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 (10)
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.
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
14 findings
F1:
Quoting from the Code Compliance Manual: a. Potential violations can come to the attention of Code Compliance through the public, community groups, other agencies, and Board of Supervisor referrals. Code Compliance works with communities and neighborhoods to resolve key enforcement issues; it is Code Compliance's sole authority to decide complaints or violations to pursue based on the priority system and staff resources. b. Code Compliance is Strictly a complaint driven process. c. Compliance is the goal; enforcement is to be used after all other options have failed.
F2:
The manual has five priorities. Building without a permit, as well as health and safety complaints are listed as top priorities.
F3:
There are as many as 11 separate letters/notices, including a Stop Work Order, which can be sent to correct a violation of non-permitted building.
F4:
Included in the notices is a "Warning Notice of Code Violation" which states that infractions are punishable by a mandatory fine of $100 for the first offense, $200 for the second, and $500 for the third and subsequent violations within a 12-month period, plus penalty assessments.
F5:
The Code Compliance Department has a backlog of more than 1000-code violation cases.
F6:
Citizen complaints have increased dramatically over the past year from approximately 50 per month to 100-200 per month.
F7:
Other counties use strict code enforcement, along with code compliance, to fully comply with existing codes.
F8:
Schools and fire districts receive separate funds when building permits are issued. As an example, an average 2000-square-foot home generates $4280 in school mitigation fees.
F9:
The Grand Jury was unable to get clear information on approximately how much money is lost to schools and fire districts due to non-permitted building.
F10:
If a property owner builds without a permit, and no complaint is filed, property taxes on improvements may not be collected.
F11:
The Assessor's Office generally does not communicate with the CDA regarding non- permitted building improvement assessments.
F12:
The CDA has budgeted the purchase of a "Land Use Module" software package, which could facilitate communications between departments.
F13:
At present, there are 2.5 full-time employees in the Code Compliance Department.
F14:
A fee based cost recovery plan recently implemented by the Code Compliance Department would at least partially generate revenues to offset the cost of hiring two additional full-time employees. See the county government website http://docs.co.nevada.ca.us/dscgi/ds.py/View/Collection-3217 for additional information. . . CONCLUSIONS 1. An unknown, but potentially substantial, amount of money is not being collected for property taxes, mitigation fees, special district fees, and Building Department fees.
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Board of Supervisors should approve the "Manual of the Code Compliance Department", dated March 2002, after it has been revised as follows: a. Streamline the process to correct a violation of any non-permitted building. b. Require Nevada County CDA employees to file official complaints if they observe code violations. c. Make use of legal enforcement in more difficult cases. d. Spell out in detail all fees, fines, and penalties that need to be paid by violators of non-permitted building as well as all other code violations. e. Increase amounts for mandatory fines and penalties to punitive levels. f. Include the cost recovery plan in the manual.
R2:
Code Compliance Department staffing should be increased to reduce the backlog of open cases.
R3:
The Assessor's Office should improve communication with the CDA to facilitate gathering information regarding non-permitted structures.
R4:
If the county cannot get resolution on a violation resulting in a substantial amount of money, a lien should be placed on the property in question to cloud title.
Findings & Recommendations
12 findings
F1:
The 1967 Porter-Cologne Act established the State Water Quality Resource Control Board (SWB) and California Regional Water Quality Control Boards as principal state agencies responsible for water quality control.
F2:
The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVB) has the authority to regulate any wastewater system within a jurisdiction that includes western Nevada County. While the Porter-Cologne Act requires that any person discharging or proposing to discharge waste, even individual septic systems for single-family residences, file a report with the regional offices, it has been CVB’s practice since the early 1950s to regulate/monitor only systems with more than 99 connections. Recently the CVB has decided to regulate some systems in Nevada County with fewer than 99 connections where the proposed system design did not appear to protect water quality and meet existing standards.
F3:
More stringent statewide requirements for the permitting/operation of on-site systems may be required as a result of Assembly Bill 885 (AB885), but no regulations or standards have been promulgated as of the date of this report.
F4:
Beyond the policies and requirements of the regional water quality control boards, there are currently no statewide requirements for minimum lot sizes, placement, or use of on- site wastewater systems. California does not have statewide laws for pre-sale inspections or for regular inspections of on-site systems after initial construction. Requirements addressing these issues are left to the discretion of individual county health departments.
F5:
Nevada County has established regulations for setbacks and replacement areas for on-site systems. Regardless of the zoning, all new parcels created in Nevada County that plan to use an on-site system must be large enough to accommodate the required system and an on-site system reserve/replacement area. The reserve area, required to be the same size as the primary septic system, is protected to the same extent as the primary septic system area.
F6:
The LAFCO report states … “while on-site systems are often cited as a source of water quality degradation, there is little documentation to substantiate that claim. AB885 may require that the SWB adopt regulations for the permitting/operation of on-site systems.”
F7:
County tracking of septic tank problems and leakage is only complaint-driven. Complaints are received and filed according to parcel number in manila folders in a records storage room. Older parcel data is stored on microfiche. To obtain a consolidated report of septic tank complaints, one would have to go through the parcel folders and microfiche and extract the complaints one-by-one. Without consolidated reports, the County lacks reference points to determine if the number of complaints is growing (and at what rate), staying the same, or decreasing.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Board of Supervisors should make certain that any new computer systems have the data required to provide essential management reports related to on-site septic system complaints, failures, testing, and maintenance.
F8:
In response to a letter dated January 11, 2002 from the Alta Sierra Property Owners Association (ASPOA), the County Department of Transportation and Sanitation in September of 2002 conducted an investigation of sewage disposal in the Alta Sierra area. The study, based on a review of 309 randomly selected developed parcel files (with no on-site physical inspection), statistically estimated that over 40% of the septic tanks have not been pumped in the last 15 years compared to a recommended average pumping interval of 3-5 years. The study also concluded that no evaluation of ground water quality or health risks could be made as the study was done from historical data and lacked field-testing for bacteria.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Board of Supervisors should direct Environmental Health to assist ASPOA and similar communities to locate an affordable testing and pumping provider for residents’ septic systems.
F9:
A report prepared for the Nevada County 1992 General Plan update noted: “Septic tank and leach field system problems have evolved in localized portions of western Nevada County for a variety of reasons including soil conditions, slope, small lot sizes and inadequate permit and construction practices … (and) areas such as the Alta Sierra subdivision and La Barr Meadows have a history of failing leach fields.”
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Board of Supervisors should direct Sanitation and/or Environmental Health to commission a master plan to address on-site system testing and maintenance countywide and to educate the public about related health concerns.
F10:
Regular testing of wells can determine if groundwater is contaminated. The LAFCO report states…“all wells be tested regularly.” Anecdotal information indicates that generally 27% of wells tested show levels of coliform bacteria in excess of acceptable levels. While wastewater disposal may be the primary cause of high coliform levels, a causal relationship between failing septic systems and high coliform levels in wells has not been established. Coliform bacteria are ubiquitous in soil and are only “indicators” of potential water contamination.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Board of Supervisors should establish an ongoing periodic licensing and testing program for all wells within the County to determine if the groundwater is contaminated. RESPONSES Nevada County Board of Supervisors – August 30, 2004 This document was created with Win2PDF available at http://www.daneprairie.com. The unregistered version of Win2PDF is for evaluation or non-commercial use only.
F11:
The LAFCO report also states: “It may not be possible for all new development to connect to centralized, public wastewater systems; however, a series of larger sub- regional, centralized facilities may reach economies of scale not available with on-site systems. A method of evaluating the economic and environmental impacts of the various treatment options and providing direction to reduce the long-term reliance on on-site systems should be developed.”
F12:
The County is developing a new computer system called “Encompass.” Encompass is expected to provide consolidated reports for parcel data that is entered into the system. It is not clear, however, that older parcel data stored on microfiche will be included. Older septic systems might be expected to be more problematic than newer systems constructed using longer-lasting materials CONCLUSIONS
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
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.
* 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.