Nevada County Grand Jury
2001-2002
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 (11)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
13 findings
F1:
Nevada County government has been slow in addressing the acquisition of a new accounting/reporting system to support the requirements of GASB 34.
F2:
One year of financial reporting is required before the effective date of June 30, 2003.
F3:
The new GASB 34 reporting requirements will provide detailed tracking of county assets and expenditures reflecting the net cost of government services.
F4:
The comprehensive change from the existing format will require a significant reallocation of work force resources.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3:
The county should develop a sufficient work force to assist with the conversion of financial records to the new operating system.
R4:
The county should provide an appropriate training program for personnel whose responsibilities will change due to the implementation of the new operating system.
F5:
The Nevada County Management Report for the year ending June 30, 2001, prepared by the outside auditors states that: "Inadequate planning on the part of the County could result in work scheduling problems, increased accounting costs and or qualified opinion on audited financial statements." "We recommend that the County create a Project Task Force to begin the process of planning for implementation of GASB 34."
F6:
In response to finding number 5, the Auditor/Controller's office provided the following statement: "Our GASB 34 task force was formed in June 2000. Meetings have been sporadic, but productive. We have been working with the County Administrator's office, Department of Transportation and Sanitation and others. Unfortunately, during the last six months little has been done to move forward with this massive accounting change. This was due to staff changes and an inadequate staffing level in our office to take on this complex standard. We recently received approval for temporary help to assist with the additional workload requirements. We expect to be back on schedule with the implementation plan shortly."
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
Adequate personnel should be made available to assure that the county meets the GASB 34 implementation deadline.
R3:
The county should develop a sufficient work force to assist with the conversion of financial records to the new operating system.
F7:
The office of Auditor/Controller has approval to hire one temporary employee to assist in the implementation of GASB 34. By county regulation, a temporary employee may not work more than 1000 hours per fiscal year.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
Adequate personnel should be made available to assure that the county meets the GASB 34 implementation deadline.
R3:
The county should develop a sufficient work force to assist with the conversion of financial records to the new operating system.
F8:
Nevada County's present financial operating system is approximately 15 years old. This system is obsolete with no expansion capabilities that would support the new requirements of GASB 34.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Before the end of this fiscal year, the Board of Supervisors should authorize the issuance of a purchase order to acquire the operating system needed to support the new accounting and reporting requirements as defined by GASB 34.
F9:
The county's lack of a financial operating system, capable of supporting the new accounting standards, will require approximately 50 per cent of the data entry be done manually.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Before the end of this fiscal year, the Board of Supervisors should authorize the issuance of a purchase order to acquire the operating system needed to support the new accounting and reporting requirements as defined by GASB 34.
F10:
In November 2000, the Board of Supervisors (BOS) accepted the county's Enterprise Information Technology Strategic Plan 2001 (EITSP2001). This plan outlines the direction and focus of information technology for Nevada County over the next five years.
F11:
A financial accounting system for Nevada County is the number one priority of EITSP2001.
F12:
Five hundred thousand dollars has been budgeted toward the purchase of a new financial operating system for the county. The county will continue to budget annually to meet the goals of EITSP2001.
F13:
The Internal Services Committee, representing various departments in Nevada County, is in the process of evaluating vendor proposals for the new operating system. _ CONCLUSIONS
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The Planning Department located the records in question after the investigation began. These records were either misplaced or misfiled. We agree with the finding that the records in question were misplaced and/or misfiled.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Nevada City must develop a much-needed records management system. We have implemented a records management system in planning. Over the past three years we have changed our planning records filing system from a chronological-based system to an address-based system. This process is nearly complete and we have found it to be working quite well. CITY HALL • 317 BROAD STREET • NEVADA CITY, CA 95959 • (530) 265-2496 Teople G. CENTENNIA CITY OF NEVADA CITY CALIFORNIA A Bicentennial Community Grand Jury Response 2001 Report May 29, 2002
F2:
The Planning Department does not have a written procedure for records management, resulting in a lack of guidelines for employees. Additionally, the manner of maintaining public records does not comply with State guidelines. We don't agree with the finding that we have no written procedure for records-management in the Planning Department. We have written forms, procedures and checklists. We have procedures for tracking the planning and CEQA process. We have special forms and lists that are updated on a bi-weekly basis and posted for staff and public use. We also have a written request form for records and a file-tracking system. We have no written procedure for indexing every item in a file. However, we are not aware that our record keeping system is not in compliance with State law. Toople G. Centennit CITY OF NEVADA CITY CALIFORNIA A Bicentennial Community Grand Jury Response 2001 Report May 29, 2002 The areas where records are kept lack the security to prevent possible theft
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The City should review and implement Local Government Records Management Guidelines issued by the Secretary of State. As suggested in the report, the City Clerk downloaded the document from the Secretary of State web-site and is in the process of reviewing it. We will attempt to implement portions that are applicable to our planning process but we will not implement those portions that are unreasonable for our City due to space, fiscal or personnel limitations. When the Grand Jury provides funding, we will implement new Records Management Guidelines.
F3:
or unauthorized access. In addition, these areas do not provide adequate protection from possible fire or water damage if the fire protection sprinklers in the ceiling are activated. We agree that the records could be damaged should the fire sprinkler system be activated. The City Hall was extensively remodeled and fire sprinklers were installed at the time of remodeling. The fire sprinklers being in proximity of the records was questioned at the time and we were informed that due to fire code, they would be required to be installed as they are. The Planning Department does not maintain a backup system of its records
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Address the lack of adequate records security. The City Clerk met with the Director of Public Works to review this matter. We have discussed several options: 1) locks on existing planning files, 2) moving the files to a locked room. We have ordered locking file cabinets for the Planning Files. The City Clerk and two other designated employees (office clerks) will have keys. People wishing to check out files will be required to complete a request form and the files will be retrieved and refiled by the above- referenced employees only.
F4:
to prevent disruption of business due to any incident that could cause a loss of records. We agree with this finding. The manner in which historical records are stored leaves them vulnerable to
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The City should implement and maintain a backup system to protect records and archives. The backup of records should be kept in a secure off-site location. This recommendation requires further analysis. The City Manager and City Clerk have been working with the County MIS department to enter into an agreement for computer support and assistance. With this support, it may be possible for us to keep a scanned copy of all files stored on the County system. At this time we are waiting for the County to complete their study of our system and to advise us of the next step. We anticipate a response by mid-June. At that time we will review the feasibility of this recommendation and decide whether to implement it or not depending on the County's response. 24. 14. 14. 14. 14. 14. 14. 14. 14. 14. CITY OF NEVADA CITY CALIFORNIA BICENTENNI! Nevada City A Bicentennial Community Grand Jury Response 2001 Report May 29, 2002
F5:
loss or damage. We agree partially with this finding. They are vulnerable to damage from the sprinkler system or fire, should it occur. Response to Recommendations
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Better protection and preservation of historical records is necessary. We agree with this recommendation and have already implemented a portion of it. Historical preservation has always been important to the City. Several years ago we investigated the costs of photo-reproductions of the City minute books to reduce the wear and tear on these historic documents as requests come in to review them. At the time this process was not very effective and cost-prohibitive. We will contact the State Chief Archivist as recommended and review new methods to accomplish this task. This item will be discussed with the Finance Committee during our budgeting process and we will look at budgeting funding to complete portions of the reproduction process each year. Additionally, we have our historic Assessment Books and other historic material locked in a concrete room. Waterproof coverings protect the documents since the room has fire sprinklers. The Minute Books are locked in a cabinet and we are exploring ideas for constructing a fireproof vault for them.
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R6:
Grant money and historical support are available and should be pursued by contacting the National Historical Publications and Records Commission. We are not aware of any grant money at this time but will continue to review the websites and we will pursue grant money and support as it becomes available.
R7:
Grand Jury members visited the Town of Truckee to review its records management system, which meets state guidelines. The Grand Jury recommends that the City Manager and the City Clerk visit the Town of Truckee to review this system with appropriate officials. We will not implement the records management system of the Town of Truckee. The City is currently in the process of hiring a new City Manager. The City Clerk will discuss this item with the new City Manager after the position is filled. While we commend the Grand Jury for their thorough review and visit to the Town of Truckee, it should be noted that it is a fairly new City with the advantage of setting up a new records management system. Nevada City, on the other hand, is one hundred fifty years old and our records system is a combination of old and new. We are in the process of converting our system as time and money permit. -- CITY HALL • 317 BROAD STREET 0 5 5 NEVADA CITY, CA 95959 • (530) 265-2496 Welfe Teople Centennial CITY OF NEVADA CITY CALIFORNIA A Bicentennial Community Grand Jury Response 2001 Report May 29, 2002 As noted previously, City of Nevada City never received a copy of your report. We appreciate the notification that we could access it on a web-site but that web-site was changed and we had difficulty accessing a copy of this year's report. The only copy we have currently is a two-page section faxed to us by The Union. Additionally, we are sure many of our older citizens do not have access to the Internet. Therefore, we would like to suggest that you continue to publish a copy of the Final Report in The Union or make copies available by other means. With all the hard work that goes into this report, it would be a shame if people were unable to read it. Again, we would like to thank you for your review and suggestions. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, Beryl P. Robinson, Jr. Cathy Wilcox-Barnes City Manager City Clerk Zilliam- City Planner City Engineer
R24:
14. 14. 14. 14. 14. 14. 14. 14. 14. CITY OF NEVADA CITY CALIFORNIA BICENTENNI! Nevada City A Bicentennial Community Grand Jury Response 2001 Report May 29, 2002 Recommendation 5. Better protection and preservation of historical records is necessary. We agree with this recommendation and have already implemented a portion of it. Historical preservation has always been important to the City. Several years ago we investigated the costs of photo-reproductions of the City minute books to reduce the wear and tear on these historic documents as requests come in to review them. At the time this process was not very effective and cost-prohibitive. We will contact the State Chief Archivist as recommended and review new methods to accomplish this task. This item will be discussed with the Finance Committee during our budgeting process and we will look at budgeting funding to complete portions of the reproduction process each year. Additionally, we have our historic Assessment Books and other historic material locked in a concrete room. Waterproof coverings protect the documents since the room has fire sprinklers. The Minute Books are locked in a cabinet and we are exploring ideas for constructing a fireproof vault for them. Recommendation 6. Grant money and historical support are available and should be pursued by contacting the National Historical Publications and Records Commission. We are not aware of any grant money at this time but will continue to review the websites and we will pursue grant money and support as it becomes available. Recommendation 7. Grand Jury members visited the Town of Truckee to review its records management system, which meets state guidelines. The Grand Jury recommends that the City Manager and the City Clerk visit the Town of Truckee to review this system with appropriate officials. We will not implement the records management system of the Town of Truckee. The City is currently in the process of hiring a new City Manager. The City Clerk will discuss this item with the new City Manager after the position is filled. While we commend the Grand Jury for their thorough review and visit to the Town of Truckee, it should be noted that it is a fairly new City with the advantage of setting up a new records management system. Nevada City, on the other hand, is one hundred fifty years old and our records system is a combination of old and new. We are in the process of converting our system as time and money permit. -- CITY HALL • 317 BROAD STREET 0 5 5 NEVADA CITY, CA 95959 • (530) 265-2496 Welfe Teople Centennial CITY OF NEVADA CITY CALIFORNIA A Bicentennial Community Grand Jury Response 2001 Report May 29, 2002 As noted previously, City of Nevada City never received a copy of your report. We appreciate the notification that we could access it on a web-site but that web-site was changed and we had difficulty accessing a copy of this year's report. The only copy we have currently is a two-page section faxed to us by The Union. Additionally, we are sure many of our older citizens do not have access to the Internet. Therefore, we would like to suggest that you continue to publish a copy of the Final Report in The Union or make copies available by other means. With all the hard work that goes into this report, it would be a shame if people were unable to read it. Again, we would like to thank you for your review and suggestions. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, Beryl P. Robinson, Jr. Cathy Wilcox-Barnes City Manager City Clerk Zilliam- City Planner City Engineer
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
11 findings
F1:
There is overcrowding at Nevada Union and Bear River High Schools. To support their complete educational program, Bear River requires an auditorium and an
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
There is a need to implement the proposed improvements cited in the Facility Improvement Plan.
F2:
aquatic facility comparable to those at Nevada Union. There is a potential hazard due to encapsulated asbestos at Nevada Union High School.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
There is a need to implement the proposed improvements cited in the Facility Improvement Plan.
F3:
Nevada Union High School has encapsulated asbestos components on campus, such as the original tile in some hallways, the cafeteria flooring, and the pipe wrapping in the boiler room.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Removal of asbestos at Nevada Union High School should be addressed as soon as financially possible.
F4:
The 33-year-old Ali Gymnasium at Nevada Union is used for community activities, interleague games, and physical education classes. One section of the original floor has damage due to moisture. The entire floor has been sanded repeatedly. Six hundred square feet of the floor has been patched several times. The bleachers, original to the gym, have required repairs on numerous occasions. Maintenance personnel informed the Grand Jury that the flooring and bleachers need to be replaced.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
There is a need to implement the proposed improvements cited in the Facility Improvement Plan.
F5:
The heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems are inadequate to support demand from five of the ten classroom wings at Nevada Union High School. Both gymnasium locker rooms also need HVAC retrofitting.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
There is a need to implement the proposed improvements cited in the Facility Improvement Plan.
F6:
Using the State Office of Public School Construction formula, capacity of the permanent facilities at Nevada Union High School is 2025 students. Current enrollment is 2681. The current capacity at Bear River High School is 810 students, with an enrollment of 1143.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
There is a need to implement the proposed improvements cited in the Facility Improvement Plan.
F7:
In addition to student usage, approximately 42 community groups also use the facilities at the high schools in Nevada Joint Union High School District.
F8:
Bear River does not have an auditorium or an aquatic facility.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
There is a need to implement the proposed improvements cited in the Facility Improvement Plan.
F9:
Sources of funding available to Nevada Joint Union High School District have not proved adequate to keep up with the needed improvements. CONCLUSIONS
F1143:
7. In addition to student usage, approximately 42 community groups also use the facilities at the high schools in Nevada Joint Union High School District.
F1986:
2. Nevada Union and Sierra Foothill High Schools are not compliant with the current Americans with Disabilities Act. Some of the items that need addressing are bathrooms and gymnasium locker rooms at Nevada Union and Sierra Foothill High Schools. Additionally, Sierra Foothill High School needs an elevator to make the second floor accessible.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
Nevada Union and Sierra Foothill High Schools should be brought into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
R4:
There is a need to implement the proposed improvements cited in the Facility Improvement Plan.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
The WCWD flume system is damaged, and it is reported to be in danger of collapse. The Board had not informed its customers of the condition.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The WCWD should develop an informational program for its customers.
F2:
The U. S. Department of Agriculture's Rural Development Agency has given the WCWD a $97,000 forty-year low-interest loan and a grant of $294,415 to replace the old wooden flume with a steel one.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The flume replacement project should proceed as outlined in the USDA grant and loan.
F3:
The District has recorded easements adjacent to the present flume system. Such easements are needed to complete the flume replacement project.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The chlorinating process should be revised so that all customers have access to potable drinking water.
F4:
WCWD uses a chlorinating process to insure potability of its water. The system allows 300 feet of travel before chlorination is complete. Customers who draw water before the completed process have been advised to boil their drinking water. An engineering study is underway to determine if this can be corrected. CONCLUSIONS
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The WCWD should work with the Nevada County Department of Environmental Health to insure that safe drinking water is available to the town of Washington. RESPONSES Washington County Water District Board of Directors due by August 12, 2002
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R55:
0.5 8/1/02 WASHINGTON COUNTY WATER DISTRICT WASHINGTON, CALIFORNIA 95986 The Honorable Ersel L.Edwards To: 201 Church Street Nevada City, CA 95959 From: The Board of Directors Washington County Water District P.O. Box 10 Washington, CA 95986 Subject: Responses to findings and actions on recommendations pertaining to the Nevada County Grand Jury Investigation of the Board of Directors of the Washington County Water District and the delivery of water by the District to the town of Washington.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F2:
The Behavioral Health Department moved to a team concept emphasizing improvement of communications between doctors and staff, concerning their patients. These new policies allow Behavioral Health to better track their clients and have the potential to diminish hospitalization of patients. I agree with the
F3:
Budget constraints limit crisis services outside of normal business hours. Clients in crisis must use local medical facilities that may not be equipped to handle psychiatric emergencies. The local facility contacts one of the on-call county mental health crisis workers to assist the client. I agree with the finding 4. Space for clients who require hospitalization is very limited. Nevada County does not have a crisis stabilization facility. I agree with the
F4:
Space for clients who require hospitalization is very limited. Nevada County does not have a crisis stabilization facility. I agree with the finding.
F5:
There is insufficient space at the Health, Education and Welfare building to accommodate the entire staff of the Behavioral Health Department. A modular building was added to provide more space, but the modular is under court order to be removed by August 1, 2004. A space planning study has been initiated to consolidate Behavioral Health and all other Human services in one location. I agree with the finding, in addition, a Request for Proposal to determine location and cost of this building has been issued and replies are due July 8, 2002. 6. On December 5, 2001, there were two unfilled positions in the Behavioral Health Department. Personnel class and compensation adjustments have resulted in an increase of qualified applicants. I agree with the
F6:
On December 5, 2001, there were two unfilled positions in the Behavioral Health Department. Personnel class and compensation adjustments have resulted in an increase of qualified applicants. I agree with the finding.
F7:
The Board of Supervisors increased General Fund appropriation to the Behavioral Health Department in fiscal year 2001-02 from the state mandated $30,893 to $61,893. I agree with the
F8:
The county received a $400,000 grant from the state to fund a three-year pilot program to expand mental health treatment. I agree with the finding
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R2:
The BOS should continue to support Behavioral Health services by at least maintaining the fiscal year 2001-2002 General Fund allocation of $61,893.
R3:
The Grand Jury strongly recommends that the BOS support effort to secure an adequate facility to house Behavioral Health and all other departments of the Human Services Agency.
R4:
The BOS and the Human Services Agency should actively pursue the establishment of a crisis stabilization facility.
R5:
There is insufficient space at the Health, Education, and Welfare building to accommodate the entire staff of the Behavioral Health Department. A modular building was added to provide more space, but the modular is under court order to be removed by August 1, 2004. A space planning study has been initiated to consolidate Behavioral Health and all other Human Services agencies in one location. Agree A Request for Proposals (RFP) to solicit bids for a new location and consolidated facility has been issued and replies are due July 8, 2002. (See response to Recommendation No. 3)
R6:
On December 5, 2001, there were two unfilled positions in the Behavioral Health Department. Personnel class and compensation adjustments have resulted in an increase of qualified applicants. Agree. The two unfilled positions under recruitment in the Behavioral Health Department are for a Behavioral Health Worker and a Health Technician in the Mental Health Department. The Board of Supervisors (BOS) increased General Fund appropriation to the Behavioral Health Department in fiscal year 2001-2002 from the state mandated $30,893 to $61,893. Agree
R8:
The county received a $400,000 grant from the state to fund a three-year pilot program to expand mental health treatment. Ward/Other/gi0102-IR3-BH 5/28/2002 Agree The county has already received most of the $400,000 from the state and the remaining payment should not be impacted by the budget shortfall for FY 2002-03. There are also no matching funds required to be provided by the county for this project. The funds will be used to add two additional professionals to the Behavioral Health adult programs staff to focus on treatment of dual diagnosis (substance dependency/mental illness) clients. Recommendations: The Behavioral Health Director should continue to seek increased funds to support
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
13 findings
F1:
The Holding Facility at the Courthouse is for inmates who are to appear in court. The inmates are transported to and from the Wayne Brown Correctional Facility (WBCF), the Truckee sub-station and the Juvenile Assessment Center.
F2:
The Holding Facility can accommodate up to 30 inmates at one time.
F3:
During the November inspection the intercom system in the Holding Facility was not functional and had not been for many years. At the second inspection in February the system was working.
F4:
In November fire alarms in the Holding Facility were not working. In February, this problem was being addressed.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The lack of an adequate fire safety system must immediately be addressed. 200
F5:
There are no fire alarms or smoke detectors in the court section of the building.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The lack of an adequate fire safety system must immediately be addressed. 200
F6:
Nevada County uses private security guards at the public entrance of the courthouses in Nevada City and Truckee.
F7:
The Courthouse's first floor surveillance cameras are not positioned to allow monitoring of all exit doors.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Surveillance cameras must be added to allow officers to view all security doors.
F8:
There are no surveillance cameras in the upstairs courtrooms and halls.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Surveillance cameras should be added to the second floor of the Courthouse.
F9:
There is no system to monitor and control the issuance or return of "keycards." 10. Nevada County is one of very few counties in California that does not have a courtroom inside the correctional facilities. 11. In 2001 a total of 10,092 inmates were transported. Of that number, 7,948 were transported to and from WBCF and the Courthouse. The remainder includes out of the area transports.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
A system must be developed to control issuance and return of "keycards."
F12:
The Transportation Team has not had a female transport officer in over one year.
F13:
The Transportation Team also transports inmates to and from other counties, states, state prisons, and for medical needs.
F14:
The Transportation Team has a Ford van (8-passenger) with over 147,244 miles, Ford sedan (2-passenger) with over 154,008 miles, a Dodge van (12-passenger) with over 98,837 miles, a Chevy Suburban for use in Truckee with over 132,948 miles, and two mini-vans (maximum of 5 passengers each) with lower mileage.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Transportation Team with reliable transport vehicles.
F15:
By comparison, the Sheriff's patrol vehicles are traded in at approximately 80,000 miles, and the Probation Department has two new vehicles that stay within the county. CONCLUSIONS 1. The lack of safety concerns for the public and employees at the Courthouse puts Nevada County at risk of a tragic incident.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Transportation Team with reliable transport vehicles.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Nevada County should provide a courtroom at the WBCF. The Sheriff and the Board of Supervisors need to work together to provide the
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
15 findings
F1:
Agree All male and female inmates are housed separately in either the maximum or minimum 2. security areas. In the minimum security area they share a common recreation facility. Agree Nevada County contracts with California Forensic Medical Group to provide medical 3. care for inmates. Dental services are also available. Agree A program is in place which allows qualified inmates to work in WBCF facilities and on 4. the Rood Center grounds. Some inmates are allowed to work with local organizations and businesses. Agree 5. Inmates are transported to and from the Nevada County Courthouse to appear before a Judge for arraignments and court hearings. Agree Ward/other/gj0102-IR8-WBCF 09/10/02 To reduce such transports, video equipment was installed between the courthouse and 6. WBCF. However, it is rarely used. Agree The decision regarding whether or not to conduct a video arraignment or court hearing from the Wayne Brown Correctional Facility (WBCF) is normally made by the courts in consultation with the Sheriff and District Attorney. This decision is made based on legal considerations and the operational requirements of each agency. The Board of Supervisors has no authority regarding video arraignment and court hearings from the WBCF.
F2:
All male and female inmates are housed separately in either the maximum or minimum security areas. In the minimum security area, they share a common recreation facility.
F3:
Nevada County contracts with California Forensic Medical Group to provide medical care for inmates. Dental services are also available.
F4:
A program is in place, which allows qualified inmates to work in WBCF facilities and on the Rood Center grounds. Some inmates are allowed to work with local organizations and businesses.
F5:
Inmates are transported to and from the Nevada County Courthouse to appear before a Judge for arraignments and court hearings.
F6:
To reduce such transports, video equipment was installed between the courthouse and WBCF. However, it is rarely used.
F7:
The California State Board of Corrections recommends a minimum staff of 55 Correctional Officers for safe operation of WBCF.
F8:
Nevada County has authorized a staffing level of only 52 Correctional Officers assigned to the Sheriff's Department at WBCF. Of these, 38 are at WBCF (including four on leave), four are assigned to the Courthouse, and there are ten vacancies. • According to the Board of Supervisors response to last year's Grand Jury report, the Board of Corrections staffing study of November 1999 recommended a staffing level of 59 officers.
F10:
Correspondence from the Director of Personnel, dated October 11, 2001, indicates ten vacancies for Correctional Officers.
F11:
Since its opening in 1992, WBCF has never been at the minimum recommended staffing level.
F12:
Correctional Officers at WBCF are currently scheduled to work 12-hour shifts, four days one week and three days the next week.
F13:
Because of the under staffing Correctional Officers often work overtime.
F14:
In addition, Correctional Officers work on their days off, both voluntarily and assigned.
F15:
California Government Code Section 24009 describes the responsibilities of the Public Administrator. Section A-11 1.5 of the Nevada County Administrative Code, states that the Sheriff in Nevada County is the Public Administrator. His responsibilities include coroner duties, search and rescue, court security, jail operation, and general law enforcement. Patrol services are not mandatory. CONCLUSIONS 1. The Board of Supervisors and the Sheriff's Department must bring the number of Correctional Officers assigned to the WBCF to the recommended minimum of 55. Continuing to operate at lower than recommended staff levels could put unwarranted financial liability risk to the county by jeopardizing safety and security of Correctional Officers and inmates.
F2001:
The Jury interviewed the staff assigned. The Grand Jury also interviewed Sheriff Royal on October 9, 2001, and received correspondence from both the Director of Personnel and Sheriff Royal. FINDINGS 1. The facility is clean and well maintained.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
On September 11, 2001, the BOS responded to the Grand Jury on these two
F2:
The respective audits and/or reviews were to be implemented by June 30, 2002.
F3:
The BOS issued Minute Orders No. 01-70, 01-71, 01-72, and 01-73 to follow up on their directives (see Addendum A).
F4:
Despite the request by the BOS that the review of the County Code be completed by January 31, 2002, neither the review nor the possible update has yet been started. No plausible explanations were given to the Grand Jury for the delay.
Related Recommendations (4)
R1:
The County Executive Officer should spearhead updating the existing County Code.
R2:
Once the County Code is updated, the Auditor-Controller should conduct regular audits of all county franchise fees.
R3:
The Auditor-Controller should have an employee in his department to audit and verify the accuracy of these franchise fees.
R4:
A realistic deadline should be established to get the analysis completed and the audits performed to ensure the county collects franchise fees correctly and in accordance with existing agreements.
F5:
The Audit/Control Department recently was allocated approximately $25,000 to contract for a specialized audit of the two cable industry franchise companies, which service Nevada County residents.
F6:
The audit contract is still being negotiated. This will not allow sufficient time to meet the June 30, 2002, deadline. CONCLUSIONS
F2002:
One of the tasks for the new Chief Fiscal Officer will be this review.
Quick View
Full Details →
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 →
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
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
Some MO are given extended due dates to comply with the actions required.
F2:
Completed MO are reported to the Board and CEO at regular board meetings.
F3:
According to information provided by the COB, there were 37 Grand Jury Minute Orders for the following years: a. Eleven in 1998-1999. b. Ten in 1999-2000. c. Sixteen in 2000-2001.
F4:
Seven of the sixteen 2000-2001 Grand Jury Minute Orders had due dates of at least 12 months from the issue date of the Grand Jury report.
F5:
No progress information is shown on overdue or extended responses on the MO Schedule.
F6:
Many of the MO considered completed and complied with gave no specific action taken by the entities involved.
F7:
The CEO was not fully aware of the specifics of the Grand Jury Minute Order procedure.
F8:
The CEO, the Board Analyst, and a member of the BOS have agreed to review the Grand Jury Minute Order implementation procedure. 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.