Nevada County Grand Jury
1999-2000
From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (14)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
surveyed. Many Departments have an annual inspection Departments program. Other Departments only inspect as a result of a complaint or a building permit check. Some Departments have little or no program at all.
F2:
The Grand Jury learned of plans to pool the resources of their inspection programs between some Departments. The goal of this move is to improve the frequency and professional quality of the inspections within these districts.
F3:
For simplicity, each Department contacted has been given a letter grade by the Grand Jury. A- All places of public assembly inspected within the last year. B- Most places of public assembly inspected within the last year. C- Some places of public assembly inspected within the last year. D- Few or no places of public assembly inspected within the last year. F- Failed to respond to the Grand Jury questionnaire. A- Ophir Hill Fire Department A- Grass Valley Fire Department A- Higgins Fire Department A- Nevada County Consolidated Fire Department A- Rough and Ready Fire Department A- 49er Fire Department B- No Department met this criteria C- Nevada City Fire Department D- Donner Summit Fire Department D- Penn Valley Fire Department D- Truckee Fire Department F- Peardale-Chicago Park Fire Department Some of the violations noted by the various Fire Departments were: blocked exits,
F4:
lack of required exits, lack of emergency lighting, burned out light bulbs in emergency lighting, improper storage of flammable materials, lack of "panic hardware", and locked doors on emergency exits. These violations and lack of documented follow up inspections clearing such
F5:
violations places the physical well being of visitors to places of public assembly in serious risk. CONCLUSIONS The citizens of Nevada County are entitled to a reasonable degree of safety when
F6:
HIGGINS AREA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT of Nevada County 10106 Combie Road, Auburn, CA 95602 Phone (530) 269-2488 • 268-0844 • Fax (530) 268-7737 August 16, 2000 Honorable Carl F. Bryan, II Presiding Judge Nevada County Superior Court Nevada City, CA 95959 David Janison, Foreman Grand Jury County of Nevada 950 Maidu Avenue Nevada City, CA 95959 Dear Judge Bryan and Foreman Janison: The following is the response of the Board of Directors of the Higgins Area Fire Protection District to the 1999-2000 Grand Jury report on Fire and Life Safety Inspection of Places of Public Assembly. FINDINGS 1. While the Higgins Area Fire Protection District's Board of Directors cannot comment on the inspection programs of other departments, it is our ongoing practice to annually inspect all commercial structures within our District's boundaries as part of a formal company inspection program. In addition, we conduct inspections based on building permit checks and complaints.
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
inspections of the places of public assembly within their districts to begin such a program. Everyone in authority within a Fire Department in Nevada County should All responses due by September 30, 2000 Donner Summit Fire Department Board of Directors Nevada City City Council Nevada City City Manager Peardale-Chicago Park Fire Department Board of Directors Penn Valley Fire Department Board of Directors Truckee Town Council Truckee Town Manager Ophir Hill Fire Department Board of Directors Grass Valley City Council Grass Valley City Manager Higgins Fire Department Board of Directors Nevada County Consolidated Fire Department Board of Directors Rough and Ready Fire Department 49er Fire Department Board of Directors * 1WA * 1 CITY OF NEVADA CITY 1787 CALIFORNIA CENTENNIA Nevada City A Bicentennial Community September 7, 2000 Re: City of Nevada City's Response to the Nevada County Grand Jury Report The City of Nevada City has recently taken several steps to improve fire service to the public. First of all, the City has hired the Fire Marshall for the 49'er Fire District to act as the City's Fire Marshall to replace Terry McMahan who acted as the City's Fire Marshall for many years and who went to work for the Consolidated Fire Department. It took a number of months to replace him, while the City explored whether it was appropriate to hire another Fire Marshall as an employee or simply contract with another agency. Secondly, the City has recently hired two additional fire department employees. In determining how many new employees to hire, the City awaited to see the results of the tax measure. The Council strongly believes that with the hiring of David Ray, of the 49'er Fire District and the hiring of two additional fire department employees, that the City will be able to provide much better service to the public. One of the primary job of David Ray will be to make annual inspections of all places of public assembly and follow-up those inspections to make sure that all needed changes are made. Dated: September 12, 2000 Dated: September 12, 2000 CITY MANAGER CITY HALL • 317 BROAD STREET • NEVADA CITY, CA 95959 • (530) 265-2496 10 - 1787 1707 1707 1707 1707 1707 1707 1707 CITY OF NEVADA CIT CALIFORNIA CENTENT Nevada City A Bicentennial NOV 1 7 2000 Community November 8, 2000 The Honorable Carl F. Bryan Presiding Judge of the Superior Court 201 Church Street, Suite 5 Nevada City, CA 95959 Response to Grand Jury Report Re: Dear Judge Bryan: The City of Nevada City hereby responds to the Grand Jury Findings and Recommendations regarding fire and life safety inspections of places of public assembly as follows:
R2:
As to Finding No. 2, the City Council agrees with this Finding and, again, for clarification the City has been in negotiations with the 49'er Fire Department for some time and has recently hired the Fire Marshall from the 49'er Fire Department. As to Finding No. 3, the City Council agrees with this Finding for the reasons
R3:
For simplicity each department contacted has been given a letter grade by the Grand Jury. F- Failed to respond to the Grand Jury questionnaire. Response: We agree with the finding. The failure to respond to the initial questionnaire was an oversight on our part owing to the fact that we have no places of public assembly in our Fire District.
R4:
As to Finding No. 4, while the City is not aware of violations reported by other Fire Departments, the City Council does agree that the problems set forth in
R5:
As to Finding No. 5, the City Council agrees with Finding No. 5. CITY HALL • 317 BROAD STREET • NEVADA CITY, CA 95959 • (530) 265-2496 Peardale-Chicago Park Fire Protection District PO Box 697 Chicago Park CA 95712 Sept 13,2000 Hon Carl Bryan, II Presiding Judge Nevada County Superior Court Nevada City, CA 95949 Dear Judge Bryan, Please accept this letter as our response to the 1999-2000 Civil Grand Jury Report. In this report the Peardale-Chicago Park Fire Protection District received and "F" for failing to report on the status of inspections on places of public assembly. This was a simple oversight in that the Fire District has no buildings within the district that qualify as public assembly and so no report was submitted. Please be assured that in the future any request for information by the grand jury will be given prompt attention. Sincerely, Benedict Barretta Board Chairman PEARDALE-CHICAGO PARK FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT PO BOX 697 CHICAGO PARK CA 95712 530-273-2503 10/18/00 Mr David Maidu Ave Nevada City CA 95959 Dear Mr Janison, The following is the response of the Peardale-Chicago Park Fire Protection District to the 1999-2000 Civil Grand Jury Report as concerns Fire and Life Safety Inspections of Places of Public Assembly.
R6:
HIGGINS AREA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT of Nevada County 10106 Combie Road, Auburn, CA 95602 Phone (530) 269-2488 • 268-0844 • Fax (530) 268-7737 August 16, 2000 Honorable Carl F. Bryan, II Presiding Judge Nevada County Superior Court Nevada City, CA 95959 David Janison, Foreman Grand Jury County of Nevada 950 Maidu Avenue Nevada City, CA 95959 Dear Judge Bryan and Foreman Janison: The following is the response of the Board of Directors of the Higgins Area Fire Protection District to the 1999-2000 Grand Jury report on Fire and Life Safety Inspection of Places of Public Assembly.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
The jail holding facility provides security for housing prisoners awaiting court appearance.
F2:
The Sheriff's office maintains documented procedures to insure the safety of the public and prisoners in the event of emergencies.
F3:
Prisoners are transferred from the Wayne Brown Correctional Facility and returned when their court proceedings are completed. They are not held overnight in the court holding facility. However, in the event of an emergency this housing is readily available.
F4:
In the jail holding facility, prisoners awaiting court are separated by gender. Adults are separated from juveniles.
F5:
Since the previous Grand Jury report, the Courthouse has installed and staffed an electronic security device at its main entrance to monitor all persons entering the facility. In addition the garage entrances that were formerly open to public access have been secured.
F6:
As of the date of this inspection, the Deputy Sheriff's Sergeant-in-Charge of the Courthouse and Holding Facility indicates that there are two (2) Correctional Officer vacancies which he has been unable to fill because of recruitment and hiring difficulties.
F7:
There are no video monitoring devices in the Courtroom and corridors. CONCLUSIONS
Additional Recommendations
7
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Although the Board of Supervisors has previously acknowledged the need to improve Courthouse security, the Grand Jury recommends that they consider the funding for video surveillance equipment in the courtrooms and its corridors.
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the two vacant correctional officer positions be filled as soon as possible.
R3:
when their court proceedings are completed. They are not held overnight in the court holding facility. However, in the event of an emergency this housing is readily available. Agree In the jail holding facility, prisoners awaiting court are separated by gender. Adults are
R4:
separated from juveniles. Agree
R5:
Since the previous Grand Jury report, the Courthouse has installed and staffed an electronic security device at its main entrance to monitor all persons entering the facility. In addition, the garage entrances that were formerly open to public access have been secured. Ward/other/gj9900-F7-Courthouse&Holdingfacility 09/13/00 Agree
R6:
As of the date of this inspection, the Deputy Sheriff's Sergeant-in-Charge of the Courthouse and Holding Facility indicates that there are two (2) Correctional Officer vacancies which he has been unable to fill because of recruitment and hiring difficulties. Agree
R7:
There are no video monitoring devices in the Courtroom and corridors. Agree RECOMMENDATIONS
Findings & Recommendations
25 findings
F1:
Since 1997, the Assessor's Department has spent more than $705,000 of taxpayers' money to maintain and upgrade his computer system. He testified that the new system will yield "better assessments" for the county.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
maintain and upgrade his computer system. He testified that the new system will yield "better assessments" for the County. Neither agree nor disagree with first sentence. The County administrator can not validate the amount reported by the Civil Grand Jury. Neither agree nor disagree with the second sentence. The Board has no knowledge of the Assessor's testimony to the Civil Grand jury. The Assessor's proposed computer system is non-operational. He said his project is between
R3:
County, told the Supervisors, at a Board meeting, " ... In the County's best interest.. It would be advisable to have the Assessor provide the proper project documentation and information. It has been ongoing for almost three years without any demonstrated project plan or management and therefore cost hundreds of thousands of dollars already spend by the Assessor." (Emphasis added by Grand Jury) Agree. The County Administrator had several discussions with the Assessor during FY 1998/1999 regarding the need to bring a comprehensive system development plan to the Board of Supervisors for review. It had become apparent the Assessor had made significant purchases over the past few years towards achieving a plan for computer services having an overall impact on other County operations and resources. Most importantly, the Board had never addressed this plan in its entirety. It was clearly identified by Administration that support and coordination from both the Auditor- Controller and Treasurer-Tax Collector would be needed. The property management database the Assessor was proposing to remove from the County system to a different platform under Assessor control is inextricably linked to the functions of those other offices and would be directly impacted by any changes to the Assessor portion of the shared system. The issue was also discussed during the Assessor's Budget Subcommittee meeting for the FY 1999/2000 proposed budget on June 21, 1999. The Assessor reiterated with Subcommittee members that the funds being requested in his budget were for maintenance of ongoing operations and that the issue of moving forward on his "Property Tax System Rewrite" project would be brought to the Board separately. Administration offered to assist the Assessor in bringing the issue to the Board to help ensure complete and accurate understanding of the implications, past and future investment issues, and benefits. The Assessor responded in writing (e-mail) to Administration staff following the Subcommittee meeting that he recognized the importance of bringing everyone up to speed and he would address the issue with the County's IS Director in an effort to better communicate the technical aspects of his plan to the Board, County staff, and the public. The County Administrator and Administration staff reminded the Assessor on several occasions in 1999 about the need to bring a complete proposal to the Board which would coordinate the role of the Auditor-Controller and the Treasurer-Tax Collector, and would address the impact of moving shared County data onto another platform. Instead he eventually brought his own report to the Board in the form of a contract proposal (described in response to Finding #1) on December 14,
F2:
The Assessor's proposed computer system is non-operational. He said his project is between 60 and 70 percent complete and estimated it will cost between $250,000 and $500,000 to complete the project.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
60 and 70 percent complete and estimated it will cost between $250,000 and $500,000 to complete the project. Neither agree nor disagree with the first sentence. To date, neither the County Administrator or information system department staff have been given a demonstration of how the new system is presently working, or will work. The Union, a local newspaper, reported in January 2000 that the Assessor was able to demonstrate uses of his system. However, a subsequent demonstration scheduled for the first week in February 2000 with the County Administrator, the Information Systems Director and other County staff was cancelled and has not been rescheduled by the Assessor. Neither agree nor disagree with the second sentence. The Board has no knowledge of the Assessor's testimony to the Civil Grand jury. The County Administrator has documented only two specific pieces of information regarding the estimated costs of the project. The County Administrator was given a one-page outline in March 1999 estimating a County cost of $620,000 over a five-year period with offsetting revenue of $932,500. This cost was only for the Assessor's Office portion of any change and did not include costs for the related portions of the Auditor-Controller's Office or Treasurer-Tax Collector. Secondly, the Assessor presented a proposed contract for "Assessor's property management development, support and maintenance of computer systems" to the Board of Supervisors on December 14, 1999. The contract would have cost the County $210,000 over an eighteen month period but was disapproved by the Board pending resolution of questions regarding Assessor compliance with County policies. In December 1999, Stephen T. Monaghan, Director of Information Systems for Nevada
F3:
In December, 1999, Stephen T. Monaghan, Director of Information Systems for Nevada County, told the Supervisors, at a board meeting, "...In the county's best interest...it would be advisable to have the Assessor provide the proper project documentation and information. It has been ongoing for almost three years without any demonstrated project plan or management and therefore cost hundreds of thousands of dollars already spent by the Assessor." (Emphasis added by Grand Jury.)
F4:
Monaghan told the Supervisors that a computer systems design may be compared to a blueprint for a building, and added that 80 percent of a project is design, specifications, COUNTY OF NEVADA STATE OF CALIFORNIA 950 Maidu Avenue • Nevada City, California 95959-8617 Telephone: (530) 265-1480 • FAX: (530) 265-1234 E-Mail: www.co.nevada.ca.us/ncbos/clerk Peter Van Zant, 1st District Karen Knecht, 2nd District BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Bruce Conklin, 3rd District Elizabeth Martin, 4th District Sam Dardick, 5th District Cathy R. Thompson Clerk of the Board May 10, 2000 The Honorable Carl Bryan Presiding Judge of the Nevada County Courts Nevada County Court House Nevada City ČA 95959 Subject: Board of Supervisors' Responses to the 1999-2000 Nevada County Civil Grand Jury Interim Report No. 2 dated February 17, 2000, regarding alleged mismanagement in the county Assessor's Department Dear Judge Bryan: The attached responses by the Board of Supervisors to the 1999-2000 Nevada County Civil Grand Jury Interim Report No. 2 dated February 17, 2000, are submitted as required by California Penal Code §933(c). These responses to the Grand Jury's findings and recommendations were approved by the Board of Supervisors at their regular meeting on May 9, 2000. The Board of Supervisors would like to thank the members of the 1999-2000 Grand Jury for their participation and effort in preparing the Interim Report. Sincerely, Could Swell. Bruce Conklin Chairman of the Board Attachment bc:pb CC; Foreman, Grand Jury Ted Gaebler, County Administrator County Counsel File: gj00j1-2 NEVADA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESPONSES TO 1999-2000 CIVIL GRAND JURY INTERIM REPORT NO.2 DATED FEBRUARY 17, 2000 RE: ALLEGED MISMANAGEMENT IN THE COUNTY ASSESSOR'S DEPARTMENT Response Summary The 1999-2000 Nevada County Civil Grand Jury, in their Interim Report No. 2, dated February 17, 2000, concluded that lack of budgetary oversight by the Board of Supervisors and the County Administrator's office led to uncontrolled spending by the Assessor. The Nevada County Board of Supervisors disagrees with this conclusion and did in fact provide budgetary oversight consistent with relevant powers of the Board and the Assessor as established by Government Code Sec. §25303. This Code section, in general terms, provides that the Board of Supervisors is charged with the duty of overseeing the performance of the duties of County officers, including other elected officials. Government Code Sec §25303 states: "The Board of Supervisors shall supervise the official conduct of all County officers, and all officers of all districts and other subdivisions of the County, and particularly insofar as the functions and duties of such County officers and officers of all districts and subdivisions of the County relate to the assessing, collecting, safekeeping, management, or disbursement of public funds. It shall see that they faithfully perform their duties, direct prosecutions for delinquencies, and when necessary, require them to renew their official bond, make reports and present their books and accounts for inspection." In construing the Board of Supervisors' duty to supervise the functions of other County officers, the courts in California have subsequently concluded that the Board's obligation does not allow it to direct the manner in which the various officers perform or discharge their duties. In other words, the supervising authority of the Board of Supervisors is limited to ensuring that an officer faithfully performs the duties of the office and does not permit the Board to control, either directly or indirectly, the manner in which the duties are performed. Within this oversight limitation however, it remains clear that the Board does retain budgetary oversight of an elected official to include establishment and approval of an annual budget, appropriations for non- budgeted expenditures, and approval of contracts and agreements requiring Board execution as established by County contracting policies and regulations. The Board can require adherence to other County policies that would not inhibit the accomplishment of an officer's official duties established by the California Constitution and other applicable code sections and regulations. The County Administrator performed appropriate due-diligence and administrative oversight of Assessor activities subject to Board policy direction. Beginning in 1999, the County Administrator became aware of the magnitude of the Assessor's plans to move forward with the development of a new property tax management computer system. Since then, the County Administrator and the Board have been aware of, and involved in, a number of on-going Board policy issues related to the Assessor's project. These policies included limitations on employment of temporary workers, limitations on the internal transfer of funds within expenditure classifications, information system development coordination procedures, contracting policies, computer and computer-related purchasing procedures, personnel recruitment and hiring, and equipment inventory requirements. In each case involving these issues, staff has taken direct action to work with the Assessor to clarify each policy, provide recommendations on how to proceed with his project within County policy and budgetary constraints, and to enforce requirements when cooperation was not forthcoming. Additionally, the Board took formal action in December 1999 to disapprove the Assessor's proposed software development contract until questions regarding system development and compliance with County policies were satisfactorily answered. The Board also directed the Auditor-Controller in January 2000 to perform a special audit of transactions of specified items in the Assessors office to determine if any improprieties or irregularities occurred within a certain time frame. As discussed, the Board does not have the authority to tell another elected officer how to perform his duties and responsibilities. In this case, the Board can not direct the Assessor to either develop a new property tax management system or not to develop one. It is the responsibility of the Assessor to make this determination. The Board is limited to ensuring the system is being developed consistent with County regulations and Board policy direction, impacts on other dependent county systems and functions are being considered, and to ensure public funds are properly managed and disbursed within statutory limitations set forth in the Government Code. We believe the Board has accomplished its responsibilities in this regard and we will continue to work with the Assessor to achieve understanding and compliance with County policies. The responsibility for leadership, sound judgement, and operational decisions regarding budget expenditures, system development, purchasing choices, and personnel management consistent with County policy are rightfully within the authority of the Assessor who must ultimately answer to the public for his actions. Ward/other/grndjury/grandjury response-assessor FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION: I. Assessor's Department A. RESPONSE TO FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS: Findings: Since 1997, the Assessor's Department has spent more than $705,000 of taxpayers' money to
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
blueprint for a building, and added that 80 percent of a project is design, specifications, analysis, etc. Writing and implementing the programs is 20 percent. Without proper design, he reported, the proposed system "is doomed to failure." Agree. The Information Services Director advised the Board on December 14, 1999 that the Assessor's proposed contract for "Assessor's property management development, support and maintenance of computer systems" displayed the following serious shortcomings: • It lacked an appropriate project definition and there were no deliverables for which the contractor would be held liable. • There was inadequate information to determine if the timeframe/compensation was reasonable. • It contained no detailed technical architecture, making it unenforceable. • The compensation schedule left the County vulnerable and was entirely inappropriate for an industry-standard software development contract. • The project had not been coordinated with the County's central IS systems to ensure effective co-existence and data-sharing capabilities. In response, the Board disapproved the contract and directed the Assessor to comply with Board policy regarding centralization of information services. The Grand Jury requested from the Assessor a copy of his systems design (blueprint). The
F5:
Assessor was unable to provide one. A temporary employee in charge of the proposed computer system testified that many aspects of the design "are in Art Green's head" rather than on paper. Neither agree nor disagree. The Board has no knowledge of what the Civil Grand Jury requested from the Assessor or what testimony a temporary employee may have presented. The Board requested the Assessor provide the required information to the IS Department so that the project could be evaluated before any further system development expenditures were made. To date, the Assessor has not provided any technical architecture, plan, or documentation to IS Department staff that describes the new system and how each component will interface with each other, other county systems, and web-based communication systems. After taking office in late 1998, the Assessor allowed two temporary employees (husband and
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Assessor was unable to provide one. A temporary employee in charge of the proposed computer system testified that many aspects of the design "are in Art Green's head" rather than on paper. Neither agree nor disagree. The Board has no knowledge of what the Civil Grand Jury requested from the Assessor or what testimony a temporary employee may have presented. The Board requested the Assessor provide the required information to the IS Department so that the project could be evaluated before any further system development expenditures were made. To date, the Assessor has not provided any technical architecture, plan, or documentation to IS Department staff that describes the new system and how each component will interface with each other, other county systems, and web-based communication systems. After taking office in late 1998, the Assessor allowed two temporary employees (husband and
F6:
wife) to work on the proposed office computer system at their private home, without supervision or documentation of work hours except for the workers' own handwritten time cards. Agree. The issue of the temporary employees working from their home office was first brought to the County Administrator's attention in late June 1999 when the Assessor was seeking approval for a number of last minute purchases and encumbrances from remaining FY 1998/1999 funds. Administration required justification for the request to reimburse the temporary employee $1,376.22 for the installation of four phone lines to his "work site" as well as 12 months of phone service in advance. When the Assessor clarified that the "work site" was the individual's home office, the request was denied as inappropriate. The County Administrator had not approved the plan in advance, there was no Board-approved County policy on telecommuting which would govern temporary employees, and advance payment of phone services was not authorized by county regulations. The Assessor testified he verbally approved overtime for the temporary workers, who were
Related Recommendations (2)
R6:
wife) to work on the proposed office computer system at their private home, without supervision or documentation of work hours except for the workers' own handwritten time cards. Agree. The issue of the temporary employees working from their home office was first brought to the County Administrator's attention in late June 1999 when the Assessor was seeking approval for a number of last minute purchases and encumbrances from remaining FY 1998/1999 funds. Administration required justification for the request to reimburse the temporary employee $1,376.22 for the installation of four phone lines to his "work site" as well as 12 months of phone service in advance. When the Assessor clarified that the "work site" was the individual's home office, the request was denied as inappropriate. The County Administrator had not approved the plan in advance, there was no Board-approved County policy on telecommuting which would govern temporary employees, and advance payment of phone services was not authorized by county regulations. The Assessor testified he verbally approved overtime for the temporary workers, who were
R11:
employee's family home. The Assessor ordered the connection of computer modem (phone) lines between that private home and the Rood Center, at County expense. Partially agree. The Board and the County Administrator have no direct knowledge about the allegation of delivery of County-purchased equipment to the temporary employee's home. However, as noted above in the response to Finding #6, the County Administrator was made aware of the Assessor's desire to retroactively reimburse the temporary employee for telephone line connection costs. In a meeting on August 2, 1999, Assessor's staff again raised the issue of the County Administrator not sanctioning or approving of the reimbursement or the working from home The County Administrator did not approve the Assessor's request for retroactive arrangement. reimbursement. Subsequently, Administration staff learned on November 23, 1999 that the Assessor had approved reimbursement for the phone lines on August 6, 1999 and the Assessor had been paying the ongoing phone charges for those lines to the temporary employee's home from his approved budget. An investigation of the reimbursement indicated that County policies had been observed with respect to needed documentation and receipts, and the action took place during a time when the County Administrator's approval was not required. (The County Administrator's authority had previously been required since there had been an unofficial "purchasing freeze" for the last two months of the fiscal year. In the absence of such a requirement, all department heads have the authority to exercise their own discretion and judgement in authorizing purchases and payments that do not otherwise require higher level approval.) Given the situation, the County Administrator determined that the Assessor had taken full responsibility for providing reimbursement for the phone lines and service at the County's expense. - However, immediately following the Board's December 14th action, directing the Assessor to proceed with his project in conformance with Board policy by submitting his project definition to the IS Department, the County Administrator ordered the phone lines disconnected. He then also - advised the Assessor that continuing to pay phone charges for activities that were related to his system development project was an inappropriate use of County funds. The appraisal records for the temporary employee's home and property have disappeared
F7:
paid $42, 458 in overtime plus their combined salaries of $85,136, in 1999 alone. The Assessor said he was unaware of the total overtime costs. Neither agree nor disagree. The Board has no knowledge of the Assessor's testimony to the Civil Grand Jury. The Assessor further testified that the male temporary worker was his former business
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
paid $42, 458 in overtime plus their combined salaries of $85,136, in 1999 alone. The Assessor said he was unaware of the total overtime costs. Neither agree nor disagree. The Board has no knowledge of the Assessor's testimony to the Civil Grand Jury. The Assessor further testified that the male temporary worker was his former business
F8:
partner. This temporary worker is also repaying a personal loan to the Assessor, according to annual conflict of interest filings by the Assessor. Neither agree nor disagree with the first sentence. The Board has no knowledge of the Assessor's testimony to the Civil Grand Jury. Agree with the second sentence. The Assessor said he let the male temporary employee participate in management decisions,
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
partner. This temporary worker is also repaying a personal loan to the Assessor, according to annual conflict of interest filings by the Assessor. Neither agree nor disagree with the first sentence. The Board has no knowledge of the Assessor's testimony to the Civil Grand Jury. Agree with the second sentence. The Assessor said he let the male temporary employee participate in management decisions,
F9:
including evaluation of staff, reviewing job applications and conducting interviews. The Assessor said he also directed the temporary employee to look at the staff "under a microscope." Neither agree nor disagree. The Board has no knowledge of the Assessor's testimony to the Civil Grand Jury. The Assessor said he placed that same temporary employee in charge of the department and
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
including evaluation of staff, reviewing job applications and conducting interviews. The Assessor said he also directed the temporary employee to look at the staff "under a microscope." Neither agree nor disagree. The Board has no knowledge of the Assessor's testimony to the Civil Grand Jury. The Assessor said he placed that same temporary employee in charge of the department and
F10:
staff in the Assessor's absence. Neither agree nor disagree. The Board has no knowledge of the Assessor's testimony to the Civil Grand Jury. Unless otherwise specified by statute or County Ordinance, County department heads have the authority to designate employees within their department to serve on their behalf when absent. The Assessor's decision to place a temporary employee in charge of his department in his absence was within his managerial judgement. Some of the County-purchased computer equipment was delivered directly to the temporary
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
staff in the Assessor's absence. Neither agree nor disagree. The Board has no knowledge of the Assessor's testimony to the Civil Grand Jury. Unless otherwise specified by statute or County Ordinance, County department heads have the authority to designate employees within their department to serve on their behalf when absent. The Assessor's decision to place a temporary employee in charge of his department in his absence was within his managerial judgement. Some of the County-purchased computer equipment was delivered directly to the temporary
F11:
employee's family home. The Assessor ordered the connection of computer modem (phone) lines between that private home and the Rood Center, at County expense. Partially agree. The Board and the County Administrator have no direct knowledge about the allegation of delivery of County-purchased equipment to the temporary employee's home. However, as noted above in the response to Finding #6, the County Administrator was made aware of the Assessor's desire to retroactively reimburse the temporary employee for telephone line connection costs. In a meeting on August 2, 1999, Assessor's staff again raised the issue of the County Administrator not sanctioning or approving of the reimbursement or the working from home The County Administrator did not approve the Assessor's request for retroactive arrangement. reimbursement. Subsequently, Administration staff learned on November 23, 1999 that the Assessor had approved reimbursement for the phone lines on August 6, 1999 and the Assessor had been paying the ongoing phone charges for those lines to the temporary employee's home from his approved budget. An investigation of the reimbursement indicated that County policies had been observed with respect to needed documentation and receipts, and the action took place during a time when the County Administrator's approval was not required. (The County Administrator's authority had previously been required since there had been an unofficial "purchasing freeze" for the last two months of the fiscal year. In the absence of such a requirement, all department heads have the authority to exercise their own discretion and judgement in authorizing purchases and payments that do not otherwise require higher level approval.) Given the situation, the County Administrator determined that the Assessor had taken full responsibility for providing reimbursement for the phone lines and service at the County's expense. - However, immediately following the Board's December 14th action, directing the Assessor to proceed with his project in conformance with Board policy by submitting his project definition to the IS Department, the County Administrator ordered the phone lines disconnected. He then also - advised the Assessor that continuing to pay phone charges for activities that were related to his system development project was an inappropriate use of County funds. The appraisal records for the temporary employee's home and property have disappeared
F12:
from the Assessors confidential files and are still missing as of the date of this report. Neither agree nor disagree. The Board has no knowledge of what may be missing from the Assessor's confidential files. The Board is also unaware if the suspected theft or misplacement of official appraisal records has been referred to proper authorities by the Civil Grand Jury for investigation. Employees testified they have frequently been confused about the "chain of command" since
Related Recommendations (1)
R12:
from the Assessors confidential files and are still missing as of the date of this report. Neither agree nor disagree. The Board has no knowledge of what may be missing from the Assessor's confidential files. The Board is also unaware if the suspected theft or misplacement of official appraisal records has been referred to proper authorities by the Civil Grand Jury for investigation. Employees testified they have frequently been confused about the "chain of command" since
F13:
the Assessor took office in late 1998. They also said morale has never been lower and the office is in disarray. The Assessor twice testified he was unaware of any morale problems in his office. Partially agree. The Board has no knowledge of what testimony employees or the Assessor presented to the Civil Grand jury. However, during November and December 1999, the County Administrator's Office received unsolicited testimony from employees in the Assessor's Office regarding morale issues and allegations of mismanagement and possible illegal activities. Following a discussion with the District Attorney regarding employee allegations, the County Administrator initiated a request to the Auditor-Controller to first address allegations of missing equipment. That request culminated in reports to the Board of Supervisors by the Auditor-Controller on January 18, 2000 and January 31, 2000. The County Administrator did not take further action regarding the employee complaints at that time because of the on going Civil Grand Jury investigation. This investigation may be resumed if and when deemed to be appropriate. The Assessor's office is understaffed due to unfilled positions. All employees interviewed,
Related Recommendations (1)
R13:
the Assessor took office in late 1998. They also said morale has never been lower and the office is in disarray. The Assessor twice testified he was unaware of any morale problems in his office. Partially agree. The Board has no knowledge of what testimony employees or the Assessor presented to the Civil Grand jury. However, during November and December 1999, the County Administrator's Office received unsolicited testimony from employees in the Assessor's Office regarding morale issues and allegations of mismanagement and possible illegal activities. Following a
F14:
testified that understaffing causes many difficulties and delays. They further testified they believed salaries were being saved by understaffing to pay for computers and software. Partially agree. During approval of the FY 1999/2000 budget, the Assessor's Office had 10 of 33 authorized positions vacant, a 33% vacancy rate. This compares with an overall 10% County employee vacancy rate as of October 1, 1999. The Board has no knowledge of Assessor employee testimony to the Civil Grand Jury regarding staff vacancy impacts. County Administration staff was involved in numerous discussions with the Assessor's Office during the previous fiscal year regarding excessive spending by the Assessor for Class 2 expenses (Services & Supplies). Significant purchases for computers and computer-related items were showing up in random reviews of the County's financial accounting records for the Assessor's office. Documentation in March 1999 indicated the Assessor's staff questioned whether or not they would need Board approval to transfer funds saved from Class 1 expenses (Salaries & Benefits) to cover Ward/other/grndjury/grandjury response-assessor unbudgeted Class 2 expenses. The County Administrator orally advised them at that time and on subsequent occasions that Board approval was required to transfer funds from Class 1 expenses for salaries & benefits to unbudgeted Class 2 expenses for services & supplies. Regarding the unfilled positions, the Assessor testified that personnel recruitments have been
Related Recommendations (2)
R14:
testified that understaffing causes many difficulties and delays. They further testified they believed salaries were being saved by understaffing to pay for computers and software. Partially agree. During approval of the FY 1999/2000 budget, the Assessor's Office had 10 of 33 authorized positions vacant, a 33% vacancy rate. This compares with an overall 10% County employee vacancy rate as of October 1, 1999. The Board has no knowledge of Assessor employee testimony to the Civil Grand Jury regarding staff vacancy impacts. County Administration staff was involved in numerous discussions with the Assessor's Office during the previous fiscal year regarding excessive spending by the Assessor for Class 2 expenses (Services & Supplies). Significant purchases for computers and computer-related items were showing up in random reviews of the County's financial accounting records for the Assessor's office. Documentation in March 1999 indicated the Assessor's staff questioned whether or not they would need Board approval to transfer funds saved from Class 1 expenses (Salaries & Benefits) to cover Ward/other/grndjury/grandjury response-assessor unbudgeted Class 2 expenses. The County Administrator orally advised them at that time and on subsequent occasions that Board approval was required to transfer funds from Class 1 expenses for salaries & benefits to unbudgeted Class 2 expenses for services & supplies. Regarding the unfilled positions, the Assessor testified that personnel recruitments have been
R16:
salaries were $119,864 under budget while operating expenses, including computers, were $108,544 over budget. There is no evidence that a required budget transfer was approved. This shifting of budgeted funds has continued in the first half of fiscal 1999/2000. Partially agree. As indicated in the response to Finding #14, the Assessor was advised in March 1999 that funds approved for salaries could not be used for other expenses without Board approval. He was advised that the approval could be requested either by taking the issue to the Board himself or within a County mid-year budget amendment that would be prepared by the County Administrator. All department heads, including the Assessor, were notified by a memorandum from the County Administrator on April 20, 1999 that budget adjustments could be submitted for inclusion in the Board action that eventually took place on June 1, 1999. The Assessor failed to submit a complete and adequate justification with his budget amendment request, so it was not included in the mid-year budget amendment. The Assessor was then advised that such a transfer could be taken to the Board during the final ("clean up") budget amendment for the fiscal year which was intended to take place sometime after July. Due to workload and staff changes within the County Administrator's office, the FY 1998/1999 final amendment was not approved by the Board until November 2, 1999. This amendment included the total budget reconciliation by department rather than a transfer from one class of funds to another within a department (which is the County Administrator's usual practice.) The Assessor's Budget expenditures for FY 1999/2000, for both "operating expenses" and salaries and benefits have remained within the budgeted appropriation limits. Employees said appraisals of commercial properties within Nevada County are not being
F15:
delayed by the Personnel Department. Records show it took the Assessor from 21/2 to 51/2 months to provide required job descriptions to the Personnel Department. Neither agree nor disagree with the first sentence. The Board has no knowledge of the Assessor's testimony to the Civil Grand Jury. Personnel recruitment actions for the Assessors Office were generally delayed for a variety of reasons related to incomplete and inaccurate job descriptions being submitted to Personnel by the Assessors office, Assessor delays in responding to questions, and lack of adherence to County Personnel policies relating to recruitment actions. The average time to process all county recruitments from receipt to posting was 26.4 days during the period July - December 1999. Agree with the second sentence. A review of the Assessor's 1998/1999 actual expenses, compared to the budget, shows that
Related Recommendations (1)
R15:
delayed by the Personnel Department. Records show it took the Assessor from 21/2 to 51/2 months to provide required job descriptions to the Personnel Department. Neither agree nor disagree with the first sentence. The Board has no knowledge of the Assessor's testimony to the Civil Grand Jury. Personnel recruitment actions for the Assessors Office were generally delayed for a variety of reasons related to incomplete and inaccurate job descriptions being submitted to Personnel by the Assessors office, Assessor delays in responding to questions, and lack of adherence to County Personnel policies relating to recruitment actions. The average time to process all county recruitments from receipt to posting was 26.4 days during the period July - December 1999. Agree with the second sentence. A review of the Assessor's 1998/1999 actual expenses, compared to the budget, shows that
F16:
salaries were $119,864 under budget while operating expenses, including computers, were $108,544 over budget. There is no evidence that a required budget transfer was approved. This shifting of budgeted funds has continued in the first half of fiscal 1999/2000. Partially agree. As indicated in the response to Finding #14, the Assessor was advised in March 1999 that funds approved for salaries could not be used for other expenses without Board approval. He was advised that the approval could be requested either by taking the issue to the Board himself or within a County mid-year budget amendment that would be prepared by the County Administrator. All department heads, including the Assessor, were notified by a memorandum from the County Administrator on April 20, 1999 that budget adjustments could be submitted for inclusion in the Board action that eventually took place on June 1, 1999. The Assessor failed to submit a complete and adequate justification with his budget amendment request, so it was not included in the mid-year budget amendment. The Assessor was then advised that such a transfer could be taken to the Board during the final ("clean up") budget amendment for the fiscal year which was intended to take place sometime after July. Due to workload and staff changes within the County Administrator's office, the FY 1998/1999 final amendment was not approved by the Board until November 2, 1999. This amendment included the total budget reconciliation by department rather than a transfer from one class of funds to another within a department (which is the County Administrator's usual practice.) The Assessor's Budget expenditures for FY 1999/2000, for both "operating expenses" and salaries and benefits have remained within the budgeted appropriation limits. Employees said appraisals of commercial properties within Nevada County are not being
F17:
performed adequately due to the shortage of workers thus losing potential tax dollars for the County. Neither agree nor disagree. The Board has no knowledge of what testimony Assessor employees presented to the Civil Grand Jury. The Board has not received any information that commercial property appraisals are being inadequately performed. A training facility has been established within the Assessor's office and equipped for training
Related Recommendations (1)
R17:
performed adequately due to the shortage of workers thus losing potential tax dollars for the County. Neither agree nor disagree. The Board has no knowledge of what testimony Assessor employees presented to the Civil Grand Jury. The Board has not received any information that commercial property appraisals are being inadequately performed. A training facility has been established within the Assessor's office and equipped for training
F18:
employees. That facility remains locked and unused for it's stated purpose. Neither agree nor disagree. The Board has no knowledge of how and for what purpose the Assessor is using his designated training room. Use of training facilities in the Assessor's office is within the operational responsibility of the Assessor. Assessor's employees told the Grand Jury they have repeatedly met resistance from the
Related Recommendations (1)
R18:
employees. That facility remains locked and unused for it's stated purpose. Neither agree nor disagree. The Board has no knowledge of how and for what purpose the Assessor is using his designated training room. Use of training facilities in the Assessor's office is within the operational responsibility of the Assessor. Assessor's employees told the Grand Jury they have repeatedly met resistance from the
F19:
Administrators in their attempts to attend continuing education classes required by the state. Neither agree nor disagree. The Board has no knowledge of what testimony Assessor employees presented to the Civil Grand Jury. The Board approved the appropriation of $34,000 in the FY 1999-00 Assessor Budget for training and travel expenses. These funds were in response to the Assessor's request to send 14 employees to State Board of Equalization workshops and for attendance at Assessor Standards meetings. It was within the authority of the Assessor to determine if these funds were actually spent on the training requested. A former long-term employee in the Assessor's Department, who was the Assessor's election
Related Recommendations (1)
R19:
Administrators in their attempts to attend continuing education classes required by the state. Neither agree nor disagree. The Board has no knowledge of what testimony Assessor employees presented to the Civil Grand Jury. The Board approved the appropriation of $34,000 in the FY 1999-00 Assessor Budget for training and travel expenses. These funds were in response to the Assessor's request to send 14 employees to State Board of Equalization workshops and for attendance at Assessor Standards meetings. It was within the authority of the Assessor to determine if these funds were actually spent on the training requested. A former long-term employee in the Assessor's Department, who was the Assessor's election
F20:
campaign manager, was promoted to Assistant Assessor. After her three-month probationary period, the Assessor made her appointment permanent. Just two weeks later, the Assessor removed her from that position. The Assessor told the Grand Jury she "was not doing the job." Partially agree. A long-term employee in the Assessor's office was promoted to Assistant Assessor and was removed from that position after her probation period ended. The Board is unaware of the political relationship of the employee to the Assessor. Ward/other/grndjury/grandjury response-assessor Neither agree nor disagree with the last sentence. The Board has no knowledge of the Assessor's testimony to the Civil Grand Jury.
Related Recommendations (1)
R20:
campaign manager, was promoted to Assistant Assessor. After her three-month probationary period, the Assessor made her appointment permanent. Just two weeks later, the Assessor removed her from that position. The Assessor told the Grand Jury she "was not doing the job." Partially agree. A long-term employee in the Assessor's office was promoted to Assistant Assessor and was removed from that position after her probation period ended. The Board is unaware of the political relationship of the employee to the Assessor. Ward/other/grndjury/grandjury response-assessor Neither agree nor disagree with the last sentence. The Board has no knowledge of the Assessor's testimony to the Civil Grand Jury.
F21:
Subsequently, the Assessor named another of his campaign workers to that same assistant's position, although that individual did not meet job description requirements. After the Grand Jury questioned the Assessor, in January 2000, he hired another friend as his temporary assistant. Neither agree nor disagree. The Board has no knowledge of the relationship to the Assessor, qualifications, and experience of the person hired as his temporary assistant.
Related Recommendations (1)
R21:
Subsequently, the Assessor named another of his campaign workers to that same assistant's position, although that individual did not meet job description requirements. After the Grand Jury questioned the Assessor, in January 2000, he hired another friend as his temporary assistant. Neither agree nor disagree. The Board has no knowledge of the relationship to the Assessor, qualifications, and experience of the person hired as his temporary assistant.
F22:
The Assessor told the Grand Jury he let another of his campaign workers, not an employee of the County, have unlimited access to the Assessor's office. He also issued the man an Assessor's department badge. Neither agree nor disagree. The Board has no knowledge of the Assessor's testimony to the Civil Grand Jury or whether he issued the person referenced by the Civil Grand Jury an Assessor's Department badge. Employees concluded that this campaign worker, described by the Assessor as his "political
Related Recommendations (1)
R22:
The Assessor told the Grand Jury he let another of his campaign workers, not an employee of the County, have unlimited access to the Assessor's office. He also issued the man an Assessor's department badge. Neither agree nor disagree. The Board has no knowledge of the Assessor's testimony to the Civil Grand Jury or whether he issued the person referenced by the Civil Grand Jury an Assessor's Department badge. Employees concluded that this campaign worker, described by the Assessor as his "political
F23:
advisor", was acting in a management capacity and had access to confidential information. Employees said the man was present during review of job applications and other administrative functions. Neither agree nor disagree. The Board has no knowledge of what testimony the Assessor employees presented to the Civil Grand Jury. The County requires each of its departments to maintain an ongoing inventory of all
Related Recommendations (1)
R23:
advisor", was acting in a management capacity and had access to confidential information. Employees said the man was present during review of job applications and other administrative functions. Neither agree nor disagree. The Board has no knowledge of what testimony the Assessor employees presented to the Civil Grand Jury. The County requires each of its departments to maintain an ongoing inventory of all
F24:
equipment valued at from $1,000 to $2,500. The recent County audit of the Assessor's Department found the inventory was not prepared until January 18, 2000, well after the Assessor's office was under investigation by the Grand Jury. Agree. When the threshold was raised to $2,500 in November 1998 (Resolution No. 98-482), the County Administrator directed departments to be responsible for their own inventory lists. The list submitted with the Auditor-Controller's report to the Board of Supervisors appears to indicate that the Assessor's list was not prepared until January 18, 2000. A $4,400 study was prepared for the Assessor and his proposed computer system, by the
Related Recommendations (1)
R24:
equipment valued at from $1,000 to $2,500. The recent County audit of the Assessor's Department found the inventory was not prepared until January 18, 2000, well after the Assessor's office was under investigation by the Grand Jury. Agree. When the threshold was raised to $2,500 in November 1998 (Resolution No. 98-482), the County Administrator directed departments to be responsible for their own inventory lists. The list submitted with the Auditor-Controller's report to the Board of Supervisors appears to indicate that the Assessor's list was not prepared until January 18, 2000. A $4,400 study was prepared for the Assessor and his proposed computer system, by the
F25:
Government Finance Research firm. It also contained Information from the other "online" counties of San Bernardino and San Diego. The research firm reported that Sam Bernardino has yet to have a "hit" on it's Internet subscriber sites and San Diego was planning to full service as of October 1999. The report concluded. "The Nevada County Assessor, along with San Bernardino and San Diego are on the cutting edge of a new paradigm of information services and it is difficult to gather information that is not yet there." (Emphasis added by Grand Jury). Agree. The referenced report was provided to the County Administrator.
Related Recommendations (1)
R25:
Government Finance Research firm. It also contained Information from the other "online" counties of San Bernardino and San Diego. The research firm reported that Sam Bernardino has yet to have a "hit" on it's Internet subscriber sites and San Diego was planning to full service as of October 1999. The report concluded. "The Nevada County Assessor, along with San Bernardino and San Diego are on the cutting edge of a new paradigm of information services and it is difficult to gather information that is not yet there." (Emphasis added by Grand Jury). Agree. The referenced report was provided to the County Administrator. RECOMMENDATIONS The Grand Jury recommends that the Assessor provide the County Informational Services
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
Documents revealed that several Nevada County employees for whom tax withholding is required, in some circumstances are also being paid as independent contractors for ٠ whom tax withholding is not required.
F2:
At least three top-level personnel were being paid as independent contractors. Their employment contracts specified work hours and prohibited doing like work for others, clearly making them employees under IRS rules.
F3:
The IRS has 20 specific rules for determining who is an employee and who is an independent contractor. In the event of an IRS audit, should they find actual employees being paid as 4 independent contractors, the IRS could assess significant penalties against Nevada County.
F5:
A review of Auditor-Controller e-mails on dealing several cases with employee/independent contractor status revealed that no one took the responsibility to make a final binding decision upon employee/independent contractor status. The Grand Jury was unable to determine where that responsibility lay.
F6:
The Auditor-Controller testified that he believed the decision-making responsibility should belong to the County department heads. COUNTY OF NEVADA STATE OF CALIFORNIA 950 Maidu Avenue • Nevada City, California 95959-8617 Telephone: (530) 265-1480 • FAX: (530) 265-1234 Toll-Free Telephone: (888) 785-1480 E-Mail: www.co.nevada.ca.us/ncbos/clerk JUP ERV Peter Van Zant, 1st District Karen Knecht, 2nd District BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Bruce Conklin, 3rd District Elizabeth Martin, 4th District Sam Dardick, 5th District Cathy R. Thompson September 27, 2000 Clerk of the Board The Honorable Carl Bryan Presiding Judge of the Nevada County Courts Nevada County Court House Nevada City ČA 95959 Subject: Board of Supervisors Responses to the 1999-2000 Nevada County Civil Grand Jury Interim Report No. 5, dated May 31, 2000, regarding Employee/Independent Contractors; and Grand Jury Interim Report No. 6, dated June 5, 2000, regarding the Nevada County Assessor's Office. Dear Judge Bryan: The attached responses by the Board of Supervisors to the 1999-2000 Nevada County Civil Grand Jury Interim Report No. 5, dated May 31, 2000, and Interim Report No. 6, dated June 5, 2000, are submitted as required by California Penal Code §933. These responses to the Grand Jury's findings and recommendations were approved by the Board of Supervisors at their regular meeting on September 26, 2000. They are based on either personal knowledge, examination of official county records, review of the response by the Assessor, or testimony from the Auditor-Controller, Board Chairman, or county staff members. This submission completes the Board of Supervisors reply to the 1999-2000 Nevada County Civil Grand Jury Final Report, including all Interim Reports. The Board of Supervisors would like to thank the members of the 1999-2000 Grand Jury for their participation and effort in preparing this year's report. Sincerely, Bruce Conklin Chairman of the Board Attachment bc:pb Foreman, Grand Jury cc: Ted Gaebler, County Administrator County Counsel NEVADA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESPONSES TO 1999-2000 CIVIL GRAND JURY INTERIM REPORT NO. DATED MAY 31, 2000 RE: NEVADA COUNTY EMPLOYEE/INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS Responses to findings and recommendations are based on either personal knowledge, examination of official county records or testimony from the Auditor-Controller, board chairman or county staff members. I. GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION: Nevada County Employee/Independent Contractors A. RESPONSE TO FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS: The Board of Supervisor's response to this Grand jury investigation is partially based on staff discussion with the Auditor-Controller regarding the Findings and Recommendations in the report. The Board believes it would have been appropriate for the Grand Jury to request the Auditor- Controller also formally respond to these Findings and Recommendations. Most of the Findings relate to Grand Jury contact with the Auditor-Controller, examination of Auditor-Controller contract, financial, and e-mail records, and IRS-related issues generally under the responsibility of the Auditor-Controller to monitor for the County. Additionally, the Grand Jury recommendation would directly impact Auditor-Controller operations if implemented and appears to be contrary to his recommendation, as reported by the Grand Jury in Finding No.6, on where responsibility and authority for employee/independent contractor should be assigned. Findings: Documents revealed that several Nevada County employees for whom tax withholding is 1. required, in some circumstances are also being paid as independent contractors for whom tax withholding is not required. Neither agree nor disagree. The Board has no knowledge of what documents were reviewed by the Grand Jury. Board staff discussion with the Auditor-Controller indicated he agrees with this Finding.
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
required, in some circumstances are also being paid as independent contractors for whom tax withholding is not required. Neither agree nor disagree. The Board has no knowledge of what documents were reviewed by the Grand Jury. Board staff discussion with the Auditor-Controller indicated he agrees with this Finding.
R2:
At least three top-level personnel were being paid as independent contractors. Their employment contracts specified work hours and prohibited doing like work for others, clearly making them employees under IRS rules. Ward/other/grndjury/gj9900-IR5-EmpleeIndepContrs 09/27/00 Neither agree nor disagree. The Board has no knowledge of the "three top-level personnel" referenced by the Grand Jury. Without this information, the Board can not review their employment contracts and validate the Grand Jury Finding. Board staff discussion with the Auditor-Controller indicated he agrees with the Finding. The IRS has 20 specific rules for determining who is an employee and who is an
R3:
independent contractor. Agree. Board staff discussion with the Auditor-Controller indicated he agrees with this Finding. The IRS is in the process of eliminating the "20 factors test" for determining a worker's status. It is being replaced with three factors that count towards this determination. State law is also relevant in determining employee/independent contractor status. New California Employment Development Department (EDD) reporting criteria will go into effect January 1, 2001 requiring every county vendor who is identified as a sole proprietorship and who receives a 1099 as an independent contractor to be reported to the state. (See attached draft Auditor-Controller memorandum, dated September 15, 2000). In the event of an IRS audit, should they find actual employees being paid as independent
R5:
e-mails several dealing Auditor-Controller cases of on review A employee/independent contractor status revealed that no one took the responsibility to make a final binding decision upon employee/independent contractor status. The Grand Jury was unable to determine where that responsibility lay. Neither agree nor disagree. The Board does not have access to Auditor-Controller e-mails. The Board also has no knowledge of what Auditor-Controller e-mails were reviewed by the Grand Jury. Board staff discussion with the Auditor-Controller indicated he agrees with this Finding. Ward/other/gmdjury/gj9900-IR5-EmpleeIndepContrs 10/31/00 Board staff discussion with the Auditor-Controller indicated he agrees with this Finding.
R6:
The Auditor-Controller testified that he believed the decision-making responsibility should belong to the County department heads. Neither agree nor disagree. The Board has no knowledge of the Auditor-Controller's testimony to the Grand Jury. Board staff discussion with the Auditor-Controller indicated he agrees with this Finding in that if he is assigned authority and responsibility for employee/independent contractor decisions, he will work with the Department heads and the County Administrator to ensure they comply with all county, state, and federal requirements. RECOMMENDATIONS
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
Saint Joseph's Cultural Center (SJCC) is listed as a historical building.
F2:
Certain exemptions exist for historical buildings.
F3:
SJCC is operated by a non-profit group.
F4:
There are multiple "permanent" tenants within SJCC.
F5:
The SJCC chapel, a wood building, is being used as an assembly area.
F6:
GVFD, GVBD and NCGJ found the following non-code conditions: A. Non-operating emergency exit lights. (Note: the lights were to be repaired the same day.) B. The stairs to the balcony are too narrow. C. Two means of egress are required from the balcony area, for ten or more people in the balcony. D. There is no emergency exit hardware on exterior doors. E. Occupancy signage is not readily visible. F. Hand rails are missing from stairways. G. Multiple areas of dry rot were found, most of which had been painted over. H. Much of the wood decking was in an unsafe condition. (Note: This repair is underway.) I. The assembly area walls are separating from the masonry section of the center. J. The roof is in such poor condition that the structural integrity of the entire building may be in jeopardy. CONCLUSIONS
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
SJCC needs to follow through with all recommendations issued by the GVFD and GVBD.
R2:
SJCC needs to advise all groups intending to use the assembly area that a permit is required from the GVFD, and cease allowing groups to occupy the area without a valid permit in possession from the GVFD for the given date. · 3. The director in charge of SJCC and the owners of the building are urged to keep the safety of the public first and foremost in their minds when making all future decisions regarding SJCC.
R3:
recommendation as it is the responsibility of the Board and Administration of the St. Joseph's Cultural Center. Hopefully, this letter addresses your issues. Sincerely, K∳le Kollar Fire Chief Director of Community Development E-mail: council&admin@cityof.grass-valley.ca.us www.cityof.grass-valley.ca.us
R4:
The Grass Valley Fire and Building Departments agree with this finding.
R5:
The Grass Valley Fire and Building Departments agree with this finding
R6:
except we partially disagree with the following findings: Some hand rails were missing on stairways (#A). a) There was emergency exit hardware on exterior doors (#D). b) Some of the emergency exit lights were not operable (#F). c) Regarding the recommendations listed under the overall safety of the St. Joseph's Cultural Center (p. 31) in the Grand Jury final report: This recommendation has been implemented. The Fire and Life Safety corrections
Findings & Recommendations
13 findings
F1:
We found that there are five parts to the system/project. Each part is complete to various degrees. Some parts are in productive use today. When viewed as a whole, the effort to replace and enhance the property tax assessment system was approximately 60% complete when work was stopped. The five parts and their completion status are as follows: 1) Legacy X1 System - Complete and in production - The County's production legacy system (X1) for Property Appraisal, Billing and Tax Collection. This system incorporates all the business rules and workflow that support the activities for processing of Secured and Unsecured tax rolls of the Offices of the Assessor, Treasurer-Tax Collector and Auditor-Controller. The basic screen design of the existing system was to be used as the basis in the next stage of development of the system described in #4-5 below. We reviewed the design of the legacy system during our assessment. It is a menu driven character-based system that the Assessor's staff uses in conducting the day to day business of the office. The Assessor and the Assessor's office manager convinced us that the business processes as designed in the legacy system were adequate and efficient for the Assessor's function. The replacement efforts were focused only on the Assessor's part of the application (i.e. not the Billing, and Tax Collection portions). 2) Comparative Sales System - Complete and in production - There is a PC based system using a Microsoft (MS) Access database that supports a comparative sales analysis data base and stores digital photographs of each parcel. We observed this system in use in the Assessor's office during our assessment. 3) Data Base Design - Complete - There is a database design for a complete countywide Property Tax system. The design we reviewed supports all aspects of the Property Tax assessment function and appears to meet standards for a County of Nevada Assessor Software Development Assessment Carrera MAXIMUS normalized relational database. This database design forms the basis for a new system design for a replacement system. The database design is documented in a technical diagram called an Entity-Relationship-Diagram (ERD). 4) Replacement Comparative Sales System - Partially complete (~90%) - There is a system that is intended to replace the MS Access comparative sales system described in #3 above. The system incorporates the digital photograph elements from the MS Access System and adds digitized plot plans and parcel maps to the data base. The system is written in Visual Basic (VB) and is designed to run on an MS SQL database using an Internet browser to view parcel data. A considerable amount of design and development work has been completed on the replacement system. We were able to view a prototype version of the new system in the Assessors office. This portion of the overall project is approximately 90% complete. While it is intended to complement the business functions presently provided by the X1 system, it has value by itself as a more powerful Comparative Sales application. The technology used for this application is intended to function in the same way as the Internet using an Internet browser such as Netscape or Internet Explorer. Outstanding tasks include the creation of system documentation and final testing/debugging. 5) Replacement of Existing X1 Assessor System - Minimally complete (~0%) - The Assessor's plan was to re-program the screens and database (from the X1) into the new VB/MS SQL software platform (from item #4 above) and normalized database (from item #3 above). This would result in all of the Assessors applications being combined and using the same "Browser" technology. Included in the Assessor's design was consideration for the support of other County departments. The current system includes a database that is an extract of the Assessor's production database (on the X1) which other departments access for their own use. The Assessor's design included an interface that would continue to provide the extracted Assessor database on the X1 for other departments to use in exactly the same manner as the existing system. Creating new interfaces to any new systems introduced by other departments would be much easier with the new relational database design. As a follow-on effort to the replacement of the X1 system, the Assessor described future plans to offer access to limited amounts of property data to the public via the Internet. Public access through the Internet was not part of this project, however the development and design work that was in progress is an essential element in order to complete the public access piece sometime in the future.
F2:
The conceptual design and features of the Assessor's new system are better than those found in any commercial off-the-shelf California Property Tax system available in the market today. There are presently very few commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) products for Property Tax Assessment in California. A few vendors have claimed to have development efforts underway for new products, but to our knowledge, none of them has signed contracts County of Nevada with a county at this time. The Assessor confirmed, and we agree, that the existing system contains features and functions not present in the few COTS systems available. In addition, none of those products includes support for digital photographs and area plots as envisioned by the Assessor's design.
F3:
We found that the Assessor had valid reasons for originally proceeding with this project. The Assessor described to us the reasons that he believes that this development project was necessary. First, the legacy Property Tax system is based on data base management software called "UniVerse". While this data base management system has served the County well, the current release level is outdated. Furthermore, the legacy property tax database design is outdated and makes the integration and sharing of data difficult. Second, the County's computer system (the X1) is outdated. The hardware is experiencing capacity problems and is difficult and relatively expensive to maintain compared to newer equipment. At the time that the Assessor embarked on the path to replace the Property Tax application, no plans were in place to replace this hardware. Third, the legacy system on the X1 uses a product for screen design and presentation management named Total On-line Applications Development System (TOADS). The version of TOADS in use at the County is several releases behind and does not support modern development tools and systems features such as a graphical user interface (GUI). While there are known advantages and disadvantages to a GUI interface, it is generally accepted that the advantages, e.g. ease of use and reduced training, outweigh the disadvantages, e.g. intense data entry efficiency. In other words, applications that require intense data entry are most efficient in a character-based mode.
F4:
There are changes in hardware and software planned in the County that should be considered in conjunction with continuing development of the Property Tax system. The County's IS Director has described plans to upgrade the County's X1 system. The planned system, a Data General Aviion server is a state of the art mid-range computer that will place the county in a position to take advantage of current software technology. The new Data General system is scheduled for installation by spring of 2001. The County also plans to upgrade the UniVerse database software. The new version of UniVerse supports a wide range of current development tools and software languages (including Visual Basic or VB). According to the documentation on the new version of UniVerse, it will support any normalized database design. With this new functionality in the UniVerse product, the normalized database designed by the Assessor to run on an MS SQL Server database might work equally well in the new UniVerse, as might the new software written in VB. This means that completing the Assessor's project as County of Nevada begun would not be in conflict with future direction currently planned by the County and could even be merged at some future date if desired. Also, completing the Assessor's project would create an opportunity for the Tax Collector and Auditor to migrate their legacy systems to the same platform, if this was deemed desirable after reviewing the effectiveness of the Assessor's new system. The County's future plans for the TOADS screen management system are unclear at this time. Given the legacy Property Tax system's reliance on TOADS, clear direction in this area is needed. It is important to note that TOADS and UniVerse are critical components in many other County systems. These include: Financial Accounting, Fixed Assets, Budgeting, Fleet Management, Planning, Building Inspection, Criminal Justice Case Management, Jail Management, Computer Aided Dispatch, Collections, Board of Supervisor's Document Indexing, Time Accounting, Cashiering, Court Calendar, Probation, and Purchasing. 2.2 Project Management Methodology
F5:
We found that the Project Management methodology used by the Assessor was much more informal than we would reasonably expect to find on a project of this type. At a minimum, the project management methodology would be expected to track time (labor hours), cost, and deliverables during the life of the project, and forecast the schedule and cost to complete. The application of a methodology to a project must be included in the cost estimates. Overhead cost for the project increases as the project management methodology becomes more formal, however, project risk increases as the formality of the methodology decreases. There were two major reasons given for the informal approach to project management. First, was the wide variety of work being performed. The current Assessor, Mr. Green, was using the same resource(s) to perform in-house maintenance on business systems, day-to-day support of the office LAN, and for new development work. He assigned top priority for work being performed by the temporary employee to the day-to-day network administration and desktop PC support functions. Consequently, development work on the new system became difficult to forecast as it could be (and was) interrupted anytime there was an issue effecting the department's information technology and its operation. The second reason for the informal approach was that the development team was very small and worked in close proximity to Mr. Green. From Mr. Green's perspective, this close working arrangement reduced the need for more formal project management methodology. However, it also led to confusion and misunderstanding outside of the Assessor's Office as to the nature and status of the system, progress on new development and Mr. Green's plans for the future. County of Nevada Project Plan 2.3
F6:
indicated: "We found no formal documentation of a project plan associated with this project". The Carrera-Maximus report also indicates that little system software documentation exists due to a system development process being used by the Assessor called "Rapid Prototyping" or "Iterative Development". This has resulted in little or no documentation of the new software being produced to date. The County Administrator supported these findings by Carrera-Maximus in his introductory report accompanying the assessment report presented to the Board on September 12, 2000. 3. In his response to the Grand Jury Interim Report the Assessor stated that since he "took office in November 1998, less than $200,000 has been spent for computer equipment and application programs in the Assessor's Office." The Grand Jury examined all payroll records and invoices paid for computer hardware, studies, software, and computer related expenses. Between November 15, 1998, and December 31, 1999, the following amount were spent: Paid to temporary employees $139,210 Employees share of FICA (7.65%) 10,650 Total employee cost $149,860 Paid to outside vendors $195,119 TOTAL COMPUTER EXPENSE $344,979 Partially agree. The Board has no independent knowledge of the results of the Grand Jury's review of payroll records and invoices. Ward/other/grndjury/gj9900-IR6-Assessor The Board does agree with the Grand Jury that at least $300,000 has been spent to date on the development of the Assessor's computer system. Although the exact amount actually spent towards developing the computer system can not be determined due to financial accounting system limitations, the County Administrator, in the introduction to the Carrera-Maximus report, estimates that the project has cost at least $300,000. 4. There is a question as to who will own the Assessor's proposed computer system upon its completion. There is no formal County procedure regarding ownership of intellectual property. Disagree with the first sentence. The Board believes that all intellectual property developed to date in conjunction with the Assessor's new computer system, as well as other related systems and components either developed by the Assessor, contract employees of the Assessor, or Assessor Department employees, is the property of Nevada County. Any future system development of the Assessor's proposed computer system, either done by staff or by professional service contract, will specifically provide for legal protection of county intellectual property. Partially agree with the second sentence. Clause Twenty One in the Miscellaneous section of the county standard professional services contract form clearly specifies that all intellectual property concerning or relating to contracted work projects or services are owned by the county without exception. The Board also hereby directs the County Administrator and County Counsel to develop a formal policy regarding ownership of intellectual property by county employees and provide a
F7:
The Assessor was using a methodology known as "Rapid Prototyping" or "Iterative Development". This software development technique is highly interactive (typically between the designer and a knowledgeable user) and can be quite adequate for focused projects attempting to introduce new technology. At the same time this methodology does not County of Nevada Assessor Software Development Assessment Carrera XIMUS produce any significant documentation because the designer is constantly trying new things, showing them to the user, and incorporating the user's feedback. At some point, the designer must stop the iterations and document the work produced. That point is usually after all prototyping is complete. Prior to that point, the prototype itself serves as the documentation. This can easily get out of hand if the project is very large or if there are very many people involved in the effort. In the Assessor's case this was a small focused effort involving very few people. Therefore, the fact that there is no formal documentation at this point does not surprise or concern us. While we are not concerned at the level of documentation at this point in time, we did hear staff's concerns about the impact upon staff time taken up by the project using this development approach. Our assessment was limited, so we did not make any effort to verify or determine the level of staff time that was needed to support the development effort. Based upon our observations of the system's development status, we believe that the most intense period of interaction between the office staff and any software developer is over. However, we have included a specific recommendation that would address this issue should a new contract to finish the project be negotiated. When performing iterative development, some technical aspects of the system are frequently "stubbed-out." This means that the code to provide that functionality is not really there. This is often the case when one is trying to develop a new user interface, which is what we observed that the Assessor was doing. This allows the developer to focus on one aspect of the system at a time without having solved all of the technical problems of the finished system. Clearly, all such "stubbed-out" portions of the code would have to be completed before the system would be usable. While we did not examine the code directly, discovering that portions of the system had been "stubbed- out" would not have changed our conclusions given the development approach the Assessor was following. As can be seen from our diagram (Appendix A), the introduction of new technology into the Assessor's system was being accomplished in an evolutionary rather than revolutionary manner. This approach has produced successful results in the Assessor's office for many years. Initially, the Assessor's office developed and maintained a Paradox database application running on a DOS PC to perform comparative sales analysis using data extracted from the X1 system. This system was moved off the Paradox system in the mid-1990's to the emerging Microsoft office suite. The replacement system used the MS Access Database as an initial deployment with the intention of eventually moving to a more robust database platform. At the time this was considered an upgrade in technology which moved the comparative sales application onto a relational database with a Graphical User Interface (GUI), namely Windows. In 1995 digital photographs were introduced to the office which could be stored on a shared server computer and viewed with stand-alone viewer software. The Assessor County of Nevada Assessor Software Development Assessment estimates that this modification generated a saving of $22,000 a year in Polaroid film costs. Integration of the digital photographs into the Access database improved productivity of the Assessor's staff and lowered document management costs (of the pictures). The MS Access database product suite used includes some database design tools that the Assessor and the developer (a temporary County employee in the Assessor's Office) used to restructure the data for all of the Assessor's data residing back on the X1. The design we observed was a highly normalized relational data base design. A highly normalized relational design for a database has several well-established benefits in terms of total cost of ownership. The term "total cost of ownership" (TCO) refers to taking a comprehensive view of all aspects of costs, both initial and on going. Use of a relational database helps to create what is called an "open-system." An open-system assures that other County department's data needs from the Property Tax system could be met without requiring them to be on the same platform. Generally, this would apply even if they decide to purchase a different off-the-shelf system (provided those systems are "open" as well). However, for many (mostly technical) reasons, we caution the County about using MS Access as a database platform for long-term strategic use in the County (see section 2.6 for additional TCO aspects). The Assessor is well aware of the known limitations in MS Access. Initially, MS Access was being used as an application prototyping and production tool and to aid in the re- design of the new Property Tax database. However, the intended prototype turned out to have immediate payback in terms of productive use by the Assessor's office. As a result of this value, the prototype containing comparable sales and digital photos was placed in production and is in use today. The Assessor described to us his intent to develop and implement the new database using MS SQL Server. MS SQL Server is Microsoft's premier database product and is presently one of the industry leaders for strategic enterprise database platforms. The new system design that the Assessor is currently introducing, includes a new way of structuring data called "compound data architecture" and new development methodology called "Object-Oriented Development" (OOD) in a "Thin Client" environment. Compound data architecture allows computer systems to collect, store and present much more than just the text-based information which most users are familiar. Things such as pictures, video/voice recordings and drawings can be stored and manipulated with much the same ease as simple text by the user. But for the developer, it requires significant new skills and the use of new and different practices. In order to understand the significance of Thin-Client software, consider an older form of software architecture (but more modern than that employed on the X1) that is very popular today called Client/Server. In this approach, the software is divided into two different parts called the Client and the Server (or Client/Server software). The Server portion controls the database and maintains its integrity. The Client portion controls the County of Nevada Assessor Software Development Assessment arrera presentation of the information to the user. This has usually resulted in development of two separate sets of programs, one running on a database-server computer and one set running on each user's workstation. This results in each user having to have a copy of the client portion of the application and introduces significant system management challenges. While it was initially thought by the industry that Client/Server systems would be less expensive to develop, operate and maintain than traditional "mainframe" or "legacy" systems, experience has proven otherwise. Studies have been published by well know research firms like The Gartner Group showing that Client/Server systems are up to 5 times as expensive as mainframe systems. Because of this huge difference another approach had to be found. The latest means to develop software that attempts to address this issue is called Thin- Client application development. Thin-Client applications require very little software to be loaded on the user's workstation, preferably nothing more than an Internet web browser (which is frequently already present). Thin-Client applications are very new and require additional tools and skills over and above the move to Object-Oriented Development. In particular, the use of automated testing tools is highly recommended. The Assessor is developing the new system using this Thin-Client approach. During the course of our assessment we have heard this referred to as "Browser" software. We did not find the expected use of any automated testing included in the Assessor's plan.
F8:
The staff resources being used to develop the new system were also being used to maintain the old system. This seems to have caused considerable confusion about what was being done, progress being made, and cost of the effort. As a result of this practice, development on the new system would proceed only when everything else (technology wise) in the Department was working well. This is frequently the way a small staff is managed especially if there are no external deadlines for the new development like Y2K. The disadvantage is the protracted nature of the development time and the lack of a visible schedule for completion. This appears to be the way the Assessor's Office was run for a number of years preceding the term of the current Assessor. With the recent move in the County to consolidate IT resources into a centralized department, a more focused effort to complete this project is needed. This will help to limit cost and allow better tracking of project status and deliverables. Change Management Policies and Practices
F9:
We found no formal change management policies or practices in use in the Assessor's Office. We checked with the County's IS department (in order to consider
F10:
The development tools being used to support this project consisted of industry standard off-the-shelf products. Proper use of these products places the County in the industry mainstream and has already produced concrete benefits. Use of standard off-the-shelf products for systems development presents a minimum risk to the organization of being out of step with industry standards. The Assessor was using Visual Basic, MS SQL Server, AutoCAD, Windows NT and MS Office for the project. These are all mainstream products. In addition, a single company, Microsoft, supports all but AutoCAD. Having a single vendor for all or most of the supporting products can enhance support opportunities and make interaction and integration of system components less problematic. The benefits of the system developed using modern tools and techniques include lower total cost of ownership (TCO) because of the following aspects: Increased labor pool of qualified programmers – use of current technology increases the available pool of trained resources. > Normalized relational databases are easier to maintain and require less complex code structure through the use of SQL (Structured Query Language). > Object-Oriented programs enjoy a high potential for re-use if carefully constructed. > Use of automated testing improves reliability for all systems, which improves County productivity. In addition, specifically concerning the Assessor's project: County of Nevada Assessor Software Development Assessment arrera лахіmus The Assessor's Office has already witnessed improved productivity with the limited functions deployed so far. However, these were just prototype systems. Finishing the project could help consolidate those gains and add additional document management tools that should further enhance productivity. > The project allows the County to have concrete information upon which to base future directions for technology upgrades. The County may be able to recoup some portion of its development costs through data subscription services or even licensing the software to other counties or licensing the system to a vendor.
F11:
The development, test and production environments are not well defined. It is a common practice in these types of projects to set up multiple server computers where each computer supports either the development, test or production environment. This approach helps assure that the developers, testers and users operate in a known and stable environment. This way, a problem encountered while testing a change to the system will not affect the systems operation in production. In the Assessor's case, the system was under development and the development team was small. This small configuration reduces the importance of multiple environments. However, formalizing a separation before the system enters production would be essential. 2.7 Other Relevant Issues Two other relevant issues surfaced during the course of our assessment. The two issues were Communications and Funding. Discussions of those two issues are included in this section. Communications In Section 2.2 of this report, we identified that there was "confusion and misunderstanding outside of the Assessor's office as to the nature and status of the system, progress on new development and Mr. Green's plans for the future." This breakdown in communications between the parties and the ensuing need for the public to have a level of understanding of how funds were being spent, caused the project to be halted. At the point that the project was halted, design documentation was not complete and may now be partially lost. These actions may have cost implications in the future if, or when, the project is resumed. More important, it became clear to us that effective communications and mutual trust must be rebuilt between the parties for the future good of the County, the County of Nevada Assessor Software Development Assessment success of the IS Strategic Planning process and the successful completion of this project. Funding Plans
F12:
At the time that the contract was presented to the Board by the Assessor (December 1999), the Assessor had a reasoned approach in mind for funding the project. The Assessor's Office had not adequately communicated this plan to the County Administrator's Office and had not followed up on several administrative and/or procedural steps necessary to put the plan in motion.
F13:
Some of the assumptions used to create the December 1999 funding plan are no longer valid, requiring modification to the plan if the project is to proceed at any level. At the request of the County Board of Supervisors, we were asked to review and report on the plans the Assessor had to fund this project. We were also asked to review those plans with the Budget and Auditor's offices and report our findings. The following five sections of this report cover this issue. The changes in circumstances that have occurred over time have been factored into our
Additional Recommendations
14
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
business partner of the temporary male employee (as identified in the Interim Report). In his public response to the Grand Jury report he stated that "the male worker was never a 'business partner' not did the Assessor state that he was". Clearly, the Assessor has given conflicting statements. The Grand Jury has a copy of the fictitious business name statement files with the County Recorder by the Assessor, stating that the Assessor and the male employee were indeed partners. Neither agree nor disagree with the first three sentences. The Board has no knowledge of the Assessor's testimony to the Grand Jury. Partially agree with the fourth sentence. According to the Assessor, he did have a prior business relationship with the temporary male employee referenced in the report, but the fictitious business name statement referenced by the Grand Jury identifying this business relationship as a partnership was never published. The Assessor also responded to the Grand Jury that a subsequent statement was published identifying the business as a sole proprietorship. The Grand Jury Interim Report on the Assessor's Office recommends that before any
R2:
more funds are spent on the computer system the Assessor provide the County Information Systems Department with documentation of his proposed system. To date this has not occurred. Agree. The county Information Systems Department has no record of receiving any documentation from the Assessor regarding his proposed new computer system. The Assessor indicated in his response to this Finding that he previously provided extant documentation of the proposed system. In his May 24, 2000 response to the Grand Jury, he indicates he will comply, but that it is "inappropriate and unnecessary" since the proposed computer system is a rewrite of the current computer system and the county Information Systems Department already has "complete documentation". The Assessment of Software Development in the Assessors Office report, dated August 30, 2000, prepared at Board direction by Carrera-Maximus, indicated in 2.2 Project Management Methodology. Finding 5, that "...the Project Management methodology used by the Assessor was much more informal than we would reasonably expect to find on a project of this type".
R3:
In his response to the Grand Jury Interim Report the Assessor stated that since he "took office in November 1998, less than $200,000 has been spent for computer equipment and application programs in the Assessor's Office." The Grand Jury examined all payroll records and invoices paid for computer hardware, studies, software, and computer related expenses. Between November 15, 1998, and December 31, 1999, the following amount were spent: Paid to temporary employees $139,210 Employees share of FICA (7.65%) 10,650 Total employee cost $149,860 Paid to outside vendors $195,119 TOTAL COMPUTER EXPENSE $344,979 Partially agree. The Board has no independent knowledge of the results of the Grand Jury's review of payroll records and invoices. Ward/other/grndjury/gj9900-IR6-Assessor The Board does agree with the Grand Jury that at least $300,000 has been spent to date on the development of the Assessor's computer system. Although the exact amount actually spent towards developing the computer system can not be determined due to financial accounting system limitations, the County Administrator, in the introduction to the Carrera-Maximus report, estimates that the project has cost at least $300,000.
R4:
There is a question as to who will own the Assessor's proposed computer system upon its completion. There is no formal County procedure regarding ownership of intellectual property. Disagree with the first sentence. The Board believes that all intellectual property developed to date in conjunction with the Assessor's new computer system, as well as other related systems and components either developed by the Assessor, contract employees of the Assessor, or Assessor Department employees, is the property of Nevada County. Any future system development of the Assessor's proposed computer system, either done by staff or by professional service contract, will specifically provide for legal protection of county intellectual property. Partially agree with the second sentence. Clause Twenty One in the Miscellaneous section of the county standard professional services contract form clearly specifies that all intellectual property concerning or relating to contracted work projects or services are owned by the county without exception. The Board also hereby directs the County Administrator and County Counsel to develop a formal policy regarding ownership of intellectual property by county employees and provide a recommendation to the Board by January 31, 2001 (See response to Recommendation No. 2).
R5:
The Assessor's response to the Interim Grand Jury Report, filed April 17, 2000, failed to meet the requirements of California's Penal Code Section §933.05. Agree. The Assessor, in his April 17, 2000 response to the Grand Jury did not specifically indicate if he agreed, disagreed, or partially agreed with each Finding. A reading of his responses to each
R6:
Recommendation for a Service Level Agreement: Staff agrees that service level agreements are prudent when contracting for outside professional support services. However, the County's standard arrangement for IS support to departments requiring enhanced maintenance and support services is to provide dedicated staff which take daily task direction from the departments. In exchange, the department executes a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with IS. This arrangement provides more flexibility and support to departments than a service level agreement. The IS Department currently has executed MOU's with other departments and offices, including those headed by elected officials. Attachment A September 12, 2000 Moving the Discussion to the Higher County "Picture" This section includes staff reflections on issues outside the scope of the consultants' work, which nonetheless are related to decisions about what to do now. They include:
R7:
etc.) in the past is not acceptable for future work on this project. There are resources available in the County to help meet this need. The support and maintenance of the Assessor's Office systems (LAN, X1, PC hetwork, etc.)
R8:
can and are being serviced by the County's IS Department. The servicing of these systems should remain completely separate from any development of the software project. The County's method for Attachment A September 12, 2000 handling this service is codified in a standard MOU which should be executed between IS and the user department or office. The Assessor has not yet signed an MOU. Significant changes in the County's leadership, planning and funding of IS resources since the
R9:
Assessor began his project are available. If entered into as a willing partnership, these resources can provide immediate and long-term benefits for both the Assessor's Office and the County. Cooperatively working with other County departments and in conformance with Board-directed policy will benefit the Assessor and his staff and the County "family" as a whole. In turn, a relationship of mutual respect, communication and collaboration benefits the taxpayers. Near-term funding opportunities to address finishing the 10% of the CSS rewrite may be
R10:
realistic enough to accomplish without additional General Fund support once a project plan and costs are determined. Examples of possible funding scenarios include getting State approval for redirection of some SLP funds and/or use of unspent current year appropriations in the Assessor's approved Clearly more information on costs is necessary before definitively allowing a funding budget. recommendation based on the range of possibilities. The County has a responsibility and an opportunity to help influence long-term funding for the
R11:
Property Tax Administration Program. Devotion of resources to this effort could synergistically benefit much more than the Assessor's Office and its software development project. Although there is no written policy on this issue, it is generally assumed that the law protects
R12:
County ownership of all intellectual property developed by regular and temporary employees using County resources. In the future, the consultants recommend that the County contractually cement intellectual property rights about ownership of the software (code) or any other products developed under this project if/when there is a decision to continue work on this project. At the workshop, additional concepts such as "derivative works" and protection from licensing fees were introduced. It is noted that the County's standard Professional Services Agreement does include a general clause pertaining to County ownership of intellectual property. However, given the industry, closer attention and expansion of that clause may be prudent for software development agreements executed by the County in the future. There may be entrepreneurial opportunities for the County as a result of completing the CSS
R13:
and/or participating in further development on this project. However, these opportunities should be addressed as "value added" and separate business decisions requiring information, analysis and a reasoned approach, in contrast to having them drive decisions to move forward. The issue of the former temporary employee(s) and any future role in the project must be
R14:
addressed. It was raised to a high level of public visibility and controversy by the documented concerns of Assessor's Office staff, questions from the Board during the December 14, 1999 meeting, and the Grand Jury's Interim and Final Reports. The employee is also described in the consultants' report as the "original developer." Given the lack of documentation and project plans, the consultants' recommendation that the County first determine whether the original developer is interested in completing future work is not unreasonable from a business perspective. There is no guarantee that future work with the original developer will take less time and will therefore cost less in the long run, but it is a logical step. However, it may not be politically feasible unless the project is assured of strong and independent project management (also critical from a perspective of performance and compensation) and specific parameters for the contractor with regard to offsite development and staff interaction. According to Attachment A September 12, 2000 County Counsel, a well-defined scope of work in a Professional Services Agreement will also address the Board's previous concerns about the appropriateness of shifting work from a temporary employee to a contract. Finally, any contract with the original developer that may appear before the Board in the future to provide for work on this project will be completely different than the contract presented in December 1999. The County clearly has the plan for what would be needed to contractually proceed with this project. Staff Recommendations-- General Based on the discussions in this comprehensive report, it appears to be in the County's best interest to try to move ahead with completion of the CSS rewrite as recommended by the consultants ( of the Carrera-MAXIMUS report) with these important exceptions.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
13 findings
F1:
The Juvenile Hall was built in 1955, and has been modified several times. Some of the modifications have been made as the result of prior Grand Jury findings and Board of Corrections recommendations. Agree The facility's maximum capacity is nineteen.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Juvenile Hall was built in 1955, and has been modified several times. Some of the modifications have been made as the result of prior Grand Jury findings and Board of Corrections recommendations. Agree The facility's maximum capacity is nineteen.
F2:
This Respondent agrees with this finding. This Respondent disagrees with a portion of this finding. Further clarification is necessary. It is my understanding after speaking to Board of Correction staff that Nevada County needs to have entered into a contract to begin construction with the Board of Corrections by the April 3, 2000. Weather delays maybe considered as a reason to delay the start of actual on sight construction. This grant is believed to be the only time in the foreseeable future that funds will be available through the State of California.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
This Respondent agrees with this finding. This Respondent disagrees with a portion of this finding. Further clarification is necessary. It is my understanding after speaking to Board of Correction staff that Nevada County needs to have entered into a contract to begin construction with the Board of Corrections by the April 3, 2000. Weather delays maybe considered as a reason to delay the start of actual on sight construction. This grant is believed to be the only time in the foreseeable future that funds will be available through the State of California.
F3:
As of April 4, 2000, there were sixteen detainees. Three were in pre-adjudication stage and thirteen had been adjudicated. Agree
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
As of April 4, 2000, there were sixteen detainees. Three were in pre-adjudication stage and thirteen had been adjudicated. Agree
F4:
As of April 4, 2000, there were six juveniles on the waiting list to be committed to Juvenile Hall and six juveniles on electronic monitoring. Agree
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
As of April 4, 2000, there were six juveniles on the waiting list to be committed to Juvenile Hall and six juveniles on electronic monitoring. Agree
F5:
Juvenile Hall provides basic education for all wards and the school hours meet the minimum state standards. Agree Ward/other/gj9900-IR4-JH
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Juvenile Hall provides basic education for all wards and the school hours meet the minimum state standards. Agree Ward/other/gj9900-IR4-JH 07/18/00
F6:
Juvenile Hall provides rehabilitative programs such as Alcoholics and Narcotics Anonymous, Anger Management, and group and individual therapy. There is also an art program available to those interested. Agree The cost of housing a juvenile detainee is $67.00 per day. There is a contract with the
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Juvenile Hall provides rehabilitative programs such as Alcoholics and Narcotics Anonymous, Anger Management, and group and individual therapy. There is also an art program available to those interested. Agree The cost of housing a juvenile detainee is $67.00 per day. There is a contract with the
F7:
California Youth Authority (CYA) to house a juvenile at a cost of $3,300 per month, or $110.00 per day. There were no Nevada County juvenile placements at the CYA as of April 4, 2000. Disagree with the first sentence. The cost to house a juvenile detainee is $112.00 per day. Agree with sentences two and three. The facility has only one "caged vehicle" for transportation of juveniles. This is a two-
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
California Youth Authority (CYA) to house a juvenile at a cost of $3,300 per month, or $110.00 per day. There were no Nevada County juvenile placements at the CYA as of April 4, 2000. Disagree with the first sentence. The cost to house a juvenile detainee is $112.00 per day. Agree with sentences two and three. The facility has only one "caged vehicle" for transportation of juveniles. This is a two-
F8:
wheel drive 1989 Dodge with an inoperable police radio. Partially agree. The 1989 Dodge 4-door Sedan is one of two vehicles used to transport juvenile detainees. The other vehicle is a caged van used to transport all detainees and is not always available for transportation of juveniles. The Grand Jury found the facility to be clean and orderly in appearance.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
wheel drive 1989 Dodge with an inoperable police radio. Partially agree. The 1989 Dodge 4-door Sedan is one of two vehicles used to transport juvenile detainees. The other vehicle is a caged van used to transport all detainees and is not always available for transportation of juveniles. The Grand Jury found the facility to be clean and orderly in appearance.
F9:
Partially agree. The Board has no knowledge of the condition of the facility when inspected by the Grand Jury. The Chairman of the Board conducted an inspection at 10:30 A.M. on Wednesday, May 10, 2000, and found the facility to be clean and orderly in appearance. The Senior Group Supervisors assumed additional responsibilities, which enhance the
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
Partially agree. The Board has no knowledge of the condition of the facility when inspected by the Grand Jury. The Chairman of the Board conducted an inspection at 10:30 A.M. on Wednesday, May 10, 2000, and found the facility to be clean and orderly in appearance. The Senior Group Supervisors assumed additional responsibilities, which enhance the
F10:
overall smooth running of the facility. Agree with the response by the Probation Officer. Additional responsibilities previously assumed by any Senior Group Supervisor have now been assigned to specific supervisors. On February 10, 2000, the Civil Grand Jury submitted Interim Report No.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
overall smooth running of the facility. Agree with the response by the Probation Officer. Additional responsibilities previously assumed by any Senior Group Supervisor have now been assigned to specific supervisors. On February 10, 2000, the Civil Grand Jury submitted Interim Report No. 1
F11:
recommending the construction of a new Juvenile Hall Facility. Agree On March 7, 2000, the Nevada County Board of Supervisors responded and agreed to the
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
recommending the construction of a new Juvenile Hall Facility. Agree On March 7, 2000, the Nevada County Board of Supervisors responded and agreed to the
F12:
need for a new facility. The Board gave their approval for solicitation of bids to construct an expanded juvenile detention center. They further acknowledged the importance of obtaining the Board of Corrections grant of $5.4 million dollars. Agree On March 14, 2000, the Board of Supervisors approved a final bid.
Related Recommendations (1)
R12:
need for a new facility. The Board gave their approval for solicitation of bids to construct an expanded juvenile detention center. They further acknowledged the importance of obtaining the Board of Corrections grant of $5.4 million dollars. Agree Ward/other/gj9900-IR4-JH 07/18/00 On March 14, 2000, the Board of Supervisors approved a final bid.
F13:
Agree On March 29, 2000, groundbreaking ceremonies for the new detention facility took place.
Related Recommendations (1)
R13:
Agree On March 29, 2000, groundbreaking ceremonies for the new detention facility took place.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
12 findings
F1:
This Respondent agrees with this finding.
F2:
This Respondent agrees with this finding. This Respondent agrees with this finding.
F4:
This Respondent agrees with this finding.
F5:
This Respondent agrees with this finding.
F6:
This Respondent disagrees with a portion of this finding. Further clarification is necessary.
F7:
The cost to house a juvenile detainee is $112.00 per day not $67.00 per day as indicated.
F8:
This Respondent disagrees with a portion of this finding. Further clarification is necessary. The 1989 Dodge is one of two vehicles that are used by the Juvenile Hall. However, the second vehicle is a caged van used to transport detainees to and from court (can be daily) and to other appointments. Because this vehicle is usually tied up the transporting of minors to or from Truckee or out-of-county becomes difficult with an unreliable 1989 Dodge.
F9:
This Respondent agrees with this finding.
F10:
This Respondent disagrees with a portion of this finding. Further clarification is necessary. Senior Group Supervisors have always enhanced the overall smooth running of the Juvenile Hall. However, assuming "additional responsibilities" needs to be clarified. Recently there has been an organizational realignment of duties within the Juvenile Hall. Job duties that were previously done by any Senior Group Supervisor were assigned to a specific Senior Group Supervisor. This helped to monitor workload assignments and to insure project completions.
F11:
This Respondent agrees with this finding.
F12:
This Respondent agrees with this finding 13. This Respondent agrees with this finding.
F13:
This Respondent agrees with this finding. 14. This Respondent agrees with this finding. Grand Jury (Con't) Page
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The existing "caged" transportation vehicle should be replaced with a four-wheel drive vehicle with an operable police radio. GRAND JURY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The commitment made by the Board of Supervisors to build a new and modern Juvenile Hall is applauded by the Grand Jury. The Grand Jury believes that the Board of Supervisors served the community well with this forward-looking vision to improve conditions not only for the troubled juveniles but also for the courts and the probation staff. The Grand Jury considers the expansion of the Juvenile Hall facility as only the first phase to be followed by more intensified and complete programs by the court and the probation organization to rehabilitate the youth. The decision to expand the Juvenile Hall facility is truly a milestone event marking the beginning of a new era.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
14 findings
F1:
As of the date of these inspections, the facility currently has eight (8) vacant correctional officer positions.
F2:
The medium and medium/maximum security areas are routinely manned by a single correctional officer.
F3:
The correctional officers interviewed voiced concern about safety issues for both staff and inmates when these areas are singularly staffed. They feel that the failure to fill the vacant positions places stress and fatigue due to the overtime demands.
F4:
Correctional officers indicated that the jail administration was not familiar with the day-to-day problems encountered and that there is very little contact with the jail administration during their shifts.
F5:
Correctional officers voiced concern about recruitment and the filling of the vacant positions. They indicated that low salary levels have caused journeyman officers to seek employment in other county's jails.
F6:
There is no video monitoring of the exercise yard in the minimum-security housing агеа.
F7:
Visual surveillance to the minimum visiting area is limited. Staff has indicated that this problem is to be remedied in the very near future.
F8:
The jail's medical clinic is adequately staffed to meet the inmate medical needs.
F9:
The overall jail facility is clean and appears to be physically well maintained. CONCLUSIONS
F10:
The Senior Group Supervisors assumed additional responsibilities, which enhance the overall smooth running of the facility.
F11:
On February 10, 2000, the Civil Grand Jury submitted Interim Report No.1 recommending the construction of a new Juvenile Hall Facility.
F12:
On March 7, 2000, the Nevada County Board of Supervisors responded and agreed of the need for a new facility. The Board gave their approval for solicitation of bids to 1. 9
F13:
On March 14, 2000, the Board of supervisors approved a final bid.
F14:
On March 29, 2000, groundbreaking ceremonies for the new detention facility took place. CONCLUSIONS
Additional Recommendations
14
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
That the Sheriff and Jail Commander re-evaluate the current policy of staffing the security areas with a single correctional officer.
R2:
That the Sheriff and the County Personnel Officer give high priority to the problem of recruitment and hiring of correctional officers.
R3:
That the jail administrators seek to improve communication with line staff.
R4:
That the Board of Supervisors review salaries of correctional officers in an effort to solve the recruitment problem that presently exists.
R5:
That a video-monitoring device be installed in the jail's minimum exercise area.
R6:
There is no video monitoring of the exercise yard in the minimum-security housing area. Neither Agree or Disagree.
R7:
Visual surveillance to the minimum visiting area is limited. Staff has indicated that this problem is to be remedied in the very near future. Neither Agree or Disagree.
R8:
The jail's medical clinic is adequately staffed to meet the inmate medical needs. Neither Agree or Disagree.
R9:
The overall jail facility is clean and appears to be physically well maintained. Neither Agree or Disagree. RECOMMENDATIONS
R10:
The Senior Group Supervisors assumed additional responsibilities, which enhance the overall smooth running of the facility.
R11:
On February 10, 2000, the Civil Grand Jury submitted Interim Report No.1 recommending the construction of a new Juvenile Hall Facility.
R12:
On March 7, 2000, the Nevada County Board of Supervisors responded and agreed of the need for a new facility. The Board gave their approval for solicitation of bids to
R13:
On March 14, 2000, the Board of supervisors approved a final bid.
R14:
On March 29, 2000, groundbreaking ceremonies for the new detention facility took place. CONCLUSIONS
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
The jail is being operated at a fairly efficient level considering the lack of staffing.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Grand Jury strongly recommends that the two correctional officer vacancies are filled as soon as possible.
F2:
Policies and Procedures pertaining to the custody care and treatment of females and juveniles has been accomplished. This information was readily available to all jail staff.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Grand Jury further recommends that an additional correctional officer position for the transportation of inmates be strongly considered.
F3:
Procedures for inmate medical care and detoxification needs meet the Board of Corrections standards.
F4:
Facilities are available for inmate visitors as well as confidential attorney interviews. The facility was clean and well maintained.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Adequate ventilation is provided in kitchen,
F5:
The facility commander appears to be concerned with civic community relations as well as the continued efficiency of the sub-station and jail.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
toilet, and other areas (HSC § 114140). There is an adequate supply of hot and cold
F6:
Evidence lockers have been modernized and secured. Only the evidence technician has constructive possession of evidence once it is submitted by field deputies.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
running water (HSC § 114095). Toilet facilities are convenient, separate from food service areas, equipped with tight, self- closing doors, and are for use of food personnel only (HSC § 114105).
F7:
The jail commander has been successful in being able to tie into the local PBS radio station in the event there is a need to broadcast emergencies to the general public.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
station in the event there is a need to broadcast emergencies to the general public. Agree There is a lack of staff to transport inmates from the jail to the Truckee court. A problem
F8:
There is a lack of staff to transport inmates from the jail to the Truckee court. A problem exists when the court bailiff calls for an inmate and there is insufficient staff available to perform that function.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
Toilet and lavatories are clean. Lavatories are provided with hot and cold water, soap, paper or individual towels, and signs directing personnel to wash hands before resuming work (HSC § 114105 & 114115).
F9:
As of the date of these inspections, the jail employs four correctional officers. The Board of Corrections has recommended six. Presently the correctional officers work 12 hour shifts.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
The plumbing is adequate and so designed that it will prevent any back siphonage and has no cross connections (HSC § 114100).
F10:
The jail facility has not received a medical or fire inspection for over a year. The jail commander has requested this be accomplished. CONCLUSIONS
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
Utensils and equipment are in good repair, clean, and non-toxic (HSC § 114050 & 114090).
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R11:
Adequate facilities are provided for cleaning and sanitizing all utensils (HSC § 114060 & 114090).
R12:
Adequate, protected space is provided for storage of all utensils and equipment. Single service items are properly stored and used only once (HSC § 114090). All waste and refuse are stored and disposed of in an acceptable manner (HSC § 114035 & 114040).
R16:
All potentially hazardous foods and beverages are stored in refrigerated units at 41° F or less until processed or served (HSC § 113995). All refrigerated units are easily cleanable,
R22:
No live animals, birds, or fowl are allowed in food service areas (HSC § 114045). Food service areas are kept clean and free of litter and rubbish (HSC § 114040).
R27:
Effective 1-1-96, the food facility may operate pursuant to a Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point plan (HACCP). Applicability is determined by food management techniques (HSC § 27612 and 27612.1).
Findings & Recommendations
14 findings
F1:
The Del Oro Water Company purchased the Donner Lake Water Company in August, 1993. It also owns six other water companies/districts in California, and is in the process of buying others.
F2:
The Donner Lake Water Company supplies approximately 1200 customers in the Donner Lake area with water from Donner Lake, wells, and from Greenpoint Springs, the latter under influence of surface water. The water is chlorinated prior to distribution.
F3:
Donner Lake Water Company was notified by the State of California on October 30, 1991 and again on July 22, 1992 that it must provide a plan and schedule for modification of its existing treatment facilities by June 29, 1993. The company failed to meet this deadline, and as a result, was issued Compliance Order No. 06-001 on August 13, 1993.
F4:
The existing treatment did not, and does not, comply with California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 22, Chapter 17 Surface Water Filtration and Disinfection Treatment Regulations.
F5:
Del Oro Water Company purchased Donner Lake Water Company immediately following issuance of the Order.
F6:
The new owner was granted a rate increase from the PUC on September 25, 1995 to pay for a feasibility study to evaluate alternate options in meeting the conditions of the Compliance Order, and at the same time was given an extension to December 1, 1997 for compliance.
F7:
The new owner was granted a second rate increase on September 3, 1997 by the PUC to pay for engineered plans and specifications, and construction of system improvements necessary to meet the Regulations, and was given another compliance extension to December 1, 1998 to complete construction.
F8:
The plans for system improvements included moving the treatment facility site to a more esthetic (owner's opinion) location. This resulted in local (Town of Truckee Planning Commission) opposition and legal action to prevent right-of-way easements for intake pipes from Donner Lake. The new owner has filed condemnation action which is now working its way through the courts.
F9:
Del Oro Water Company applied for a low interest (2.8%) loan from the State Revolving Fund for construction of the new treatment plant as well as repairs to existing storage tanks and delivery pipes. Approval of the loan has been delayed due to challenges of the environmental data supplied by the company. A May 10, 2000 hearing, called by the Town of Truckee Planning Commission, was scheduled to resolve this issue, but didn't. The State was represented at this meeting but refused to comment.
F10:
Under the revised compliance order, issued September 24, 1999 Del Oro Water Company was granted another extension to December 1, 2000 to provide a treatment facility that will comply with Chapter 17 of the CCR mentioned in Finding No. 4.
F11:
Until such time as the water system is in full compliance with the Regulations, this Compliance Order requires that Del Oro Water Company must: a. Notify, on a quarterly basis, the State and Donner Lake Water Company customers that it remains out of compliance using mandatory language required in CCR Section 64666, and describe the Company's program and time table for complying with the Regulations. b. Collect twice-weekly samples of raw water on separate days, and report the analysis for total and fecal coliform organisms to the State on a monthly basis. c. Measure and report the turbidity of the water entering the system from the surface water intake source at four-hour intervals as required by the Regulations. d. Continuously maintain a free chlorine residual minimum of 3.0 mg/l in the water entering the system from the surface water intake system. e. Maintain a chlorine residual analyzer to monitor the surface water intake source and to shut off the surface water intake source in case of a chlorinating failure. f. Adhere to the construction schedule of all facilities necessary to meet the regulations. The Company must notify the State immediately if the time schedules established by this Order will not be met and explain the reason for the delay. Failure to do so may subject the Company to additional enforcement action, including civil penalties as specified in Section 116725 of the California Health and Safety Code.
F12:
A Tahoe Forest Hospital spokesman stated that the hospital has no experience on record that would attribute any reported illness directly to the drinking water supplied to Donner Lake residents by the Del Oro Water Company.
F13:
A customer of the Donner Lake Water Company wrote to the State on April 10, 2000 urging the State and the Nevada County Health Department to take firm action to resolve the water quality issue. While the letter mentions 25 to 30 customer complaints, information supplied by Del Oro Water Company shows that during calendar year 1999, the California Department of Health received 18 complaints covering chlorine odor, dirty water, low pressure, and taste. Del Oro Water Company responded to each complainant..
F14:
On April 26, 2000 Del Oro Water Company was notified that their quarterly notice of non-compliance to customers did not meet the requirements of CCR Title 22, Article 8, Section 64666 "Consumer Notification". Del Oro Water Company is revising their notices to bring them into compliance. CONCLUSIONS
Additional Recommendations
9
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The California Department of Health Services should take a more rigid position with Del Oro Water Company regarding compliance with deadlines and should refrain from granting further extensions for completion of the new water treatment facility. Further violations of the compliance schedule should be dealt with under Section 116725(b) of the California Health and Safety Code and maximum penalties levied as allowed under the Code.
R2:
The Nevada County Health Department should be more assertive in its responsibility for protecting the health of Nevada County residents. It should bring maximum pressure to bear both on the California Department of Health Services and on the Company to assure full compliance with the construction schedule included in the Compliance Order for the new water treatment facility.
R3:
Del Oro Water Company should do a better job of keeping its customers informed of the construction progress, and assure them that it is fully meeting the conditions of the Compliance Order. Until such time as the new water treatment facility is operational, it should do everything possible to make certain that the present system supplies its customers without interruption, adequate, dependable, pure, wholesome, safe, and potable water. REQUIRED RESPONSE Nevada County Health Department, September 30, 2000 REQUESTED RESPONSES State of California, Department of Health Services, September 30, 2000 Del Oro Water Company, September 30, 2000 State Of California, Public Utilities Commission, September 30, 2000
R4:
Suspension of a portion of Donner Summit Ordinance 81-09, and supplemental changes thereto, which regulated sales, maintenance, repair and debt service of sewer hook-ups, were recommended by Donner Summit General Manager and approved by the Board in the January 19, 1999, regular meeting. This action allowed negotiation of referenced bulk sales to continue pending a new ordinance, 99-01.
R5:
This new Ordinance modified Ordinance 81-09 authorizing new financial arrangements for sewer hook-up bulk sales. It was approved and adopted by the Donner Summit Board at the regular meeting, March 16, 1999.
R6:
A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and an Agreement were signed by Donner Summit and Sierra Lakes in mid-April, 1999. Agreement was reached that Sierra Lakes and Donner Summit had 30 sewer hook-ups and 15 hook-ups respectively remaining for individual use. Any further need by Sierra Lakes prior to plant expansion was to be negotiated.
R7:
The MOU included redrafting of the existing Donner Summit/Sierra Lakes contract, commencement of plant expansion, the need for coordination regarding future capacity, and the need to develop a process to share plant expansion expenses.
R8:
The Donner Summit General Manager negotiated bulk sales with several ski resorts. However, evidence suggests that he did not complete a bulk sale with Donner Ski Ranch, the only ski resort in which he had an economic interest as reflected on his California Form 700, Statement of Economic Interest. Two Donner Summit Board members stated on their Form 700's an economic interest in ski resorts which did complete bulk sales of EDUs with Donner Summit. The Grand Jury found no evidence 24 that these members influenced these sales which were conducted solely by the General Manager and subsequently reported to the Board in open meetings.
R9:
The Donner Summit sewer ordinances are outdated and confusing. Over the years, individual ordinances (examples: 81-9, 84-2, 85-3. 86-1. 86-4. 90-4. etc.) have been enacted which modify sections of previous ordinances. In some cases, modified sections are again modified by a more recent ordinance. There is no indication that any of these ordinances have been rescinded. The current system requires that individuals must research through a large number of ordinances to insure they have the correct, up-to-date, information regarding a specific section of the Donner Summit sewer ordinances.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
Bulk sales of 115 sewer hook-ups were conducted between Donner Summit General Manager and three ski resorts through a Conditional Sales Contract in January, 1999.
F2:
Bulk sales of 25 sewer hook-ups were conducted in like manner with a fourth ski resort in June, 1999.
F3:
These bulk sales were reported by Donner Summit General Manager to the Board in open, regular meetings on January 19 and June 15, 1999.
F4:
Suspension of a portion of Donner Summit Ordinance 81-09, and supplemental changes thereto, which regulated sales, maintenance, repair and debt service of sewer hook-ups, were recommended by Donner Summit General Manager and approved by the Board in the January 19, 1999, regular meeting. This action allowed negotiation of referenced bulk sales to continue pending a new ordinance, 99-01.
F5:
This new Ordinance modified Ordinance 81-09 authorizing new financial arrangements for sewer hook-up bulk sales. It was approved and adopted by the Donner Summit Board at the regular meeting, March 16, 1999.
F6:
A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and an Agreement were signed by Donner Summit and Sierra Lakes in mid-April, 1999. Agreement was reached that Sierra Lakes and Donner Summit had 30 sewer hook-ups and 15 hook-ups respectively remaining for individual use. Any further need by Sierra Lakes prior to plant expansion was to be negotiated.
F7:
The MOU included redrafting of the existing Donner Summit/Sierra Lakes contract, commencement of plant expansion, the need for coordination regarding future capacity, and the need to develop a process to share plant expansion expenses.
F8:
The Donner Summit General Manager negotiated bulk sales with several ski resorts. However, evidence suggests that he did not complete a bulk sale with Donner Ski Ranch, the only ski resort in which he had an economic interest as reflected on his California Form 700, Statement of Economic Interest. Two Donner Summit Board members stated on their Form 700's an economic interest in ski resorts which did complete bulk sales of EDUs with Donner Summit. The Grand Jury found no evidence that these members influenced these sales which were conducted solely by the General Manager and subsequently reported to the Board in open meetings.
F9:
The Donner Summit sewer ordinances are outdated and confusing. Over the years, individual ordinances (examples: 81-9, 84-2, 85-3. 86-1. 86-4. 90-4. etc.) have been enacted which modify sections of previous ordinances. In some cases, modified sections are again modified by a more recent ordinance. There is no indication that any of these ordinances have been rescinded. The current system requires that individuals must research through a large number of ordinances to insure they have the correct, up-to-date, information regarding a specific section of the Donner Summit sewer ordinances. CONCLUSIONS The Grand Jury concludes:
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Donner Summit create new ordinance(s) to incorporate all pertinent, applicable, previous ordinances. New ordinance(s) should include, or refer specifically to, any necessary forms, applications requirements, etc.
R2:
Copies of updated ordinance(s) and necessary forms should be available to individuals at Donner Summit.
R3:
The Donner Summit Board and the General Manager should explore and incorporate more effective avenues of communication with customers and potential customers.
R4:
Customer queries and concerns should be addressed in a timely, open, and complete manner, thereby reducing any confusion and eliminating misconceptions.
R5:
Donner Summit and Sierra Lakes should jointly explore new contractual arrangements and sewer plant capacity expansion as soon as possible.
R6:
To ensure no possibility of Conflict of Interest or the appearance of Conflict of Interest exists, Donner Summit Board members, the General Manager, and any other appropriate Donner Summit employee should avoid conducting business with entities in which they have an economic interest, making inquiry of the California Fair Political Practices Commission if they have any doubt.
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
jurisdiction of NJUHSD. The return rate for students returning to EJHS and Juvenile Hall for the 2 1998/1999 school year was 16% (6 of 36). Of the 6 returning, 2 of those returning to EJHS were by the students' own request, 3 were transferred back to EJHS as a result of contract violations, and 1 was returned to Juvenile Hall. Because of two unfilled vacancies, EJHS has a staff of only three, including
F2:
apparent lack of follow up on the part of NJUHSD, the County Mental Health Department and the Probation Department. The early dismissal time (1:15PM) releases the students into the 3., community unsupervised, providing added exposure to drug and other behavioral problems. As a result of the current staffing level at EJHS, student activities are either under
F3:
the administrator, with an average daily attendance of 36 students. Physical Education classes are combined male/female. The truancy rate at EJHS for the 1998/1999 school year was 40%. The 1998/1999
F4:
Grand Jury recommended that the district implement a contract with the County Probation Department to enforce attendance at EJHS. The district agreed with the Grand jury and said a full time probation officer would be in place at the beginning of the 1999/2000 school year. The probation officer was not hired until March 2000. This position is funded by
F5:
the Nevada County Mental Health Department and is located at EJHS. The 1998/1999 Grand Jury recommended a later dismissal time at EJHS than the
F6:
current 1:15 PM, in order to provide additional classes such as vocational and life skills training. No change has been made to date. A screening committee decides on placement of students failing at
F7:
NUHS or Bear River High School (BRHS). Students expelled or placed on probation are automatically sent to EJHS. A second screening committee, comprised of education and probation authorities
F8:
exists for placement of students leaving Juvenile Hall. Few students return to their original school because they have fallen too
F9:
far behind their class academically. These students are most often placed at alternative schools. In December 1999, EJHS was temporarily moved from the Bennett Street location
F10:
to a new location on the SFHS campus in former Adult Education Buildings. Staff size and dismissal times are unchanged. Current student population is 37, 70% boys, 30% girls. CONCLUSIONS Locating the newly hired probation officer at EJHS, the smallest school with the
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
High School campus location should become permanent. Supervision for all campus activities should be increased. • 2. Physical Education classes for boys and girls should be separate.
R3:
This Grand Jury agrees with the 1998/1999 Grand Jury that the school day
R4:
should be lengthened. Adding vocational education and life skills classes will reduce the amount of time the students spend unsupervised in the community. The dedication of EJHS Administrator Fred Metz should be commended.
R5:
He and other administrators in the Alternative Education Program, as well as the program itself, should continue to receive the full support of the NJUHSD, the Nevada County Superintendent of Schools, and the community. REQUIRED RESPONSES Nevada County Joint Union High School Board, Due September 30, 2000 Nevada County Joint Union High School Superintendent, Due August 30, 2000 Nevada County Board of Education, Due September 30, 2000 Nevada County Superintendent of Schools, Due August 30, 2000 Nevada County Mental Health Department, Due September 30, 2000 Nevada County Probation Department, Due September 30, 2000 34
* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.