Gran Jurado del Condado de Nevada
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 (13)
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos y recomendaciones aún no extraídos.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
6 hallazgos
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.
Recomendaciones adicionales
6
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
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.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
7 hallazgos
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
Recomendaciones adicionales
7
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
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
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
25 hallazgos
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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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,
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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,
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
5 hallazgos
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.
Recomendaciones adicionales
5
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
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
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
6 hallazgos
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
Recomendaciones adicionales
6
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
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&[email protected] 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
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
13 hallazgos
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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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-
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R13:
Agree On March 29, 2000, groundbreaking ceremonies for the new detention facility took place.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
12 hallazgos
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
Recomendaciones adicionales
1
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
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.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
14 hallazgos
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
Recomendaciones adicionales
14
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
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
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
10 hallazgos
F1:
The jail is being operated at a fairly efficient level considering the lack of staffing.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R10:
Utensils and equipment are in good repair, clean, and non-toxic (HSC § 114050 & 114090).
Recomendaciones adicionales
5
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
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).
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
14 hallazgos
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
Recomendaciones adicionales
9
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
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.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
9 hallazgos
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:
Recomendaciones adicionales
6
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
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.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
10 hallazgos
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
Recomendaciones adicionales
4
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
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.