Nevada County Grand Jury
2000-2001
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 (17)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
Truckee. The passage of County Measure B, the one-eighth of one percent sales tax, in 1998, has 2. resulted in the collection of approximately $900,000 per year, which is about half of the total operating revenue for the libraries. This tax expires on October 31, 2003. At present, there is no identified replacement source of funds for Measure B.
F2:
The Grand Jury recommends that all necessary preliminary work accompany the grant application for Proposition 14 funds. RESPONSES REQUIRED Nevada County Board of Supervisors, due August 9, 2001 Nevada County Librarian, due July 10, 2001 RESPONSES . COUNTY OF NEVADA sec. JUL 2 6 2001 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 950 Maidu Avenue • Nevada City • California 95959-8617 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Peter Van Zant, 1st District Telephone: (530) 265-1480 Sue Horne, 2nd District Fax: (530) 265-1234 Bruce Conklin, 3rd District Toll-Free Telephone: (888) 785-1480 Elizabeth Martin, 4th District Barbara Green, 5th District E-Mail: [email protected] Website: http://boardclerk.co.nevada.ca.us Cathy R. Thompson Clerk of the Board July 24, 2001 The Honorable Kathleen Butz Presiding Judge of the Nevada County Courts Nevada County Court House Nevada City CA 95959 Subject: Board of Supervisors Responses to the 2000-2001 Nevada County Civil Grand Jury Interim Report No. 11, dated May 11, 2001 regarding the Nevada County Libraries. Dear Judge Butz: The attached responses by the Board of Supervisors to the 2000-2001 Nevada County Civil Grand Jury Interim Report No. 11, dated May 11, 2001, 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 July 24, 2001. Responses to findings and recommendations are based on either personal knowledge, examination of official county records, review of the response by the County Librarian, or testimony from the Board chair and county staff members. The Board of Supervisors would like to thank the members of the 2000-2001 Grand Jury for their participation and effort in preparing this Interim report. Sincerely. Elizabeth J. Martin Chair of the Board, Attachment ejm:pjw:pb Foreman, Grand Jury cc: Ted Gaebler, County Administrator County Counsel County Librarian NEVADA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESPONSES TO 2000-2001 CIVIL GRAND JURY INTERIM REPORT NO. DATED MAY 9, 2001 RE: NEVADA COUNTY LIBRARIES Responses to findings and recommendations are based on either personal knowledge, examination of official county records, review of the response by the County Librarian or testimony from the board chairman and county staff members. GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION: I. Nevada County Libraries A. RESPONSE TO FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS: Findings: The Nevada County Libraries are the Madelyn Helling, Grass Valley, Foley Historical 1. and Truckee. Agree The passage of County Measure B, the one-eighth of one percent sales tax, in 1998, has 2. resulted in the collection of approximately $900,000 per year, which is about half of the total operating revenue for the libraries. Agree This tax expires on October 31, 2003. • Disagree. Measure B will expire on September 30, 2003. At present, there is no identified replacement source of funds for Measure B Agree Measure B money has funded major increases in hours of operation, circulation, staff, and number and quality of adults' and children's programs. Among the special programs introduced is the free literacy service open to all ages. Agree Ward/other/gj0001-IR11-Library The number of library volunteers has increased to 238 who contribute approximately 35,000 hours per year. Agree State Proposition 14, the Library Bond Act, which passed in March 2000, provides for 3. more than $350 million for construction and expansion of libraries. The Nevada County Library plans to apply for a grant when monies become available in 2002. Agree Preparations for submitting a grant application in 2002 have already begun. A joint effort between the County Librarian, the County Facilities Project Manager. the City Administrators of Grass Valley and Truckee, school district officials, Truckee Recreation and Park District, Sierra College, the Friends of the Libraries, and other interested citizens to develop a facilities expansion proposal is presently Consultants will be hired to prepare various reports needed to underway. accompany the grant application and FREED will be involved to ensure compliance with ADA requirements. The County Librarian will also be directly involved in the process of selecting and hiring an architectural firm to oversee the design of the facility expansion proposal. The Board has approved a conceptual proposal for increasing the capacity of the Truckee Library and will support submission of a grant request for Proposition 14 funds to be used for this purpose. Grant money will be used to increase the capacities of the Grass Valley and Truckee Libraries. Agree The Board has approved the conceptual submission of a grant to increase the capacity of the Truckee Library but has not formally done so for the Grass Valley Library.
F3:
than $350 million for construction and expansion of libraries. The Nevada County Library plans to apply for a grant when monies become available in 2002.
F4:
Springs Middle School in Penn Valley as well as an additional branch in North San Juan. CONCLUSIONS 1. If no new funding source is found when Measure B expires, the gains of the last two years would be lost, resulting in drastically reduced services. In order to receive consideration, grant applications for construction projects must include 2. preliminary plans, specifications and costs.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
the present level of library services.
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that all necessary preliminary work accompany the grant application for Proposition 14 funds.
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
The California Public Utilities Code Section 6201-6205.1, known as the Franchise Act of 1937, authorizes municipalities including counties to grant franchises to utilities to establish operations within the localities and to collect a franchise fee for using public facilities such as roads. Such fees apply to private-sector utilities only.
F2:
In Nevada County franchises are established by contract and documented in most cases in County Code and several ordinances. County Code establishes the fees a franchisee shall pay to the county. These regulations cover cable TV entertainment transmissions, garbage collection, and the Sierra Pacific Power Company. PG&E is not covered in the County Code and there is no general section that describes gas and electric franchises. PG&E operates under a 1948 contract with the county under the same general terms as for Sierra Pacific Power. Telephone service is not covered by code, and Pacific Bell pays no franchise fees as far as the Grand Jury can determine.
F3:
Franchise fees contribute approximately $600,000 to the county general fund, or about 3% of total local fees and taxes. The breakdown by franchise type is as follows: Franchise Type FY 1999/2000 Cable TV 146,516.04 Garbage 226,107.47 Electric* 211.973.13 Gas* 25,617.26 Total 610.213.90 *Includes PG&E and Sierra Pacific Power
F4:
County Code specifies that cable TV franchisees pay a maximum of 5% of gross revenue each year. The Board of Supervisors sets the actual percentage paid. This is a non-exclusive franchise of fifteen years duration. In practice, the county conforms to County Code in determining the revenue formula The county is not in conformance with the County Code requirement to audit the franchisee at least once every three years to assure that the county has received the appropriate amount of revenue.
F5:
County Code states, "The grantee of a [garbage] franchise hereunder shall pay to the county. during the term of such franchise, the sum of fifty dollars per calendar year or portion thereof." Taken literally, the county would receive a total of $50 per year. This is a non- exclusive franchise, which is not to exceed twenty-five years duration. • In practice, the county does not conform to the County Code. Franchisees pay an annual fee of 4% of gross revenue where garbage service is mandatory. Where it is voluntary. fees are 3% of gross revenue. The county is not required to conduct an audit. However, it has no method for assuring the accuracy of fee payments.
F6:
County Code says that the Sierra Pacific Power Company shall pay between 1% and 2% of the gross annual receipts. This is a non-exclusive franchise for fifty years.
F7:
Money received by the county is based upon statements and reports provided by each franchisee. The county has never conducted any type of audit of the current utility franchises. CONCLUSIONS
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Review and update the County Code (Nevada County General Code Chapter II: Franchises) to: • Include all utility franchises operating within the county. • Establish a definitive method for calculating each franchise fee. · Establish procedures to insure that the county is receiving all agreed-to fees from franchises operating within the county. These procedures should include audits and/or other reviews of each franchise.
R2:
Perform the required audits and/or reviews, as stated in the updated County Code, of each franchise at the earliest opportunity.
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F4:
| partially disagree. It is my impression that the compensation portion of the finding has been substantially rectified by the recently completed Classification and Compensation Study but that the impact of this change is only beginning to be felt.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
This is beyond my scope.
F8:
| agree generally. {t should be noted that the “Realignment” Act provides that services need be provided only “to the extent that resources are available.” In theory, this allows counties to decline to deliver services for which they do not have the needed resources. In practice, it is extremely difficult to ration services on this basis. The limitation to available resources does not apply to the Medi-Cal (Medicaid) program, which is a legal entitiement program.
F10:
| agree. It should be noted that the interns may be either Social Work interns or Marriage and Family Therapy Interns.
F11:
| disagree in part. There is no policy that allows non-medical staff to overrule a medical judgement. | am aware of one instance in which a crisis worker released a person whom a psychiatrist had indicated should be detained pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code Section 5150. This occurred after the Crisis Worker had done additional intervention with the patient and made a judgement that detention for further evaluation and treatment was not needed. This is a judgement normally within the purview of and routinely made by Crisis Workers.
Findings & Recommendations
11 findings
F1:
The program was established by the Board of Supervisors (BOS) as a constructive alternative sentencing to that of fines or incarceration (Ordinance No.1144, March 1983). Respondent agrees with this finding.
F2:
The BOS established a fee in the amount of $16.00 per day to be paid by each participant of the program (Resolution No. 92107, February 1992). Respondent agrees with this finding.
F3:
During calendar year 2000, 240 program participants performed 8,676 hours of service. Respondent agrees with this finding.
F4:
The program is administered by the County Probation Department and available to qualifying individuals. Respondent agrees with this finding. Finding: The County Risk Manager is responsible for identifying potential 5. sources of liability and monitoring accident reports. Respondent agrees with this finding.
F5:
The County Risk Manager is responsible for identifying potential sources of liability and monitoring accident reports.
F6:
Ordinance No. 1144 required that agencies providing work for program participants provide workers compensation insurance and adequate liability insurance. The BOS deleted the agency requirement for workers compensation insurance (Ordinance No. 2045, March 2001). Coverage is now provided through the county's workers compensation insurance program. Any additional cost incurred from losses sustained by the participants will be allocated to the County Probation Department. The agencies are still required to provide adequate liability insurance. Respondent agrees with findings. Finding: The County's Senior Building and Grounds Specialist is responsible 7. for the daily maintenance of fifteen county buildings. He has no permanent county staff to perform the work and therefore relies almost exclusively on the program for workers. In 1999, 105 program participants were assigned to Buildings and Grounds. Respondent disagrees partially with findings. In 1992/93, based on severe funding issues the Board reduced the number of Building and Grounds Specialists from 2FTE to 1FTE. In 1995/96 through this year, the department has requested 1000 hours of temporary time to support the Senior Building and Grounds Specialist. The temporary person has been utilized during the seasons when most of the work occurs. This is predominantly in the Spring, Summer and Fall before the grounds go dormant. In addition the General Services Director has worked with the Wayne Brown Correctional Facility to use inmates to do the grounds maintenance in front of their building. The General Services Director who has a person assigned to the facility oversees the work of the trustees with the assistance of a member of the Sheriff staff. This has allowed the County to work more efficiently in the ongoing financial constraints the Board works under.
F7:
The county's Senior Building and Grounds Specialist is responsible for the daily maintenance of fifteen county buildings. He has no permanent county staff to perform the work and therefore relies almost exclusively on the program for workers. In 1999, 105 program participants were assigned to Buildings and Grounds. Respondent agrees with this Finding.
F8:
Worksite supervisors of program participants received little guidance as to what is an appropriate job assignment. Written guidelines are not provided to the supervisors who directly monitor and supervise the work. Not all county employees assigned as worksite supervisors were aware of the requirements for workmen's compensation and liability insurance. The respondent partially disagrees with the findings. Both the Probation Department and the Risk Manager have responded to the concerns raised in some depth. Adequate management is provided by the Probation Department through the MOU agreements which both internal and external agencies have to sign. Also, oversight supervision and consultation is provided by the departments liaison who works with the entities requesting workers.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
This Respondent disagrees with a portion of the Recommendation: a) Each user agency should have a policy or MOU in place addressing each issue presented by the Civil Grand Jury concerning safety or hazardous work. b) I can only speak to the Probation Department's - Work Program where participants are matched with a job taking in to account both physical and/or mental limitation through an interview process conducted by the Work Program Coordinator. c) It is each Department Head's responsibility to insure all local, state, and - federal laws pertaining to accident reporting and response to an accident are followed. Sincerely, John M. Wardell Chief Probation Officer
F9:
Adequate safety equipment is provided to match the job assignment. Respondent disagrees with a portion of this finding based on reviewing the input provided by the Probation Department. We are in concurrence with the input provided by the Probation Department.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
This Respondent disagrees with a portion of the Recommendation: a) Each user agency should have a policy or MOU in place addressing each issue presented by the Civil Grand Jury concerning safety or hazardous work. b) I can only speak to the Probation Department's - Work Program where participants are matched with a job taking in to account both physical and/or mental limitation through an interview process conducted by the Work Program Coordinator. c) It is each Department Head's responsibility to insure all local, state, and - federal laws pertaining to accident reporting and response to an accident are followed. Sincerely, John M. Wardell Chief Probation Officer
F10:
Nevada County has a low number of reported program participant accidents. The respondent agrees with the findings. Finding: Some assignments may be considered dangerous and inappropriate 11. - to program participants (e.g. working at great heights and icy conditions). The respondent disagrees with a portion of the findings based on reviewing the information provided by the Probation Department and the referenced attachments. RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATIONS: C. Recommendation: The County Administrator should create and fill a 1. Grounds Keeper position to assist the Senior Building and Grounds Specialist. The respondent partially disagrees with the findings. As stated under finding #7, while the Board initially pared back staffing in the grounds operations, they have from FY 95/96 increased staffing by increasing temporary hours and hired a part time person to work up to 1000 hours (.5FTE) to support the Senior Building and Grounds Specialist. In addition, General Services have made arrangements with the Sheriff's Department to address their grounds issues in front of the Wayne Brown Correctional Facility. This has thereby reduced the need for two FTE positions. Last, staff has used the temporary person during peak seasons to maximize our limited resources. This office will continue to monitor this issue on an annual basis to determine if the existing staffing pattern is established at the appropriate level. We will work with the General Services Director in order to maintain the proper balance. Recommendation: The Risk Manager should establish written guidelines and 2. procedures for program worksite supervisors that identify their responsibilities in insuring participant safety. These guidelines should include, and need not be limited to: Identifying specific hazardous jobs not appropriate for participants consulting with participants to match jobs to physical and mental • limitations procedures to be followed when an accident occurs on the job involving a participant The respondent partially disagrees with findings. The Probation Department and the Risk Manager have responded in depth to the issues raised by the Grand Jury. These are sufficient safeguards in place to address the safety of the participants. This is addressed through the MOU's that are established with agencies both internal and external who use the participants. In addition, our Risk Manager is in the process of updating the County's Injury and Illness Prevention Program in order to ensure managers and supervisors are updated and trained in workplace safety. This will improve the overall safety for County employees and participants who participate in this program. and the second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second seco ÷ . . Page intentionally left blank Community of the Community of the Community of the Community of the Community of the Community of the Community of the Community of the Community of the Community of the Community of the Community of the Community of the C . RISK MANAGER'S RESPONSES TO 2000-2001 CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT DATED JUNE 29, 2001 RE: COURT WORK RELEASE PROGRAM Responses to findings and recommendations are based on either personal knowledge, examination of official County records, review of the responses by the Chief Probation Officer, or testimony from County staff members. GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION: A. Court Work Release Program RESPONSE TO FINDINGS: В. Finding: The program was established by the Board of Supervisors (BOS) as a 1. constructive alternative sentencing to that of fines or incarceration (Ordinance No. 1144, March 1983). Respondent agrees with this Finding. Finding: The BOS established a fee in the amount of $16.00 per day to be paid by 2. each participant of the program (Resolution No. 92107, February 1992). Respondent agrees with this Finding. Finding: During calendar year 2000, 240 program participants performed 8,676 3. hours of service. Respondent agrees with this Finding. Finding: The program is administered by the County Probation Department and 4. available to qualifying individuals. Respondent agrees with this Finding. Finding: The County Risk Manager is responsible for identifying potential sources 5. of liability and monitoring accident reports. Respondent agrees with this Finding. Finding: Ordinance No. 1144 required that agencies providing work for program 6. participants provide workers compensation insurance and adequate liability insurance. The BOS deleted the agency requirement for workers compensation insurance (Ordinance No. 2045, March 2001). Coverage is now provided through the county's workers compensation insurance program. Any additional cost incurred from losses sustained by the participants will be allocated to the County Probation Department. The agencies are still required to provide adequate liability insurance. Respondent agrees with this Finding.
F11:
Some assignments may be considered dangerous and inappropriate to program participants (e.g. working at great heights and icy conditions). CONCLUSIONS
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
This recommendation does not apply to this Respondent.
Findings & Recommendations
12 findings
F1:
In 1983 the county paid a consultant to prepare a report addressing future county workspace needs. A key recommendation in this report was to acquire a 55-acre parcel near the present Rood Center campus. The parcel was not purchased.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Use the reports produced by the professional consultants as planning tools and update the planning information contained within these reports (i.e., projected number of county employees, facilities, and services) so that they can continue to be viable references.
F2:
The 1995 county general plan included a second study on future space needs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Require departmental participation in the Capital Facilities Task Force and publish agendas and minutes of all meetings.
F3:
In 1999 the county paid a consultant (VITETTA) $82,000 to prepare another report on future space needs. This report projected county employee growth from 1,197 to 1,867 for years 1999 to 2025 respectively, an increase of 56%. This employee increase would result in a facility space increase from 300,464 net usable sq. ft. to 486,061 sq. ft, an increase of 61%.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Require departments seeking additional workspace to submit updates to the planning information contained in existing reports (e.g., VITETTA report), and present their needs to the Capital Facilities Task Force so that a coordinated and comprehensive solution can be pursued.
F4:
The VITETTA report recommended consolidating county services into four campuses; (Rood Center, Justice and Courts, Human Services, and remodeled Courthouse). The services planned for these four campuses are currently located in 33 county owned or leased locations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Continue to develop the "campus" concept by locating employees and related services at a central location favorable to the intended clients.
F5:
A participant in preparing the VITETTA report suggested the county investigate private construction of future buildings on county owned land for leasing to the county. This is a common practice in other California counties where the occupant is reimbursed the leasing cost by the state.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Consider the option of purchasing land in proximity to existing "campus" sites for future projected growth.
F6:
The county currently owns 21 permanent buildings and 1 modular building containing about 414,000 gross sq. ft. Two buildings are located in Truckee. The county leases all or part of 11 buildings containing 30,111 gross sq. ft. at a yearly cost of $467,128.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Consider the option of private construction of future buildings on county owned land for leasing to the county where the occupant is reimbursed the leasing cost by the state.
F7:
There is no county department tasked with canvassing the county for suitable facilities to accommodate employees and service clients. County department heads are free to seek out suitable building locations to house their employees and service their clients. a. The Human Services Agency located a 2,300 sq. ft. building in Grass Valley and the Board of Supervisors (BOS) entered into a five-year lease for $130,000. The BOS spent $120,000 on improvements. The Human Services Agency cancelled its proposed use because of extremely limited parking. b. The building is now planned to be occupied by the Information Systems computer programming staff of five, although these programmers will have to commute regularly to other facilities and will maintain duplicate work areas within other county locations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
Coordinate with other government entities (e.g., Nevada City and Grass Valley) to determine the feasibility of building design and location.
F8:
In July 2000, the county formed a Capital Facilities Task Force to address short and long-term county space needs using the VITETTA report as the basis for all discussions. The task force is chaired by a member of the BOS with department heads or their representative as the membership. ask force participation is voluntary. b. Meeting agendas are published. The agendas show a proposed "campus" concept that would include a new justice and court facility, a human services facility, the present Rood Center, and a remodeled courthouse for the BOS and administration facilities. c. Formal minutes are not taken. Participants are responsible for taking their own notes.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
Look for an economic use of the leased 2,300 sq. ft. building (referred to in finding 7a.) in Grass Valley. If there is no economic use, negotiate to buy out the lease to save some portion of the $250,000.
F9:
The 1999/2000 BOS Chairman stated the position that an additional building could be placed on the Rood Center campus and that future jail expansion could include a second story for the Sheriff's department. Minutes of the County Administration Office department head meeting dated October 4, 2000 states 'The consensus of the (Capital Facility) Task Force is that a new building needs to be constructed on the Government Center site. The Sheriff needs a law enforcement building conducive to the needs of the public, rather than being on the 2nd floor of the Administration Center and the Human Services Agency needs to find a suitable location."
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
Complete the task force recommendation of increased development fees to finance other county building expansion. RESPONSES Board of Supervisors - no later than 90 days County Administrator- no later than 60 days RESPONSES . . __ COUNTY OF NEVADA STATE OF CALIFORNIA 950 Maidu Avenue • Nevada City • California 95959-8617 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Peter Van Zant, 1st District Telephone: (530) 265-1480 Sue Horne, 2nd District Fax: (530) 265-1234 Bruce Conklin, 3rd District Toll-Free Telephone: (888) 785-1480 Elizabeth Martin, 4th District Barbara Green, 5th District E-Mail: [email protected] Website: http://boardclerk.co.nevada.ca.us Cathy R. Thompson Clerk of the Board September 4, 2001 The Honorable Ersel L. Edwards Presiding Judge of the Nevada County Courts Nevada County Court House Nevada City CA 95959 Subject: Board of Supervisors Responses to the 2000-2001 Nevada County Civil Grand Jury Interim Report No. 13, dated June 8, 2001 regarding Nevada County Capital Facilities. Dear Judge Edwards: The attached responses by the Board of Supervisors to the 2000-2001 Nevada County Civil Grand Jury Interim Report No. 13, dated June 8, 2001, 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 4, 2001. Responses to findings and recommendations are based on either personal knowledge, examination of official county records, review of the response by the County Administrator, or testimony from the Board chair and county staff members. The Board of Supervisors would like to thank the members of the 2000-2001 Grand Jury for their participation and effort in preparing this Interim report. Sincerely, Elizabeth J. Martin Chair of the Board Attachment ejm:pjw:pb √ Foreman, Grand Jury cc: Ted Gaebler, County Administrator County Counsel General Services NEVADA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESPONSES TO 2000-2001 CIVIL GRAND JURY INTERIM REPORT NO. DATED JUNE 8, 2001 RE: NEVADA COUNTY CAPITAL FACILITIES Responses to findings and recommendations are based on either personal knowledge, examination of official county records, review of the response by the County Administrator, or testimony from the Board chair and county staff members. GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION: I. Nevada County Capital Facilities A. RESPONSE TO FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS:
F10:
Minutes of the County Administration Office department head meeting dated October 4, 2000 states "The consensus of the (Capital Facility) Task Force is that a new building needs to be constructed on the Government Center site. The Sheriff needs a law enforcement building conducive to the needs of the public, rather than being on the 2nd floor of the Administration Center and the Human Services Agency needs to find a suitable location." Response: Agree The comment is essentially correct.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
2000 states "The consensus of the (Capital Facility) Task Force is that a new building needs to be constructed on the Government Center site. The Sheriff needs a law enforcement building conducive to the needs of the public, rather than being on the 2nd floor of the Administration Center and the Human Services Agency needs to find a suitable location." Agree The Human Services Agency was trying to obtain a lease of 40,000 to 70,000 sq. ft. at two
F11:
The Human Services Agency was trying to obtain a lease of 40,000 to 70,000 sq. ft. at two locations but their requests for proposal were withdrawn because of neighborhood opposition. The latest county plan is to locate and lease an 80,000 to 100,000 sq. ft. facility. The Grand Jury has not been informed of the funding source.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
locations but their requests for proposal were withdrawn because of neighborhood opposition. The latest county plan is to locate and lease an 80,000 to 100,000 sq. ft. facility. The Grand Jury has not been informed of the funding source. Partially disagree Requests for Proposals (RFPs) were never issued for leasing space at these two locations. One location on New Mohawk Road was considered but not pursued because of parking considerations. Another location in Loma Rica was initially considered but not pursued because a zoning change and General Plan amendment would have been required. The land use changes needed to accommodate HSA activities at this location were viewed as inconsistent with commercial activities in the Loma Rica area allowed under the General Plan. Consequently, discussion regarding possible leasing options in the Loma Rica area was discontinued. The County Administrator and the Director of the Human Services Agency (HSA) are currently exploring other options for obtaining a new HSA facility including leasing. A new RFP is presently being developed to site such a facility. A portion of the funding needed for the facility may be available from the State. Housing and Community Services is seeking a $47,000 Community Development Block
F12:
Housing and Community Services is seeking a $470,000 Community Development Block Grant to build a new facility in conjunction with an affordable-housing project slated for Grass Valley. CONCLUSIONS
Related Recommendations (1)
R12:
Grant to build a new facility in conjunction with an affordable-housing project slated for Grass Valley. Partially disagree The Housing and Community Services Department applied for $451,000 in an April 2001 CDBG application and received notice of the award in early July 2001. Cascade Housing Inc. the non-profit builder will contribute $85,000 and build the community facility on a site owned by the non-profit adjacent to an approved 80 unit low-income housing tax credit apartment complex on the same property. Also, the nonprofit will build a Head Start child development center on site. Ward/other/gj0001-IR13-NC Capital Facilities The community facility will contain about 5,600 sq. ft. of usable space. Under a long-term lease, HCS will use about 3,600 sq. ft. for its offices. another 2,000 sq. ft. may used by another county department or local nonprofit organization. The building will have a conference room for HCS use and community meetings. All approvals from the City of Grass Valley have been received and the final funding for the housing is expected to be received by September 15, 2001. Following the award of contract, construction could start before the end of December 2001. Occupancy of the new facility is expected by Fall 2002. Recommendations: Use the reports produced by the professional consultants as planning tools and update the
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
The Nevada County Sheriff's Department is seriously understaffed. Witnesses testified that during certain hours, patrol is "skeletal," resulting in longer response times for residents to receive aid.
F2:
Deputy sheriffs respond to an average of five domestic disputes nightly, in addition to all other calls for help. Domestic disputes are considered the most volatile of situations, frequently resulting in violence. It is critical that at least two officers respond to such calls, which often take them off patrol for several hours.
F3:
The Wayne Brown Correctional Facility is experiencing a staffing shortage as well. Additionally, positions are frequently vacant due to injuries common to such a facility. Officers of all rank testified they are experiencing peak levels of stress and fatigue, the highest in years.
F4:
The Sheriff's sole mandate by law is to maintain a detention facility. The shortage of correctional officers to guard prisoners forces the sheriff to transfer patrol deputies to the jail, leaving the Sheriff's Department with even fewer officers to respond to emergency calls.
F5:
Every year Nevada County loses trained and experienced deputies and correctional officers to neighboring counties. Those interviewed testified that higher wages and enhanced retirement benefits were their reasons for leaving.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
correctional officers' wages and benefits in order to recruit and retain qualified law enforcement officers. The recommendation has been implemented. The County and the Deputy Sheriffs' Association agreed upon a new four-year Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on April 5, 2001. The Board of Supervisors ratified the MOU on May 8, 2001. Details of the agreement are as specified in Board Resolution 01-183 (attached). OTHER RESPONSES REQUIRED: В. Keith Royal, Sheriff-Coroner – June 4, 2001 Ward/other/gj0001-IR7-Sheriff
F6:
The cost of training a full time deputy sheriff amounts to $43,000. Nevada County has refused to give officers an equivalent upgrade in retirement benefits which are being offered by many California cities and counties, including the Grass Valley Police Department. The Public Employees Retirement System benefits would be available at no direct cost to the county.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
correctional officers' wages and benefits in order to recruit and retain qualified law enforcement officers. The recommendation has been implemented. The County and the Deputy Sheriffs' Association agreed upon a new four-year Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on April 5, 2001. The Board of Supervisors ratified the MOU on May 8, 2001. Details of the agreement are as specified in Board Resolution 01-183 (attached). OTHER RESPONSES REQUIRED: В. Keith Royal, Sheriff-Coroner – June 4, 2001 Ward/other/gj0001-IR7-Sheriff
F7:
which are being offered by many California cities and counties, including Grass Valley Police Department. The Public Employees Retirement System benefits would be available at no direct cost to the county. Disagree. The County and the Deputy Sheriffs Association approved a new labor agreement in April that provided more than 27 percent in salary increases over four years and increased their retirement benefit to "3% percent at 50". This new retirement benefit will allow long-term deputies to retire at age 50 with up to 85 percent of base salary. Although this new retirement benefit will initially not result in additional cost to the county, it has the potential to increase county funding liability in future years. This benefit is the top-end retirement benefit available to Safety employees. At the time of this report, the deputy sheriffs are working without a contract and
F8:
At the time of this report, the deputy sheriffs are working without a contract and negotiations are still underway, according to the Personnel Department. CONCLUSIONS
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
13 findings
F1:
The Nevada County Air Park, built in the 1930s, was given to the county in 1957 by Charles Litton's Loma Rica Industrial Park Corporation, subject to certain conditions. The conditions were stated in a signed agreement that specified, among other things, that: "Said property will be maintained in such condition that airplanes and aircraft may use the same with safety on a year round basis." "County agrees to appoint an airport commission to manage and control the operation of the property.. " Studies have found that continued operation of the airport has significant economic and 2 safety value to the county
F3:
The airport has operated under temporary operating permits since 1995 because of unsafe conditions. CalTrans, acting for the FAA, issued a letter of closure of the airport for night operations in 1996 because the county did not solve an obstruction problem. A second letter of closure was issued in 2000 because the county still had not solved the problem. Night landings were restricted in 1996 and then eliminated for a period in 2000, and the airport is still operating under a temporary permit. In 1997 the county was offered free used light poles to support obstruction warning lights as 4 required by the FAA. Two years later, the poles were sold to another buyer after the county failed to act The county now expects the lighting project to cost $245,000, plus the cost of tree trimming 5 and removal Boards of Supervisors did not enforce an existing Public Utility Code and a Nevada County
F4:
as required by the FAA. Two years later, the poles were sold to another buyer after the county failed to act. Disagree. The poles referenced by the Grand Jury, one hundred-foot stadium lights, were not free and would not have met FAA requirements for lighting standards at the airport. The poles were offered for sale to the County for $20,000 and a letter acknowledging a $30,000 gift from the seller. If this type of pole were to be used, over twenty additional lights would have to have been purchased by the County to meet FAA requirements. The County presently has a construction project underway to install two one hundred foot poles and two one hundred thirty five foot poles with lighting specifications needed to meet required lighting standards. The project is expected to be completed by August 30, 2001.
F5:
The county now expects the lighting project to cost $245,000, plus the cost of tree trimming and removal. Disagree. The actual cost of the light poles and lights will be closer to $235,000. The total project cost, including lights and poles, installation, and obstruction removal is estimated to be approximately $485,000. Board of Supervisors did not enforce an existing Public Utility Code and a Nevada
F6:
County Ordinance requiring residents to keep their trees from obstructing the runway. Consequently, the county paid for the Purchase and installation of lights in 1997 instead of requiring trees to be trimmed. In 2000, the county required trees on private property to be trimmed or removed but paid the $79,000 cost out of taxpayer funds. Partially disagree. The Federal Aviation Administration AIP project grant in 1994-95 funded 90% of the cost of an FAA approved seven-pole obstruction lighting system along the north end of the airport runway. CalTrans contributed another 4.5% of the cost and the County paid 5.5%. The obstruction lights were approved as one part of the permanent solution to the runway obstruction issue. A permanent solution required the removal and trimming of numerous trees in the runway approach and clearance zones at each end of the runway. Trees that were identified for trimming and removal in airport inspections in the early 1990s were removed in
F7:
specify that it is an advisory body only, contrary to the Litton agreement. It has no authority over the airport, and no budgetary input. Disagree with the first sentence. The County established the Airport Commission by Resolution in 1957 (attached). Nevada County Ordinance No. 635, adopted June 5, 1973, also provides for an Airport Commission consisting of 5 members and outlines their duties and responsibilities in language similar to the Commission's present by-laws. The most current authority for establishment of the Commission is Ordinance No. 1609, adopted on December 12, 1989. Partially disagree with the second and third sentences. The current Airport Commission by-laws indicate the Commission is to advise and make
F8:
Within Nevada County government structure, the airport is an "Enterprise Fund" An enterprise fund is to create its own operating revenue.
F9:
The airport's sources of operating revenue are fuel sales, hanger fees, aircraft tie-down fees. paid by the California Department of Forestry, as well as some tax revenue. The airport manager and the Airport Commission have no decision-making authority about airport revenues. The county has not clearly defined the decision-making authority for airport revenues.
F10:
The airport has typically operated at a deficit. Nevada County "loans" funds to the airport to cover expenses incurred to comply with FAA and CAlTrans regulations. Debt presently owed to the County is nearly $1 million. The Grand Jury has not been able to track airport financial actions from BOS authorizations through to airport spending, despite questioning the Auditor-Controller, reviewing BOS records, interviewing the CAO, examining county financial statements, and examining airport financial records.
F11:
authorizations through to airport spending, despite questioning the Auditor-Controller, reviewing BOS records, interviewing the CAO, examining county financial statement, and examining airport financial records. Neither agree nor disagree. The Board has no knowledge of why the Grand Jury was unable to track airport financial transactions. Past financial accounting practices regarding Board spending authorizations and airport expenditures have been confusing and difficult to completely reconcile. However, annual audits of Airport Enterprise Fund financial records in past years have not found any significant accounting errors. Since the arrival of the new Airport Manager, financial and budgeting documents have been detailed and well documented. Ward/other/gj0001-IR9-Airport Management The airport's sources of funds for capital improvements are FAA grants, Caltrans grants,
F12:
The airport's sources of funds for capital improvements are FAA grants, CAlTrans grants, and local funds. When the airport underwent a $5,900,000 improvement project in 1995. funding for the project was 90% FAA grant, 4.5% state grant, and 5.5% county funds (by way of a CalTrans-provided loan). The county loaned the funds to the airport, supposedly to be repaid through operating revenue. The county employs an airport manager. The airport manager has reported to various county staff members, always ultimately reporting to the BOS by way of the CAO. A new manager, with extensive airport management experience, was hired effective February 5, 2001. The BOS has adopted an Airport Master Plan and an Airport Business Development Plan There is no operating plan. CONCLUSIONS Since 1957 Boards of Supervisors have disregarded the three basic requirements of the Litton 1 agreement to keep the airport open, operate it in a safe manner, and to establish an airport commission to manage and control the airport.
F13:
county staff members, always ultimately reporting to the BOS by way of the CAO. A new manager, with extensive airport management experience, was hired effective February 5,
F14:
The BOS has adopted an Airport Master Plan and an Airport Business Development Plan. There is no operating plan. Partially disagree. Although there is no formal document called an "Operating Plan," the Airport does have operating procedures in place to ensure Airport operations are carried out safely and efficiently. There are also procedures in place for Airport operations during emergency operations.
Additional Recommendations
14
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Empower a new Airport Commission, responsible to the board, to manage and control the operation of the airport.
R2:
Assure that an operating plan is produced that identifies and expedites a path to financial independence.
R3:
Assure that the $1 million indebtedness is repaid to the county.
R4:
Develop an effective follow-up process to track progress against the plan and require strict financial accountability. Track what happened to funds authorized by the BOS for the airport.
R5:
Track what happened to funds authorized by the BOS for the airport. The recommendation has been implemented. Audited financial statements of the Airport Enterprise Fund are available for review in the Auditor-Controller's and the County Administrator's offices. No significant accounting exceptions for this fund have been documented in recent years. The Auditor-Controller audits the Airport Enterprise Fund on an annual basis and financial accounting procedures are in place to ensure all funds appropriated for Airport expenses are properly accounted for and controlled. OTHER RESPONSES REQUIRED: В. Board of Supervisors – July 10, 2001 County Administrator – June 10, 2001 Auditor-Controller - June 10, 2001 Airport Commission – July 10, 2001 Airport Manager - June 10, 2001 BYLAWS OF NEVADA COUNTY AIRPORT COMMISSION STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY I. The authority for the formation of the Airport Commission is Nevada County Ordinance 1609, adopted 12 December 1989 and operative 11 January 1990. DEFINITION OF MEMBERSHIP II. APPOINTMENT Α. The Airport Commission shall consist of five (5) members; one to be appointed by each Supervisor from his/her supervisorial district from Nevada County. Each appointee shall serve at the pleasure of the appointing Supervisor. QUALIFICATION В. The desired qualifications for candidates for appointment to the Airport Commission shall include, but not be limited to, the following: (1) A resident of Western Nevada County. (2) Knowledge of General Aviation and an appreciation for its role in the economic structure of Nevada County. (3) A desire to assist the Board of Supervisors in the development of the Nevada County Airport as a contributory element of the local economy and the County infrastructure. C. VACANCIES Airport Commission vacancies shall be filled expeditiously as vacancies occur by appointment by the Supervisor of the affected district. TERM OF SERVICE D. Each Commissioner shall serve at the pleasure of the appointing Supervisor and can only be removed by that Supervisor or by resignation. bylaws.doc 9/9/98 RESPONSIBILITIES AND DUTIES III. In accordance with the responsibilities assigned by the Board of Supervisors, the Airport Commission shall have the following duties and powers: To advise the Board of Supervisors on the planning, maintenance, development and Α. operation of the airports and airport facilities which are, or will be, owned, controlled or leased by the County. To study and to make recommendations on the subject of developing the airports В. and airport facilities in Western Nevada County. To formulate and to recommend to the Board of Supervisors the general policies C. relating to the purposes of the Airport Commission. To work with the Airport Manager in the preparation of a preliminary and final D. budget to submit to the Board annually, providing for the costs of maintenance, operation and improvement for the ensuing fiscal year. To study and to make recommendations on the subject of funds available to the Ε. County for the development of the airports and airport facilities from Federal, State and other sources. Such other functions, powers, and duties as the Board of Supervisors shall designate F. by resolution. STAFFING AND FUNDING IV. In accordance with the authority granted by the Board of Supervisors, the staff to the Commission shall consist of the following: The Airport Manager, who acts as liaison between the Commission and the Board Α. of Supervisors. Secretarial services approved by the Board of Supervisors to be paid for by the В. Airport Enterprise Fund. ORGANIZATION V. A chairperson shall be elected by majority vote of the members at the first meeting A. of the new calendar year, or as soon thereafter as practical. Term of office shall be for the calendar year in entirety or until a succeeding chairperson is elected. The term of office shall also be limited to no more than two consecutive terms unless other members are unwilling to serve as chairperson, under which conditions the curent chairperson can continue to serve on a year-to-year basis. A vice chair-person shall be elected by majority vote of the members at the В. first meeting of the new calendar year, or as soon thereafter as practicable. Term of office shall be for the calendar year in entirety, or until a succeeding vice chairperson is elected. CONDUCT OF BUSINESS VI. QUORUM Α. Three members shall constitute a quorum, which shall be required for the conduct of business, including matters during which one or more Commissioners has excused themself (themselves) from the deliberations and vote. MEETINGS В. Regular meetings shall normally be held on the fourth Thursday of each month at 7:00 p.m. in the Board Chambers on the First Floor of the Eric Rood Administrative Center, 950 Maidu Avenue, Nevada City, California 95959. Special meetings may be held at the call of the Chairperson; however, no meeting, regular or special, may be called or held if there is insufficient time to post an Agenda for the meeting at the Airport and at the Rood Center to allow 72 hours for viewing prior to the scheduled opening of the meeting. C. OPEN MEETING REQUIREMENTS As a public agency, all meetings held by the Airport Commission are subject to the provisions of the Brown Act, the California State Statute which prescribes required procedures to assure public access to the deliberations of government agencies. SUBCOMMITTEES D. The Commission Chairperson may establish such subcommittees as he/she deems necessary; however, membership may not exceed two members from the Airport Commission. bylaws.doc 9/9/98 CONFLICT OF INTEREST E. No Commissioner shall vote on a matter before the Commission which directly affects the personal or economic well-being of the Commissioner. F. COMMUNICATION WITH THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Communication from the Airport Commission to the Board of Supervisors shall be accomplished as expeditiously, clearly, and completely as possible. Available means for this communication are as follows and shall be used as time and circumstances require, but usually in the following order: Summary Minutes, prepared the day following Airport Commission (1) meetings and immediately provided to the Board of Supervisors. (2) Regular, full Minutes of Airport Commission Proceedings prepared as soon as practicable after approval by the Airport Commission. (3) Letter from the Commission Chairperson to the Chairperson of the Board of Supervisors relating information on a matter or matters of critical or urgent nature which the Commission believes requires special attention by the Board of Supervisors. COMPENSATION G. Mileage to and from the meeting may be paid per Board authorization. No other compensation is provided for service to the Commission. AMENDMENTS VII. The following procedures shall be followed to amend these by-laws: (1) Proposed amendments shall be prepared in the proper format and forwarded to the Commission Chairperson a minimum of 15 days prior to the date desired for consideration of the change. The Chairperson will include the proposed amendment on the Agenda for the (2) next meeting. The proposed Amendment will be read aloud, discussed by the Commission and (3) the public, as appropriate, and subsequently approved, disapproved, tabled for research, etc. bylaws.doc 9/9/98 _ Amendments to these by-laws approved by the Airport Commission must be (4) forwarded to the Board of Supervisors and ratified by them prior to becoming effective. APPROVAL OF BY-LAWS VIII. These by-laws shall be adopted by a 2/3rds vote of all Commission members and ratified by the Board of Supervisors. IX. RATIFICATION OF BY-LAWS A. The Nevada County Board of Supervisors ratified these bylaws on October 6, 1998. ATTEST: CATHY R. THOMPSON Clerk of the Board By: Pathy R. Thompson - A motion was made by Supervisor Smart, seconded by Supervisor Bishop, to adopt t following Resolution relative to the creation of an Airport Commission for Western Revada Upon a roll call ballot, the following vote was recorded: Supervisor First District Aye Aye Supervisor Second District Supervisor Third District Aye Supervisor Fourth District Äуe Aye Supervisor Fifth District RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Nevada: That there is hereby created an Airport Commission for western Nevada County to be known as the Western Nevada County Airport Commission and consisting of five (5) members. That the following be and they are hereby appointed members of the Western Nevada County Airport Commission to-wit: Downey Clinch
R6:
The Board of Supervisors did not enforce an existing Public Utility Code and Nevada County Ordinance requiring residents to keep their trees from obstructing the runway. Consequently the County paid for the purchase and installation of lights in 1997 instead of requiring trees to be trimmed. In 2000 the County required trees on private property to be trimmed or removed but paid the $79,000 cost out of taxpayer funds. Response: Partially Disagree Seven lights were installed along the north end of the runway during the 1995 Airport Improvement Project as part of the engineered design. In 2000, trees were trimmed or removed on private and public property. In cases where timber could not be sold to offset the cost of trimming or removal, a general fund loan to the Airport supported these costs. In FY 00/01, the cost of tree removal and trimming, including an aerial survey, land surveying, and planning was $250,000.
R7:
The County established an Airport Commission in the 1980's. The Commission's by- laws specify that it is an advisory body only, contrary to the Litton Agreement. It has no authority over the Airport and no budgetary input. Response: Partially Disagree The County established the Airport Commission in 1957. The current by-laws indicate that the Commission is to advise or make recommendations to the Board of Supervisors but some duties indicate that the Commission has management functions such as working with the Airport Manager to prepare the Airport budget for submission to the Board. The August 1, 1957 agreement between the County and Loma Rica Industrial Park states "County agrees to appoint an Airport Commission to manage and control operations of the property" is consistent with the appointment of a Commission. The Commission has significant authority under the Commission by-laws because powers and duties include advising the Board on all aspects of the planning, maintenance, development and operation of the Airport and to make recommendations on the subject of development of the Airport and its facilities.
R8:
Within Nevada County government structure the Airport is an "Enterprise Fund". An Enterprise Fund is to create its own operating revenue. Response: Agree
R9:
The Airports sources of operating revenue are fuel; sales, hangar fees, aircraft tiedown fees, user fees paid by California Department of Forestry, as well as some tax revenue. The Airport Manager and the Airport Commission have no decision-making authority about Airport revenues. The County has not clearly defined the decision- making authority for Airport revenues. Response: Partially Disagree In the past, sources of funding for the Airport has also included direct contributions to the Airport from the General Fund. The Airport Manager does have decision making authority over fuel prices and makes recommendations to the Board of Supervisors regarding hangar fees, aircraft tiedown fees, and user fees paid by California Department of Forestry. Tax revenue is legislatively determined; the Airport Manager has no decision making authority over this revenue. Under the Airport Commission by-laws, the commission's duties include advising the Board on all aspects of the planning, development and operation of the Airport and to make recommendations on the subject of development of the Airport and its facilities. Commissioners can make revenue decisions under their duty to advise the Board of Supervisors about Airport operations.
R10:
The Airport has typically operated at a deficit, Nevada County "loans" funds to the Airport to cover expenses incurred to comply with FAA and CalTrans regulations. Debt presently owed to the County is nearly $1 million. Response: Partially Disagree The obstruction and illumination project is incomplete as of this date; therefore the amount the Airport owes the General Fund is yet to be determined. The amount currently loaned to the Airport for the FAA compliance project stands at $250,000.
R11:
The Grand Jury has not been able to track Airport financial actions from Board of Supervisors authorizations through to Airport spending, despite questioning the Auditor-Controller, reviewing BOS records, interviewing the CAO, examining County financial statements and examining Airport financial records. Response: Agree This was the Grand Jury's experience based on their research efforts.
R12:
The Airport sources of funds for capital improvement are FAA grants, CalTrans grants and local funds. When the Airport underwent a $5,900,000 improvement project in 1995, funding for the project was 90% FAA Grant, 4.5% state grant, and 5.5% County funds (by way of a CalTrans funded loan). The County loaned the funds to the Airport, supposedly to be repaid through operating revenue. Response: Agree
R13:
The County employs an Airport Manager. The Airport Manager has reported to various County staff members, always ultimately reporting to the BOS by way of the CAO. A new manager, with extensive Airport management experience, was hired effective February 5, 2001. Response: Agree
R14:
The BOS has adopted an Airport Master Plan and an Airport Business Development Plan. There is no operating plan. Response: Partially Disagree The Airport maintains documentation for day to day safety and maintenance operations as well emergency operation plans. These documents have not been formalized into an Airport Operations Manual. Recommendations
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
A permanent, full-time airport manager was hired in February 2001.
F2:
On June 26, 2001, the Board of Supervisors passed and adopted the Nevada County Airport Policy 03-01 No. 1, in compliance with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Part 77 Regulations, detailing standards for property owners whose trees intrude on airspace (Appendix A).
F3:
After County Government took approximately six years and spent in excess of $453,000 out of the general fund to remedy unsafe conditions, The Nevada County Air Park received a permanent operating permit from the FAA on November 16, 2001.
F4:
Existing Public Utilities Code, paragraph 21659 (a), mandates the County to require property owners to comply with FAA Part 77 Regulations.
F5:
Property owners have the responsibility to trim trees intruding on the airport's airspace at their own expense.
F6:
There is no evidence that the County has legally notified the property owners of the requirements stated in Finding 5.
F7:
The airport is considered an Enterprise Fund. Enterprise Funds are financed and operated in a manner similar to private enterprises where revenues should cover the cost of operation
F8:
On January 8, 2002, the Board approved a 13 percent increase in fees for tie-downs and hangar rentals. This went into effect February 1, 2002. CONCLUSIONS
Additional Recommendations
8
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The current Public Utilities Code, FAA, and County regulations should be strictly enforced.
R2:
Within 120 days from the issuance of this report, County Counsel should investigate legal alternatives to enforce compliance of Public Utilities Code, FAA, and County regulations.
R3:
To limit the use of County general funds for airport operation, the Airport Commission and the airport manager are encouraged to develop additional sources of revenue.
R4:
Existing Public Utilities Code, paragraph 21659 (a), mandates the County to require property owners to comply with FAA Part 77 Regulations. Agree Public Utilities Code, Section 21659(a) [PUC § 21659(a)] begins: "...No person shall construc6t or alter any structure or permit any natural growth to grow at a height which exceeds the obstruction standards ...", citing FAA regulation at 14 CFR 77,m Subpart C. (Underlining added.) This code section imposes no affirmative duty upon the County. However, this code section does impose an affirmative burden upon each person to comply with its structures. This duty is not limited to property owners, but applies to all persons. As with sponsoring entity for the airport, the County is responsible for compliance with 14 CFR 77, Subpart C. However, the County can choose to enforce the provisions of PUC § 21659(a) directly against the property owners using nuisance abatement proceedings, or it may elect to perform the maintenance itself as it did in 2000-2001.
R5:
Property owners have the responsibility to trim trees intruding on the airport's airspace at their own expenses. Ward/other/gj0102-IR11-NC Airport 09/10/02 Agree This requirement is included in (PUC § 21659(a), Govt. Code §§ 50485 et seq. & LUDC § L-III 3.5). There is no evidence that the County has legally notified the property owners of the
R6:
requirements stated in Finding 5. Partially disagree There are no notice requirements set forth in PUC § 21659(a). The Nevada County airport zoning ordinance (LUDC § L-III 3.5) sets forth the FAA control surfaces (height restrictions) which effect the nearby properties. While it is true that zoning restrictions are rarely if ever set forth in a standard home owners Title Report, virtually every responsible real estate agent will check the zoning of any property listed by them for sale. Given the recent publicity accompanying tree removal by the County from the surrounding properties at the airport, it is highly unlikely that any real estate agent would be unaware of the implication of airport zoning. In the circumstance surrounding the recent removal of trees at the airport, the County of Nevada Department of Transportation did notify, and attempted to give actual notice to, every property owner effected by the need to remove those trees which had penetrated the FAA control surfaces. Additionally, on June 26, 2001, when the Board of Supervisors passed and adopted the Nevada County Airport Policy 03-01, all affected property owners in the vicinity of the Airport were notified of the Board Meeting, and the topic of discussion. Additionally, the results of the Board's decisions were published in local newspapers and in official meeting records.
R7:
The airport is considered an Enterprise Fund. Enterprise Funds are financed and operated in a manner similar to private enterprises where revenues should cover the cost of operation. Agree
R8:
On January 8, 2002, the Board approved a 13 percent increase in fees for tie-downs and hangar rentals. This went into effect February 1, 2002. Agree (*See Resolution 02-15) The 13% increased resulted in the following amounts being paid for the use of the airport property. Ward/other/gj0102-IR11-NC Airport 09/10/02 Rental New Amount Increase $37.00/month Right of Entry $4.00 per month $50.00/month Hangar Ground Rent (month to month) $6.00 per month $37.00/month Tie-Downs $4.00 per month 5% discount 6-months advance payment 10% discount 12-months advance payment Recommendations:
Quick View
Full Details →
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Jury commends those who have worked to implement Laura’s Law, especially the Nevada County Board of Supervisors, the Directors and staff of the Nevada County Behavioral Health Department and of Turning Point, Providence Center.
R2:
The Jury recommends that Nevada County continue to serve as a model for other California counties. Responses No responses are required. Attachment Calculation of Cost Savings Calculated savings are based on data collected by the Nevada County Behavioral Health Department from April 28, 2008, (the date the first individual entered into AOT) through December 31, 2010. • Calculation based on the first 2.64 years of implementation. • Of the 19 individuals that entered into AOT, data was collected on 17 individuals. Of the two omitted, one was active for 17 days and the other was active for 7 days. Cost of providing services to 17 participants for 2.64 Years: ($ 482,443) (A) (This is the actual amount paid by the Nevada County Behavioral Health Department to Turning Point.) Aggregate costs incurred by the each of the 17 participants during the year prior to the participants entering AOT: • Hospitalizations (514 days @ $675 per day) $ 346,950 • Incarcerations (521 days @ $150 per day) $ 78,150 Total cost prior to AOT: $ 425,100 Projected cost for 2.64 years that might have been incurred if the 17 individuals had not entered AOT: $ 1,122,264 (B) Actual Hospitalization and Incarceration Costs for 17 individuals during 2.64 years after entering AOT: • Hospitalizations (198 days @ $675 per day) ($ 133,650) • Incarcerations (17 days @ $150 per day) ($ 2,550) Total cost after AOT: ($ 136,200) (C) TOTAL COST SAVINGS ((A) + (B) + (C)): $ 503,621 !
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F2:
Wards undergo health, injury and mental health assessments upon entry.
F3:
Basic education is provided all wards. The school hours meet minimum state standards.
F4:
Rehabilitative programs such as Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous, Anger Management and group and individual therapy are provided.
F5:
A new 4 x 4 vehicle was purchased to transport wards to and from Truckee or out of county. This purchase was in compliance with a previous Grand Jury recommendation.
F6:
The Board of Corrections has stated the "physical plant is old and in need of replacement." It has also commended the staff for "their hard work and ability to do their job with limited resources." On March 29, 2000, groundbreaking ceremonies for the new juvenile assessment center
F7:
took place. This new facility will be a 25,845 square foot building capable of housing 30 wards initially, and upon completion will be capable of handling up to 60 wards. · The housing units are designed in pods surrounding the central control center which has direct visual contact with all wards. · Each tiered housing unit has a dayroom with access to classrooms and outdoor recreation areas. A full service kitchen, laundry and 4-bed medical isolation unit, located next to the medical clinic, are included. The project is scheduled for completion in the fall of 2001. CONCLUSIONS The new Carl F. Bryan, II Juvenile Assessment Center will provide the staff with needed space and security to perform duties and provide wards with expanded educational and rehabilitation programs.
Findings & Recommendations
14 findings
F1:
CURFFL has changed in the last two years. Effective January 1, 2001, the State of California mandated that: a. A copy of the most recent inspection report shall be maintained at the food facility. b. The food facility shall post a notice advising patrons that a copy of the most recent inspection report is available for review by interested patrons. c. Facilities not in compliance during the initial post January 2001 inspection were required to be advised orally of the above requirements. d. The requirement notice may be provided by the local inspection agency.
F2:
There is no evidence that the county's Consumer Protection Division followed the above mandate.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The Consumer Protection Division must inform all food facilities of the notification regulations to comply with state law.
R2:
The Consumer Protection Division should provide a copy of the required notice to be posted upon inspection of each food facility.
F4:
The Consumer Protection Division proposes to offer a supplemental two-hour food safety seminar for food workers. Western Nevada County was without a full-time food inspector from June 1999 until May 2001.
F6:
A full-time food inspector was hired in May 2001. This is the only food inspector for western Nevada County.
F7:
Eastern Nevada County food facilities are covered by two inspectors who provide all Environmental Health Department inspection services for that area.
F8:
The Consumer Protection Division of the Environmental Health Department is a fee for service agency.
F9:
Food facilities pay a Certificate of Operation fee, which includes two inspections per year.
F10:
As of April 1, 2002, there were approximately 345 food facilities in western Nevada County and 130 in eastern Nevada County.
F11:
Information received from the Consumer Protection Division indicated that 368 inspections were reported/completed during the first nine months of this fiscal year.
F12:
Food facilities which require a re-inspection are charged a fee based on the department's hourly rate.
F13:
Fines are not issued to food facilities for failure to correct major violations.
F14:
The new state inspection format divides violations into major and minor categories. Major violations are defined as those that pose imminent risk to public health. CONCLUSIONS
F2001:
Agree The EH department experienced difficulty recruiting a qualified food facility inspector. A registered EH specialist from the Sutter County EH department was hired on a temporary basis to provide food facility inspection services as needed on weekends and holidays. A full-time food inspector was hired in May 2001. This is the only food inspector for
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The county should investigate adding a second food facility inspector for western Nevada County. A second inspector would enable the required number and quality of inspections to be maintained.
F2002:
A system of fines should be in place for food facilities that continue to violate food safety
Findings & Recommendations
17 findings
F1:
Nevada County did not have a health plan at the time of the Grand Jury investigation. A health plan has been promised by June 2001. According to the California Code of Regulations and the California Health and Safety Code. each county is required to have a county health officer.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the county prepare a comprehensive health plan that includes specific duties, responsibilities, goals and activities of the county health officer and the county health department.
F2:
Code, each county is required to have a county health officer. Agree. There is no consistent interpretation of the Code throughout the state that the Health Officer must be a full-time position and/or be the administrator of the County public health agency. There are presently only three doctors Statewide administering County public health agencies and one will be replaced by an administrator upon retirement. Ward/other/gi0001-IR8-Public Health The Nevada County Health Officer position was vacant for at least two years despite a
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the county use available funds to hire a full-time county health officer to establish and direct priorities in public health.
F3:
The Nevada County Health Officer position was vacant for at least two years despite a California Department of Health Services letter (Appendix A) and a California Conference of Local Health Officers letter (Appendix B) stating the requirement for a full-time county health officer.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that the county assure that no administrator or officer is allowed to interfere with the county health officer's public health decisions for any political or other consideration.
F4:
In the absence of a full-time county health officer, the county contracted with a physician to provide four hours per week of health clinic coverage.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
In the absence of a full time County Health Officer, the County contracted with a physician to provide four hours per week of health clinic coverage. Response: Partially Disagree An Interim Health Officer was hired for 4 hours a week. He was a locally contracted physician. He provided a wider range of services than just clinic coverage including the rewrite of protocols and coordination with the Placer County Health Officer regarding additional coverage for the County. The Grand Jury was told by a health official that during the absence of a full
F5:
The Grand Jury was told by a health official that, during the absence of a full-time county health officer, the professional staff and facilities such as schools were handicapped by lack of medical and professional guidance.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
time County Health Officer, the professional staff and facilities such as schools were handicapped by lack of medical and professional guidance. Response: Disagree Coverage was coordinated for all services by the department. This office has heard no concerns regarding levels of service from the department or the community. The Nevada County Board of Supervisors appointed a qualified individual to
F6:
The Nevada County Board of Supervisors appointed a qualified individual to fill the county health officer position on a part-time (46%) temporary basis effective November 9, 2000. The current county health officer cannot work more than part-time for Nevada County due to personal obligations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
fill the County Health Officer position on a part-time temporary basis effective November 9, 2000. Response: Agree The part-time temporary status changed in May 2001 to a .6 FTE position.
F7:
The current county health officer cannot work more than part-time for Nevada County due to personal obligations. Agree. On May 9, 2001, Dr. Charles Johnson has hired as the permanent Health Officer and is presently budgeted to work 1248 hours annually (.6 FTE). Since his appointment, Dr. Johnson has actually worked closer to 60% time based on financial savings in the first part of the fiscal year. Dr. Johnson is also reachable by pager and back up coverage is always provided when he is on vacation or otherwise not available. He is also available to work extended hours if needed. This recently occurred during the recent Meningitis outbreak in Truckee when he worked three consecutive 15-hour days.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The current County Health Officer cannot work more than part-time for Nevada County due to personal obligations. Response: Partially Disagree The position is less than full-time because administrative duties are fulfilled by other staff. All medical duties are handled by the .6 FTE Health Officer. The Grand Jury learned that key Community Health positions are unfilled.
F8:
The Grand Jury learned that key public health positions are unfilled.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
Response: Disagree While there are always periods of transition, currently all key management positions are filled. The total Nevada County Human Services Agency Budget is $38 million; of
F9:
The total Nevada County Human Services Agency budget is $38 million; of this total, the public health budget is $3.5 million of which $61,000 (less than 2%) comes from the county general fund (county taxpayers). The remainder comes to the county from federal and state grants.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
this total, the Community Health budget is $3.5 million of which $61,000 (less than 2%) comes from the County General Fund (County Taxpayers). The remainder comes from Federal and State grants. Response: Partially Disagree The total Nevada County Human Services budget for FY 01/02 is $30 million. The actual County General Fund contribution is $1.1 million. The Community Health FY 01/02 budget is $5.7 million of which $116,000 represents County General Funds. The department also receives realignment funds from the State which are considered local funds and there are also fee revenues locally generated from clinics operated by the department. The Grand Jury learned that money is available through Tobacco and
F10:
The Grand Jury learned that money is available through Tobacco and Realignment Funds to employ a full-time county health officer and fill needed public health positions at competitive compensation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
Realignment Funds to employ a full-time County Health Officer and fill needed Community Health positions at competitive compensation. Response: Disagree The funds identified above are used for direct service to clients. Services could be curtailed to fund a full-time Health Officer, but since administrative duties are handled by the Director and his staff there is no need at this time for a full-time Health Officer. Should clinics be expanded, the department will consider funding a full-time Health Officer at that time.
F11:
As classified by the California Government Code, the county health officer is an officer of the county, on a level with the elected positions of sheriff, district attorney, tax collector and assessor, who have full authority over their departments.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
As classified by the California Government Code, the County Health Officer is an officer of the County, on a level with elected positions of Sheriff, District Attorney, Tax Collector and Assessor, which have full authority over their departments. Response: Disagree The Board of Supervisors has the discretion to allow and authorize a different organizational structure. This practice is common statewide particularly with counties of our size. Although he is an officer of the County, the current Nevada County Health
F12:
Although he is an officer of the county, the current Nevada County Health Officer, a medical doctor with an additional degree in public health, reports to the Director of Community Health, a non-medical administrator who is not an officer of the county.
Related Recommendations (1)
R12:
Officer, a medical doctor with an additional degree in Community Health, reports to the Director of Community Health, a non-medical administrator who is not an officer of the County. Response: Agree The Board of Supervisors has the discretion to allow and authorize a different organizational structure. The Health Officer oversees the medical aspects of the department. The Community Health Director has extensive experience administering Community Health Programs.
F13:
An admission was made to the Grand Jury that public health decisions might be dependent upon political implications. ---
Related Recommendations (1)
R13:
An admission was made to the Grand Jury that Community Health decisions might be dependent on upon political decisions. Response: Disagree If such a comment was made, it was made in error. Politics must never be confused with policy. Community Health decisions should be made on the basis of sound Community Health policies and practices. - -- Under State law, the County Health Officer holds authority for preventive
F14:
Under state law, the county health officer holds authority for preventive medicine, substance abuse programs, disease control, food safety, and environmental health and safety to ensure the public health.
Related Recommendations (1)
R14:
medicine, substance abuse programs, disease control, food safety, and environmental health and safety to ensure the Community Health. Response: Agree To accomplish this, the Health Officer collaborates with other County departments such as Behavioral Health and Environmental Health. Under current County organization, many of the above programs have been
F15:
Under current county organization, many of the above programs have been fragmented and parceled out to other departments. For example, the Environmental Health Department is responsible for food establishment inspections. Currently such inspections are scheduled to be carried out once a year. As another example, the Behavioral Health Department carries out mental health medical functions under the supervision of a non-medical administrator.
Related Recommendations (1)
R15:
fragmented and parceled out to other departments. For example, the Environmental Health Department is responsible for food establishment inspections. Currently such inspections are carried out once a year. As another example, the Behavioral Health Department carries out mental health medical functions under the supervision of a non-medical administrator. Response: Disagree The programs are fragmented and have not been parceled out, but rather they have been assigned to the appropriate departments. These assignments are commonplace statewide. Behavioral Health has always contracted psychiatric services, but the Board just authorized a full-time Medical Director for that department and that recruitment is underway. The California Code of Regulations and the California Health and Safety
F16:
The California Code of Regulations and the California Health and Safety Code specify 10 county duties and responsibilities (Appendix C) and 38 county health officer duties and responsibilities (Appendix D).
Related Recommendations (1)
R16:
Code specify 10 County duties and responsibilities (Appendix C) and 38 County Health Officer duties and responsibilities (Appendix D). Response: Agree There is a broad description of duties in the State law. Title 17, Chapter 3, California Code of Regulations states that the County
F17:
Title 17, Chapter 3, California Code of Regulations states that the county health officer should devote "full time to official duties and these duties shall constitute his primary responsibility and no other activities shall interfere with performance of his official duties". CONCLUSIONS The fragmentation of public health duties and responsibilities across county departments
Related Recommendations (1)
R17:
Health Officer should devote "full time to official duties and these duties shall constitute his primary responsibility and no other activities shall interfere with performance of his official duties". Response: Agree The issue of how this County and others in the State handle this matter has been previously addressed. Recommendations The Grand Jury recommends that the County prepare a comprehensive health
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
may be sentenced for a period of up to one year. Male and female inmates are housed separately.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The staffing at this facility should be increased to 55 to meet the requirement of the Board of Corrections.
F2:
Visiting area is partitioned so there is no physical contact between inmate and visitors. Re- design of the front lobby provides improved security of main entrance. Facility is clean and well maintained.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Nevada County Board of Supervisors should adopt a competitive wage andbenefit package.
F3:
Inmates can earn the privilege of working in the kitchen, laundry or on grounds.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Agree. Facility is clean and well maintained.
F4:
Nevada County contracts with California Forensic Medical Group which provides medical care for inmates.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Agree. Inmates can earn the privilege of working in the kitchen, laundry or on grounds.
F5:
Currently inmates are transported to the Nevada County Courthouse to appear before a Judge for arraignment. They must be physically searched before leaving the Wayne Brown Correctional Facility and again upon return. However, video equipment being installed at the Wayne Brown Correctional Facility and the Courthouse will reduce the number of inmates transported.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Agree. Nevada County contracts with California Forensic Medical Group which provides
F6:
The Board of Corrections recommends a staffing level of 55 to operate the Wayne Brown Correctional Facility. At the date of this report, 16 positions were either unfilled or vacant due to illness or injury with three additional officers scheduled to leave before the end of the year Active recruitment by the personnel department is underway.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
medical care for inmates. Agree. Ward/other/gj0001-IR5-WBCF 04/24/01
F7:
The Personnel Department recruited at booths during local events such as the Grass Valley Friday Night Farmers Market and at career fairs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
Currently inmates are transported to the Nevada County Courthouse to appear before a Judge for arraignment. They must be physically searched before leaving the Wayne Brown Correctional Facility and again upon return. However, video equipment being installed at the Wayne Brown Correctional Facility and the Courthouse will reduce the number of inmates transported. Agree with sentences 1 & 2. Video conferencing equipment presently being installed at the correctional facility and the Courthouse will allow video arraignment and conferencing and should reduce transporting of inmates between the two facilities. Actual reductions in the number of inmates transported have not yet been determined.
F8:
The Board of Corrections recommends a staffing level of 55 to operate the Wayne Brown Correctional Facility. At the date of this report, 16 positions were either unfilled or vacant due to illness or injury with three additional officers scheduled to leave before the end of the year. Active recruitment by the Personnel Department is underway. Disagree with sentences 1 & 2. Agree with 3rd sentence. The Board of Corrections in their staffing study of the Wayne Brown Correctional Facility in November, 1999, recommended increasing the allocated staffing level at the facility by ten officers to a total of 59. At the date of the Grand Jury report, January 22, 2001, there were 4 Correctional Officer vacancies and 4 Officers out on leaves of absence. Employees who are on leave of absence are not considered vacancies and their positions cannot be back- filled. An active recruitment to fill vacant Correctional Officer positions was conducted by the Personnel Department (see response to Recommendation No. 2).
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The Board of Corrections recommends a staffing level of 55 to operate the Wayne Brown Correctional Facility. At the date of this report, 16 positions were either unfilled or vacant due to illness or injury with three additional officers scheduled to leave before the end of the year. Active recruitment by the Personnel Department is underway. Disagree with sentences 1 & 2. Agree with 3rd sentence. The Board of Corrections in their staffing study of the Wayne Brown Correctional Facility in November, 1999, recommended increasing the allocated staffing level at the facility by ten officers to a total of 59. At the date of the Grand Jury report, January 22, 2001, there were 4 Correctional Officer vacancies and 4 Officers out on leaves of absence. Employees who are on leave of absence are not considered vacancies and their positions cannot be back- filled. An active recruitment to fill vacant Correctional Officer positions was conducted by the Personnel Department (see response to Recommendation No. 2).
F9:
Correctional officers say their fatigue and stress are at the highest level in years.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
Correctional officers say their fatigue and stress are at the highest level in years. Neither agree nor disagree. The Board has no knowledge of correctional officers' testimony to the Grand Jury.
F10:
Correctional officers are offered a salary and retirement package lower than neighboring counties. CONCLUSIONS 1. The Wayne Brown Correctional Facility was understaffed 33% as of December 31,2000. This situation jeopardizes officers and inmates. The risk of financial liability to the county also increases. The county continues to lose qualified correctional officers. Reasons cited include low 2. salaries, mandatory overtime, high levels of stress and an inadequate retirement plan.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
Correctional officers are offered a salary and retirement package lower than neighboring counties. Disagree Nevada County currently pays a maximum salary of $2,993, which is 8.8% above the average of our neighboring counties. In addition, Nevada County's Correctional Officer salary will increase 4% in October of 2001. Nevada County offers the miscellaneous retirement package of 2% at 55 to Correctional Officers. The majority of neighboring counties are offering the safety package at 2% at 50. Neighboring counties include Sierra, Yuba, Placer, El Dorado, Butte and Sutter. Ward/other/gj0001-IR5-WBCF 04/24/01 Country SHRIM Ekalizantani a street $2871 Butte Safety 2% at 50 El Dorado $2891 Safety 2% at 50 $3243 Placer Safety 2% at 50 (3% in 2/02) Misc. 2% at 55 Plumas $2602 Misc. 2% at 55 Sierra $2120 $2782 Safety 2% at 50 Sutter Yuba Not comparable $2751 Average As of this date, Nevada County is fully staffed at our allocation of Correctional Officers. RECOMMENDATIONS The staffing at this facility should be increased to 55 to meet the requirements of the
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
Collection of Grass Valley's wastewater is done partially by gravity and also by eight pumping installations throughout the city. Storm water is collected separately and discharged to Wolf Creek.
F2:
The wastewater treatment plant has a present capacity of 1.7-million gallons of wastewater per day in the summer and 4.8-million gallons per day in the winter. The difference is mostly infiltration of surface water to old and broken collection piping. Replacement of a main collector line beside the bed of Wolf Creek earlier this year should substantially reduce infiltration. The city is actively pursuing a program of finding and replacing broken pipes to lower the amount of surface water infiltration.
F3:
The plant is currently undergoing an expansion to 7-million gallons per day and will attain that capacity in mid-2001. This capacity is expected to be adequate to take care of the contemplated growth of the city until the year 2015.
F4:
The expansion cost will be $9.2 million, most of which is on hand from user and connection fees. The much larger processing equipment that is being installed is of the latest design and the new state-of-the-art computer system should permit control of most plant functions from the operator's control room
F5:
Emergency power is provided by diesel-powered generators that are tested under load at proper intervals.
F6:
Most odors at the plant have their source at the head works of the plant where the incoming wastewater is screened to remove cloth, plastics, wood fibers, etc. which can plug up plant pumps and piping. Some cloth that passed the screen in May, 2000 resulted in a pump plug and a spill of several thousand gallons of sludge to Wolf Creek.
F7:
An activated carbon odor control system at the head works is being expanded and upgraded to minimize odors emanating from the plant. The remainder of the plant processes are relatively odor free, although occasionally certain uncontrollable combinations of water temperature, contained chemical compounds and atmospheric conditions will cause some odors to be emitted.
F8:
The final products from the plant are water and a digested sludge. The water discharged to Wolf Creek meets California standards. The sludge is collected in a lagoon before RESPONSES .... CITY COUNCIL LINDA STEVENS, MAYOR PATTI INGRAM, VICE MAYOR DE VERE "DEE" MAUTINO STEVE ENOS GERARD TASSONE Valley GENE HAROLDSEN A CENTENNIAL CITY CITY ADMINISTRATOR February 14, 2001 125 EAST MAIN STREET GRASS VALLEY, CA 95945 (530) 274-4310 FAX: 274-4399 Honorable Carl Bryan II Presiding Judge of the Nevada County Courts 201 Church Street Nevada City, CA 95959 Re: Grass Valley Waterwater Treatment Plant Your Honor, We received the Nevada County Grand Jury's January 16, 2001 report regarding the City's Waterwater Treatment Plant. The City is delighted that the Grand Jury's conclusion is that "The expansion of the Grass Valley waterwater treatment plant is one of the largest public works projects ever done in Nevada County and is the result of commendable forward planning by the city." We appreciate that no response by the City is required. However, it is important that the City clarify Finding #3 which states that "The plant is currently undergoing expansion to 7-million gallons per day and will obtain that capacity by mid-2001." 7-million gallons per day will be the expanded plant's wet weather (winter) flow. Actually dry weather (summer) flow is being expanded to 2.78 million gallons per day. If you have any questions, please contact Rudi Golnik, Director of Public Works / City Engineer at 274-4350. Thank you for your consideration of this clarification. Sincerely ∟ında Stevens Mayor City Council cc: Claude Biddle, City Attorney Rudi Golnik, Director of Public Works / City Engineer David Janison, Nevada County Grand Jury Foreman E-mail: council&[email protected] www.cityof.grass-valley.ca.us being filtered and trucked once a year to a company that sells it to apply to certain agricultural crops or sends it to a certified land-fill.
F9:
Management states the expansion project is on budget although the finding of some mercury from an old gold amalgamation plant on the property will cause some extra ÷. expense that should be covered by a contingency fund. CONCLUSIONS The expansion of the Grass Valley wastewater treatment plant is one of the largest public works projects ever done in Nevada County and is the result of commendable forward planning by the city
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
Untreated water is taken from Little Deer Creek and supplemented by up to 30 acre feet of water from Nevada Irrigation District's Cascade Canal.
F2:
Average treated water usage during the winter and summer periods is 0.5 and 1.2 million gallons per day respectively. Treatment capacity could be as much as 2 million gallons per day. Any increase in present usage is limited by filter capacity and would require either more filtering capacity or staffing of more than one shift per day.
F3:
A well-maintained emergency power system is in place. Storage capacity of treated water is ample, with one 1.4-million gallon tank, a second 640,000 gallon tank, and a third 1.1- million gallon tank.
F4:
Treated water samples are analyzed on a fixed schedule for pH, turbidity, aluminum and residual chlorine. Organics and bacterial analyses are contracted to an outside laboratory. All of the analyzed compounds are well below the levels set by the California Department of Health Services. Monthly reports are sent to the state and the state inspects the plant twice a year.
F5:
Potable water plant operators and wastewater plant operators are state certified in both disciplines and can operate either plant.
F6:
The water treatment plant is in spotless condition and all electrical and mechanical equipment is kept in excellent condition.
F7:
The plant operates automatically except for backwashing the filters and thus there is no need at the present time for staffing the second and third shifts. Any equipment failures on un- staffed shifts are automatically alarmed and an operator responds.
F8:
The plant is surrounded by a 6-foot high chain link fence that the Grand Jury deems inadequate to protect against vandalism that has occurred at other county water treatment plants. One of the two sets of gates has an opening large enough to admit a small person. There is no alarm system to detect intruders CONCLUSION The Nevada City water treatment plant is well-operated and maintained and water supply is ample.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
Untreated water is supplied to the Grass Valley water treatment plant by the Nevada Irrigation District (NID).
F2:
The water treatment plant has a capacity of 5 million gallons of treated water per day. Usage during the summer is about two million gallons per day and during the winter about one million gallons per day.
F3:
A well-maintained emergency power system is in place. During plant shutdowns or yearly cleaning of the settling ponds, treated water can be supplied by NID from their Elizabeth George treatment plant, thus assuring a constant supply of treated water to Grass Valley. Alternatively the Grass Valley plant can supply treated water to NID. A 2- million gallon covered reservoir for treated water is sited at the plant and another 2.5- million gallon covered storage tank is located on Empire Street.
F4:
Treated water samples are analyzed on a fixed schedule for pH, turbidity, residual chlorine and colliform bacteria at the Grass Valley wastewater treatment plant laboratory. Analyses for copper, lead and other compounds are done at an outside laboratory. All of the compounds analyzed are well below the levels set by the California Department of Health Services. Monthly reports are sent to the state and the state inspects the plant twice a year.
F5:
All potable water plant operators and wastewater plant operators are state certified in both disciplines and can operate either plant.
F6:
The water treatment plant was in spotless condition and all electrical and mechanical equipment is kept in excellent condition. Since the plant operates automatically there is no need for staffing the second and third shifts each day. Any equipment failures on un-staffed shifts are automatically alarmed and an operator is called out.
F7:
The City Council agrees with this finding.
F8:
The plant is protected by a chain-link fence topped with barbed wire. Some vandalism has occurred in the past and plans have been made to install an outside electronic monitoring system to detect intruders. RESPONSES e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e · - · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · Nec V UEC 5 - 2000 CITY COUNCIL BILL HULLENDER, MAYOR LINDA STEVENS, VICE MAYOR City of PATTI INGRAM GERARD TASSONE Grass Valley JOHN A. TAYLOR GENE HAROLDSEN A CENTENNIAL CITY November 28, 2000 CITY ADMINISTRATOR 125 EAST MAIN STREET Honorable Carl Bryan II GRASS VALLEY, CA 95945 Presiding Judge of the Nevada County Courts (530) 274-4310 FAX: 274-4399 201 Church Street Nevada City, CA 95959 Re: Grass Valley Water Treatment Plant Your Honor, We received the Nevada County Grand Jury's November 3, 2000 report regarding the City's Water Treatment Plant. Pursuant to California Penal Code 933.05, here is the City's response to the findings listed: The City Council agrees with this finding.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
The substation has an 11-inmate capacity and currently employs five correctional officers; four females and one male. When no female officer is on duty, female inmates are transported to the Wayne Brown Correctional Facility in Nevada City.
F2:
The facility was clean, with fresh paint and new lighting in the cell area.
F3:
The substation is a test site for a new computer system designed to combine record management, dispatch and the jail booking system.
F4:
The county employs six civilian dispatchers; three computer workstations are now available for their use.
F5:
Wheelchair access has been provided at the entrance to the facility and an area near the evidence storage lockers has been improved to provide better access.
F6:
The facility commander has requested current fire safety inspection. A California State Fire Marshall inspected the facility on September 29, 2000. The facility received an A+ grade on the Fire Life Safety Inspection Report.
F7:
The town of Truckee has a contract with the Nevada County Sheriff's Department to provide law enforcement services. The contract may be canceled with a one year notice which was given to the Sheriff on September 1, 2000. Truckee intends to establish its own police department by September 1, 2001. CONCLUSIONS
* 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.