declare all homeless funds received and how those funds are spent.

Multiple Consultant Reports
In 2021, the Placer County BOS authorized a $195,000 expenditure to hire Moore Iacofano Goltsman (MIG) to provide facilitation, planning, and technical assistance to a regional workgroup composed of inter-jurisdictional elected and appointed officials. MIG was tasked with reviewing data from existing programs and services that currently assist people experiencing homelessness throughout the county. It must be noted that this is the third independent consultant report on homelessness authorized in the past eighteen years, spanning three decades.

Moore Iacofano Goltsman will facilitate a series of regional and community engagement meetings to gather additional input for their recommendations report. The BOS stated that the multi-phase report will address needs related to shelter capacity, staffing, and facilities.

The report will evaluate potential operating models and include estimated capital and operating costs along with possible funding sources.

The Regional Working Group was established to help guide the effort. This group consists of two representatives from each of the county’s jurisdictions. This effort is intended to build on past accomplishments and recommendations initiated in the 2014 Marbut Consulting report. There are two committees within the Regional Working Group. The first is comprised of county employees and the second is an ad hoc committee composed of elected officials.

The MIG report called for completion of Phase One by December 2021. On February 15, 2022, an HHS manager was asked if the report could be released to assist the grand jury.

The response was that the report was not yet available. The HHS manager stated that the report had not yet been approved by the ad hoc committee of elected officials and therefore could not be released. On March 15, the grand jury discovered on the Placer County web site that the initial report had been released. The following chart lists the key findings and/or recommendations from two previous Placer County consultant reports, along with the latest suggestions from the MIG Phase One report.
41 41 Potential strategies emerge from Placer’s regional effort to respond to homelessness, published March 11, 2022 https://www.placer.ca.gov/7875/Strategies-e merge-from-Placers-regional, a ccessed April 18, 2022 Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
57 Placer Consortium on
Homelessness and
Affordable Housing: Ten-
Year Plan to End
Homelessness in Placer
County
2004-201442

HomeBase/The Center for
Common Concerns
Consultants 2003

FINDINGS

RECOMMENDATIONS
Homeless Needs
Assessment and Action
Plan for Placer County43

Marbut Consulting
March 30, 2015

FINDINGS

RECOMMENDATIONS
Placer Regional
Homelessness
Response—Emerging
Strategies
Phase One Report44

MIG Consultants
March 2022

FINDINGS

RECOMMENDATIONS
If we build a sufficient
number of units to house
every homeless person—
but do not offer barrier-
free, appropriate
supportive services (as well
as sufficient transitional
and other short-term
housing)—we will never
end homelessness.

Open a 24/7/168/365
Come-As-You-Are Services
(CAYA) Center in Auburn
for single homeless men
and women... co-locating
and integrating adult
homeless services at one
location.

Explore the possibility of
growing the amount of
supportive interim housing
by converting hotels/motels
into interim housing by
siting criteria.

Renew conditional use
permit for North Auburn
emergency shelter.

Explore Safe Park and/or
Safe Camp locations.

Establish a safe haven,
providing a low-demand,
less structured
environment in which to
provide mentally ill
homeless people immediate
There is a critical need for
24/7 emergency services
and sheltering/housing in
Auburn.

Explore the potential of a
Sobering Center (short-term
center for people
experiencing intoxication or
mental health crises) with

42 Placer Consortium on Homelessness and Affordable Housing: Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness in Placer County 2004-2014
https://b.3cdn.net/naeh/bc565b27f9926bfcb8_zwm6ib1ui.pdf, a ccessed April 18, 2022 43 Homeless Needs Assessment and Action Plan for Placer County Prepared by Robert G. Marbut Jr., Ph.D., Written Report - March 30,2015, www.placer.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/10397/Homeless-N eeds-Assessment-and- Action-Plan-PDF?bidId=, accessed A pril 18, 2022
44 Placer Regional Homelessness Response Emerging Strategies Phase One Report, March 2022, www.placer.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/59123/Final-Placer-Homelessness-Response-Emerging-Strategies- Phase-One-Report, accessed A pril 18, 2022
Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
58 Placer Consortium on
Homelessness and
Affordable Housing: Ten-
Year Plan to End
Homelessness in Placer
County
2004-201442

HomeBase/The Center for
Common Concerns
Consultants 2003

FINDINGS

RECOMMENDATIONS
Homeless Needs
Assessment and Action
Plan for Placer County43

Marbut Consulting
March 30, 2015

FINDINGS

RECOMMENDATIONS
Placer Regional
Homelessness
Response—Emerging
Strategies
Phase One Report44

MIG Consultants
March 2022

FINDINGS

RECOMMENDATIONS
access to safety, stability,
permanent housing referral,
and treatment.

Relative to the rest of the
USA, the overall number of
people experiencing
homelessness per capita is
low. However, the number
of people experiencing
chronic and street-level
homelessness is nearly
TRIPLE the national
average, and this situation
is getting worse.

appropriate services and
support.

There is a need to provide
more options for people
who do not meet current
entrance requirements for
sheltering and other
services.

Benefit: Low barrier
shelters will allow people to
gain access to safe housing
who would otherwise
remain on the streets or
camping on public lands.

Develop a multi-service
center (MSC) that would
offer and coordinate the
delivery of basic need and
therapeutic services.

Comprehensive services
would be available at this
“one-stop” site.

Coordinating services in
this way will often lead to a
more effective and
Longer term, more suitable
sites and options should be
researched, such as a mini-
campus model that has
been promoted at times by
the Lazarus Project. Beyond
affordability, availability
and good community
buffers, a new location
should allow for a true
24/7/168/365 come-as-
Continue to explore need
for emergency shelter in
south Placer outside of
residential neighborhoods
with on-site services or
proximate access to
services.

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
59 Placer Consortium on
Homelessness and
Affordable Housing: Ten-
Year Plan to End
Homelessness in Placer
County
2004-201442

HomeBase/The Center for
Common Concerns
Consultants 2003

FINDINGS

RECOMMENDATIONS
Homeless Needs
Assessment and Action
Plan for Placer County43

Marbut Consulting
March 30, 2015

FINDINGS

RECOMMENDATIONS
Placer Regional
Homelessness
Response—Emerging
Strategies
Phase One Report44

MIG Consultants
March 2022

FINDINGS

RECOMMENDATIONS
accelerated path toward
housing and stability, as
outreach, shelter, support
services and permanent
housing all can be provided
to clients in a coordinated
manner that makes success
more likely.
you-are center to be created
with holistic and
comprehensive services.

Develop accountability
measures that enable us to
manage our efforts and
track our outcomes and
progress.

There is no integrated-
strategic level decision
making process.

There is not a connected
“system” of care. Service
providers are largely
working in their own
isolated silos.

The existing HMIS and PITC
data is “thin” and does not
allow policy makers to
make meaningful strategic
decisions.

Homeless Management
Integrated System (HMIS)
provides a coordinated
platform for multiple
agencies to assess and serve
unhoused people.

Evaluate and strengthen
Coordinated Entry/211
Coordinated Entry System
(CES)
The recommendations of all three reports emphasize the need for low barrier shelters.

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
60 Low barrier shelters act as a starting point in addressing the visible needs of those in the encampments. Shelter workers and HHS employees work with the temporary residents, assessing their needs, and directing them to services available through the county and non- profit organizations. Sheriff deputies and law enforcement who now patrol the encampments would be able to continue their communication and interactions with the campers but in an entirely safer and healthier environment.

Low barrier facilities strive to create an atmosphere of trust between the residents and service providers, guiding homeless persons towards improving their life issues with the end objective of obtaining a permanent housing placement. Ideally, per PCSO, there should be a low barrier facility established near every law enforcement agency in the county, allowing each jurisdiction to handle their local encampment issues.

Placer County Camping Ordinance
On January 11, 2022, the county CEO’s staff introduced a proposed ordinance to repeal and replace the previously proposed county code that would have banned all camping on the PCGC between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. The proposed ordinance directed CEO’s staff to explore service alternatives during the hours when camping would be prohibited.

On February 8, 2022, the BOS received public comment on the code change. Staff was also asked to solicit additional community input concerning the PCGC encampment and the proposed ordinance.

On February 23, 2022, staff from the PCSO, HHS, Probation, and the CEO’s office held a two- hour community roundtable to share information on county-provided homeless services, discuss concerns regarding the campsite, and solicit public input on the new proposed ordinance.

This meeting produced many viewpoints including:
• Attendees agreed that the current condition of unhoused encampments and accumulation of personal property on the PCGC is unacceptable and that action by the BOS is warranted
Photo Credit: Norma J. Worley
Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
61 • The current encampments of unhoused individuals present health and safety concerns to county employees and the public who have experienced vandalism, theft, confrontations, threats, and additional offensive behavior from unhoused individuals residing at the PCGC
• Putting time and place restrictions on encampments will encourage unsheltered individuals to engage in services and find housing
• A daytime camping ban which required daily breakdown and set up of camps would create a hardship, particularly for elderly or disabled individuals On March 8, 2022, the CEO’s office presented modifications to the proposed ordinance based on community input. The revised proposed ordinance stated:
• Those camping by necessity, meaning no low barrier beds are available, will be allowed to stay on county property; however, they will be expected to assume a reasonable degree of responsibility for the condition of their camp and for their behaviors
• Camping on county property will only be prohibited where and when ordinance referenced signage is posted
• Elimination of the daytime camping ban, allowing campers to remain on property 24 hours a day
• New “clean and clear” provisions allow the county to provide housekeeping services for residents of encampments by addressing rodent infestations, removing soiled furniture, rotten food, and resolving other unsafe or unsanitary conditions Upon implementation of the proposed
ordinance, CEO staff will create and develop
an additional task force. Their duties will be
to monitor and routinely clean areas where
individuals are known to be camping by
necessity. This is intended to help ensure
the health and safety of the public.

The CEO’s office stated that there would be
a one-time allocation of $150,000 from the
general fund for clean-up efforts at the
government center for debris removal,
temporary storage, and signage installation.

Ongoing costs for future clean-up efforts are
unknown. The BOS then voted to repeal the
current camping ordinance and replace it
with the CEO’s recommendations.

Photo Credit: Norma J. Worley
Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
62 Possible Future Solutions
On May 11, 2021, the BOS adopted the Placer County Housing Element 2021 – 202945. In that report, a new program/allowance for neighborhood shelters was established and states, in part:

HE-41 [Zoning Code Amendments for Emergency and Supportive Housing] was established to amend the zoning code to allow for low barrier-navigation center developments by right in mixed-used zones and nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses. Low-barrier navigation centers are temporary service enriched shelters, focused on helping homeless individuals and families obtain permanent housing.

The grand jury interviewed a staff member from a local homeless services provider. Thi s agency is a multifaceted entity that at any given time serves over 185 homeless men, women, and children in Placer County through programs at four separate locations. The organization operates a one-hundred bed, high barrier emergency housing and services program located at the DeWitt Center in Auburn. Due to COVID-19, the current maximum capacity is ninety-two. This facility accommodates Placer County residents eighteen years or older. The entry requirements include, but are not limited to, residents being clean and sober and not a Penal Code § 290 registered sex offender. A limited number of support animals are allowed at this facility. None of these shelters, however, are classified as low barrier facilities.

A local non-profit organization is in the process of obtaining grant and private funding to build a large, multi-level facility. If approved, this would be a controlled environment facility offering subsidized rental housing, emergency housing, low barrier shelter, health care, and support services in a single location. The proposed facility, with a fifty-bed low barrier section, is one feasible option offered to Placer County to help alleviate the encampment problem. If a campus-type homeless facility is approved, the current one hundred-bed high barrier shelter at the DeWitt Center could then be repurposed into a fifty-bed low barrier facility. These two proposed low barrier shelters would be able to house most of the homeless campers who are now residing on county-owned property.

Another suggested option to housing the homeless is to continue acquiring hotel properties for Project Homekey. Homekey is the state’s competitive grant program that followed Project Roomkey, which urgently sheltered vulnerable people experiencing homelessness in trailers, motels, and hotels to prevent the spread of COVID-19.46 On April 28, 2022 this option became a reality when Placer County announced that they were awarded $23,516,978 in funding for the intended purchase of a Roseville hotel to be converted as permanent supportive housing for people experiencing homelessness. The

45 County of Placer, 2021-2029 Housing Element, https://www.placer.ca.gov/7394/Goals-Policies-and-Programs, accessed March 22, 2022
46 www.placer.ca.gov/7979/Placer- County-awarded-235-million-to- con#:~:text=Homekey%20is%20the%20state’s%20competitive%20grant%20program%20that,anticipation%20of%20 state%20funding%20coming%20to%20an%20end, accessed 5/ 26/2022 Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
63 former Hampton Inn & Suites in Roseville is the proposed Roomkey site to be converted to permanent supportive housing under the new Homekey grant, with eighty-two residential units which will be managed a local nonprofit provider.

Previously the county acquired a fourteen-u nit motel in Kings Beach during the first round of Homekey, which is currently undergoing renovations. Like at the Kings Beach site, the Roseville Homekey site would have an onsite house manager and additional services.

Clients would be referred through the waitlist from the homeless resource helpline and expected to adhere to house rules and pay a percentage of their income as rent. Continued personalized case management could keep them engaged in employment or vocational activities, mental health, medical, and other services as needed.

There are concerns, however, of continuing with this hotel-type of shelter service. Some local government officials say Roomkey’s high cost makes it difficult to sustain long-term. Roomkey typically costs $4,000 per room each month, including services like security, case management, food, and laundry. The federal government is reimbursing those costs to local governments through at least September 2022.47
Conclusion
The grand jury’s investigation uncovered the fact that there is no single owner or leader in county staff overseeing the homeless issue. The lack of information from HHS made it difficult to compile specific facts and figures needed to accurately report the number of homeless currently residing in Placer County. In addition, HHS lacks knowledge as to the specific amount of funds available, allocated to the homeless, and how it is spent on remedying the problem. The attempt by the grand jury to gather financial information was an act of futility because county officials were not able to provide answers.

There is a common sentiment that homeless individuals are being excluded from services and shelters due to their complex needs. The grand jury learned that many individuals are, in fact, self-excluding because they choose not to conform to prescribed rules as a requirement to be admitted into the available high barrier shelters. These individuals choose not to follow societal norms that ensure everyone’s safety that promote shelter and community harmony. Shelters without rules are not realistic. It calls into question what and how much should reasonably be invested in services and shelters for individuals who will not or cannot enlist in them.

Despite the public’s negative perception and antagonism towards implementation of low barrier shelters, this type of facility could help resolve the problem of the encampment at DeWitt, as well as those that have sprung up throughout the county. If low barrier shelter beds are available, the county would be able to relocate campers to a facility in compliance with Martin v. Boise.

Placer County can be a leader for change by proactively building a better system of care for those who are chronically homeless. It is just a matter of county agencies, private entities,

47 www.ijpr.org/poverty- and-homelessness/2021-05-04/project-roomkey-sheltered-thousands-of-californias-homeless- residents-will-the-model-live-on-post-pandemic Accessed 5/ 26/2022 Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
64 and non-profit organizations creating and incorporating low barrier shelters into the services and housing that are already offered.

Photo Credit: Norma J. Worley
Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
65 Findings
The grand jury found:

F1: There is no single entity, department, or individual providing oversight and leadership in Placer County for the homeless issue resulting in uncoordinated or overlapping services.

F2: 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 transparency.

F3: N o 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 homeless issue difficult.

F4: 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 transparency.

F5: 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.

F6: 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 are faced with today.

F7: A local non -profit entity proposes a facility that, if approved, might address some of the needs of the homeless in Placer County.

F8: T he 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 received and spent.

F9: 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 help through county services.

F10: The passing of this revised camping ordinance does not resolve the issue of how to reduce the number of campers and encampments in Placer County.

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
66 F11: 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 Placer County, placing a burden on local taxpayers and public safety.

F12: The DeWitt Center encampment is rampant with crime including assaults, batteries, sales and usage of narcotics, domestic violence, and possession of deadly weapons, creating an unsafe environment.

F13: Not all homeless individuals make the choice to accept support services or enter shelters due to mental health or behavioral anomalies.

F14: There is a lack of leadership, responsibility, and accountability among Placer County officials in dealing with the homeless situation.

F15: T he 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 excellent rapport and are caring and compassionate in dealing with the campers.

F16: The Placer County Sheriff’s Office Homeless Liaison Team would be strengthened with the addition of more deputies.

F17: 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.

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
67 Recommendations
The grand jury recommends that:

R1: By January 1, 2023, Placer County Board of Supervisors shall designate a single homeless “czar” with the budget, authority, and resources to oversee the county’s services for the homeless. This position will provide leadership, oversight, and accountability in directing funds and resources allocated and expended for the homeless. This individual will report to the County Executive Officer.48 R2: By January 1, 2023, the Placer County Board of Supervisors shall implement the provisions of proposed Assembly Bill 2630, requiring all unincorporated areas and cities in Placer County to be transparent on all funding received and expended on homelessness.

R3: By January 1, 2023, the Placer County Executive Officer shall create a transparent homeless expense report for the public. This report must include all county costs, expenses, and funding for all county programs relating to the homeless population.

This report shall be published semi-annually on January 1 and July 1 of each year and shall be placed prominently on the county website.

R4: By January 1, 2023, and to meet the obligations of the Martin v. Boise decision and the requirements of the Placer County Housing Element 2021 - 2029, HE-41, the Placer County Board of Supervisors shall immediately seek and obtain funding to create low barrier shelters throughout Placer County.

R5: By January 1, 2023, all cities and jurisdictions in Placer County shall identify and apply for grants, allocate funds, and establish their own municipal low barrier facilities.

R6: By October 1, 2022, in compliance with of the Placer County Housing Element 2021 - 2029, HE-41, the Placer County Board of Supervisors shall seek out and approve a multi-service, including low-barrier, facility within Placer County.

R7: By January 1, 2023, the Placer County Board of Supervisors shall pass an effective and enforceable ordinance to manage and remove unsanctioned camping on Placer County property.

R8: By September 1, 2022, the Placer County Board of Supervisors and the Placer County Sheriff’s Office shall increase staffing and funding for the Homeless Liaison Team.

48 It should be noted that the 2020 - 2021 Grand Jury Report recommended “By January 1, 2022, Placer County Health and Human Services will take steps to add a division or reorganize the department, to create a single designated division to manage all homeless programs in the county.”, www.placer.courts.ca.gov/grandjury/2020- 2021/2020-2021%20Final%20Report%20FINAL%20VERSION.pdf, accessed A pril 20, 2022 Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
68 R9: By October 1, 2022, the Placer County Board of Supervisors shall compare and evaluate the two prior homeless consulting reports (2004 and 2015) with the current 2022 report to determine why little or no action has been taken on the previous and almost identical report recommendations. No further consultants should be hired or compensated until previous recommendations have been implemented.

Request for Response
Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, the Placer County Grand Jury requests a response from the following governing bodies:

Recommendations Response
Requiring Response Due Date
Cindy Gustafson R1, R2, R4, R6, September 1, 2022
Chairperson R7, R8, R9
Placer County Board of Supervisors
175 Fulweiler Avenue
Auburn, CA 95603
Devon Bell R8 S eptember 1, 2022
Sheriff
Placer County Sheriff’s Office
2929 Richardson Drive
Auburn, CA 95603
Jane Christenson R1, R3 October 1, 2022
Acting County Executive Officer
Placer County Executive Office
175 Fulweiler Avenue
Auburn, CA 95603
Dominick Casey R5 October 1, 2022
City Manager
City of Roseville
316 Vernon St
Roseville, CA 95678
Aly Zimmerman R5 O ctober 1, 2022
City Manager
City of Rocklin
3970 Rocklin Rd
Rocklin, CA 95677

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
69 Sean Scully R5 October 1, 2022
City Manager
City of Lincoln
600 Sixth Street
Lincoln, CA 95648
John W. Dunlevy, Jr. R5 O ctober 1, 2022
City Manager
City of Auburn
1225 Lincoln Way
Auburn, CA 95603
Sean Rabé R5 October 1, 2022
Town Manager
To
wn of Loomis
P.O. Box 1330
Loomis, CA 95650
Wes Heathcock R5 O ctober 1, 2022
City Manager
City of Colfax
P.O. Box 702
Colfax, CA 95713
Copies sent to:

Dr. Robert Oldham
Director
Placer County Health & Human Services
3091 County Center Dr. #290
A
uburn, CA 95603

Photo Credit: Norma J. Worley

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
70 71
Lincoln, California
A City in Transition

Photo Credit: Bob Bettencourt
Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
72 Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
73 Lincoln, California
A City in Transition
Summary
The city of Lincoln is a rapidly growing city. Its population increased 282.1 percent between 2000 and 2010, making it the fastest growing city with over 10,000 people in the United States.49 As a result of this significant growth, Lincoln is at a crossroads.

The confluence of events potentially impacting Lincoln’s financial stability are (1) citizen mistrust of its government, and (2) urban sprawl that has farmers at odds with city council.

A 2019 state auditor’s report on the city of Lincoln, titled Fiscal Mismanagement, Insufficient Accountability and Lax Oversight Threaten the City’s Stability50 (the state auditor’s report), pinpoints many issues of this fast-growing city.

Glossary
Assembly Bill (AB) 2257 Brown Act: The Ralph M. Brown Act is an act of the California State Legislature, passed in 1953, that guarantees the public’s right to attend and participate in meetings of local legislative bodies.

Agriculture Overlay (AG): A zoning plan that allows current farmland to be maintained in areas of development. The AG overlay is subject to change by the city council.

Lincoln City Council (LCC): An elected five-member board that governs the municipality.

The position of mayor is filled by the LCC on a rotational basis.

Lincoln city plan: Adopted by the LCC in March of 2008. It is the document that is used to guide the city’s growth and development.

Lincoln Planning Commission (LPC): A seven-member board appointed by the city council that oversees and approves the city’s development plans.

49Table 5, page 11, “Population Distribution and Change: 2000 to 2010" U.S. Census Bureau, dated March 2011, https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2011/dec/c2010br-01.pdf accessed A pril 22, 2022 50Report: “City of Lincoln Financial Mismanagement, Insufficient Accountability, and Lax Oversight Threaten the City’s Stability March 2019” https://www.auditor.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2018-110.pdf R ecommendations and responses, https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/responses/2018-110/all, various document dates, accessed April 22, 2022

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
74 State auditor’s report: In March of 2019, the California State Auditor issued a report about the City of Lincoln, titled, “Fiscal Mismanagement, Insufficient Accountability and Lax Oversight Threaten the City’s Stability.”
Village 5: A proposed development of 8,100 new homes along the Highway 65 corridor.

Background
The 2021-2022 grand jury received two complaints regarding the Lincoln city government.

One of the complaints could not be investigated. The other complaint involved the practices of the LPC. As the grand jury investigated this complaint, it decided to expand the scope of the investigation to include the LCC and the city government.

Methodology
The grand jury conducted interviews with current and former Lincoln city officials, city council members, and concerned citizens; viewed city council meetings on recorded video, and reviewed the LCC and LPC agendas and minutes. Internet research was conducted utilizing open-source inspection of social media. As part of customary due diligence, the grand jury reviewed previous grand jury reports. The Placer County Grand Jury (PCGJ) also conducted an in-depth review of the 2019 state auditor’s report. This investigative process led the grand jury to a variety of findings.

Two jurors have been fully recused from this investigation.

Discussion
Previous Investigations and Audits
The first resource the grand jury reviewed was the March 2019, state auditor’s report. The scope of the report highlighted irregular practices of the city’s governing body. These practices included making questionable loans, transfers and allocations, over-charging utility ratepayers, not following established policies and procedures, alleged conflict of interest by a councilmember, and not following protocol in town meetings.

Lincoln agreed with the state auditor’s report findings and committed to resolving the issues. City officials stated to the grand jury that two recommendations by the auditor remain outstanding and are in process for correction. One is the update to the Public Facility Element and the other is the interfund loan accounting cleanup.

The second resource the grand jury reviewed was the PCGJ 2019-2020 report stating Lincoln did not provide a prominent online link to current city council meeting agendas in non-compliance with the Brown Act. That report recommended that Lincoln update its website by making the link to the current city council agenda prominent. Lincoln disagreed partially with the recommendation but has subsequently complied and enhanced its website for easier and more efficient user navigation.

Thirdly, the 2020-2021 grand jury reported that Lincoln had significant issues in the management of its airport. Lincoln has failed to implement any of the changes recommended in that report.

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
75 The March 11, 2022 edition of the Lincoln News
Messenger pointed out concerns with the airport and
reported that the airport’s management has resulted in
unrealized revenue. The Lincoln News Messenger article
also stated “… the city could receive about 40 percent of the margin price that it costs in order to fuel a plane. For example, fueling an average jet costs about $17,000,
according to the pilots. This means the city could earn an estimate of $6,800 for the General Fund every time
an average jet fuels up.” The article stated that the city is looking at the issues.51
Ongoing Financial Management Concerns
Lincoln continues to deal with financial issues. A review of the budget for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2021, showed that Lincoln’s sales tax revenues covered about 8.6 percent of the city’s budget and property tax revenue covered 22.2 percent.

In comparison with nearby Roseville, 41.9 percent of Roseville’s budget is covered by sales tax and 32.4 percent of it is covered by property tax. A recent PUBLICCEO web article entitled, “A primer on California city revenues, Part two: Major city revenues,”52 stated that, “sales and use tax revenue provides on average 30 percent of general-purpose revenue and often as much as 45 percent.” The article also stated, “Property tax revenue accounts for more than one-third of general revenue for the average full-service city.” Lincoln falls well short in both areas.

As pointed out by almost all the individuals the grand jury interviewed, this lack of revenue is a major problem and accounts for many of the city’s difficulties in recruiting and retaining staff. The police and fire departments are understaffed based on comparison with other neighboring jurisdictions. As one point of comparison, the city of Auburn has a headcount of twenty-eight police staff and twenty-two fire fighters.53 Lincoln, with more than three times the population, has a police headcount of twenty-five—eighteen officers, half a chief, one lieutenant, and four-and-one-half sergeants. Lincoln fire district has twenty-and-one-half headcount—half a chief, two battalion chiefs, nine fire captains, and nine fire fighters.
54 As disclosed in interviews with some city officials, the city’s shortfall in revenue is the major factor in understaffing of the police and fire departments. Placer County has also

51 Lincoln pilots respond to airport recommendations update, Dana Harrison, March 11, 2022 3:OO PM, Gold Country Media, https://goldcountrymedia.com/news/215339/lincoln-pilots-respond-to-airport-recommendations-update/ accessed April 22, 2022
52 “A primer on California City Revenues, Part Two: Major City Revenues”, Michael Coleman, December 1, 2016 https://www.westerncity.com/article/primer-california-city-revenues-part-two-major-city-revenues accessed A pril 22, 2022
53https://www.auburn.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1840/FY-20-21-Budget 2020-2021 page 2 P reliminary Operating Budget, accessed April 22, 2022
54Data from Auburn and Lincoln 2021 Budget page 141 and 144, https://www.lincolnca.gov /en/our- government/resources/Documents/Finance/Budgets-AnnualOperatingandCapital/Budget-FY-2020-2021- compressed.pdf accessed April 22, 2022
Photo Credit: Bob Bettencourt
Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
76 recognized this shortfall, as indicated below. On October 28, 2020 the Placer County website published an article titled, “Placer County set to share more tax revenue with City of Lincoln to enhance public safety.” According to the article:55 The Board of Supervisors (BOS) has approved a resolution authorizing an agreement that could provide the City of Lincoln up to $11.7 million to enhance public safety for city residents. The jointly drafted agreement allows for a two-year extension if Lincoln voters approve a supplemental sales tax or transaction tax measure by 2028 to augment the city’s safety services budget. This temporary funding increase will aid Lincoln over the next few years, but a more permanent solution will be needed.

Current and former Lincoln officials, who spoke to
the grand jury, stated that for the city to become
fiscally healthy, it needs to grow its retail and
commercial base. One city official stated that Costco
would be an ideal candidate to increase the city’s
revenue with sales tax proceeds. Costco’s site
criteria56, per Gallellire.com and other sites, states
that Costco requires a population of 200,000+ within
a five-mile radius and a median family income of
$75,000+. While Lincoln’s median income is
sufficient, at nearly $89,000, the population of
Lincoln is less than 50,000. The prospects of a Costco
opening in Lincoln are not favorable. These same
demographics also make attracting other large box
retailers problematic.

Because of its inability to draw large box retailers,
Lincoln has opted to build more homes. In some of
the developments, retail space has been reduced in
favor of more homes. If all 8,100 homes are built in Village 5, at an average home price of one million dollars, the city of Lincoln would net about $4.5 million dollars annually (5.6 percent, the city’s share, of eighty-one million dollars in property tax). While this seems to be a large amount, it still does not meet the percentage of yearly income revenue needed to support city operations.

Lincoln’s sales tax rate is 7.25 percent, of which the city gets 1 percent. 57 If one looks at the
sales tax rate in the other cities in Placer County, Roseville charges 7.75 percent, Loomis charges 7.50 percent, while Rocklin, Auburn and Colfax all charge 7.25 percent. Cities can

55 Placer County set to share more tax revenue with City of Lincoln to enhance public safety Published on Oct. 28, 2020, https://www.placer.ca.gov/6928/County- shares-more-tax-revenue-with-Linc accessed March 18, 2022
56 https://www.gallellire.com/images/client_flyers/Costco.pdf, a ccessed April 22, 2022 57“A primer on California City Revenues, Part Two: Major City Revenues”, Michael Coleman, December 1, 2016, , https://www.westerncity.com/article/primer-california-city-revenues-part-two-major-city-revenues accessed A pril 22, 2022

Photo Credit: Bob Bettencourt
Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
77 increase their sales and use taxes in increments of .125 percent with two-thirds city council approval and majority voter approval for a general tax. A special tax requires a two-thirds voter approval. The combined rate of these taxes is capped at two percent in most counties.

This may be one way Lincoln could raise additional funds for police and fire. The temporary funding granted by Placer County also points to this and states that Lincoln needs to do this by 2028 to continue to receive the additional county revenue.

Agriculture Overlay Concerns
For most of its existence, Lincoln has been a farming community.

Today, this small town has grown to become a bedroom
community as well as a destination retirement community: Sun City Lincoln Hills (6,783 existing homes), Esplanade at Turkey Creek (850 homes under construction), and Twelve Bridges:

Nature’s Master-Planned Community, all contribute to this rapid growth. Village 5, part of Lincoln’s general plan to increase single family housing, is in the planning/review stages. This project seeks to build 8,100 homes along Highway 65.

The grand jury learned during its interviews that concerns exist about the Village 5 project.

Specifically, the issue pertains to rezoning of farmland to meet the need of the builders of this project, with or without the landowners’ consent. This is, in fact, within the city council’s powers. In September 2021, the city council approved, on recommendation of the planning commission, consideration for rezoning for annexation of 4,785 acres as part of Village 5.

During interviews, the grand jury learned that some farmers plan to continue to farm their properties. A concession from the LPC to the landowners was proposed—an AG overlay.

The grand jury took a deeper look into exactly what an AG overlay is and learned that this may not benefit the farmers in the long run, as it is not a permanent allowance and is subject to change by current or future city councils.

The Lincoln general plan shows that farmlands along the Highway 65 corridor are intended for future residential and commercial use.58 When questioned by the grand jury as to the validity of this provision in the AG overlay agreement, council members did state that there is no guarantee that the AG overlay will remain for any significant time and that they are unable to establish an “in perpetuity” type of agreement with farmland owners. Given the mistrust that some of these individuals have with the city council, it is a cause of concern for the farmers.

58Lincoln General Plan - Technical Appendices (lincolnca.gov) March 2008, https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/business- and-development/resources/Documents/technical-appendices.pdf accessed Apr il 22, 2022

Photo Credit: Bob Bettencourt
Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
78 The Village 5 Specific Plan https://www.lincolnvillage5.com/ Open Space Issues
The City of Lincoln has planned its residential and commercial developments to ensure the presence of ample “open space.” Open space is generally defined as undeveloped land that is open to the public. Lincoln has identified two different types of open space, as defined in their Village 5 planning documents, and used for zoning purposes:

1. Village 5 open space preserve: coinciding with the Auburn and Markham Ravine corridors. Zoning is applied to natural resources, including creeks, and seasonal wetlands as well as oak trees and natural vegetation.

2. Natural open space: this designation is applied to areas adjacent to open space preserves. These areas are set aside to preserve wetland and “aquatic resource features that contribute to the integrity of the watersheds” contained within the Village 5 open space areas.

The issue of open space was not raised in the initial citizen complaint received by the grand jury. The topic did come up during the grand jury interviews. One of the interviewees discussed the zoning of open space and the financial impact that it could have on property owners in areas being zoned as open space.

Lincoln’s stated intention is to enable property owners to continue to use their property for agricultural purposes. If the property owners choose to sell their property at some time in

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
79 the future, the land will be subject to new zoning requirements. Property zoned for open space usage will not be available for development. From the farmers’ perspective, this zoning could impact the sale value of this land and make it more difficult to sell in the future. Some interviewees suggested that the open space designations were protective of the developers’ land and interests and not the farmers.

Outdated City Plan
Citizens and stakeholders complained that Lincoln, which has an approved city plan, doesn’t follow it when it conflicts with development ideas that are presented to the LPC and LCC.

The LCC is primarily responsible for following the 2008 city plan in recommending whether to approve new development. Those persons interviewed indicated that at the current time, the LCC doesn’t seem to follow the plan. This has resulted in controversial developments and further breached the trust of some citizens. The grand jury learned that, per state law, plans can be amended up to four times a year.

It was stated during multiple interviews that the general plan should be updated to reflect the city’s current situation. A city official made a statement that changes are made “arbitrarily.” This comment was substantiated during multiple interviews. Without an updated and workable plan, there can be no long term look at what is best for the city.

Lack of trust in city leadership
Some of the interviewees stated that they have a lack of trust in city leadership. The grand jury was not able to quantify how widespread this is and decided only to note it here. Some of these concerns were in response to the state audit, some mentioned the aura of secrecy surrounding city officials, and some stated that Lincoln would disregard whatever the grand jury reports.

Although unable to quantify the number or percentage of Lincoln citizens that lack trust in government, it came up enough during interviews with citizens, past and present Lincoln officials, and on social media, for the grand jury to believe that it is still a significant issue.

For the city to move forward, city officials need to be open and transparent. The new city manager has stated that he is planning to hold open forums to build trust. The council also needs to work to build the trust of the citizens.

It is notable that despite the fact that in 2020 Placer County granted Lincoln up to $11.7 million to address public safety issues, not one Lincoln official mentioned this in grand jury interviews. Some of that money is conditional based on Lincoln increasing their sales and use tax rate, which would require LCC approval and a citizen vote. To begin to establish trust, concerns must be dealt with in an open and honest manner.

Conclusion
Lincoln has addressed some of the issues uncovered by previous investigations and is in the process of resolving some of those that are outstanding. Despite their efforts, there are still areas of concern that need to be rectified. These include the ongoing revenue shortfall, Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
80 a general plan that is out-of-sync with the rapid growth of the city, and the perception of a lack of transparency and openness in the LCC.

Findings
The grand jury found that:

F1: Lincoln has significant financial issues and needs to find additional ways to increase revenue
F2: City government has failed to act on previous recommendations.

F3: Lincoln has an opportunity to raise some revenue through the airport fees but have not acknowledged there is needed action, as stated in the Lincoln News Messenger article.

F4: Placer County has granted up to $11,700,000 additional funds to Lincoln to aid in its current financial situation to support public safety infrastructure.

F5: Lincoln is attempting to resolve some of the problems caused by past mismanagement.

F6: The new city manager seems capable and aware of the issues facing the city.

F7: Lincoln lacks sufficient commercial and retail establishments needed to increase its tax base.

F8: Lincoln lacks the demographic parameters that draw large retailers to a city.

F9: The city has had significant turnover in city management positions including city manager, police chief, and fire chief.

F10: The police and fire departments are greatly understaffed for the current population of the city.

F11: The city’s general plan needs to be updated to reflect population growth and the state of the city.

F12: Lincoln’s sales tax rate is 7.25 percent.

F13: Building more houses will not generate enough property tax revenue to solve the city’s financial issues.

Recommendations
The grand jury recommends that:

R1: By October 1, 2022, the Lincoln City Council shall approve a raise in the sales tax.

R2: By January 1, 2023, the Lincoln City Council shall establish a new task force to develop a plan to bring more retail and commercial businesses into the city.

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
81 R3: By January 1, 2023, the Lincoln City Manager shall conduct a thorough financial review to set goals to meet the city’s needs based on realistic planned growth and funding levels.

R4: By January 1, 2023, the Lincoln City Manager shall utilize the formal update process to amend the city plan to reflect the current and forward looking situation of the city.

Request for Response:

Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, the Placer County Grand Jury requests a response from the following governing bodies:

Recommendations Response
R equiring Response Due Date
Holly Andreatta, Mayor R1 ,R2, R3, R4, R5, R6 September 1, 2022 City of Lincoln
Lincoln City Hall
600 Sixth Street
Lincoln, CA 95648

Sean Scully, Lincoln City Manager R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6 October 1, 2022 Lincoln City Hall
600 Sixth Street
Lincoln, CA 95648

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
82 83
Livestreaming of Classes
Rapid Response from Public Schools
During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Photo Credit: Monica Gavia
Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
84 Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
85 Livestreaming of Classes
Rapid Response from Public Schools During the COVID-19
Pandemic
Summary
The COVID-19 pandemic that began in 2020 forced Placer County public schools to readjust how students were to be taught. Superintendents, principals, teachers, students, and parents participated in the necessary shift from in-class learning to distance learning, coordinated by the Placer County Office of Education. Numerous obstacles were overcome by the persistence and ingenuity of all involved. The experience and knowledge gained by Placer County educators will be useful if and/or when future disasters occur, such as fires, floods, and disease outbreaks.

Background
The Placer County Grand Jury investigated the Placer County Office of Education’s (PCOE) and several local school districts’ responses to the pandemic. The grand jury also investigated if any of the knowledge and practices utilized during the pandemic could be applied to current and future school challenges. The grand jury chose to research this topic while the experience was still fresh in educators’ minds.

Methodology
The Placer County Grand Jury investigated distance learning by interviewing Placer County educators and through internet research.

Discussion
On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic. Two days later, President Trump declared the pandemic a national emergency. Placer County responded as follows:
• Friday, March 13, 2020—Placer County Superintendent of Schools, Gayle Garbolino-Mojica, announced all public schools in Placer County would be closed for three weeks in response to the COVID-19 outbreak.

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
86 • Monday, March 16, 2020—Placer County Office of Education59 temporarily closed over 100 schools across nineteen districts, affecting at least 74,900 students and 4,370 staff (according to figures from the California Department of Education).60 • Tuesday, March 17, 2020—Governor Gavin Newsom stated that schools (including Placer County) could remain closed until summer. “Don’t anticipate schools are going to open up in a week,” Newsom said. “Please don’t anticipate in a few weeks. I would plan and assume that it’s unlikely that many of these schools, few, if any, will open up before the summer break.”61
• Friday, April 3, 2020—All public-school buildings in Placer County closed for the remainder of the academic year.

Placer County public school districts responded to this shutdown by shifting from in-class learning to livestreaming neighborhood campus classes as their teaching/learning platform. Schools distributed thousands of computers to students to facilitate this new learning mode. Hot spots (internet connection devices) were also distributed to families with limited internet access. Utilizing a personal computer and the internet to access learning portals established by each school allowed students to continue their education.

Teachers received emergency on-the-job training on the technology of streaming and conducting a virtual classroom along with information on how to keep students engaged.

Depending on the school district, teachers received staff development training for online teaching as early as March 2020. This training included applications such as Google Classroom, Canvas, Microsoft Teams, and Zoom. Virtual instructional materials were also provided to guide and enhance the development of course materials.

Throughout the summer of 2020, Placer County school districts developed extensive plans to return safely to in-person instruction. While school districts had hoped to return to in- class/in-person instruction at the beginning of the 2020-2021 school year, the return was delayed by the state based on the number of COVID-19 cases reported in the county.

Fourteen continuous days of declining cases were needed before schools could begin to transition back to in-class instruction.

The 2021-2022 school year began with livestreaming of neighborhood campuses. It would not be until mid-September or later before some districts started in-class instruction.

Parents who did not want their child to return to in-school learning had the option of enrolling them in an independent study program, some of which also offered a virtual (remote) school setting. Many schools had soft openings, having just a few grades and small

59 The Placer County Board of Education, also known as the County Board, serves a vital role as the elected governing body for the Placer County Office of Education (PCOE) that operates under the authority of the California Constitution, the Legislature, California Education Code and the State Board of Education. www.placercoe.org/Pages/PCOE/About/Board-of-Education/Board-of-Education.aspx 60“Parents scramble for daycare plans as schools are scheduled to close for three weeks”, Van Tieu, March 13, 2020, www.abc10.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/parents-scra mble-plans-as-schools-are-scheduled-to-close-for- three-weeks/103-1b3cfb66-2147-46e9-aa13-77666aa3fd21, accessed A pril 20, 2022 61 California schools likely to be closed for rest of school year, governor says, March 17, 2020; From CNN's Jon Passantino www.cnn.com/world/live-new s/coronavirus-outbreak-03-17-20-intl- hnk/h_db93f61179be21e3f7f3c1c3b887552a, accessed A pril 20, 2022 Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
87 groups starting at alternating times. School programs evolved as the year progressed using various hybrid methods, such as attending in person on alternate days, half-days (half morning/half afternoon), and working independently at home.

Students, parents, caretakers, and educators learned to navigate and benefit from the use of livestreaming. This fostered innovation in the continuing use of this technology, post- pandemic. Many teachers now offer parents the opportunity to participate in parent/teacher conferences remotely via video conferencing. Some schools have the capability to offer an online version of “Back to School” night for those parents who are unable to physically attend. Additionally, many teachers continue to utilize skills gained during the pandemic by posting lectures and homework assignments on school web sites, allowing absent students to keep up with the class.

Once schools were back in session, livestreaming of neighborhood school classes was discontinued. Placer County Office of Education interviews revealed that PCOE’s “hands are tied” as to continuing livestreaming of neighborhood school classes. California legislation does not allocate funds for a hybrid teaching system (simultaneous classrooms). Districts have the capability and option to continue with livestreaming of actual classes but without the ADA financial support. The longstanding accepted format for schools to receive attendance funding has been that students must be in a “butts-in-seats” 62 type of classroom
setting.

Conclusion
Placer County public school districts rose to the challenge of how to continue to teach and reach students during the COVID-19 pandemic shutdown. The implementation and use of livestreaming technology of neighborhood classrooms and classes enabled students to attend their local campus, virtually. After the reopening of schools, the continued use of this technology for teaching at-home students ceased to be used. Many instructors, however, continue to employ this technology to reach parents and caretakers who might not be able to attend school functions or parent meetings.

The pandemic restrictions for public schools also applied to the Placer County Grand Jury.

Jury member meetings took place via ZOOM or TEAMS much like the students who attended classroom sessions by way of a livestreaming application. Once the pandemic was over, however, the grand jury still had the option to livestream meetings and classes.

Unfortunately, Placer county public schools do not have the same option.

62 This is a type of program whose purpose is to simply fill up seats, or it refers to a metric based on participation and attendance. Beyond Butts in Seats: Building an Elite Program, June 11, 2007, by cmadmin, certmag.com/beyond- butts-in-the-seats-building-an-elite-program, accessed A pril 20, 2022

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
88 Findings
The grand jury found that:

F1: Placer County school districts are commended for their swift response to the pandemic shutdown of in-class learning. Their quick implementation of live- streaming classes, the educators’ willingness to embrace a new way of instructing students, and the districts’ generosity in providing laptops to ensure that no student is left behind, shows the dedication of all those involved in the educational field.

F2: While technology is available to livestream neighborhood classes for students who must quarantine or for those students who might desire to attend neighborhood school classes via livestreaming, funding is not available to support the continuation of this type of teaching method. Average Daily Attendance funding is only allotted to Independent Study students and those that have “butts-in-seats.” Recommendations
The grand jury recommends that:

None. There are no recommendations.

Copies sent to:

Gayle Garbolino-Mojica
Placer County Superintendent of Schools
Placer County Office of Education
360 Nevada Street
Auburn, CA 95603

89 Placer County Jails
and
Holding Facilities
Annual Inspection Report
2021-2022

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
90 Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
91 Placer County Jails and Holding Facilities
Annual Inspection Report 2021-2022
Summary
Placer County Grand Jury conducted required inspections at the seven Placer County jails and holding facilities in Roseville, Rocklin, Auburn, and Tahoe City between the months of July and November 2021. The grand jury found these facilities to be secure, orderly, and well-run.

Glossary
Bill Santucci Justice Center: Located in Roseville, it includes the South Placer Adult Correctional Facility, Placer County Minimum Security Facility, Howard G. Gibson Courthouse, Placer County Probation Department, and Placer County Coroner’s Office.

BSCC: Board of State and Community Corrections
Detainee: Any person detained in a lockup, regardless of adjudication status.

Holding Facility or Cell: A cell in a police station or courthouse in which an inmate is held temporarily, pending charge, trial, or sentencing.

Inmate: A person confined to an institution such as a prison or hospital.

Jail: A confinement facility of a federal, state, or local law enforcement agency whose primary use is to hold persons pending adjudication of criminal charges.

Pods: Smaller, separate, and self-contained housing units known as pods or modules are designed to hold sixteen to sixty inmates and are arranged around exercise yards or support facilities in a decentralized campus pattern. A small number of prison officers, sometimes a single officer, supervise each pod.

Sally Port: A secure, controlled entry way to an enclosure.

Background
California Penal Code § 925 mandates that the grand jury shall investigate and report on the operations, accounts, and records of the officers, departments, or functions of the county. Penal Code § 919(b) specifically mandates the grand jury to inspect jails within the county.

Methodology
The grand jury visited each facility, interviewed staff, and observed inmates in housing, work, and activity areas.

One member of the grand jury was fully recused from the investigation.

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
92 Placer County Sheriff’s Office (PCSO) staff facilitated inspections in the following locations:

Jails:

1. Placer County Main Jail (PCMJ) in Auburn (October 25, 2021)

2. South Placer Adult Correctional Facility (SPACF) in Roseville (October 22, 2021)

3. South Placer Minimum Security Facility (SPMSF) in Roseville (October 22, 2021) Holding Facilities:

1. Howard G. Gibson Courthouse holding cells in Roseville (November 9, 2021)

2. Historic Courthouse in Auburn (August 30, 2021)

3. Placer County Sheriff’s Substation in Tahoe City - Burton Creek (September 28, 2021)

4. Rocklin Police Department Holding Cells (July 30, 2021)

Discussion
Placer County Main Jail
The grand jury inspected the Placer
County Main Jail located at the
Placer County Government Center
in North Auburn. Jail staff escorted
the team through the facility and
provided needed information.

This facility, managed and operated
by PCSO, was built in 1985 for 108
inmates and has since been
expanded twice, once in the 1990s
and once in the 2000s. The capacity
now is about 380 although that
number is fluid given the current COVID-19 pandemic and the needs of individual inmates.

Much of the operation of the main jail and the programs offered match the operations and programs in the South Placer facilities. Those commonalities in procedures and programs are:
• Booking procedures
• Types of cells
• Visitation policies
• Medical evaluation and continual COVID-19 testing
• COVID-19 responses (about 15% of Auburn inmates are vaccinated according to staff)
• Incentives to vaccinate
Photo Credit: Joe Sledge
Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
93 • Shifts for jail personnel
• Clothing
• Commissary
• Tablets for inmates
• Inmate welfare fund
• Classification
• Staff training, initial and continuing
There are some differences between the two facilities. The Roseville facility programs come to the inmates since they are housed in self-contained pods. In the earlier designed PCMJ, inmates move to the programs and so the hallways are in constant use as inmates are moving from area to area. This makes traffic control at the Auburn facility critical to maintain inmate physical separation while moving about the facility. This movement is monitored and coordinated through the Central Control station. From time to time, inmates from other jurisdictions are housed in Auburn. For example, El Dorado County inmates spent time in an area set aside exclusively for them, after they’d been evacuated due to the Caldor Fire.

The medical facility at the PCMJ is substantially smaller (six beds compared to thirty-eight) than the SPACF. When medically necessary, the inmates are transferred to SPACF or to a local hospital depending on degree of need. The same contractor, WellPath, manages the medical, dental, and behavioral health care needs of inmates at both facilities. Jail personnel teleconference on a weekly basis with the Placer County Health Department providing COVID-19 data for inclusion on the county COVID-19 dashboard. The grand jury observed inspirational messages painted on the walls of the main corridor saying things such as, “Change your thoughts and you change the world.” Meals are prepared at the SPACF facility and transported to the PCMJ. Meals are reheated in Auburn and are then dispensed to inmates who eat in their pods.

Important to management of the Placer County jails is the implementation of AB109 (Public Safety Realignment Act of 2011). The grand jury learned that AB109 has had a profound impact on county jails. Auburn staff reports two major effects. First, inmates with less serious felonies have been transferred to county jails from state prisons. This has affected the make-up of local jail populations as well as the environment of the jail. The second effect has been the release from custody of inmates with lesser offenses and time remaining on their sentences.

According to jail staff there are almost no low-level inmates in the Placer County jails. The decision on whom to release is based on the classification system of inmates and time remaining to be served. Inmates are classified upon entry into the system. According to staff, those inmates who have been moved from state prison facilities would prefer to return to the state prisons rather than spend their time in Placer County jails. Staff further Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
94 related that inmates have remarked that the rules are stricter in county facilities than in state prisons.

With the closing of the Deuel Vocational Institution in Tracy, California, which was the corrections department inmate transfer station, PCSO deputies are now required to transport inmates to Kern County, the new inmate transfer station. This removes deputies from their normal duties for up to two days.

In the holding cells at this facility, cleaning is carried out by inmates each time a cell is vacated. In one cell, there was an accumulation of toilet paper wads on the walls, the video monitoring camera, and floor. In another cell there were brown streaks on the wall. It was further noted that in some cells there was an accumulation of debris where walls and floors intersect.

South Placer Adult Correctional Facility and South Placer Minimum Security Facility
South Placer Adult Correctional Facility
The grand jury inspected the SPACF and the
SPMSF. Both facilities are co-located on Go
For Broke Road in Roseville, a part of the
Santucci Justice Center. The inspection team
met with command staff. All staff
encountered were polite, engaging, and
forthcoming with information. According to a
member of the command staff, “we are here
to keep them safe,” and when asked what
keeps him awake at night his immediate
response was “the safety of staff and
inmates.”
The facilities are operational twenty-four hours per day, 365 days per year. Correctional staff work twelve-hour shifts, seven to seven, four days on and three days off, subject to an alternating schedule. Current staffing is generally twelve to eighteen deputies, depending on available personnel, correctional officers, and support staff. Coverage at night is considerably lower. All training, such as first aid and automated external defibrillator (AED), is up to date.

Construction for both facilities was completed in 2015. The population, at the time of this inspection, consisted of 332 male inmates at the SPACF and 120 male and female inmates, which is maximum capacity, at the SPMCF. Female inmates (other than minimum security) are housed in the PCMJ in Auburn.

The public counter area, located inside the main entrance, provides access to the inmate visiting area. Inmates are allowed up to two visits, for a maximum of one hour per week for family members or other authorized contacts. The visits are through video equipment with no physical contact possible. Additional video visits are available for a fee. Attorney visits and mental health visits are unlimited and conducted elsewhere within the facility.

Photo Credit: Joe Sledge
Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
95 This part of the facility also houses administrative offices which deal with visitors, warrants, bail payments, and other administrative issues. As a result of AB109, some arrestees are released without cash bail and are given a Promise to Appear in Lieu of Bail citation. There are also staff facilities for meetings, shift changes, exercise, and locker rooms. All are clean, neat, and well organized.

The grand jury inspected the intake area, booking area, visitor video area, kitchen, and laundry facilities. The medical services unit, the medium and high security detention pods, and the recreational areas were inspected during the same visit. In the booking area, the grand jury observed several workstations for doing intake interviews, medical screening, fingerprinting, and sobriety evaluations.

Arrestees are brought into the facility through a sally port. The arresting officer processes paperwork and notifies the correctional staff, medical staff, and Central Control that a new inmate has arrived. Part of the intake process includes a complete body search by using a full body scanner. Body cavity searches are also conducted as deemed necessary. There are many signs in the intake area explaining procedures, for example, “Arresting Officers Do Not Remove Handcuffs.”
Once inmates have been evaluated, tested for COVID-19, and assessed, they are turned over to correctional personnel. For low level crimes, some arrestees qualify for either a Promise to Appear in Lieu of Bail citation or cash bail and are released. Arraignments are held within two days, except during weekends when arraignments can be done over the phone.

Inmates are assessed based on gender, classification of past criminal convictions, prior assaults on inmates and staff, behavior or psychological problems, escape risk, prison history, and those requiring protective custody. The assessment results determine where the inmate will be housed. New arrivals are not placed with those close to release.

Inmates are then issued color coded jumpsuits. Jumpsuits, footwear, underwear, and bedding are all issued to inmates by the clothing department. There is a weekly schedule for exchanging soiled clothing and bedding. When holding cells are vacated, they are cleaned by inmates from the minimum-security facility.

If problems are noted during medical screening, inmates may be sent to a local hospital for further evaluation. Detainees who are extremely intoxicated due to alcohol or drugs, or suffering from significant behavioral health issues, are housed in special sobriety or mental health appropriate cells. Every fifteen minutes, staff physically check on inmates occupying cells in the medical and psychiatric observation area. Inmates on suicide watch are under constant staff observation.

The staff is particularly proud of the medical and dental wing which has cells for inmates, exam rooms, dental facilities, and negative pressure rooms reducing disease transmission.

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
96 The medical unit also administers the Jail Based Competency Treatment Program63 which is aimed at preparing inmates with mental health problems for court proceedings.

The permanent housing facilities are divided into pods, which can hold either thirty or sixty individuals based on configuration. Pods are self-contained with a recreation area and communal television. Inmates are issued a radio receiver with headphones for listening to television and radio, and communicating with staff, thus reducing noise within the pod.

There are also showers, a commissary kiosk, attorney rooms, monitors for video visits, classrooms, and common areas. Each pod contains cells which hold one or two inmates.

Library services, meal delivery, and minor medical attention are also included in the pods.

Video communication equipment is available, allowing inmates to communicate with approved contacts on the outside. Inmates share tablets which are used for various functions such as ordering commissary items, filing complaints, and remote education.

There is no general internet access through these tablets.

All meals for Placer County adult and juvenile detention facilities, as well as some community-based charities, are prepared at the SPACF and delivered to the correctional facilities. Meals are prepared in the cook-chill method, allowing for the transport of prepared food to be reheated at the offsite facilities. Attention is paid to individual dietary requirements, such as religious or medical needs.

Another program the Sheriff’s department provides to inmates is educational instruction, administered by the Placer School for Adults. These educational opportunities are held via distance learning or educational packets. Inmates can partake of lessons or programs such as anger management, life skills, parenting, Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous, employment seeking skills, GED, math, and reading. Inmates receive one day off their sentences for every eight days of participation in the educational programs. This same formula is used to encourage inmates to work within the facility including laundry operations, facility cleaning, food preparation, and other chores.

To access the Howard G. Gibson Courthouse, inmates are escorted using a tunnel that connects the courthouse to the jail. The courthouse and the jail both contain holding cells that have heavy doors, benches, toilets, and cameras. Inmates remain in these holding cells for only a short amount of time while awaiting court appearances.

This area consists of several one or two person cells plus a few group cells that can hold up to thirty inmates. Male and female inmates are held in separate cells. The entire area is under video surveillance except for the toilets. At the time of the grand jury inspection, the tunnel linking the jail with the courthouse was closed due to flooding. Until repairs are complete, inmates are transported by van from the jail to the courthouse.

63 Jail Based Competency Treatment Program is a partnership between the California Department of State Hospitals, Placer County Sheriff's Office, and the county contracted medical provider to restore competency to Penal Code § 1368 offenders deemed incompetent to stand trial.

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
97 South Placer Minimum Security Facility
The grand jury inspected the SPMSF located adjacent to the SPACF. Construction of this modern facility was completed in 2015. Approximately sixty male and sixty female minimum security inmates are housed in this stand-alone building.

The South Placer Minimum Security Facility,
while a separate building, is within the Santucci
Justice Center. The main differences between the
SPACF and the SPMSF are that minimum security
inmates are housed in barracks and can work in
the kitchen or laundry areas. COVID-19 has
removed the opportunity to work off-site. Female
inmates work in the laundry and sewing areas
and male inmates staff the kitchen. These inmates
receive modest compensation and can work time
off their sentences. The facility was clean, well maintained, and orderly at the time of the inspection.

A new facility that will provide classroom space for vocational education and mental health services is in the planning stages. This facility will include fifteen beds for inmates with greater mental health needs, along with thirty beds for inmates without special needs. This building will be located immediately adjacent to the SPMSF.

Howard G. Gibson Courthouse
The grand jury conducted its annual inspection of the
Howard G. Gibson Courthouse holding facility. The
facility opened in July 2008, and is clean, secure, well maintained, and modern. Jail staff provided a briefing
and guided tour of this facility.

The largest holding area, located in the courthouse
basement, is connected to the jail by an underground
tunnel. Normally, when inmates are scheduled for their
court appearance, they are collected from their jail cell and escorted to the holding cell via the underground
tunnel. They are then held in this area until summoned
to the actual courtroom. Once summoned, inmates travel by elevator, one inmate at a time, to the appropriate courtroom upstairs and are held in a courtroom holding cell until their case is called. The tunnel is currently under construction to correct a flooding issue; therefore, inmates from all Placer County jails and holding facilities are securely transported by vehicle to the courthouse. They enter the courthouse basement through the sally port. Inmates headed to court from other jails and holding facilities also enter the tunnel through this sally port.

There are twelve holding cells in the courthouse basement capable of detaining up to fifty inmates. The cells allow for the separation of inmates by age, gender, gang affiliation, special needs, and alleged crimes. Multiple inmates may be put in the same cell if they are Photo Credit: Joe Sledge
Photo Credit: Joe Sledge
Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
98 in a corresponding category. All cells have water and toilet facilities. The toilet is out of direct view of staff and security cameras. Each cell door has heavy black window coverings to prevent interactions between cells. The entire space has a central control surveillance operation and is staffed by at least two deputies. During times of peak usage, usually Wednesday and Thursday, an additional deputy will be assigned.

Holding cells are arranged so that there are cells and attorney rooms located near each courtroom. There are two elevators dedicated to transporting inmates to and from the proper floor and courtroom when called. Inmates are then met by a deputy who escorts them to the proper courtroom holding cell. The elevators, for security reasons, hold just one inmate; a deputy does not ride in the elevator unless the inmate requires special attention. Communication between deputies and courtroom bailiffs alerts control officers as to which inmate will be needed next and in which courtroom.

Attorney-client consultation rooms are located throughout the basement holding area as well as outside each courtroom. Attorney rooms are separated by glass partitions and allow for confidential attorney-client discussions. There are lock-controlled slots available for sliding documents back and forth between attorney and client and every document passed is first inspected by a deputy.

Should an inmate require emergency medical attention, staff will call 911. For general medical or behavioral attention, SPACF healthcare professionals are called to evaluate the inmate. Staff are trained and certified in first aid, CPR, and AED. All first aid equipment is readily available for use by staff. The cells are thoroughly cleaned at the end of the day by janitorial staff, including disinfecting for COVID-19.

Once inmates are finished with court proceedings, transport is called to move the inmates back to their jail. Inmates held through lunchtime are provided a sack lunch and beverage.

Historic Auburn Courthouse
The Auburn Historic Courthouse, which was dedicated on
July 4, 1898, has two areas of operation. The first area is the main floor for public tours and the security checkpoint for visitors entering the courthouse. The Placer County Museum is located on this level. The second area of
operations, located on the second floor and above,
contains the courtrooms, which are full-service, providing for arraignments, preliminary hearings, and trials.

The Placer County Sheriff’s Office is the agency responsible for security at the courthouse. Staff provides security at the main entrance, courtrooms, holding cells, and sally port. The holding cells are for inmates with scheduled court appearances and are used weekdays during normal business hours only; they are not used for overnight confinement. Inmates are transported by a deputy sheriff to the Auburn Historic Courthouse from either the South Placer or Auburn facilities. Transported persons arrive at the courthouse with a sack lunch prepared at the South Placer facility. Inmates Photo Credit: Joe Sledge

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
99 requiring narcotic medication are not held at this location. Approximately three or four inmates per week are held in the holding cells.

The holding cells were functional and clean. They are cleaned daily by janitorial staff and by jail personnel after each use. Jail staff are well trained and annually certified in first aid, CPR, and AED. All first aid equipment is readily available for use. Deputies are armed since this facility is open to the public. Additional weapons are secured in a locker located near the first aid equipment. The sally port was clean and functional with the exception of a small pile of rocks and brick and a volunteer walnut tree. A black fabric tarp was installed this past year which provides privacy for the inmates. At the grand jury’s first inspection, staff’s main concern was the upgrading of the old camera security system as recommended in previous grand jury reports. A new and upgraded system had been approved and budgeted. Installation was tentatively scheduled for September 2021. It was noted that the security camera monitoring was done on a single screen at the point of entry on the main floor. There was no back up monitor anywhere else in the building.

On November 1, 2021, a small grand jury team returned to the Auburn Historic Courthouse to view the newly installed security camera system. Staff showed the team the new system.

Rather than only one monitoring station, the new system was installed with three monitoring locations: main floor entrance, and second and third floor control areas. Several cameras were installed around the exterior perimeter of the building as well as throughout the interior. The exterior cameras provide an overview of the entire exterior of the courthouse property to include walkways, stairs, and parking areas. Interior cameras now provide monitoring of activity in all interior areas, courtrooms, secure and public stairways, public and secure hallways, and the holding cells. The only negative comment by the deputies was that the new system is unable to read vehicle license plates.

Placer County Sheriff’s Office Tahoe Substation
The grand jury performed its annual
inspection of the PCSO Tahoe Substation, also
known as Burton Creek. Upon arrival, the
grand jury found the outside appearance of the
facility to be clean and well maintained. The
parking lot had a very recent seal applied
along with fresh striping.

This facility was built in 1959, in preparation for the 1960 Winter Olympics, to be used as a temporary sheriff’s substation. The location continues operations as a Placer County Sheriff’s substation, housing a holding facility, Superior Court, and several related offices.

The building has been painted and repaired over the years. It does not meet the accessibility requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Despite the upkeep and cleanliness, the facility appears to have outlived its usefulness and ability to be modernized. Currently, grounds maintenance is performed by the deputies assigned to the facility. Prior to COVID-19, this function was carried out by a minimum security inmate from Auburn Jail who was transported to Burton Creek on a weekly basis.

Photo Credit: Bill Oudegeest
Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
100
The costs to upgrade the building would be prohibitive. Once upgrades exceed a certain dollar amount, the BSCC requires the facility be upgraded to the next category. This upgrade would be extremely costly and physically impossible. There are environmental concerns to be considered at the current location which further inhibit the ability to make any meaningful structural improvements.

The grand jury was told this location is currently understaffed. A total of twelve deputies and six sergeants are assigned while the PCSO has allotted eighteen patrol deputies and eight sergeants. Understaffing is due to the general lack of applicants and because of the high cost of living in this area.

Employee and visitor vehicles are parked in the open parking lots in front and on the sides of the building. The rear parking area is reserved for official vehicles and is posted as a secure area. No fence or gate was evident at the time of this inspection. Personnel on site stated they feel there is a need for at least security gates at each end of the restricted parking area. Deputies voiced concern about security for department equipment, vehicles, and personnel. Trespassing has become an issue.

Site security was recently upgraded with the installation of a state of the art CCTV security system. The new system, installed in June 2021, shows the exterior of the building, all cells, the court room, hallways, and the front desk. A large monitor resides in the administrative sergeant’s office and is clearly visible to all who enter. The deputies on duty were happy with the new system.

There are three holding cells in the Tahoe Substation. Two cells are for male inmates and one is for female inmates. Each cell has two single bunks, a sink, and toilet. Security cameras have been installed in each cell, allowing for monitoring of the inmates. The cameras are aimed so that they do not view the toilet area, maintaining privacy for the inmates. The grand jury observed the cells, floors, walls, bunks, sinks, and toilets to be very clean and free from graffiti or other damage. Once a cell is no longer occupied, it is cleaned by jail staff who then place a strip of blue tape adjacent to the door indicating to others that the cell has been cleaned in accordance with COVID-19 guidelines.

There are no inmates housed at this facility overnight. In most situations, persons being held are transported to the PCMJ in Auburn. It was noted that it takes a deputy off the street for four hours or more to make the round trip to Auburn from Tahoe City. Transport to the PCMJ is generally done during regular business hours (7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday). Outside normal business hours at Burton Creek, or when the roads to Auburn are impassable due to snow, fire, mudslide, or other issues, detainees are then transported to the Nevada County Jail in Truckee.

Information regarding the booking and jail services contract between PCSO and Nevada County Sheriff’s Office was provided to the grand jury. This ongoing flat rate contract is currently $488,009 annually, subject to an automatic 3 percent adjustment per year. This contract amount is paid regardless of the number of bookings involved. According to the deputies on duty at the time of the inspection at Burton Creek, there were 135 Placer County inmates, arrestees, and detainees transported to and housed at Truckee Jail in Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
101
2020. There were an additional twenty-six inmates rejected by Nevada County for various reasons, such as a medical condition, behavior problem, or potential for violence. Rejected inmates are transported to a medical facility or returned to Burton Creek. The transporting officer must then supervise the detainee until transport to the Auburn Main Jail is possible.

Staff indicated that an inspection by BSCC was performed on August 19, 2021.64 65 Rocklin Police Department Adult Temporary Holding Facility Historically, the Rocklin Police Department (RPD)
holding cells have experienced underutilization.

Only two detainees have been held at this facility
in the past twenty-four months. As a result, the
RPD requested BSCC to decommission this facility,
effective July 1, 2021.

Agreement
66 was reached and the BSCC has
officially decommissioned the Adult Temporary
Holding Facility as requested. In that agreement,
the juvenile detention holding cells will continue
to be inspected by BSCC but that is not a subject of
this report. As such, the adult facility will no
longer be subject to future grand jury inspections.

Conclusion
All facilities inspected were found to be secure, clean and well maintained, and professionally staffed. Each facility adheres to CDC guidelines to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Staff at all three detention facilities strive to offer inmates improved educational and vocational opportunities, as well as expanded mental and physical health care.

64 www.bscc.ca.gov/s_fsolocaldetentionfacilityinspectionreports 65 https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/19v8NZZyEFhMeXDMj4tDovIWdlUKMRoN9 66 BSCC letter - Appendix 1
Photo Credit: Joe Sledge
Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
102
Findings
The grand jury found:

F1: The Placer County jails appear to be well-run, efficient, and safe. There were some areas where cleanliness could be improved, notably the holding cell area at Placer County Main Jail.

F2: Jail personnel are well-trained, take pride in their work, and are very professional.

F3: Inmate health care appears to be well managed by WellPath.

F4: Staff is cooperative, knowledgeable, and courteous.

F5: The minimum security work program is a big incentive for the inmates. Programs such as this may reduce the length of sentences and improve inmate behavior and morale.

F6: The state deactivation of the inmate transfer facility at Deuel Vocational Institution has placed additional burdens on the county jail system.

F7: Debris in the sally port at the Auburn Historic Courthouse poses security and safety issues.

F8: A new security camera system at the Auburn Historic Courthouse has been installed and is completely operational. The system is unable to focus on vehicle license plates that were located in the parking lots, which is a potential security risk.

F9: The restricted parking area at Burton Creek is not secure, leaving it open to trespassers and potential loss of county property.

F10: The Burton Creek facility has outlived its functionality for the number of sheriff’s personnel working in it.

F11: The Rocklin Police Department holding cells have been significantly underutilized over the past several years. As a result, the facility was requested to be decertified by the Board of State and Community Corrections.

F12: Placer County Main Jail is to be commended for the inspirational messages painted on various walls throughout the facility. These demonstrate a management attempt to maintain positive tone for inmates and staff alike.

F13: Implementation of AB109 has had an adverse effect on the inmate population and management of the Placer County jail system.

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
103
Recommendations
The grand jury recommends:

R1: By September 1, 2022, the Placer County Sheriff will institute improvement in the cleaning of the holding cells at the Auburn Main Jail.

R2: By September 1, 2022, the Court Administrative Officer and Placer County Sheriff will have the debris within the sally port removed at the Auburn Historic Courthouse.

R3: By January 1, 2023, the Court Administrative Officer and Placer County Sheriff shall enable the camera system to read license plates on vehicles in and around the parking lots at the Auburn Historic Courthouse.

R4: By May 1, 2023, the Court Administrative Officer, Placer County Sheriff, and the Placer County Board of Supervisors shall approve and fund the construction of a security fence and gates enclosing the restricted parking area at Burton Creek.

R5: By October 1, 2022, the Placer County Board of Supervisors shall provide a public update on the progress of a new substation to replace the Burton Creek facility.

Request for Response
Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, the Placer County Grand Jury requests a response from the following governing bodies:

Recommendations Response
Requiring Response Due Date

Cindy Gustafson R4, R5 October 1, 2022
Chairperson
Placer County Board of Supervisors
175 Fulweiler Avenue
Auburn, CA 95603

Jake Chatters R2, R3, R4 October 1, 2022
Court Administrative Officer
P.O. Box 619072
Roseville, CA 95661

Devon Bell R1, R2, R3, R4 September 1, 2022
Sheriff
Placer County Sheriff’s Office
2929 Richardson Dr.

Auburn, CA 95603

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
104
Copies sent to:

Rustin Banks
Chief
Rocklin Police Department
4080 Rocklin Road
Rocklin, CA 95677

105
Placer County Juvenile Detention
Facility and Rocklin Police
Department Juvenile Holding Cells
Annual Inspection Report 2021-2022

Photo Credit: Joe Sledge

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
106

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
107
Placer County Juvenile Detention Facility and Rocklin Police Department Juvenile Holding Cells
Annual Inspection Report 2021-2022
Summary
California grand juries are mandated by California Penal Code § 919(b) to inspect and report on juvenile detention facilities. The 2021-2022 grand jury inspected both the Rocklin Juvenile Detention Facility and the Placer County Juvenile Detention Facility (PCJDF) on September 15 and November 4, respectively. The grand jury found both facilities to be well-organized, neat, well maintained, and run by dedicated and knowledgeable staff. The grand jury was particularly impressed by the programs for juveniles in the PCJDF and the philosophy behind the programs.

Background
The mandate to inspect county juvenile facilities comes from the California Penal Code, § 919(b), “The grand jury shall inquire into the condition and management of public prisons within the county.” This includes the juvenile detention facilities. The PCJDF is operated by the Placer County Probation Department and the Rocklin Juvenile Detention Facility is operated by the Rocklin Police Department. Both are pursuant to Title 15, Division 4, of the California Code of Regulations, and Chapter 2 of the Welfare and Institution Code, specifically §§ 636.2 and 852.

Methodology
On September 15, 2021, the grand jury visited and inspected the Rocklin Police Department’s juvenile detention facility. The jury members did a visual inspection of the holding facility and were informed about how the facility operates and how juveniles are managed.

On October 6, 2021, the grand jury interviewed two members of the Placer County Juvenile Detention facility’s staff who oversee the County Juvenile Detention Program and the PCJDF. The staff members described how the Placer County juvenile detention system works, various programs, and the philosophy behind their programs. On November 4, 2021, the grand jury visited the PCJDF. This visit consisted of a visual inspection and a complete tour by facility staff. Because the facility is operating under capacity, the grand jury was able to visit all parts of the facility; there was no possibility of the jurors coming into contact with detainees. Due to COVID-19 restrictions, the grand jury was not able to interview detainees. One juror was fully recused from the investigation.

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
108
Discussion
Placer County Juvenile Detention Facility
On November 4, 2021, the grand jury inspected the PCJDF. The detention facility was built in 2000 and was found to be clean, neat, orderly, and well-organized. It is divided into two sections: The Department Twelve courtroom for adjudicating juvenile offenders and the juvenile detention section.

The grand jury was told that these facilities are cleaned every four hours by staff or detainees, with professional cleaning happening once per day. Interview rooms are wiped down after each use. Staff told the grand jury this facility was last inspected by Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC)67 during the month of November 2020 and is inspected by the local fire department every two years.

At the time of the interview, in October, there were eleven inmates and at the time of the inspection visit on November 4, 2021, there were fifteen: nine males and six females. Total facility capacity is sixty in three pods, A, B, and C, plus an additional unit referred to as the Max. To enter each pod the doors are secured by either a large brass key or electronically released by a central control staff member. Currently one pod is not in use, which allowed the visiting team access to view the types of housing available to residents. Privacy rules for juveniles precluded the grand jury visiting occupied pods. The Max unit also has self- contained rooms which include toilet facilities. The pods consist of simple rooms containing bunks and shared toilet and shower facilities. Detainees have call buttons in their rooms so they may contact staff when locked down or at other times as needed. Since detainees were in their housing units, the visiting team was able to view all the other areas of the facility including the sally port
68, entry and classification area, holding cells for the court, recreation areas, kitchen, and nurse’s office.

The grand jury was told that in the past, the detention facility did hold up to the maximum occupancy of sixty youths as was intended, but current occupancy is less. Staff attributes this to a change in juvenile detention philosophy that evolved over the years. The goal now is for youth to be reunited with their families, referred to community and services support and therefore held for shorter periods of time in the facility. Additionally, youth are provided access to many support programs either through the Placer County Probation Department or the court system. These programs are designed and implemented for rehabilitation and to be preventative rather than reactive. Most detainees are held for no more than four or five days, although there are some who are held longer, including one transferee from the now closed California Youth Authority.

There are twenty-eight Juvenile Institute Officers (JIOs), plus extra-help staff which cover either scheduled or unexpected absences. Assigned JIOs work either eight- or twelve-hour shifts with the number of days per week varying. The facility is in operation around the clock, year-round. The graveyard shift has four or five JIOs on duty and the day shifts have seven to nine support personnel. The nurse works twelve-hour shifts four days a week,

67 BSCC Report: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1RdhJDxK3-H2ttlwn7_qcOWTT7NLLDH5z, Accessed June 7, 2022
68 Sally port – A secure, controlled entry way to an enclosure, e.g. a fortification or prison.

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
109
with weekend and Friday shifts covered by the medical assistant. If there are medical needs after hours, medical personnel are called from the nearby Placer County Main Jail. The number of staff is regulated by BSCC.

New detainees enter the facility through the sally port, then into the processing area where they are fingerprinted, searched for contraband, classified, tested for COVID-19, allowed to call their parents, issued detention facility clothing, and given a medical evaluation by the nurse. There are two holding cells in the in-processing area; both were clean as was the entire processing area. After entry, detainees are allowed unlimited calls to family.

Juveniles are each assigned an account into which money may be placed by the inmate or their family. These funds can then be used for telephone calls or other incidentals.

Detainees must pay for phone use; if a family does not have the money, they may use office phones free of charge. Postage is provided and detainees may send unlimited letters. There is a staff review of all incoming mail.

Upon entry into the juvenile detention facility and to prevent possible COVID-19 exposure, detainees are placed in quarantine for fifteen days in the Max unit. Since the average stay is less than that, detainees are often released from the facility without having entered the general population. At the time of the visit, there were seven detainees in the Max under quarantine.

Detainees at risk of suicide are placed on suicide watch where they are continuously observed and are identified by special colored clothing. After a short continual observation period ruling out suicidal behavior, they can graduate to being checked every five minutes and then later given regular facility clothing and admitted to the Max unit.

The facility has a behavioral plan focused on positive attributes or actions. One aspect of this is the Positive Behavioral Intervention and Support (PBIS) 69 program. Detainees
receive points each day, which can be accumulated and exchanged for privileges such as time away from their rooms, snacks, more recreation time, and even work assignments that help maintain the facility. Those detainees who do the best and reach the highest level are issued green shirts in place of the ordinary gray shirts and serve as examples to others.

Misbehavior results in the subtraction of points and possible downgrade of status. Good behavior is acknowledged by staff as opposed to focusing on the negative.

Detainees have access to educational programs, behavioral health care, and religious services. Computers are made available to do schoolwork, but there is no internet access.

There are four credentialed teachers, including one special education teacher, providing 240 minutes daily of instruction. There is also the opportunity for detainees to take college level courses.

Detainees are allowed up to four hours of free time each day which can include outdoor recreation. For large muscle activities, there are opportunities to play frisbee golf, basketball, and volleyball in the sport court. There is also a large outside recreation area for

69 Placer County 2018/2020 Biennial Inspection Pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code Section 209, November 12, 2019
Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
110
soccer or running. Any time detainees are out of their rooms, they are supervised by staff.

The outdoor recreation area is surrounded by an approximately twenty-foot-high chain- link fence topped with circular rolls of concertina wire for perimeter security.

Visitations are on Saturdays or Sundays, depending on the pod or the Max unit detainees are occupying. Adjustments can be made if parents or guardians cannot come on the assigned days.

Juvenile Institution Officers are required to possess at least an Associate of Arts Degree and undergo five weeks of initial specialized training with an additional twenty-four hours of training per year. First aid training is refreshed every other year. Although staff JIOs carry pepper spray and radios, their most important skills are communication and rapport building.

Jurors also learned about the Placer Youth Center Program (PYC), of which the facility staff is particularly proud. It provides the same services that might be expected in a boot camp or group home but are provided at the facility. Staff explained that this is much better than transferring youth from their home communities to away-from-home programs. The program is individualized for each youth, offering work skills, life skills, completion of educational requirements, counseling including Family Functional Therapy, behavioral health, substance abuse programs, vocational training, and online community college courses. Staff also works with families to help youth develop successful habits for re- entering regular society. It is a proactive program aimed at prevention rather than an exclusively punitive program aimed at reacting to bad behavior. The PYC is designed to serve as a transitional program for youth on their way to adulthood.

Perhaps the best way to encapsulate the philosophy of dealing with youth in the juvenile justice system comes from the October 6, 2021, interview with detention facility staff, who stated, essentially:

Placer County’s philosophy regarding youth in the Juvenile Detention Program is aimed at returning youth to their homes as soon as possible. Youths make mistakes and should be helped to learn so they do not repeat the mistakes. The Juvenile Detention Program serves as a reset or time-out rather than as a punitive institution and is in the business of second chances and how to encourage change. Instead of punishment, the idea is to improve youth through treatment and get them back on the right track ahead of problems. To encourage and enable change, the program focuses on relationships and being positive. Program personnel work with the youth’s entire family because many obstacles are family related.

Staff concluded the inspection by emphasizing that the thrust of the programs in the juvenile detention system is to provide youth with the ability to assimilate into society successfully when they leave the facility.

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
111
Rocklin Juvenile Detention Facility
The Rocklin Police Department facility
was built in 2005. The building is clean
and orderly inside and out. The grand
jury observed no graffiti on the outside
walls; the parking lot and landscape
were also well maintained.

The inspection team learned that the
two adult holding cells within the
Rocklin Police Department building
have been decertified by the BSCC. The
two remaining holding cells are used
exclusively for juveniles who are
brought in for brief periods of
time before being released to parents,
guardians, a medical facility, or sent to
the PCJDF in Auburn.

Public entrances may be used when
juveniles are brought into the
holding cells. There is a log that is
completed by officers who place them into custody. The log reflects the date, time, and name of the juveniles being held along with charges and dispositions.

There are no security cameras inside or outside the juvenile holding cells, however, an officer is present when there is a juvenile detained. Glass observation windows in the cell doors make constant observation possible. According to staff, there has only been one juvenile detained during the past year.

The grand jury observed the cells to be clean and orderly. Furniture consisted of one padded bench bolted to the floor. There are no toilets, sinks, or water in the cells. Juveniles are escorted down the hall to the restroom by a gender-appropriate officer. The cells are cleaned by the facilities department when needed. If the cells are contaminated by hazardous waste, they are cleaned by a professional cleaning service on an on-call basis.

An automated external defibrillator (AED) was located on the wall outside the holding cells.

All Rocklin Police Department personnel are trained and certified annually in the use of the AEDs, first aid, and CPR. If a juvenile is in medical distress, an ambulance is called to transport the juvenile to the nearest medical facility. The juvenile is released to his or her guardians’ custody at the hospital. Intoxicated juveniles are transported directly to the hospital.

The most recent BSCC inspection was completed on March 2, 2021. The most recent county health, fire, and safety inspections were conducted on December 10, 2019. Medical, mental health, and environmental health inspections were performed on December 13, 2019.

Photo Credit: Joe Sledge
Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
112
Conclusion
The grand jury was impressed by the PCJDF maintenance and operations, programs for juveniles, and philosophy behind the programs. Staff is well-trained, dedicated, and compassionate, working to integrate the youth back into regular society.

Findings
The grand jury found:

F1: The Placer County Juvenile Detention Facility is well-run and well-organized by a dedicated, well-trained staff.

F2: Juveniles in the Placer County system have programs tailored by staff to their individual needs and aimed at helping them re-enter regular society, which is commendable.

F3: The Placer County Youth Program, keeps juveniles in or near their home communities, which is intended to make the transition at the end of their sentence easer.

The inclusion of families in this program is also to be commended.

F4: The Positive Behavioral Intervention and Support program, focuses on the positive rather than the negative, and offers detainees some opportunity to control their lives within the rules of the system. There are rewards for good behavior and immediate consequences for negative behavior.

F5: The Placer County Juvenile Detention Facility is operating at significantly less than capacity, which is consistent with an admirable change in philosophy dealing with juveniles. Rather than adopting a punitive approach, staff is working to help juveniles re-enter their home communities and programs.

F6: The Rocklin Juvenile Detention Facility is underutilized and, therefore, is a waste of resources and space.

Recommendations
The grand jury recommends:

R1: By January 1, 2023, the Rocklin Police Department close the two cells that are maintained to hold juveniles and re-allocate the space as they did when the adult detention cells were closed.

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
113
Request for Response
Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, the Placer County Grand Jury requests a response from the following:

Recommendations Response
R equiring Response Due Date
Rustin Banks R1 October 1, 2022
Chief
Rocklin Police Department
4080 Rocklin Rd.

Rocklin, CA 95677
Copies sent to:

Marshall Hopper
Chief Probation Officer
Auburn Justice Center
2929 Richardson Drive, Suite B
Auburn, CA 95603

Joseph Netemeyer
Assistant Chief Probation Officer
Auburn Justice Center
2929 Richardson Drive, Suite B
Auburn, CA 95603
Eric Guerra
Juvenile Detention Facility Manager
Placer County Probation Juvenile Detention Facility
12260 B Ave.

Auburn, CA 95603

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
114

115
Truckee Tahoe Airport District
A Model Airport

Photo Credit: Norma J. Worley
Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
116

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
117
Truckee Tahoe Airport District
A Model Airport
Summary
The Truckee Tahoe Airport District (TTAD) is one of the largest special districts in Placer County. The 2021 annual budget for the TTAD was $18.9 million. The major funding sources include property taxes, fuel sales, and federal aviation subsidies. Although all homeowners pay property taxes, not all residents utilize the airport.

The Placer County Grand Jury investigated the budgeting process of the TTAD and was particularly interested in how funds were utilized that were received via property taxes.

Glossary
FAA: Federal Aviation Administration, a division of the Department of Transportation that inspects and rates civilian aircraft and pilots, enforces the rules of air safety, and installs and maintains air-navigation and traffic-control facilities.

Special District: A political subdivision of the state, established to provide a single public service within a specific geographic area.

Taxiway: A route along which an aircraft can taxi when moving to or from a runway.

Background
The Truckee Tahoe Airport District was established in 1958 by vote of the citizens within the TTAD itself, in accordance with the California Airport Districts Act. The TTAD straddles both Placer and Nevada Counties, as does the airport.

In 2011, the board of the TTAD, with input from the Airport Community Advisory Team (ACAT), instituted the TTAD Strategic Plan. This plan serves as the blueprint for how the airport will operate and is part of the overall master plan. The master plan was last updated in 2000 and will expire at the end of 2025.

The Truckee Tahoe Airport is managed by a general manager, has twenty-five full-time employees, and five seasonal employees. The general manager oversees a budget of approximately $19 million and reports to the board of directors. The board is elected by the citizens within the Truckee Tahoe special district and consists of five members who serve four-year, alternating terms.

The board of directors for the TTAD meets monthly, on the third Wednesday of the month.

Monthly meetings and agendas are posted on the TTAD website.

The Truckee Tahoe Airport District is the only airport in Placer County that receives property taxes. The other Placer County general aviation airports are Auburn and Lincoln.

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
118
These two airports are funded via services, fuel sales, and city taxes. There are eight airport special districts within California that receive property tax funding (see Appendix 1).

Methodology
The grand jury interviewed multiple persons involved in the governing of the airport. The jury also reviewed information available on the airport’s user-friendly website. The website includes an independent auditor’s report.

Discussion
Airport Community Team
The general manager established an Airport Community Team (ACT) as a monthly virtual public forum. The board of directors receives input from the ACT. The team’s purpose is to gather interested airport users and district constituents to discuss items of public interest and provide information regarding activities and programs of TTAD. The ACT is meant to be a free flow of ideas and information among the district, airport users, and the general public. The ACT is intended to inform and advise on policy and is not intended to set policy of the district. Setting district policy is reserved for the board of directors. The ACT is a vehicle for the district to convey information to stakeholders and a means to receive, consider, and convey public comment and sentiment regarding topics of interest to the board of directors at their monthly meetings. Activities and information from the ACT forums are reported monthly to the board of directors.

Timeline and transparency of 2022 budget process
At the August 25, 2021 special meeting, the TTAD initiated the 2022 budget process. This workshop consisted of gathering input from management, the ACT, and the public. At the regular meeting on September 22
nd, the TTAD had an extensive discussion about the
budget. This particular meeting addressed jet fuel pricing, hangar rentals, and staff levels.

At the October 27
th regular meeting, the main focus was on the Revenue and Cost Allocation Study Report. This report focuses mainly on creating the airport’s rates for services. At the regular meeting on December 1
st, the board adopted the budget for the TTAD. The board scheduled an additional budget workshop in January 2022 to review more of the study and, if need be, vote to amend the budget at a regular board meeting. The board conducted the workshop to allow for more public comment and understanding of the Revenue and Cost Allocation Study Report.

Photo Credit:

Norma J. Worley
Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
119
The chart below represents the operating revenues for FY 2021:

Source: FY 2021 Approved Budget
The three largest portions of revenue that the TTAD receives are:
• Property tax revenue: Received from taxpayers in both Placer and Nevada Counties.

This money accounts for about 37 percent of the revenue for the airport. There is no requirement for these monies to be used for any specific purpose. • Grant revenues: Received primarily from the FAA and constitutes about 25 percent of the operating revenue. The grant revenue from the FAA is specified to be used for airport infrastructure and maintenance projects.
• Airside revenue: Includes items such as jet fuel and transient use fees and makes up about 21 percent of the revenue for the airport.

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
120
The chart below represents the operating expenditures for FY 2021:

Source: FY 2021 Approved Budget
The three largest expenditures are:
• Payroll and employee benefits
• General operating costs including day-to-day operations, such as:
o Annoyance reduction programs
o Airport security and safety
o Airshow
o Equipment rental
o Office lease
o Grounds maintenance/landscaping
• Depreciation: buildings and equipment

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
121
In FY 2021 the board allocated 11 percent of the budget for community outreach/partnerships. The board of directors recognizes that property taxes received by the airport should benefit all residents not just pilots. Examples include multi-year commitments, such as the Tahoe Area Rapid Transit Free Fare Project, Lizzando Housing Project, Free Night Rider Service, and Highway 267 Year-Round Service. The board allocates these non-aviation related expenditures as recognition that not all taxpayers utilize the airport. During the annual budget process, citizens are allowed to make suggestions about how the funds should be distributed.

As noted earlier in this report, expenditures made using funds received from FAA grants are specified to be used for airport infrastructure and maintenance. These grant fund expenditures are not delineated as such in the actual airport expenditures, which could confuse the public (See Appendix 2).

Noise Abatement
The board of directors acknowledges that the noise created by arriving and departing aircraft is a concern to the community. As such, the board strives to be both an outstanding general aviation airport and a good neighbor. To help alleviate noise, the control tower implements low impact procedures and moves aircraft away from neighborhoods.

The current airport board has fielded many complaints concerning airport noise. One idea currently under consideration is the addition of a third runway, angled away from residential areas. Although some pilots have requested an increase in the number of hangers, the addition of hangars is not a priority to this board. According to persons interviewed, increasing the number of hangers would increase the number of planes utilizing the airport, resulting in a higher level of noise.

Fuel cost increases and positive effect on the budget
The airport staff is very sensitive to the market fluctuation of fuel costs. The board contracted with an external consultant to understand all the variables that should be included in jet fuel prices that they charge users. Airport management regularly adjusts prices according to market rates.

Conclusion
As a result of the grand jury’s investigation, the jury determined the budgeting process of the TTAD was well managed and transparent. Effective management controls are in place to receive citizen comments and respond to citizen concerns.

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
122
Findings
The grand jury found that:

F1: Federal Aviation Administration-related grant expenditures are not easily identifiable in the budget documents.

F2: The budget expenditures and processes are appropriate, transparent, and well managed.

F3: The Truckee Tahoe Airport District has a professional management team and an effective board of directors.

F4: T he airport board publicizes a budget calendar that spans over several months and is very open to public comment.

F5: The Truckee Tahoe Airport District is sensitive to citizen concerns regarding property tax usage.

F6: The Truckee Tahoe Airport District recognizes and continually addresses the importance of noise abatement.

Recommendations
The grand jury recommends that:

R1: By December 31, 2022, the Truckee Tahoe Airport District Board of Directors will enhance the budget provided to the public by delineating the usage of the Federal Aviation Administration grant revenue.

Request for Response:

Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, the Placer County Grand Jury requests a response from the following governing body:

Recommendations Response
R equiring Response Due Date
Kathryn Rohlf R1 September 1, 2022
President, Board of Directors
Truckee Tahoe Airport District
10356 Truckee Airport Rd.

Truckee, CA 96161
Copies To:

Kevin Smith
General Manager
Truckee Tahoe Airport
10356 Truckee Airport Rd
Truckee, CA 96161
Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
123
Appendix 1
These are the eight special airport districts within California that receive property taxes:
• Big Bear Airport District
• Cameron Park Airport District
• East Kern Airport District
• Indian Wells Airport District
• Minter Field Airport District
• Santa Maria Public Airport District
• Truckee Tahoe Airport District
• Yucca Valley Airport District

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
124
Appendix 2:

FAA Grant Funding
The airport receives grants from the FAA, known as Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grants. According to the FAA, the AIP provides grants to public agencies for the planning and development of public-use airports that are included in the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS).

Airport Improvement Program grants for planning, development, or noise compatibility projects are at or associated with individual public-use airports such as the Truckee Tahoe Airport. A public-use airport is an airport open to the public that also meets the following criteria:
• Publicly owned, or
• Privately owned but designated by FAA as a reliever, or • Privately owned but having scheduled service and at least 2,500 annual enplanements

70. Further, to be eligible for a grant, an airport must be included in the NPIAS. The NPIAS, which is prepared and published every 2 years, identifies public-use airports that are important to public transportation and contribute to the needs of civil aviation, national defense, and the postal service.

Finally, airports planning to acquire an AIP-funded Navigational Aids System and/or an Automated Weather Observing System must coordinate closely with the FAA Non-Federal Program, from the beginning of the planning process. Eligible projects include those improvements related to enhancing airport safety, capacity, security, and environmental concerns. In general, airports can get AIP funds for most airfield capital improvements or rehabilitation projects and in some specific situations, for terminals, hangars, and nonaviation development. Certain professional services that are necessary for eligible projects (such as planning, surveying, and design) can also be eligible

71. 70 The act or process of boarding an aircraft.
71 “Overview: What is AIP?” Federal Aviation Administration, https://www.faa.gov/airports/aip/overview/, Accessed April 15, 2022.

125
Continuity and Accountability
Review of Placer County Grand Jury
Reports from 2020-2021
Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
126

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
127
Continuity and Accountability
Review of Placer County Grand Jury Reports for 2020-2021 Summary
The primary duty of the Placer County Grand Jury is to investigate the functions of city and county government, schools, and special districts. Each year in June, the grand jury issues its final report which includes reports on inspections and investigations done during the term.

The report provides findings and recommendations for each investigation and inspection.

Traditionally, a response report is issued in the November timeframe by the grand jury containing the responses from the investigated entities to their respective recommendations.

Background
A continuity report is not required by the penal code. The grand jury reviews the responses and compiles the response report for publication. In a review of past Placer County Grand Jury final reports, it has been identified that several responses have not complied with Penal Code § 933.05. Since there has been no follow up to the responses, there has been no accountability for responding entities to comply with the penal code.

In previous years, the task of following up on responses that did not comply with the penal code has been taken on by the Placer County Grand Jurors’ Association (PCGJA). This association is comprised of former grand jurors. Although the PCGJA assumed this task in the past, it has not been their focus in recent years. This resulted in many non-responsive recommendations not being addressed.

Methodology
The grand jury reviewed all the reports and responses to the 2020-2021 Placer County Grand Jury Final Report, which was published on June 16, 2021. The final report contained eight individual reports, with sixty-nine findings and forty-five recommendations. The current grand jury did not review nor have access to the prior grand jury’s investigative evidence, which is confidential.

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
128
California Penal Code § 933.05
(emphasis added)
(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Penal Code § 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following:
(1) The respondent agrees with the finding.
(2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding; in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons, therefore.
(b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Penal Code § 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions:
(1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action.
(2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation.
(3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report.
(4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation, therefore.
(c) However, if a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the board of supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the board of supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision-making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department.
(d) A grand jury may request a subject person or entity to come before the grand jury for the purpose of reading and discussing the findings of the grand jury report that relates to that person or entity in order to verify the accuracy of the findings prior to their release. (e) During an investigation, the grand jury shall meet with the subject of that investigation regarding the investigation, unless the court, either on its own determination or upon request of the foreperson of the grand jury, determines that such a meeting would be detrimental. (f) A grand jury shall provide to the affected agency a copy of the portion of the grand jury report relating to that person or entity two working days prior to its public release and after the approval of the presiding judge. No officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency shall disclose any contents of the report prior to the public release of the final report.

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
129
Discussion
After research on a topic has been completed, the grand jury determines what facts of the investigation or inspection have been discovered. What is a fact? According to the California Grand Jury Association (CGJA), facts are:
• objective (neutral, unbiased, and not judgmental),
• not subject to interpretation,
• precise and accurate – numbers, dates, amounts, etc., and • verified – not raw evidence, such as hearsay.

Once the grand jury has determined the facts they have discovered, findings are developed.

The grand jury’s findings are listed in each report and may or may not lead to a recommendation. What is a finding? Per the CGJA, findings:
• contain a conclusion or value judgment,
• express approval or disapproval,
• show the need for action, and
• are clear and contain one main idea.

From the findings, recommendations are written, which are actions the grand jury concludes the investigated/inspected entities should implement. Recommendations should be SMART, meaning they must be specific, measurable, actionable, reasonable, and time framed.

When the entities respond, they must follow Penal Code § 933.05, which specifically states what responses must include. The grand jury discovered that some of the respondents did not agree with several of the findings but did implement the recommendation the grand jury published.

The following charts provide the findings, recommendations, and responses to eight reports published by the Placer County Grand Jury in June 2021. Following each response in the charts is the 2021-2022 grand jury’s evaluation of the response and its compliance with Penal Code § 933.05.

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
130

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
131

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
132

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
133

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
134

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
135

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
136

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
137

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
138

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
139

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
140

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
141

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
142

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
143

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
144

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
145

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
146

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
147

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
148

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
149

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
150

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
151

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
152

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
153

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
154

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
155

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
156

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
157

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
158

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
159

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
160

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
161

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
162

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
163

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
164

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
165

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
166

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
167
Conclusion
The 2021-2022 Placer County Grand Jury is following the precedent set by the 2020-2021 Placer County Grand Jury by publishing this continuity report. This jury believes it is important to verify that respondents were compliant with Penal Code § 933.05 and concludes that this work is too important to not be a requirement of each grand jury going forward.

Findings
The grand jury found:

F1: Placer County Grand Jury wrote its first continuity report in 2020-2021 and is continuing that process this year, following up on noncompliant responses.

F2: Newcastle Fire Protection District does not have clickable links on its website to their current agenda, making it noncompliant with the Brown Act.

F3: Midway Heights Water District, Penryn Fire District, and Placer Hills Fire District all have links to their agendas, but the agendas posted are not current. This is noncompliant with the Brown Act.

F4: The Placer County Sheriff’s Office response to the grand jury’s report on continuity and accountability was noncompliant with Penal Code § 933.05. While the response indicated that the recommendation would be implemented in the future, no timeline for implementation was provided.

F5: Heather Glen Community Services District, Talmont Resort Improvement District, and the City of Lincoln did not provide responses that were compliant with Penal Code § 933.05. The response provided by these entities did not indicate agreement or disagreement with the pertinent findings.

F6: Auburn Recreation & Parks District did not provide a response that was compliant with Penal Code § 933.05. The response provided did not indicate agreement or disagreement with the pertinent findings, nor did it provide any response to the recommendation.

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
168
Recommendations
The grand jury recommends:

R1: By the time of each year’s grand jury final report preparation, future Placer County Grand Juries shall continue to produce a continuity report each year. The grand jury shall follow up with any response that is not compliant with Penal Code § 933.05 and require an updated compliant response.

R2: By November 1, 2022, Newcastle Fire Protection District will insert on their website clickable links to their current agenda.

R3: By September 1, 2022, Midway Heights Water District, Penryn Fire District and Placer Hills Fire District will all update their agenda links to include current agendas.

R4: By September 1, 2022, the Placer County Sheriff’s Office will provide an updated response to the recommendations from the 2019-2020 grand jury report, indicating a timeline for implementation in compliance with Penal Code § 933.05.

R5: By September 1, 2022, Heather Glen Community Services District and Talmont Resort Improvement District will provide updated responses to the recommendations from the 2020-2021 grand jury report, indicating agreement or disagreement with the pertinent findings in compliance with Penal Code § 933.05.

R6: By October 1, 2022, the City of Lincoln will provide an updated response to the recommendations from the 2020-2021 grand jury report, indicating agreement or disagreement with the pertinent findings in compliance with Penal Code § 933.05.

R7: By September 1, 2022, Auburn Recreation & Parks District will provide an updated response to the recommendations from the 2020-2021 grand jury report, indicating agreement or disagreement with the pertinent findings and a response to the pertinent recommendations in compliance with Penal Code § 933.05.

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
169
Request for Response
Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, the Placer County Grand Jury requests a response from the following:

Recommendations Response
Requiring Response Due Date

William Kahrl R2 September 1, 2022
Chairperson
Newcastle Fire Protection District
P.O. Box 262
Newcastle, CA 95658
David Wiltsee R3 September 1, 2022
President
Midway Heights County Water District
P.O. Box 596
Meadow Vista, CA 95722
Cheryl Hotaling R3 September 1, 2022
Chairperson
Penryn Fire Protection District
7206 Church St
Penryn, CA 95663
Peter Hills R3 September 1, 2022
President
Placer Hills Fire Protection District
P.O. Box 350
Meadow Vista, CA 95722
Devon Bell R4 September 1, 2022
Sheriff
Placer County Sheriff’s Office
2929 Richardson Dr
Auburn, CA 95603
Jim Henderson R5 September 1, 2022
President
Talmont Resort Improvement District
P.O. Box 1294
Tahoe City, CA 96145

Placer County Grand Jury 2021-2022 Final Report
170
Max Bailey R5 September 1, 2022
President
Heather Glen Community Services District
P.O. Box 715
Applegate, CA 95703
Sean Scully R6 October 1, 2022
City Manager
City of Lincoln
600 Sixth Street
Lincoln, CA 95648
Gordon Ainsleigh R7 September 1, 2022
Chairperson
Auburn Area Recreation & Park District
471 Maidu Dr #200
Auburn, CA 95603
Copies Sent to:

Cindy Gustafson
Chairperson
Placer County Board of Supervisors
175 Fulweiler Ave
Auburn, CA 95603

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #:
2310
File #: 0400-04-12 & 0800-06 & 0215
Title:

Sierra Vista Specific Plan Mitigation Fee Program Administration - Professional Service Agreement
Contact:

Stacie Marchetti 916-774-5278 [email protected]

Meeting Date: 9/21/2022
Item #: 6.8.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution to approve a professional services agreement with Economic and Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement.

BACKGROUND
In May of 2010, the City Council approved the Development Agreement(s) (DA) for the Sierra Vista Specific Plan (SVSP). The DA calls for the implementation of the Owner-sponsored SVSP Fee Program that specifies the use of a third-party administrator to organize and monitor the program to the fullest extent legally possible. To minimize the costs to the City, the City is to rely on the administrator to obtain, maintain, process, and prepare the information required of the program to calculate and re-calculate the fees in accordance with the fee program.

In April 2011, the City Council approved Ordinance 4932 to add Chapter 4.47 to the Roseville Municipal Code relating to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan (SVSP) Mitigation Fee. The Municipal Code includes the original Nexus Study used to adopt the fees, completed by Economic and Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS).

This Professional Services Agreement with EPS includes services designed to assist the City with SVSP Fee Program administration and completion of periodic SVSP Fee Program updates.

All costs associated with this agreement are paid by the SVSP infrastructure fee program.

FISCAL IMPACT
All work performed under this professional service agreement will be paid for by fee revenue collected through the fee program. There is no impact to the General Fund.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to activities that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment (CEQA Guidelines §15061(b)(3)). Approval of the EPS professional services agreement does not include the potential for a significant environmental effect, and therefore is not subject to CEQA.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal F - Invest in well-planned infrastructure and growth

Respectfully Submitted,
Stacie Marchetti, Management Analyst
Mike Isom, Development Services Director

_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Resolution 22-362
Professional Services Agreement
RESOLUTION NO. 22-362

APPROVING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT, BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE AND ECONOMIC AND PLANNING SYSTEMS INC., AND

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE IT ON BEHALF OF

THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE

WHEREAS, a professional services agreement for Sierra Vista Specific Plan Mitigation Fee Program Administration, by and between the City of Roseville and Economic and Planning Systems Inc., has been reviewed by the City Council; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roseville that said professional services agreement is hereby approved and that the City Manager is authorized to execute it on behalf of the City of Roseville.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Roseville this ___ day of ______________, 2022, by the following vote on roll call:

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

______________________________
MAYOR

ATTEST:

________________________
City Clerk

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #:
2320
File #:
0800-02
Title:

Regional Water Authority and Bureau of Reclamation -
Biological Opinion Services
and Support Program Agreement, Common Interest and Cost Share Agreement, and Memorandum of Understanding
Contact:

Sean Bigley 916-774-5513 [email protected]

Meeting Date: 9/21/2022
Item #: 6.9.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution to authorize the City Manager to execute: (1) Regional Water Authority (RWA) Program Agreement for Biological Opinion Services and Support; (2) the Common Interest and Cost Share Agreement; and, (3) a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and various American River Parties.

BACKGROUND
Federal fisheries agencies have the responsibility of ensuring that they issue permits, called “biological opinions” (BiOps), that allow the State Water Project (SWP) and the federal Central Valley Project (CVP) to operate in a way that limits impacts to endangered species. The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) must comply with these permits and will request a review of their operations, called “reinitiation of consultation”, if conditions change in a way that could cause impacts to species that were not originally anticipated.

The CVP and SWP currently operate under biological opinions that were issued in 2019, however, in late 2021 Reclamation and DWR requested that their operations be potentially modified and re-evaluated through a new permit process. A new permit is targeted in 2024, with accelerated interim deadlines in 2022 and 2023. Potential changes to state and federal water projects are unknown at this point in time, but the process is expected to be complicated.

The City of Roseville, in normal water years, has access to up to 32,000 acre-feet of CVP water via an indefinite-term Repayment Contract with the federal government. That water is delivered through a shared intake at Folsom Reservoir.

The latest reinitiation of consultation will ultimately create new BiOps that could impact how the CVP and ultimately Folsom Reservoir is operated in the future. Therefore, staff recommends participation in a regional effort to proactively engage in the reinitiation of consultation process and advocate for the region’s shared interests.

The shared effort will include hiring technical experts to support the region’s arguments with costs to be shared with the City of Roseville and these regional partners - City of Folsom, City of Sacramento, El Dorado Irrigation District, El Dorado Water Agency, Placer County Water Agency, Sacramento County Water Agency, Sacramento Municipal Utilities District and Sacramento Suburban Water District.

Collectively, signing these agreements will allow the City of Roseville, working with other American River water agencies and RWA, to protect our collective interests during the development of updated Biological Opinions (BiOps) to operate the Central Valley Project (CVP) and the State Water Project (SWP).

FISCAL IMPACT
Roseville’s cost for participation in this coordinated effort is $95,750. The total cost of the regional effort is $861,750 with participation by the City of Folsom, City of Sacramento, El Dorado Irrigation District, El Dorado Water Agency, Placer County Water Agency, Sacramento County Water Agency, Sacramento Municipal Utilities District and Sacramento Suburban Water District.

Roseville’s $95,750 share will be paid from the existing budget within the Water Utility Administration budget funded from the Water Operations Fund which receives revenue from water utility sales.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to activities that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, or is otherwise not considered a project as defined by CEQA Statute §21065 and CEQA State Guidelines §15060(c)(3) and §15378. These agreements (Regional Water Authority Biological Opinion Services and Support Program Agreement, Common Interest and Cost Share Agreement, and Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and various American River Parties) meet the above criteria and are not subject to CEQA. No additional environmental review is required.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal B - Support community engagement and advocacy
Goal F - Invest in well-planned infrastructure and growth

Respectfully Submitted,
Sean Bigley, Assistant Environmental Utilities Director Richard Plecker, Environmental Utilities Director

_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Resolution 22-369
CIA BiOp Agreement
BOSS Subscription Agreement
MOU with Bureau of Reclamation
RESOLUTION NO. 22-369

APPROVING THE REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY PROGRAM AGREEMENT FOR

BIOLOGICAL OPINION SERVICES AND SUPPORT, THE COMMON INTEREST AGREEMENT FOR COORDINATED PARTICIPATION: RECONSULTATION ON

BIOLOGICAL OPINION FOR THE CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT AND RELATED

MATTERS, AND THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE UNITED

STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BUREAU OF

RECLAMATION, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THEM ON

BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE

WHEREAS, the City of Folsom, City of Roseville, City of Sacramento, El Dorado Irrigation District, El Dorado Water Agency, Placer County Water Agency, Regional Water Authority, Sacramento County Water Agency, Sacramento Suburban Water District, and Sacramento Municipal Utility District are public agencies who hold contracts for the delivery of water from the Central Valley Project (“CVP”); and

WHEREAS, Federal fisheries agencies have the responsibility of ensuring that they issue permits, called “biological opinions” (BiOps), that allow the State Water Project (SWP) and the federal CVP to operate in a way that limits impacts to endangered species; and

WHEREAS, the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) must comply with these permits and will request a review of their operations, called “reinitiation of consultation”, if conditions change in a way that could cause impacts to species that were not originally anticipated; and

WHEREAS, the CVP and SWP currently operate under biological opinions that were issued in 2019, however, in late 2021 Reclamation and DWR requested that their operations be potentially modified and re-evaluated through a new permit process; and

WHEREAS, the latest reinitiation of consultation will ultimately create new BiOps that could impact how the CVP and ultimately Folsom Reservoir is operated in the future; and

WHEREAS, signing these agreements will allow the City of Roseville, working with other American River water agencies and RWA, to protect our collective interests during the development of updated Biological Opinions (BiOps) to operate the Central Valley Project (CVP) and the State Water Project (SWP).

WHEREAS, the Regional Water Authority Program Agreement for Biological Opinion Services and Support, the Common Interest Agreement for Coordinated Participation:

Reconsultation on Biological Opinion for the Central Valley Project and Related Matters, and the Memorandum of Understanding with the United States Of America Department Of The Interior, Bureau Of Reclamation, have been reviewed by the City Council.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roseville that said Regional Water Authority Program Agreement for Biological Opinion Services and Support, the Common Interest Agreement for Coordinated Participation: Reconsultation on Biological Opinion for the Central Valley Project and Related Matters, and the Memorandum of Understanding with the United States Of America Department Of The Interior, Bureau Of Reclamation, have been reviewed by the City Council and are hereby approved and that the City Manager is authorized to execute them on behalf of the City of Roseville.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Roseville this ___ day of ______________, 2022, by the following vote on roll call:

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

______________________________
MAYOR

ATTEST:

________________________
City Clerk

-1-

COMMON INTEREST AGREEMENT
for COORDINATED PARTICIPATION:

RECONSULTATION ON BIOLOGICAL OPINION FOR THE

CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT AND RELATED MATTERS
This Common Interest Agreement (Agreement) is entered into by and among the City of Folsom, City of Roseville, City of Sacramento, El Dorado Irrigation District, El Dorado Water Agency, Placer County Water Agency, Regional Water Authority, Sacramento County Water Agency, Sacramento Suburban Water District, and Sacramento Municipal Utility District and made effective on the date the last of the aforementioned parties signs this Agreement.

RECITALS
A. The City of Folsom, City of Roseville, City of Sacramento, El Dorado Irrigation Distr ict, El Dorado Water Agency, Placer County Water Agency, Sacramento County Water Agency, Sacramento Suburban Water District , and the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (collectively the “American River CVP Contractors”) are public agencies who hold contrtacts for the delivery of water from the Central Valley Project (CVP) and who desire to cooperate and coordinate efforts in order to collectively participate in the reconsultation of the Biological Opinion for the Coordinated Long-term Operation of the Central Valley Project and the State Water Project under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (BiOp). The Parties desire to provide the technical basis to enable their counsel to provide informed legal advice to the respective Parties and to enable the Parties to identify and pursue appropriate approaches to protect American River water supplies and interests of the American River CVP Contractors, by jointly pursuing technical work to, among other things, provide comment s as part of the BiOp reconsultation and otherwise participate in the BiOp reconsultation process. The Parties share a common interest in achieving all of the above.

B. The Regional Water Authority (“RWA”) is a joint powers authority formed for the purposes, among others, of serving and representing American River regional water supply interests in protecting and enhancing the reliability, availability, affordability, and quality of water resources in the American River region.

C. Through this Agreement, t he American River CVP Contra ctors and RWA desire to acknowledge and affirm their common interest to cooperate and coordinate efforts to -2-

protect American River water supplies and other common interests as part of the BiOp reconsultation process and provide for the management of the cooperative and coordinated effort contemplated by this Agreement.

D. The American River CVP Contractors and RWA desire , based on their common interests , to cooperate and coordinate, and share information related to the BiOp reconsultation process , while continuing to preserve, to the fullest extent possible, the protections of the attorney-client privilege, work product privilege, common–interest doctrine, deliberative process privilege, executive privilege, or any other privilege or protection existing under state or federal law.

AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above recitals, and the mutual covenants and conditions contained herein, the American River CVP Contractors and RWA agree as follows:

1. Management of Coordinated Effort. The American River CVP Contractors desire to have RWA serve as the project manager for this coordinated effort. RWA agrees to act as the project manager for this coordinated effort, provided that RWA is reimbursed for its cost in acting as project manager. All costs for RWA’s role as project manager will be funded through RWA’s Biological Opinion Services and Support (BOSS) Program. As provided in Paragraph 2(a), all American River CVP Contractors participating in this coordinated effort must also be a party to Biological Opinion Services and Support (BOSS) Program Agreement.

2. Cost-Sharing.
(a) Cost Sharing for RWA’s Project Management Services. RWA has established the BOSS Program pursuant to which individual RWA members can agree to pay certain sums in return for RWA providing certain project services. At all times that an American River CVP Contractor is participating in the coordinated efforts contemplated by this Agreement , that American River CVP Contractor shall also be a party to the BOSS Program Agreement. In the event an American River CVP Contractor fails or ceases to be a party to the BOSS Program Agreement, that American River CVP Contractor will be deemed to have withdrawn from this Agreement pursuant to Paragraph 5.
-3-

(b) Cost Sharing for Consultant Work. The American River CVP Contractors desire to share in the costs of consultant work that will be required as part of the Parties’ activities related to the BiOp reconsultation process. Each Party’s cost share will be as provided in the BOSS Program Agreement. RWA shall not be responsible for any consultant costs under this Agreement.

3. S teering Committee: Retention and Direction of Consultants. (a) Steering Committee. The American River CVP Contractors will each appoint a representative to a Steering Committee, which will make decisions for the American River CVP Contractors concerning work by consultants under this Agreement and provide direction to RWA in managing the coordinated effort. The Steering Committee will also make decisions on matters related to executing strategy and policy matters. The Steering Committee generally will meet at le ast once a month during this Agreement’s term. Unless specifically provided otherwise herein, an affirmative vote by 2/3 of all members of the Steering Committee shall be required for all decisions contemplated by this Agreement. The Steering Committee may vote by e -mail provided that all Steering Committee members are included in the circulation list for those e-mails.
(b)
Retention, Direction and Compensation of Consultants. The American River CVP Contractors will jointly authorize one or more of the American River CVP Contractors ’ legal counsel to retain consultants to perform scopes of work as approved by the Stee ring Committee, subject to applicable law for the confidentiality and protection of the work performed and work products produced by consultants. Retention of a consultant under this Agreement by an American River CVP Contractor or its counsel will not prevent that consultant from performing work for another American River CVP Contractor or RWA on matters not included in scopes of work authorized under this Agreement. The American River CVP Contractors, and not their legal counsel, collectively will be responsible for compensating consultants retained under this Agreement according to the BOSS Program Agreement. (c ) Management of Consultants’ Work. RWA will manage all work by consultants under the direction of the Steering Committee. RWA will ensure that its communications with consultants comply with this Agreement’s confidentiality arrangements. Provided that RWA’s manager of the BOSS Program and all American River CVP Contractors’ legal counsel are included on the relevant communications , Steering Committee members may have direct -4-

contact with consultants and consultants m ay circulate information and drafts directly to Steering Committee members.

4. Addition of Parties . A new American River CVP Contractor may be added to this Agreement with the approval by all members of the Steering Committee.

5. W ithdrawa l / Removal.
(a) Withdrawal. Any American River CVP Contractor may withdraw from this Agreement at any time. Written notice of withdrawal shall be sent to all members of the Steering Committee. A withdrawing American River CVP Contractor shall not receive any Joint Defense Materials (as defined in Section 8) produced after the date of its written notice of withdrawal, whether or not those Joint Defense Materials reflect consultant work performed before the date of that written notice of withdrawal. (b) Re moval. An American River CVP Contractor may be removed from this Agreement at any time by a three-fourths (3/4) vote of the remaining American River CVP Contractors. A removed American River CVP Contractor shall not receive any Joint Defense Materials (as defined in Section 8) produced after the date of its removal, whether or not those Joint Defense Materials reflect consultant work performed before the date of that removal.

6. Ter
m . This Agreement shall remain in effect until either of the following events occurs: (a) a majority of the Parties withdraw from the Agreement; or (b) the Steering Committee votes, by a two-thirds majority, to terminate this Agreement.

7. P
rivileged and Confidential Communications.
(a) For purposes of this Agreement, “Joint Defense Materials” includ es, but is not limited to, all communications (including communications related to the above- referenced proceedings made prior to the execution of this Agreement), factual materials, mental impressions, legal analyses, theories or strategies, memoranda, reports, notes, emails or any other communications or documents that are protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, work product privilege, deliberative process privilege, executive privilege, common-interest doctrine joint prosecution/defense doctrine, privileges regarding mediation or settlement communications, or any other privilege or protection existing under state or federal law, and that are exchanged among the American River CVP Contractors, -5-

RWA, and/or their respective counsel in connection with their cooperative efforts related to the matters described in this Agreement’s recitals.
(b) The American River CVP Contractors and RWA will maintain as confidential all Joint Defense Materials. Disclosure of Joint Defense Materials shall be limited to the American River CVP Contractors and their employees and contractors as well as any counsel and consultants retained by the American River CVP Contractors, or on behalf of the American River CVP Contractors, for the purpose of maintaining a joint defense with respect to the matters described in this Agreement’s recitals. RWA, as a public entity separate from its members, shall maintain as confidential all Joint Defense Materials within RWA as a separate public entity. Joint Defense Materials shall not be made available to RWA members that are not party to this Agreement.
(c) Any Joint Defense Materials shared or transmitted by or between American River CVP Contractors and/or RWA should be clearly designated with the label “CONFIDENTIAL: JOINT DEFENSE MATERIALS” or a substantially similar label referencing “joint defense.” However, the failure to include such designation shall not preclude such materials from being afforded the protections of this Agreement, and shall not be construed to constitute a waiver of any privilege or other protection. (d) Each American River CVP Contractor and RWA shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that any person who is granted access to Joint Defense Materials is familiar with the terms of this Agreement and complies with those terms. (e) Except where required by the order of a court of competent jurisdiction, or by the prior written consent of the remaining American River CVP Contractors, neither an American River CVP Contractor nor RWA will disclose to non-Parties any Joint Defense Materials that it has received from another American River CVP Contractor or RWA. (f) Each American River CVP Contractor and/or RWA shall notify the party that generated any Joint Defense Materials and all remaining American River CVP Contractors of any request to disclose the Joint Defense Materials to any non-Party (whether pursuant to the California Public Records Act or other authority), or of any proceeding before any court, administrative agency, or tribunal to compel the disclosure of such Joint Defense Materials, as soon as practicable after receipt of such request or the initiation of such proceeding. If an -6-

American River CVP Contractor or RWA becomes subject to any judicial or administrative order to compel release of Joint Defense Materials, that American River CVP Contractor or RWA shall promptly notify the party that generated the materials and all remaining American River CVP Contractors. The purpose of these notifications is to provide the party that generated the Joint Defense Materials or any remaining American River CVP Contractor an opportunity to take such steps as they may deem appropriate to protect the Joint Defense Materials.
(g) The sharing of Joint Defense Materials among the American River CVP Contractors and/or RWA is not intended to and will not constitute a waiver of any privilege or other protection of confidentiality, including but not limited to the attorney-client privilege, work product privilege, common-interest doctrine, deliberative process privilege, executive privilege, privileges relating to mediation or settlement communications, or any other privilege or protection existing under state or federal law. (h) Execution of this Agreement constitutes the mutual agreement of the American River CVP Contractors and RWA that any sharing of Joint Defense Materials among themselves is, pursuant to Evidence Code section 912, subdivision (d), and other applicable authorities, reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the American River CVP Contractors’ and RWA’s common purposes as described in this Agreement. Any sharing of Joint Defense Materials among the American River CVP Contractors and/or RWA is in reliance on this Agreement and the protections that arise from the parties’ common interests related to the matters described in Recital B to this Agreement. (i) If an American River CVP Contractor or RWA withdraws from this Agreement, the provisions of this Agreement shall continue to apply to the Joint Defense Materials that the party received or sent during the time period when that party was a party to this Agreement, including without limitation the duty to maintain those materials’ confidentiality under Section 8(b).
(j) If this Agreement is terminated for any reason, the Joint Defense Materials shared pursuant to this Agreement shall remain subject to all privileges cited herein and any other applicable confidentiality protections.
-7-

9. Attorney-Client Rela tionships. The American River CVP Contractors and RWA are represented by their respective legal counsel in connection with the above-referenced proceedings. A party’s legal counsel will not have an attorney-client relationship with any other party to this Agreement as a result of that legal counsel’s participation in discussions and actions related to the parties’ cooperative efforts on the above-described proceedings.

Similarly, no legal counsel will have a duty of loyalty or confidentiality to any other American River CVP Contractor or RWA other than that legal counsel’s specific client(s), and consequently, no American River CVP Contractor may seek to disqualify the legal counsel for another American River CVP Contractor as a result of the legal counsel’s participation in discussions and actions related to the parties’ cooperative efforts under this Agreement.

10. Re
presentations. The individuals signing this Agreem ent in a representative capacity warrant that they have the authority to do so on behalf of the entity or entities they represent, and further agree that as representatives of the entity or entities that they respectively represent, they themselves are bound by all terms of this Agreement.

11. E ntire A greement. This Agreement and any later-approved amendments or exhibits constitute the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement and supersede any prior oral or written agreement, understanding, or representation relating to the subject matter of this Agreement.

12. Count erparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original irrespective of the date of the execution, and said executed counterparts shall together constitute one and the same Agreement. Further, facsimile or .PDF copies of signatures shall be as effective as original signatures for evidencing execution of this Agreement. To ensure that each party has a full copy of this Agreement, upon a party’s initial execution of this Agreement, that party shall transmit a copy of its signature to its legal counsel, who shall transmit copies of that copy to all other legal counsel under this Agreement.

13. N
otices . All notices and other communications required to be given to a party under the terms of this Agreement (a) shall be in writing; (b) shall be personally delivered, sent via first class mail, or transmitted by facsimile or email with confirmation of receipt; and (c) shall be directed to such party at the address, facsimile number or email address specified -8-

below, or at such other address, facsimile number or email address as such party may hereafter designate by notice in accordance with this Section.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Common Interest Agreement for Coordinated Participation: Reconsultation on Biological Opinion for the Central Valley Project and Related Matters.

Dated: _________________________, 2022

______________________________ ______________________________ Bill Busath Michael Peterson
City of Sacramento Sacramento County Water Agency

______________________________ ______________________________ Jim Abercrombie Ansel Lundberg
El Dorado Irrigation District Sacramento Municipal Utility District

______________________________ ______________________________ Ken Payne Dan York
El Dorado Irrigation District Sacramento Suburban Water District

______________________________
Andy Fecko
Placer County Water Agency

-9-

CITY OF FOLSOM, A Municipal Corporation:

________________________________________
Date

______________________________________
Elaine Andersen, City Manager

ATTEST:

________________________________________
Christa Freemantle, City Clerk Date

FUNDING AVAILABLE:

______________________________________
Stacey Tamagni, Finance Director Date

ORIGINAL APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:

________________________________________
Marcus Yasutake, Date Environmental & Water Resources Director

ORIGINAL APPROVED AS TO FORM:

______________________________________
Steven Wang, City Attorney Date

-10-

CITY OF ROSEVILLE, a municipal corporation

BY: ____________________________

DOMINICK CASEY
City Manager

ATTEST:

BY: ____________________________

CARMEN AVALOS
City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

BY: ____________________________

MICHELLE SHEIDENBERGER
City Attorney

APPROVED AS TO SUBSTANCE:

BY: ____________________________

RICHARD PLECKER
Environmental Utilities Director

Page 1 of 13 ends

Roseville City CouncilSeptember 21, 2022

Roseville City Council
September 21, 2022