Nevada County 2002-2003 - California Grand Jury Reports

September 04, 2003 — Nevada City’s Safety Program Reason for Investigation The Grand Jury is concerned as to what policies are in place and

6 pages 10 findings 6 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 10 findings

F1: The City Clerk states that the Employee’s Safety Orientation Manual, written in 1991, should be revised by the second quarter of 2003.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: Update, publish and distribute to all employees the Employee’s Safety Orientation Manual during 2003.

F2: Nevada City receives an annual update of Safety Performance from the Northern California Cities Self Insurance Fund (NCCSIF) in January. This report is posted for one month at the entrance of the City Hall.

F3: On average, worker’s compensation payments have dropped more than 30% over the last seven years as compared to the average over the previous 20-year period.

F4: Nevada City’s Risk Management Committee meets monthly. The City Clerk, who also serves as the Safety Coordinator, is the chairperson.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: Continue the monthly Risk Management Meetings and ensure that new safety issues and safety performance are communicated to all employees.

F5: City Council members have not been actively involved in the Risk Management Committee for the last three or four years, even though the manual says: “The City Council of the City of Nevada City shall be ultimately responsible for the loss control efforts of the City of Nevada City.”

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: Increase the involvement of the City Council in the safety program.

F6: The last employee general safety meeting was held three years ago even though the manual states: “At least one over-all safety meeting, with all employees present will be conducted each year.” However, police and fire department personnel have monthly safety meetings, swimming pool personnel meet weekly during the summer, and public works personnel have weekly “tail-gate” meetings. Attendance at safety meetings is tracked.

Related Recommendations (2)

R3: Continue the monthly Risk Management Meetings and ensure that new safety issues and safety performance are communicated to all employees.

R5: Ensure that the General Safety Meetings are held annually, in accordance with the Employee’s Safety Orientation Manual.

F7: New employees are given a safety orientation. They also receive a copy of the safety manual, which they must attest to with their signature to having read and understood.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: Ensure that all employees have a signed and dated document in their personnel file to verify that they have read and understood the latest Employee’s Safety Orientation Manual.

F8: The current manual requires all employees to know how to find, select, and to use a fire extinguisher. The last time this training was given was approximately five years ago.

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: Train all employees in the proper use of fire extinguishers, in compliance with the directions given by the Employee’s Safety Orientation Manual.

F9: Within 24 hours of an accident, the “Supervisor’s Report of Employee’s Injury” form is completed and turned in to the City Clerk. An acknowledgment by the employee or a relative, of having received a worker’s compensation form, is required. The employee has one year to turn in the claim form.

F10: The Safety Coordinator and the City’s insurance representatives, on a schedule designed by the insurance representative, inspect City facilities at least once per year. CONCLUSIONS

June 30, 2003 — Child Abuse Reporting Procedures Reason for Investigation The Grand Jury received a citizen’s complaint concerning the

40 pages 9 findings 9 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 9 findings

F1: The Grand Jury found that while there are legal definitions and written procedures regarding reporting of suspected child abuse cases, there are misunderstandings and failures to follow proper procedures. a. Until the Grand Jury investigation got underway, local CPS officials took the position that since they were one of the agencies to whom others reported suspected child abuse, they themselves were not also mandated reporters. Therefore, they were not obligated to adhere to the same reporting requirements as other designated reporters. In fact, CPS is a mandated reporter. b. For the last two years and up until March of 2003, CPS sent suspected child abuse reports in batches to one police department, resulting in some reports reaching the department as much as three weeks (and up to six weeks in one case) after the alleged incidents. c. Some law enforcement agencies confirmed they conduct their own, separate investigations before contacting CPS staff and relating their findings. This occurred even though the law enforcement agencies understood that they were mandated reporters. d. One police department was aware that CPS was failing to send SCAR forms to them in a timely manner for the last two years. No action was taken to communicate their concern to CPS or to insist upon timely cross-reporting of these cases.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: All county and city officials should take responsibility to ensure that their personnel is trained to swiftly and thoroughly investigate incidents of alleged child abuse (whether suspected, founded or unfounded).

F2: There were three serious cases of child abuse in the county during the last several years. However, the Grand Jury was only able to access the information concerning two cases. a. All cases involved escalating child abuse with one child dying of injuries and another one suffering irreparable brain damage. b. In the fatality case, both a licensed child-care provider and a physician failed to file a report alleging abuse of a three-year-old child to officials. Within months, the child was subjected to further, more serious abuse, and died of those injuries. c. In another case of child abuse, CPS did not report the initial suspected child abuse hospital referral to the appropriate law enforcement agency until two weeks later, after the second, more serious incident occurred. The initial report by CPS was in the process of being prepared, when the second referral was made to CPS. d. At the time of the initial report to CPS as outlined in 2.c above, a hospital report prepared by an emergency room nurse indicated the fracture in the infant’s arm was not “spiral.” However, a doctor’s report prepared the following day stated that it was clearly a “spiral fracture.” CPS records do not show when or whether staff had obtained or understood the implications of that report. According to some interviewees, a spiral fracture is a sign of child abuse. UC Davis Medical Center personnel later confirmed this to the case investigators. e. Two weeks later the child, referred to in 2c above, suffered permanent brain damage. According to CPS staff and local law enforcement officials, staff at UC Davis Medical Center felt that all local officials, including city and county agencies and the local hospital personnel, mishandled the first incident. This included a failure to identify clear evidence of previous, multiple injuries to the infant from earlier abuse that took place over a period of time. f. State reporting requirements identify the types of information that are to be obtained in the course of an investigation. Such information includes a check of the family’s background to determine whether there is a history of abuse or neglect, alleged or unfounded, in the system. In this case, there was information about the family already in the system. The failure of the agencies to cross-report the alleged abuse, prevented CPS staff from learning that the family did have a history, something that would have raised red flags concerning the family’s ability to care for its children. g. Conflicting information from the hospital, CPS and the law enforcement agency regarding dates, times, types of injuries sustained, and sequence of events was found throughout this case file. CPS officials acknowledged that while their internal system of reporting case investigation activities works for them, they are unable to provide the Grand Jury with a log that documents when calls concerning suspected abuse are received or when reports of those calls are forwarded to law enforcement agencies. Further, there is no system in place that enables the Grand Jury to determine when staff received medical reports or what activities, if any, were undertaken to obtain all related reports in a timely fashion. In one of the two cases reviewed, medical reports prepared one day apart for the first incident of suspected abuse provide conflicting information concerning the nature of the injuries. Additionally, law enforcement and CPS officials disagreed as to whether certain reported injuries are always, or only sometimes, associated with child abuse. h. Several mandated reporters failed to refer a suspected child abuse incident to CPS or a law enforcement agency. A second incident involving the same child then occurred and, again, mandated reporters failed to make a SCAR referral to CPS or law enforcement. As a result of the second incident, the child died. The physician who earlier treated the child amended the report, after the child’s death, to reflect that the doctor had previously counseled the mother about the textbook child abuse injuries sustained by the child and the need to keep the child away from the boyfriend. The licensed daycare provider, who acknowledged having status as a mandated reporter, testified at trial that perhaps the earlier abuse should have been reported. The District Attorney’s office made a decision not to prosecute the mandatory reporters in this case. i. The individual convicted of the crime had been suspected of a prior charge of child abuse. Interviewees stated that, if the mandated reporters had notified a law enforcement agency, that information would have been revealed and intervention for this family could have been provided.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: All mandated agencies should maintain an easily accessed database of logs and records that identify the receipt of, and attempts made to obtain and include, all relevant medical, criminal or family history, and investigative records in their child abuse cross-reference files.

F3: Following is a table showing the frequency of child abuse referrals to Nevada County CPS, as taken from the Child Welfare System/Case Management System and emergency response data. Year Physical Abuse General Neglect Combined Total 1998 395 575 970 1999 394 442 836 2000 392 695 1067 2001 382 1035 1417 2002 447 1058 1505

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: All mandated agencies, CPS staff, and law enforcement investigators should at all times utilize cross-reporting and cross-investigation procedures to better assist in the investigation of cases.

F4: Nevada County has a multi-disciplinary team (MDT) in place that reviews policies and procedures and actions taken related to reports of alleged abuse, including those involving children. However, following the two cases reported herein, no action has been taken to bring concerns about these incidents to the members of the MDT. Further, it was reported to the Grand Jury that attendance at the MDT meetings is not mandatory and meetings frequently are sparsely attended.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: In keeping with legal reporting requirements, all reporters must inform both CPS and the appropriate law enforcement agency of a suspected case of child abuse/neglect in the manner prescribed, and as soon as possible. CPS and the law enforcement agencies must then deliver a copy of a completed SCAR form to the counterpart agency and the District Attorney’s office in the time frame provided by law.

F5: In all agencies in which interviews occurred, budget and staffing issues were the reasons given for why cracks in the child abuse prevention system are not being repaired or are simply overlooked. No agency identified itself as being the agency accountable for ensuring that mandatory reporters understand and adhere to legal reporting requirements.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: All mandated agencies and reporters within Nevada County should be required to file complaints with the District Attorney’s office to seek prosecution of any mandated reporter who fails to report an alleged or suspected case of child abuse. Reporters and their agencies should be put on notice that those who fail to report possible child abuse to other mandated agencies in a timely manner are in violation of the law and a misdemeanor complaint could be filed with the District Attorney’s office.

F6: The law enforcement community has access to both the California Law Enforcement Tracking System (CLETS), and the Department of Justice Central Index, databases of criminal history. Child Protective Services staff has access to a Child Welfare System/Case Management System database in which names of families may be entered any time an investigation is conducted concerning abuse, even if no conviction results. CPS has limited access to the law enforcement CLETS if a child has been detained, or if they are looking at whether a child’s relative would be an appropriate person with whom to place that child. In the event the child is not detained, however, as in at least one of the cases researched, CPS has not routinely forwarded the SCAR form to the appropriate law enforcement agency for their own search of the criminal database systems. Thus, potential flags concerning a family’s history of abuse were not found until further, more serious abuse occurred, resulting in a criminal investigation by law enforcement officials, and irreparable injuries to the child.

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: All persons hired in Nevada County into positions designated as mandated reporters whether as child care providers, medical personnel, teachers, CPS staff, law enforcement agents, or others should receive written notification of their obligations for reporting suspected cases of child abuse, and of the penalties for their failure to do so. The County of Nevada should take the leadership role in ensuring that this is done.

F7: Law enforcement personnel are provided regular, mandated training through the California Police Officers Standards and Training programs. CPS staff is provided 40-80 hours of training every year, at a cost of about $25,000. Training covers a variety of mandated subject areas including the detection and diagnosis of child abuse. Although they are independently trained to detect and diagnose signs of child abuse, both law enforcement officials and CPS rely on information obtained by medical professionals to determine whether abuse has occurred. For example, one official indicated that even if a bone was found to be sticking out of the child’s arm and it appeared to be broken, if the medical professional reported that it was “internal injuries,” that is what the investigator would put in the final report. However, as shown in the two cases reviewed, medical professionals erred either in their initial statement of injuries sustained or in their ability to provide accurate and complete information in a timely manner.

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: The County of Nevada, and its incorporated cities, should develop and implement a training program (with the assistance of medical personnel) to educate all mandated reporters within the county concerning the physical injuries or signs and family behaviors typically associated with the abuse of children.

F8: Job descriptions developed for the social worker series used by CPS identify different levels of classification for positions (I, II, III, and IV) based on the required knowledge, degree of task difficulty, and type of tasks assigned. CPS assigns social workers at all levels to handle cases such as suspected child abuse on a rotational on-call basis. The justification given for doing this is that the supervisor closely monitors the cases and each social worker at all times. Minimal requirements for appointment to a social worker position include a specified number of college credits in related classes such as social work, plus experience as a homemaker or office assistant. Once appointed to the general social worker classification, staff moves up in level of appointment from I to II to III, based on a period of time in the job. The IV level is the only one which requires possession of a college degree. The social worker first assigned to investigate the suspected abuse case that involved the “spiral fracture” is classified at the II level. The second social worker assigned, following the escalating abuse and irreparable injuries to the child, is classified at the III level.

Related Recommendations (1)

R8: Given the County’s budget constraints, CPS should consider utilizing local college students majoring in sociology or child psychology for office internships to supplement and assist regular staff.

F9: Neither CPS officials nor law enforcement officials in the cases reviewed filed complaints with the District Attorney’s office seeking prosecution of the mandatory reporters who failed in their obligation to protect these children by meeting either initial or cross-reporting requirements. CONCLUSIONS Clearly, our local agencies failed to protect the children in the cases reviewed by the Grand Jury. If practiced in a collaborative setting, California’s legislative framework provides an effective system to protect children and infants. The dramatic increase of reported cases suggests that a system for quickly evaluating and sharing information about suspected abuse cases must be implemented. Only a results-oriented partnership between agencies focusing on the protection of our children can prevent further incidents like these from occurring. Agencies must stop trying to justify their failure to protect children with the excuse they lack staff and funding. They must find and develop solutions. They must accept responsibility for each and every incident in which a child is further abused and for every mandated reporter who fails to act responsibly to protect our children. Possible solutions must not be discounted because these might result in more work for existing staff or because of legal limits on the cross-sharing of some types of information. CPS and law enforcement agencies must take a more aggressive approach when presented with a SCAR referral. If all of the agencies involved in the cases reviewed had been given information - and shared it - sooner, the chances are strong that these children would not have been subject to an escalation of abuse that led to irreparable injuries and death. All technological resources must be explored to provide communication between agencies and reporters with regard to child abuse cases. Consistent, ongoing training of agencies and reporters must be implemented. All of our government agencies must work to ensure that our children do not continue to “fall through the cracks” and become victimized by failures of the system created to protect them.

Additional Recommendations 1

Not linked to specific findings.

R40-80: hours of training every year, at a cost of about $25,000. Training covers a variety of mandated subject areas including the detection and diagnosis of child abuse. Although they are independently trained to detect and diagnose signs of child abuse, both law enforcement officials and CPS rely on information obtained by medical professionals to determine whether abuse has occurred. For example, one official indicated that even if a bone was found to be sticking out of the child’s arm and it appeared to be broken, if the medical professional reported that it was “internal injuries,” that is what the investigator would put in the final report. However, as shown in the two cases reviewed, medical professionals erred either in their initial statement of injuries sustained or in their ability to provide accurate and complete information in a timely manner. 8. Job descriptions developed for the social worker series used by CPS identify different levels of classification for positions (I, II, III, and IV) based on the required knowledge, degree of task difficulty, and type of tasks assigned. CPS assigns social workers at all levels to handle cases such as suspected child abuse on a rotational on-call basis. The justification given for doing this is that the supervisor closely monitors the cases and each social worker at all times. Minimal requirements for appointment to a social worker position include a specified number of college credits in related classes such as social work, plus experience as a homemaker or office assistant. Once appointed to the general social worker classification, staff moves up in level of appointment from I to II to III, based on a period of time in the job. The IV level is the only one which requires possession of a college degree. The social worker first assigned to investigate the suspected abuse case that involved the “spiral fracture” is classified at the II level. The second social worker assigned, following the escalating abuse and irreparable injuries to the child, is classified at the III level. 9. Neither CPS officials nor law enforcement officials in the cases reviewed filed complaints with the District Attorney’s office seeking prosecution of the mandatory reporters who failed in their obligation to protect these children by meeting either initial or cross-reporting requirements. CONCLUSIONS Clearly, our local agencies failed to protect the children in the cases reviewed by the Grand Jury. If practiced in a collaborative setting, California’s legislative framework provides an effective system to protect children and infants. The dramatic increase of reported cases suggests that a system for quickly evaluating and sharing information about suspected abuse cases must be implemented. Only a results-oriented partnership between agencies focusing on the protection of our children can prevent further incidents like these from occurring. Agencies must stop trying to justify their failure to protect children with the excuse they lack staff and funding. They must find and develop solutions. They must accept responsibility for each and every incident in which a child is further abused and for every mandated reporter who fails to act responsibly to protect our children. Possible solutions must not be discounted because these might result in more work for existing staff or because of legal limits on the cross-sharing of some types of information. CPS and law enforcement agencies must take a more aggressive approach when presented with a SCAR referral. If all of the agencies involved in the cases reviewed had been given information - and shared it - sooner, the chances are strong that these children would not have been subject to an escalation of abuse that led to irreparable injuries and death. All technological resources must be explored to provide communication between agencies and reporters with regard to child abuse cases. Consistent, ongoing training of agencies and reporters must be implemented. All of our government agencies must work to ensure that our children do not continue to “fall through the cracks” and become victimized by failures of the system created to protect them. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. All county and city officials should take responsibility to ensure that their personnel is trained to swiftly and thoroughly investigate incidents of alleged child abuse (whether suspected, founded or unfounded). 2. All mandated agencies should maintain an easily accessed database of logs and records that identify the receipt of, and attempts made to obtain and include, all relevant medical, criminal or family history, and investigative records in their child abuse cross-reference files. 3. All mandated agencies, CPS staff, and law enforcement investigators should at all times utilize cross-reporting and cross-investigation procedures to better assist in the investigation of cases. 4. In keeping with legal reporting requirements, all reporters must inform both CPS and the appropriate law enforcement agency of a suspected case of child abuse/neglect in the manner prescribed, and as soon as possible. CPS and the law enforcement agencies must then deliver a copy of a completed SCAR form to the counterpart agency and the District Attorney’s office in the time frame provided by law. 5. All mandated agencies and reporters within Nevada County should be required to file complaints with the District Attorney’s office to seek prosecution of any mandated reporter who fails to report an alleged or suspected case of child abuse. Reporters and their agencies should be put on notice that those who fail to report possible child abuse to other mandated agencies in a timely manner are in violation of the law and a misdemeanor complaint could be filed with the District Attorney’s office. 6. All persons hired in Nevada County into positions designated as mandated reporters whether as child care providers, medical personnel, teachers, CPS staff, law enforcement agents, or others should receive written notification of their obligations for reporting suspected cases of child abuse, and of the penalties for their failure to do so. The County of Nevada should take the leadership role in ensuring that this is done. 7. The County of Nevada, and its incorporated cities, should develop and implement a training program (with the assistance of medical personnel) to educate all mandated reporters within the county concerning the physical injuries or signs and family behaviors typically associated with the abuse of children. 8. Given the County’s budget constraints, CPS should consider utilizing local college students majoring in sociology or child psychology for office internships to supplement and assist regular staff. REQUIRED RESPONSES Board of Supervisors – by September 26, 2003 Nevada County Sheriff – by August 27, 2003 City Council of Grass Valley – by September 26, 2003 City Council of Nevada City – by September 26, 2003 Truckee Town Council – by September 26, 2003

June 12, 2003 — City of Grass Valley Employee Illness and Injury Prevention Program

5 pages 19 findings 8 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 19 findings

F1: Grass Valley’s safety handbook was developed in 1992, and has not been updated as of the time of this report. Grass Valley is working to update its Illness and Injury Prevention (IIP) Program handbook and expects to complete those revisions by June 2003.

Related Recommendations (1)

R8: Charge the safety committee with ensuring that regular reviews and updates are made to the City’s safety handbook.

F2: The Human Relations Manager, who was appointed a year ago, is the City’s safety officer.

F3: The City’s safety committee meets quarterly. The City Clerk chairs the committee. Members include the City Administrator, Police Chief, Fire Chief, Public Works Superintendent, Deputy Director of Public Works, Director of Public Works, plus several other staff and clerical support. Currently there is no union representation on the committee.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: Restructure the safety committee by appointing employees from line, supervisory and management and include union representation. Direct the committee to meet regularly to review new safety issues and safety performance, to make recommendations for improved safety and to communicate this information to all employees.

F4: There are no safety incentives or recognition programs in place.

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: Develop employee safety incentive and recognition programs.

F5: Although there are records are posted annually, there is no regular communication with all employees on matters concerning safety and health performance.

Related Recommendations (1)

F6: There is no formal “train the trainer” program in place for those employees charged with training others on the safe use of equipment. There also is no evaluation of the effectiveness of the training being provided.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: Strengthen safety training through a “train the trainer” program initiated through the Human Relations Manager and department managers.

F7: The current safety handbook states: “Responsible supervisors make regular inspections of all work area structures, machinery, and equipment at frequent (NO LESS THAN ONCE A WEEK) intervals, take immediate corrective measures to eliminate hazards directly under the control of the employer, and report any violations of safety orders or safe working practices to the appropriate Department Head in his/her department within the City.” The grand jury was advised that this does not take place at city hall. While staff thinks that it may take place at other city sites, there may be no records. If there are any records, they are maintained on-site at each work location.

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: Ensure that safety and training record keeping complies with Title 8 CCR Section 3203 of the General Industry Safety Orders. Direct the person assigned the responsibility for the City’s safety program to conduct periodic audits of department safety records and ensure that inspections and training are being conducted and recorded as required.

F8: The handbook states that: “all supervisors at all levels are responsible for the enforcement of safety rules among employees under their supervision.”

F9: The handbook states that: “at the end of each shift, supervisors shall inspect their work areas for proper housekeeping, and for fire or other hazards, and see that all areas are left in safe condition.”

F10: No fire drills or emergency evacuation drills have ever been conducted at city hall.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: Update the safety handbook to include a provision for periodic fire/disaster drills. Change the handbook to reflect the actual procedures followed. Eliminate onerous language that sets requirements for inspections, statistical reviews, and related safety activities that create unreasonable standards and burdens for staff.

F11: Training in the use of fire extinguishers has not been provided to city employees in several years.

F12: The General Safety Rules section of the current safety handbook sets forth the requirement that “supervisory personnel SHALL conduct ‘toolbox’ or ‘tailgate’ safety meetings (or the equivalent) with their employees on the job, at least every ten (10) working days for construction related activities, or as needed on other projects, to emphasize SAFETY.” Safety meetings for construction activities reportedly do take place every ten days and the logs of one department’s safety training meetings were made available for review by the grand jury.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: Implement periodic safety meetings for staff in all city departments during which they can learn about and discuss current safety issues that are of concern to them.

F13: The handbook further sets forth the requirement that “each department is responsible to insure that employees receive adequate training in the use and testing of respiratory protective equipment and a thorough knowledge of this policy.” This training is only provided to city employees whose job requires the use of respiratory equipment.

F14: The handbook establishes as procedure: “A Supervisor’s Accident Report shall be completed by the injured employee’s Supervisor and forwarded to the Insurance/Risk Manager’s Office (carbon copy to City Manager) within 24 hours.” Since the appointment of a Human Relations Manager a year ago, the copies are now forwarded to that office instead of the City Manager (City Administrator). However, not all reports are received within 24 hours as required.

Related Recommendations (2)

F15: The handbook notes: “The City Manager’s Office will maintain statistics by departments on all hazards reported and the disposition taken. These statistics will be reviewed by the City Safety Committee on a monthly basis.” However, the grand jury was advised that the safety committee only meets on a quarterly basis.

Related Recommendations (1)

F16: Additional requirements within the handbook include the maintenance of an approved first aid kit in “every City truck, office and work station.” Staff was unable to state with certainty whether a first aid kit is available in every truck, office, and workstation.

F17: Safety orientation is given to new employees. Signed documentation by the employees of receiving the safety orientation is placed in their personnel files. Employees receive an orientation concerning Material Safety Data Sheets pertaining to their work area and training in the safe operation of a vehicle.

F18: The Fire Department offers first aid training to all city employees. CPR training is not made available to all employees.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: Offer CPR training to all city employees.

F19: Within the last year, proper procedures were followed causing a partial closure to allow for routine cleaning and maintenance in a confined space at the Waste Water Plant. This was in compliance with OSHA confined space requirements. CONCLUSIONS The City of Grass Valley’s safety handbook, while comprehensive, has not been updated in the more than ten years since these programs and materials became mandated by law. The City is currently updating these program materials. However, the fact that legislators found safety issues important enough to require safety programs suggests that cities and other public agencies need to be more tenacious in routing out unsafe working conditions and practices that expose employees and taxpayers to considerable risk. Without regular reviews and updates to its safety program, a city cannot sincerely be committed to ensuring that safe working conditions are achieved. In addition, reviews provide an agency with the opportunity to change wording to more accurately depict the actual procedures being followed and to eliminate or modify onerous requirements that cannot be met. Within the last year, the City staff did conduct a partial shutdown of operations at the Waste Water Plant to permit safe cleaning and maintenance of a concrete pond in compliance with OSHA requirements. During this period, the City also continued its practice of offering first aid training to all employees. Clearly, the City demonstrates some responsibility and caution in working to protect its employees’ safety. Even so, the City does not conduct fire drills to prepare employees for possible evacuations of its buildings in case of natural disaster or terrorist activities. The assumption appears to be that these things will not happen here. Further, there is no evidence that supervisors are making regular inspections of workstations, equipment, and machinery. At the very least, such inspections would demonstrate the City’s interest in protecting its investment in buildings and equipment. More importantly, it would communicate to employees the city’s desire to employ them in a safety-conscious environment. Meanwhile, in the event that an employee should be injured on the job, written records to document safety inspections of these areas must be readily available for review. These items would help in determining whether an accident occurred because of operator error, equipment malfunction, or other unsafe conditions. Finally, all staff responsible for the safety program, training, and site inspections needs to prepare and maintain adequate records to ensure that program requirements are being met. If the safety committee needs to review departmental statistics on a monthly basis, then the committee must meet monthly. If they plan to continue meeting only quarterly, the safety program manual must accurately reflect that the statistics will be reviewed at those meetings. If the safety program manual clearly states that employees shall be trained and must be knowledgeable in the use of certain equipment and related City policies, the City or the affected department must ensure that this training is being provided. If the City falls down in its responsibilities to its employees, in all fairness employees cannot be held accountable for their adherence to safety policies and practices in their performance reviews.

May 29, 2003 — Town of Truckee Injury and Illness Prevention Program Reason for Investigation The Grand Jury, as an advocate for the

7 pages 20 findings 7 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 20 findings

F1: The Town of Truckee, incorporated in March 1993, is the largest of the three incorporated municipalities in Nevada County. In September 2001, the Town of Truckee established its own police department, thus significantly increasing its employee base.

F2: Truckee’s IIP Program was developed in 1996 three years after incorporation, and has not been updated as of this report. Truckee is working on updating its IIP Program manual with an expected completion date of mid 2003.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: Update, publish, and distribute the revised safety program manual to all employees by the end of 2003. The following web site may serve as a guideline for updating the manual: www.dir.ca.gov/dosh/dosh_publications/iipp.html.

F3: The grand jury was told that the Town Manager, who is the IIP Program Administrator, has identified employee safety as a priority.

F4: The IIP Program Administrator appointed the Assistant to the Town Manager to the position of Town Safety Officer. These safety duties comprise one of several significant functional areas of responsibility assigned to the Assistant to the Town’s Manager.

F5: The Safety Officer has participated in off-site training programs to become familiar with the role and responsibilities in this area. However, when asked, the Safety Officer was unable to identify the legislation that sets forth the requirements for employee safety/training programs and the respective record-keeping requirements.

F6: The Safety Officer is responsible for planning, coordinating, and ensuring that training is provided to the Town employees. The Administrative Services Director (combined risk manager/personnel director) is responsible for overseeing and managing the Town’s general liability and worker’s compensation risks/costs. The Administrative Services Director (ASD) also oversees new employee safety orientations, personnel files, and instructs department managers and supervisors in the proper evaluation of employee performance.

F7: While Truckee at one time had a safety committee, the committee has fallen into disuse. Staff interviewed could not say with certainty when that committee ceased to function, nor could they state the reason why. Staff was unable to identify which persons or positions previously were assigned to participate in that committee.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: Appoint staff from line, supervisor, and management levels to serve on the safety committee. Direct the committee to meet regularly to review new safety issues and safety performance, to make recommendations for improved safety, and to communicate this information to all employees. Empower the committee to develop a variety of methods for distributing safety brochures and related information to employees.

F8: Of all of the factors used in an employee’s performance evaluation, adherence to safety carries the most weight. Supervisors are also evaluated on meeting their responsibilities for ensuring employees are properly trained in the safe performance of their work.

F9: The Safety Officer, who has been with the Town for about 18 months, was unaware that safety is a factor in performance evaluations, although he has been expected to perform evaluations of his own staff during that period.

F10: The ASD stated that the Public Agency Risk Sharing Authority of California (PARSAC) issues an annual safety inspection report. The report is sent to the Town Manager. The information in the report has not been shared with the Safety Officer. The Safety Officer was unaware that such a report existed.

F11: Employees train their peers. However, no formal “training of the trainers” takes place.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: Strengthen safety training through a “training of the trainers” program initiated by the Safety Officer or the ASD.

F12: First Aid and CPR training is offered to all employees.

F13: All new employees are given a safety orientation. A signed acknowledgment of the completion of orientation and receipt of a copy of the safety manual is placed in the employee’s personnel file. The Safety Officer was unaware that these procedures are in place and could not recall receiving a safety orientation upon hire, due to the volume of information disseminated during new employee orientation.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: Establish a safety orientation program for new employees that is separate from the general policies, procedures, and other orientation provided upon hire.

F14: Title 8 CCR Section 3203 of the General Industry Safety Orders defines record keeping requirements for safety and health training.

F15: The Safety Officer was unable to confirm if supervisors in the departments adhere to the record keeping requirements.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: Ensure that safety-training record keeping complies with Title 8 CCR Section 3203 of the General Industry Safety Orders. The Safety Officer or other designated staff must conduct periodic audits of department safety records to ensure that these requirements are met.

F16: Worker Compensation claims history was not available.

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: Require department personnel to implement quarterly safety meetings, and take attendance. Evaluate department heads on the safety performance record of their staff. Schedule makeup safety meetings when appropriate.

F17: As set forth in the IIP Program, department personnel are required to conduct quarterly safety meetings. Safety meetings for public works employees are conducted weekly in the “field.” Supervisors take attendance, but no make-up sessions are provided for those who miss the training. Periodic safety meetings for animal control staff have just begun. Facilities maintenance staff receives monthly instruction. Office and professional staff receive no regular or periodic safety training. The Safety Officer has not conducted any training sessions for his own staff.

F18: No safety incentives or recognition programs are in place. Employees are not provided quarterly or annual reports on their department’s safety record.

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: Create employee safety incentive and recognition programs.

F19: Truckee has a variety of safety brochures for distribution to employees. However, the brochures have not been distributed and there is no system in place to make them available to the employees.

Related Recommendations (1)

F20: Recently, while performing an inspection, a building inspector was seriously injured in a fall from a roof. CONCLUSIONS The original IIP Program appears to be a minimal response to meet state requirements following the incorporation of the Town of Truckee in 1993. Given the Town’s growth and the addition of a police department, an effective and comprehensive safety program is critical. Management has not demonstrated a strong commitment to all aspects of their IIP Program. The loss of the safety committee and the lack of sharing safety information could spell trouble for an agency that has experienced few serious employee injuries thanks more to luck than to adequate planning and prevention. The recent resignation of the ASD, who better understood the effects of employee safety on the Town’s bottom line, as well as its employee resources, further threatens the success of the safety program. Revisions to the IIP Program Manual are critical and need to be frequently reviewed if employee safety in the Town is to remain a priority. Assignment of the central Safety Officer duties to a key official in the Town Manager’s office suggests that employee safety was taken seriously at the top. In actuality, until serious injuries occur such as the recent injuries sustained by the building inspector, the Safety Officer would find it easier to focus on other more demanding tasks and issues. Without a centralized safety committee consisting of supervisors, managers, and line personnel, the idea that safety is a priority becomes nothing more than a well-intentioned thought that bears no fruit. There is only one employee (the Safety Officer) who has the task of ensuring the safety of the Town’s staff. If only some of the employees receive training some of the time, there could be disagreement among the employees that safety matters in the performance of their duties. Safety is currently only a footnote in the new orientation process for incoming employees. This is confirmed when employees do not recall that they received a safety orientation. The acknowledgment that employees signed only certifies that the Town is meeting its legal obligations, and does not necessarily have the needed impact. There appears to be a lack of awareness that safety is an important part of every employee’s duties and performance evaluations. Additional periodic training has not been provided to reinforce the importance of familiarity with and adherence to safety standards and practices. Communication and teamwork is not shared within and across departmental lines, as well as up and down the chain of command. Town employees who are responsible for training are not receiving the appropriate training.

May 16, 2003 — Affordable Housing in Nevada County Reason for Investigation As stated in the California Government Code, Article 10.6

37 pages 5 findings 7 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 5 findings

F1: The Grand Jury found that only the BOS can give staff authority to include mandates in the general plan for affordable housing in all construction. At present, staff can ask a developer to include it, but cannot require it. 2. Local agencies should adopt a policy that allows for deferred payment of fees, and/or partial or full waiver, of planning, mitigation, and building permit fees as incentives for builders. •

Page 1

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: Accept the responsibility of its leadership role in gaining community support for affordable housing projects and overcoming NIMBY attitudes.

F2: The Grand Jury found there were differences of opinion among staff and the BOS concerning whether this is or is not already being applied, or applied on a case by case basis. 3. Adopt the second unit

Page 1

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: Consider creating a new position or establishing a functional assignment of Affordable Housing Coordinator either on site or as part of a new, regional Housing Authority. The primary responsibility would be to ensure that goals and objectives of the Affordable Housing Task Force are implemented in a timely manner through the collaborative efforts of all affected departments, groups, and agencies.

F4: The Grand Jury learned that while the county did permit duplexes to be mixed in the Eden Ranch project, that project has not been completed. 5. The county and cities should require that all senior assisted care residential developments include at least 20% of the total units affordable to low-income seniors. •

Page 1

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: Give deadlines to department tasks, put quantifiable measures in place to follow-up, and ensure that departments and staff are meeting the County’s affordable housing goals and objectives. 8

F5: The Grand Jury learned that this would apply only for new construction and not to existing facilities. 6. The county should create an Affordable Housing Trust Fund from impact and in-lieu housing fees throughout the county, to be used for affordable housing development. •

Page 1

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: Direct staff to focus efforts on the development of new multi-family units that address very-low yearly income ($24,400) and low yearly income ($39,000) needs rather than work-force housing needs for those with moderate yearly income ($50.000).

F6: The Grand Jury found that the BOS differentiates between affordable housing and workforce housing, by saying, these are two different issues, although the latter term is not a state-recognized term. 7. Streamline the development-approval process, provide affordable housing pre-application meetings, accurate and consistent processing information, and priority processing. •

Page 1

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: Overhaul local ordinances and zoning regulations that create obstacles to the development of affordable housing.

Additional Recommendations 2

Not linked to specific findings.

R3: Provide general fund support to the Department of Housing and Community Services, thus freeing the Director and his staff to focus their efforts on developing and implementing creative housing and funding programs that meet the needs of local residents.

R7: Correct staff’s understanding of its collaborative role in working with developers of mixed use and multi-family projects. Such collaborations must identify and implement incentives, streamline, and redesign developmental approval processes and procedures. REQUIRED RESPONSE Board of Supervisors – August 20, 2003 9

February 11, 2003 — Recycling - Nevada County’s Urgent Need Reason for Investigation California law mandates that solid waste be reduced by

13 pages 12 findings 4 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 12 findings

F1: AB 939 is now incorporated in Division 30 of the California Public Resources Code (PRC). Section 41785 of the code provides that the year 2000 compliance due date may be extended through 2005, but not beyond, provided the County has made a good faith effort to implement source reduction, recycling, and composting measures.

F2: On February 11, 2003, the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) agreed to Nevada County’s request to extend the due date for the 50% reduction requirement to December 31, 2004, and to establish the year 2000 as a new baseline. This baseline year is now officially credited with a 43% reduction.

F3: As part of the County’s request to the CIWMB for an extension, a 10-point plan of correction to achieve the required 50% figure was included. Table 1 details this plan. Note: if the estimated waste reduction (diversion) percentages are all realized (9.75%), and other factors remain unchanged, the County would then be credited with 52.75 %. TABLE I - PLAN OF CORRECTION Description of Program Date* Est. % Diversion Construct a reuse area at the McCourtney Road Transfer Station 9/04 1 (MRTS) which would target reusable materials that are brought in by contractors and self-haulers. Provide a composting facility at the MRTS first utilizing chipped 12/04 1 material and later curbside collected greenwaste and foodwaste. Expand backyard and on-site composting/mulching by 9/03 1 implementing a Master Composter Program. Promote on-site composting at agricultural facilities such as 9/04 1 wineries, horse facilities, forestry, farming , and ranching operations. Provide an express lane recycling area at MRTS. 9/04 1 Expand the business material exchange program by promoting 12/03 1 reuse of secondary materials and establishing a direct link to the State’s website. Meet with business groups to increase business waste reduction 9/04 2 and participation in the commercial on-site recycling collection program. Implementation of curbside green waste collection if compost 12/04 1 facility is feasible. Collection of recyclables at special events such as County Fair, 12/03 0.5 horse festivals, music festivals, parades, and street fairs. Expand household hazardous waste curbside collection to include 12/03 0.25 used quart oil containers. Total Estimated Diversion 9.75 * The date by which full implementation is anticipated.

F4: In addition to the new programs and expansions included in the Plan of Correction, Nevada County had demonstrated its good faith effort with the previously implemented residential programs detailed in Table II. Additionally, other programs were focused on commercial entities and public outreach/education. TABLE II - RESIDENTIAL RECYCLING AND WASTE REDUCTION (ONGOING) Program Description Backyard and On-site The Fire Safe Council conducts an on-site grinding program for Composting/Mulching green waste. The material is then sent to a biomass facility in Lincoln. Buy-back Residents have access to numerous State Certified Recycling Centers. Curbside Recycling Waste Management offers a curbside recycling service that accepts newspaper, aluminum cans, glass bottles and jars, mixed paper, tin cans, and plastic bottles. Drop-off The principal drop-off facility is the McCourtney Road Recycling Facility (next to the MRTS), which accepts scrap metal and other commodities, in addition to all items picked up at curbside. The Recycling Works on Loma Rica Drive and Transfer Stations in North San Juan and Washington also accept most items. Self-haul Greenwaste Material brought to the MRTS is sent to a biomass facility.

F5: The County’s franchise agreement with Waste Management (WM), which runs from December 1997 through June 2008, requires WM to provide specified services at the McCourtney Road Recycling Facility as well as at the Washington and North San Juan Transfer Stations. The agreement requires WM to abide by AB 939 and provide quarterly reports containing information required by the County to meet its reporting obligations. WM must also provide curbside recycling at no additional charge, a free Christmas Tree Recycling Program at a minimum of three sites, and twice yearly conduct a household hazardous waste day at an agreed-upon site.

F6: Pursuant to AB 939, the County filed a Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) with the CIWMB in 1994. The SRRE included a County Green Procurement that was to be implemented by January 1995 but in fact was not. The County adopted a Green Procurement and Sustainable Practices Policy (GPSPP) in April 2002 under Resolution 02-194. This action was required in order for the County to be competitive when applying for grants from the CIWMB. The GPSPP states that all County personnel specify recycled products unless they are unsatisfactory or unreasonably expensive and that the departments practice waste prevention and recycling. It further requires that the County Executive Officer and the Board of Supervisors be provided with an annual status report.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: The Board of Supervisors should ensure that the required annual GPSPP report includes quantifiable data that measures the County’s performance to stated goals.

F7: Recently the county applied for and received a $50,000 grant from the CIWMB toward construction of a reuse facility at MRTS. Of this amount $5,000 will be received this fiscal year, and $45,000 in the fall of 2003 unless the State budget process eliminates this item. The County’s grant application was ranked 6th out of thirty-eight by CIWMB. Generally, the costs of the recycling program are recovered from grants and property tax parcel charges, and do not require any money from the County general fund.

F8: As part of the County’s program to meet the state mandates, the County hired experienced people to fill the positions of Solid Waste Manager and Recycling Coordinator in 2001 and two technicians in 2002.

F9: PRC Section 40001 refers to the possible formation of a regional waste management entity to minimize duplication of effort and costs incurred. Section 41780.2 indicates that the unincorporated county and cities within the region would still individually have to meet the 50% requirement. However, Section 41787.1(d) states that a penalty on a rural regional agency is imposed only on a non-compliant member city or county.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The County, Grass Valley, and Nevada City should jointly investigate the advantages and disadvantages of working to establish a regional waste management entity.

F10: Twenty-two counties have met the 50% diversion mandate. Nevada County with 43%, ranks 11th among the thirty counties that have not yet met the requirements. The six remaining counties have not yet been considered by the CIWMB for the year 2000 diversion mandate.

Related Recommendations (2)

R2: The County, Grass Valley, and Nevada City should expand efforts to educate citizens concerning the need for their participation and cooperation in recycling and ensure that the public understands that in effect it is they, the taxpayers, who will be fined if the goals are not reached and maintained.

R3: The County, Grass Valley, and Nevada City should encourage participation of all employees in recycling programs by soliciting their ideas and publicly recognizing the best ones.

F11: Nevada City and Grass Valley are above the 50% diversion rate and have been working cooperatively with the County in recent years. CONCLUSIONS The fact that the CIWMB has granted the County the requested extension, as well as the designation of the year 2000 as a new base year (which was to the County’s advantage), indicates that the relatively recent changes which enhanced the County’s capability in the Waste Management and Recycling area have not gone unrewarded. The winning of a competitive $50,000 grant from the CIWMB further suggests the same conclusion. Realizing the 50% requirement by the end of 2004 despite the added capability may prove to be a bigger challenge. This is because many of the elements of the Plan of Correction may not be able to fully bear fruit until 2005. Thus, it will require the full support and participation on the part of the public to ensure that Nevada County successfully achieves the mandated 50% goal and avoids potential fines.

F2000: These programs also provide benefit through increased job creation and energy efficiency. Definitions of recycling, compost, biomass conversion, and source reduction are included in AB 939. PROCEDURE FOLLOWED The Grand Jury conducted interviews with: • Director of County Department of Transportation and Sanitation; • Solid Waste Manager of Nevada County; • County Recycling Coordinator; • A member of the Board of Supervisors who is a member of the Nevada County’s Solid and Hazardous Waste Commission; • City Managers and staff of Grass Valley and Nevada City. In addition, the Grand Jury reviewed relevant parts of the State law and other documents. FINDINGS 1. AB 939 is now incorporated in Division 30 of the California Public Resources Code (PRC). Section 41785 of the code provides that the year 2000 compliance due date may be extended through 2005, but not beyond, provided the County has made a good faith effort to implement source reduction, recycling, and composting measures.

Page 1

January 29, 2003 — Nevada County Wild Fire Preparedness Reason for Investigation

14 pages 10 findings 5 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 10 findings

F1: Public Safety funding became available in Fiscal Year (FY) 1994/95 under Proposition

F2: In FY 2001/02, NCCFD elected to use 12.3 percent ($19,150) of their portion of the unrestricted Proposition 172 allocation for their public education and fuel reduction program.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: Increase the allocation to the fire districts to at least the original 10 percent of the Proposition 172 Public Safety funds, but tie the increase to programs similar to NCCFD’s Fuel Management and Hazard Reduction Program;

F3: The NCCFD began a “Fuel Management and Hazard Reduction Program” in 1997 which now deals with both developed and undeveloped parcels within a residentially zoned target area. a) Developed parcels are inspected to ensure compliance with Section 4291 of the State Public Resources Code. Such inspections serve to remind property owners of the requirement to maintain “defensible space” around structures. b) Undeveloped parcels are inspected to ensure that they do not constitute a hazard to their neighbors. If a parcel is judged hazardous, an abatement order may be issued and the property owner is notified accordingly. If the owner fails to correct the problem, NCCFD may hire a contractor to remove the hazard and may attach a lien on the property to recover the costs.

F4: NCCFD personnel have met with local homeowner organizations to help formulate evacuation plans to be used in the event of a major wild fire.

F5: In 1998 and 1999, the Nevada County Board of Supervisors considered proposals to adopt a countywide vegetation ordinance similar to the NCCFD program. These proposals were not adopted.

F6: In October 2001, Nevada County received the first of five annual allotments (approximately $149,000) of Title III Forest Reserve funds from the US Forest Service. These funds may be utilized for fire prevention and county planning. Approximately $18,000 of the yearly amount is committed to an education program administered by the Nevada County Superintendent of Schools.

F7: For the fiscal year 2002/03, about $63,000 of the remaining $131,000 was allocated to the FSC in accordance with Board of Supervisors Resolution 02-371. Approximately $45,000 of the first year’s Forest Reserve allotment remains unallocated. This, when added to the second yearly allotment, leaves about $176,000 to be allocated in this fiscal year or carried over to subsequent years.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: Apply unallocated Forest Reserve funds to fire prevention and planning activities;

F8: The FSC of Nevada County is a non-profit organization dependent upon grants, donations, and community volunteers. It employs two full-time staff. a) The FSC provides educational materials and presentations relative to fire safety. It also operates a chipping program to encourage the establishment of defensible space, and provides brush-clearing assistance for low-income seniors who are unable to create and maintain their own defensible space. b) The FSC has provided large grinders at central locations where brush can be chipped more economically than with standard chippers. These chips are then hauled and sold to cogeneration facilities outside of the County to partially offset the cost of the chipping.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: Investigate the use of advanced technology, such as centrally located small cogeneration plants, which may reduce the cost of chipping programs;

F9: Nevada County’s Office of Emergency Services has helped coordinate shelter locations for evacuation situations. It has not identified safe major evacuation routes.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: Coordinate evacuation planning with the local fire districts;

F10: Despite the potential horrific impact of a major fire, similar to the Hayman Fire which consumed 138,000 acres south of Denver, Colorado this past summer, Nevada County has not estimated the direct fiscal threat to the County from reduced property and sales tax collections, as well as a demand for increased services, following such a fire. CONCLUSIONS

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: Estimate the cost to the County of a major wild fire and evaluate these potential costs with the adequacy of current funding for wild fire preparedness.

October 30, 2002 — Truckee Cable Franchise Review Reason for Investigation The Nevada County Grand Jury received a citizen complaint

6 pages 11 findings 3 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 11 findings

F1: Truckee’s Ordinance is incorporated by reference into its Agreement with USA Media.

F2: Section 8.5 of the Ordinance deals with subscriber complaints and disputes. If a customer complaint about cable company service remains unresolved, this section allows the subscriber to request the appointment of a hearing officer selected by the Town Manager. The costs of the hearing, if any, are to be paid by USA Media.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: Review procedures relative to resolving customer complaints to make sure they are consistent with the Ordinance and Agreement. REQUIRED RESPONSE Town of Truckee, Town Council by August 5, 2003

F3: Section 15.2 of the Ordinance, dealing with the procedure to remedy franchise violations, refers to an administrative public hearing to be held before a hearing officer designated by the Town Council. Section 2.7 of the Agreement also deals with the procedure to remedy franchise violations, and would prevail if any conflict exists between it and the Ordinance. The Agreement, while specifically calling for consistency with the procedures called for in section 15 of the Ordinance, states: “Breaches of customer service requirements shall not be considered on an individual basis.”

F4: In November 2002, the Town of Truckee established rules of procedure for conduct of an informal hearing regarding a cable television subscriber complaint.

F5: Section 9.1 of the Ordinance gives Truckee the right to conduct an independent financial audit. Should the audit indicate a franchise fee underpayment of two percent or more, USA Media shall pay for the audit.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: Conduct independent financial audits to assure that it is receiving all franchise fees due.

F6: Section 11.1 of the Ordinance gives Truckee the right to request a copy of the proof of performance tests conducted by USA Media. These tests establish that the cable system meets minimum Federal Communication Commission (FCC) technical standards.

F7: Section 13 of the Ordinance requires USA Media to maintain a complete set of records including a record of all service calls for the preceding two years, a set of cable system drawings, and a complaint record. The Town of Truckee has the right to request: a) a summary of service calls, either on a one-time basis or monthly, identifying the number, general nature, and disposition of such calls; b) a semi-annual report of customer complaints including number and classification of such complaints; c) an annual written report summarizing the previous year’s Cable System development activities; d) a full set of drawings showing locations of Cable System installations within the Town and updated portions when applicable.

F8: Section 13.4 of the Ordinance allows Truckee to require that USA Media conduct a Subscriber Satisfaction Survey as often as once every two years.

F9: Section 14.1 of the Ordinance allows Truckee to call for a public Biannual Review of system performance and quality of service.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: Strengthen its commitment to ensure that cable system subscribers are receiving the service and performance promised in the Agreement by more actively utilizing the powers granted to Truckee in the Ordinance.

F10: The effective date of the Agreement is February 1999. The Town of Truckee conducted their first Biannual Review on April 3, 2003.

F11: Prior to March 2003, Truckee did not avail itself of any of the rights specified in findings 5 through 8, above. CONCLUSIONS

October 25, 2002 — Special Districts Revenues and Reserves Reason for Investigation The Nevada County Grand Jury, in accordance with*

48 pages 7 findings 7 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 7 findings

F1: - Obviously, the Truckee Cemetery District responds only to the finding as to the information provided for them. The District disagrees with the finding that they hold $125,564 in reserves in that it is believed that that amount includes the District's budget for the entire year.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: of the Grand Jury was that each of the Special Districts listed should develop written guidelines governing The accumulation of retained earnings, and justify to its constituency that the amount maintained is reasonably prudent. The policy of this District is that if the income exceeds the budget by 10% the tax rate will be reduced. The amount shown in the 2000-2001 budget and through the 2003-2004 budgets show or will show a figure higher than 10%. This is due to grants received but not yet expended. The money is committed and will be expended in the current fiscal year. Respectfully submitted by John V. Taylor President . REC'D BY SUPERIOR COURT DATE:BY: 6-5 Follow ays

F2: - The Truckee Cemetery District is unable to respond to this finding except as it pertains to the Truckee Cemetery District.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: - Because the Truckee Cemetery District is not an enterprise district, it cannot respond to this recommendation.

F3: - The Truckee Cemetery District, replying only for itself, agrees that it currently files and annual audit.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: - Because this recommendation does not apply to Truckee Cemetery District, it obviously cannot act on that recommendation.

F4: - The Truckee Cemetery District does not respond to findings regarding other districts.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: - Because this recommendation does not apply to Truckee Cemetery District, it obviously cannot act on that recommendation.

F5: - The Truckee Cemetery District does not respond to findings regarding other districts.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: - Because the Truckee Cemetery District has no authority over the auditor-controller, it does not respond to this recommendation.

F6: - The Truckee Cemetery District agrees that the Government Code Section is accurately summarized.

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: - Because the Truckee Cemetery District has no authority over the auditor-controller, it does not respond to this recommendation.

F7: - The Truckee Cemetery District does not respond to findings regarding other districts. As to the recommendations, we reply as follows:

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: - This recommendation is being implemented and a copy of the Resolution to the Board of Supervisors is enclosed with this letter. We trust that this response complies with and satisfies the provisions of the Penal Code regarding responses to the Grand Jury's findings and recommendations. Yours truly, I P. COLLINSON BPC:caw Enclosure Truckee Cemetery District cc: BEFORE THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TRUCKEE CEMETERY DISTRICT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Truckee Cemetery District is a public cemetery district organized and operating pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Sections 8890 et seq., and WHEREAS, the Civil Grand Jury of Nevada County published its report and recommendations on April 23, 2003, and WHEREAS that report recommended that certain districts "consider taking advantage of the provision in California Government Code Section 2690(f) enabling the replacement of annual audits with biennial audits in order to lower their audit expense", and WHEREAS the Board of Trustees of the Truckee Cemetery District is desirous of reducing the District's expenses, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the Board of Trustees of the Truckee Cemetery District hereby unanimously requests the unanimous approval of the Board of Supervisors of Nevada County to replace the annual audit of the Truckee Cemetery District with a biennial audit covering a two-year period. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this unanimous request shall be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors of Nevada County so that they may act on this request. PASSED AND ADOPTED at the regularly scheduled meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Truckee Cemetery District by the following vote: AYES NOES: ABSENT: harow/šale/N ABSTAIN: Attest: 1/0 tole Kon Secretary/Clerk of the Board Dated: June 9, 2003 RESOLUTION Hem Spen du Truckee Donner Public Utility District Board of Directors Joseph R. Aguera J. Ronald Hemig FAX (530) 587-505 Jamos A. Maass (530) 587-3896 Business Office Patricia S. Sutton Nelson Van Gundy General Manager Peter L. Holzmeister # of Date ( 7671 Post-It® Fax Note June 20, 2003 From of must To υ Co. The Honorable Ersel L. Edwards co. posivada (aint 7-3896 Phone Nevada County Superior Court Superier and 201 Church Street Fax # Nevada City, CA 95959 Dear Judge Edwards; This letter is Truckee Donner Public Utility District's response to the Report of the Civil Grand Jury of Nevada County on the subject of Special Districts Revenues and Reserves. Respondent Truckee Donner PUD disagrees wholly with the findings contained in Table 1 in the column entitled "Reserves (a)". The Grand Jury Report finds that Truckee Donner PUD has $22,175,137 in reserves. On the bottom of the third page of the document sent by the Grand Jury, there is a reference to note "2" which states " For purposes of this report, the terms reserves, retained earnings, and fund balances are used interchangeably." The report preparer used the District's Retained Earnings balance of $22,175,137 as the amount of reserves held by the District. For the District, retained earnings represents something very different than reserves or fund SUPERIOR COURT balances. Retained earnings is an accumulation over time of the investment in the District's water and electric system assets paid for by our customers. These assets include pipelines, wells, storage tanks, pump stations, pole lines, substation transformers and the like. The only way to turn these assets into cash would be to sell the District's assets. Part of the confusion may come from the fact that the District had asked our auditors to call "Retained Earnings " "Customers' funds". 3 8 There are two sections to the CONCLUSIONS that we wish to address in our response. The ₻ Grand Jury Report states "The apparent reason enterprise district reserves are so high is that in ECD addition to receiving revenue from the county tax roles, these districts charge fees for their ₽¥. services. In many cases the customer base is of considerable size, diverse, and unable to obtain Œ comparable services from a competitive source. These conditions allow the fee structure to remain high with little recourse from the population served." Response: The Truckee Donner PUD does not receive any property tax or sales tax revenue from the county tax roles. The Counties (Placer and Nevada) do, however, collect standby revenue and Donner Lake Assessment District revenue for the District. The Counties also charge the District a fee for this service. The District holds public hearings for customer input when it is considering adoption of its annual operating and capital budgets and when considering increasing its rates. The Grand Jury Report goes on to state "A number of the Special Districts have reserves that appear to be excessive. Two enterprise districts stand out. Nevada Irrigation District with $167,327,953 which is over eight times its annual operating revenue, and Truckee Sanitary District with $10,765,946 which is almost five times its annual operating revenue." Response: As stated before, the Grand Jury report refers to the District's retained earnings as our reserves. As of December 31, 2001, the Truckee Donner PUD had a General Fund balance of $225,829 and a restricted funds balance of $7,534,072. $1,487,497 of this amount is required to be on reserve by our debt covenants. The balance is restricted for specific projects and purposes. It would be helpful to have a definition of Reserves in order to categorize our restricted funds properly. The report of the Grand Jury makes several recommendations that we now wish to respond to.

July 03, 2002 — Correctional and Holding Facilities in Nevada County Reason for Investigation California Penal Code Section 919(B)

16 pages 6 findings 3 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 6 findings

F1: Nevada County crime statistics for 2002 are down from 2001 in all categories with the exception of assaults and vehicle theft. Robbery -54% Rape -42% Homicide -33% Burglary -13% Larceny -13% Vehicle Theft +33% Assault + 7%

F2: Average overtime in the sheriff’s department for 2002, by sergeants and deputies, was eight hours per two-week pay period.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: With a year’s worth of information concerning the level of activity at the Truckee substation, the staffing level should be reviewed to assure adequate coverage without excessive overtime.

F3: Per the Sheriff’s office, video conferencing is available at the WBCF to use for court hearings and arraignments. Although statistics are not kept on usage, the Grand Jury was informed that the courts located in Nevada City seldom use it. Video arraignments are requested and scheduled an average of two to three times a week by the bailiff at the Truckee court.

F4: Prisoners held at the Wayne Brown Correctional Facility must be transported to courthouses in either Nevada City or Truckee for court appearances and trials.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The Board of Supervisors, Superior Courts, the Sheriff’s Department, and other appropriate county agencies should study the future construction of a court complex adjacent to WBCF. Although budget constraints currently may prohibit construction, it is time for proactive planning to accommodate the county’s continuing growth and to improve the efficient utilization of personnel and resources.

F5: WBCF staff members have the responsibility for transporting inmates as needed. Wayne Brown Correctional Facility

F6: The substation needs staff locker rooms, additional storage, and more office space than is currently allocated. Nevada County Courthouse Holding Facility

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: The Truckee substation should be allowed to expand into the vacant 2,300 square- foot-area in the present building to accommodate locker rooms, office space, break room, and secure storage.

Nevada County Utility Franchises Reason for Investigation The Grand Jury wants to make certain that appropriate

25 pages 12 findings 15 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 12 findings

F1: The 2000-2001 Grand Jury in recommendation No.1 of the Franchise Utility Report stated: “The responsible county officials should: Review and update the County Code (Nevada County General Code Chapter II: Franchises) to: include all utility franchises operating within the county; establish a definitive method for calculating each franchise fee; establish procedures to insure that the county is receiving all agreed-to fees from franchises operating within the County. These procedures should include audits and/or other reviews of each franchise.” The Board on September 11, 2001 responded: “The recommendation has not been acted upon and requires further analysis to be completed by January 31, 2002. Implementation is anticipated by June 30, 2002.” Subsequently the following occurred: The Board issued MO 01-70 on September 11, 2001 directing the County Administrator, the County Counsel and the Auditor-Controller to review the Grand Jury’s recommendations with implementation of the

Related Recommendations (3)

R1: For two consecutive years, the Board has failed to meet its commitment pertaining to the 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 Grand Jury reports on Franchise Utilities.

R01-70: only pertains to Utility Franchises, these statements imply that updates to the Utility Franchise sections of the county code were underway. The Grand Jury has found no evidence of any such work in progress. 6. The Board on May 14, 2002, closed MO 01-70 even though the proscribed actions were not yet complete and without written responses from two of the three parties required to take action on the MO. The Board’s failure to require any evidence that this MO was being complied with, and the action by the Board to close out this MO without two of the required responses cast doubt on the effectiveness of the MO process. 7. In September 2002, MO’s 01-71, 01-72, and 01-73 were all past due. On September 10, 2002, these three MO’s were closed so that they could be incorporated into new MO 02-38 with extended due dates. As far as the Grand Jury can ascertain, the only reason to do this was to remove overdue MO’s from the record and give the appearance that the MO’s were current. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The Board should take immediate, definitive and conclusive actions to update the County Code (Nevada County General Code Chapter II: Franchises) to: • Identify and include all utility franchises operating within the county. • Establish a definitive method for calculating each franchise fee. • Establish procedures to ensure that the county is receiving all agreed-to fees from franchises operating within the county. These procedures should include audits and/or other reviews of each franchise. 2. Immediately following the update to the County Code, the Board should ensure, with the Auditor-Controller, that audits are immediately initiated and concluded in a timely and appropriate manner for each franchise as stated in the updated County Code. 3. The Board should again review the MO process, to ensure that compliance of MO’s is opportune, specific, detailed, and that MO’s are not closed out prematurely or without the proscribed action having been concluded. REQUIRED RESPONSES Board of Supervisors – July 1, 2003 Auditor-Controller – June 2, 2003 ADDENDUM A NEVADA COUNTY UTILITY FRANCHISES PLAN AND SCHEDULE Report on Minute Orders 02-38 & 02-39 The following recommendations were made by the 2000/2001 Nevada County Civil Grand Jury in its Interim Report No.14, dated June 18, 2002 relating to the investigation of the County's procedures and practices regarding utility franchises operating in the County: The responsible county officials should: 1. Review and update the County Code (Nevada County General Code Chapter II: Franchises) to: • Include all utility franchises operating within the county. • Establish a definitive method for calculating each franchise fee. • Establish procedures to insure that the county is receiving all agreed-to fees from franchises operating within the county. These procedures should include audits and/or other reviews of each franchise. 2. Perform the required audits and/or reviews, as stated in the updated County Code, of each franchise at the earliest opportunity. The County Board of Supervisors and various County Officials have responded to the Grand Jury's recommendation and, for the most part, agreed with the recommendations. On September 10, 2002 the Board of Supervisors issued Minute Order 02-38 directing the County Executive Officer, Auditor-Controller, and County Counsel to do the following: You are hereby directed to accomplish updating the existing County Code in cooperation with the directors of the concerned departments and the Auditor Controller. County Counsel is also directed to assist with research and responses to legal issues as they may arise and with final drafting of ordinance amendments that may be deemed necessary by the Board. You are also directed to report back to the Board by January 14, 2003 with a plan and a schedule for accomplishing the review and update of the Code. You are hereby directed, in coordination with the Auditor-Controller, to evaluate the Grand Jury response and make a recommendation to the Board as to the implementation of a regular franchise fee audit program and/or other alternatives to regular formal audits. During the period since the 2000/2001 Grand Jury issued its recommendations and the date of this report, the following activities have begun and are ongoing: PG&E Bankruptcy The County has participated along with other counties in the state in complex negotiations with PG&E over franchise related matters in the company's "Plan of Reorganization". In association with other counties, outside counsel has been retained to represent the County in these negotiations, which are active and unresolved as of this date. If the bankruptcy court approves PG&E's "Plan of Reorganization” it will result in the company splitting into multiple entities and by some estimates result in higher franchise fees being generated for Nevada County. Cable Television Audits The Auditor-Controller has contracted with a consulting firm, The Buske Group, to conduct audits for the period of October 1998 to September 2002 of two Cable Television Franchises USA Media and AT&T. These audits have been completed at a cost of approximately $20,000 and have identified underpayments of approximately $54,000. Drafts of these audits have been provided to the Cable Television companies for their responses. The Auditor- Controller's next step after receiving final responses from the franchises will be to send the audits to the CEO for further action as needed. Cable Television Franchise Negotiations The County has entered into contracts with the consulting firm, The Buske Group, to conduct negotiations with the cable television companies, USA Media and AT&T, who's contracts expire in 6/03 and 4/04 respectively. These negotiations are ongoing. Negotiations for Transfer of the Eastern Solid Waste System to Town of Truckee The County has concluded negotiations for the transfer of the eastern County solid waste franchise to the Town of Truckee. Audit Verification Methodology Research The County has begun to research companies with the expertise required and with cost effective audit/verification methods for future attest of franchise fees. On September 10, 2002 the Board of Supervisors issued Minute Order 02-39 directing the County Executive Officer, Auditor-Controller, and Director of Personnel to do the following: You are hereby directed, in cooperation with the Auditor-Controller and the Director of Personnel, to determine and report back to the Board by February 28, 2003, if there is a need for additional staffing in the Auditor-Controller's office to audit and verify the accuracy of the franchise fees. If additional staffing is needed, the staffing increase will be considered as part of the FY 2003/04 budget process. Additional staffing was approved for the Auditor's Office in the Fiscal Year 2002/03 Budget. A full- time Accountant Auditor I and a temporary Senior Accounting Assistant were added to implement GASB 34 and the new accounting system. The Accountant Auditor I was approved for FY 2002/03 through 2004 and will be re-considered for 2004/05. The need for further additional staffing is currently under evaluation. Per the Board of Supervisors Minute Orders 02-38 and 02-39, the following plan is presented: 1. The County will continue with PG&E negotiations and maximize its' future franchise fees under the PG&E "Plan of Reorganization". 2. The County will negotiate new Cable Television Franchise Agreements with USA Media. 3. The Auditor-Controller will continue to audit Cable Television Franchise Agreements as required by current County Code at least every three years. 4. The County Executive and County Counsel will update the County Code for Utility Franchises, including the following: a) Review of existing Code for consistency with State Statute b) Determination of franchises to be covered including additions such as telephone utilities and wireless networks c) Determination of responsible County officials d) Determination of consistent, effective and verifiable fee basis for each franchise type e) Incorporation of applicable

R01-73: which were addressed to the County Administrator and were issued because of the 2000-2001 Grand Jury recommendations on Utility Franchises and which had return dates of June 30, 2002. No action had been taken on MO 01-71, 01-72 and 01-73. MO

F2: The 2000-2001 Grand Jury in recommendation No. 2 of the Franchise Utility Report stated: “Perform the required audits and/or reviews, as stated in the updated County Code, of each franchise at the earliest opportunity.” On September 11, 2001, the Board in response to this recommendation stated: “The County Administrator is additionally directed to review other county utility franchise agreements and County Code requirements and determine if and to what extent an audit or examination of franchises books is justified. Any required financial reviews or audits are also to be completed by June 30, 2002.” In addition, on September 11, 2001 the Board issued MO 01-71, 01-72 and 01-73 directing the County Administrator to carry out the Board’s response to the 2000-2001 Grand Jury recommendation No. 2 by June 30, 2002.

Related Recommendations (2)

R2: The County has been shorted approximately $88,000 in franchise fees, as evidenced by the Cable TV reviews performed to date. Since reviews have not been performed on the other four franchise companies, we cannot ascertain what additional monies could be collected.

R02-38: directed the CEO to report to the Board by January 14, 2003 with a plan and a schedule for accomplishing the review and update of the Code. On February 4, 2003, the Board accepted a report from the CEO addressing requirements in MO 02-38 (see Addendum A). Pursuant to this report the Board closed MO 02-38. 7. On July 12, 2002, in a letter to the Honorable Judge Ersel Edwards, the Auditor- Controller reported that he had received funding of $20,000 on March 26, 2002 to perform franchise audits of AT&T and USA Media. He further reported that the county purchasing agent had approved two contracts with the Buske Group to perform the audits and that the expected completion date of the audits was August 31, 2002. 8. On October 30, 2002, C2 Consulting Services, Inc. provided a review of the cable services franchise fees received by the County of Nevada from USA Media Group LLC for the period April 1999 through June 2002. This review found an underpayment to the County of Nevada of $24,837 including interest. 9. On January 13, 2003, C2 Consulting Services, Inc. provided a preliminary report of a review of the cable services franchise fees received by the County of Nevada from AT&T for the period October 1998 through September 2002. Although this report is still preliminary, it found an underpayment to the County of $63,064 including interest. 10. The USA Media Group LLC and AT&T reviews were not concluded by the Board’s committed date of June 30, 2002 or by the expected completion date of August 31, 2002 provided by the Auditor-Controller on July 12, 2002. The Grand Jury has not received the final review for AT&T. 11. In fiscal year 2001-2002, the County of Nevada collected $798,268.69 from franchise fees. See Table below: County of Nevada – Franchise Fees Type Franchisee FY 2001-2002 Cable USA Media $52,423.58 AT&T 102,409.92 154,833.50 Garbage Collection Waste Management 174,962.44 Tahoe Truckee 134,387.71 309,350.15 Electric PG&E 272,161.42 Sierra Pacific Power 19,028.86 291,190.28 Gas PG&E 42,894.76 Totals $798,268.69 12. At the request of the Grand Jury, County Counsel is researching if the County has the right to charge franchise fees of any other utilities, (e.g., SBC and NID). CONCLUSIONS 1. For two consecutive years, the Board has failed to meet its commitment pertaining to the 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 Grand Jury reports on Franchise Utilities. 2. The County has been shorted approximately $88,000 in franchise fees, as evidenced by the Cable TV reviews performed to date. Since reviews have not been performed on the other four franchise companies, we cannot ascertain what additional monies could be collected. 3. Relating to the two Grand Jury reports on Utility Franchise fees the Board issued MO’s 01-70, 01-71, 01-72, 01-73, 02-38 and 02-39. The Grand Jury can find little evidence that any action resulted from these Minute Orders, with the exception of the recent reviews of two of the six franchise companies. 4. As recently as February 4, 2003, in a response from the CEO to the Board on MO’s

F3: The 2001-2002 Grand Jury issued another report on Utility Franchises with four

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: Relating to the two Grand Jury reports on Utility Franchise fees the Board issued MO’s 01-70, 01-71, 01-72, 01-73, 02-38 and 02-39. The Grand Jury can find little evidence that any action resulted from these Minute Orders, with the exception of the recent reviews of two of the six franchise companies.

F4: The report on Utility Franchises by the 2001-2002 Grand Jury issued recommendation No. 2: “Once the County Code is updated, the Auditor-Controller should conduct regular audits of all county franchise fees.” The Board responded on September 10, 2002 by stating: “The recommendation will not be implemented as stated.” The Board issued MO 02-38 that directed the CEO, in coordination with the Auditor- Controller as follows: “You are hereby directed, in coordination with the Auditor- Controller, to evaluate the Grand Jury response and make a recommendation to the Board as to the implementation of a regular franchise fee audit program and/or other alternatives to regular formal audits.” A return date of January 14, 2003 was specified on MO 02-38. On February 4, 2003, the Board accepted a report from the CEO addressing MO 02-38 (see Addendum A). Pursuant to this report the Board closed M0 02-38.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: As recently as February 4, 2003, in a response from the CEO to the Board on MO’s 02-38 and 02-39, we find continued procrastination and lack of specificity in accomplishing any substantial results relating to the update of the County Code regarding Utility Franchises.

F5: The report on Utility Franchises by the 2001-2002 Grand Jury issued recommendation No. 3: “The Auditor-Controller should have an employee in his department to audit and verify the accuracy of these franchise fees.” The Board on September 10, 2002 responded to this recommendation by stating: “The

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: The report on Utility Franchises by the 2001-2002 Grand Jury issued recommendation No. 3: “The Auditor-Controller should have an employee in his department to audit and verify the accuracy of these franchise fees.” The Board on September 10, 2002 responded to this recommendation by stating: “The recommendation requires further analysis to be completed by February 28, 2003.” On September 10, 2002, the Board issued MO 02-39 directing the CEO as follows: “You are hereby directed in cooperation with the Auditor-Controller and the Director of Personnel, to determine and report back to the Board by February 28, 2003 if there is a need for additional staffing in the Auditor-Controller’s office to audit and verify the accuracy of the franchise fees. If additional staffing is required, the staffing increase will be considered as part of the FY 2003/2004 budget process.” On February 4, 2003, the Board accepted a report from the CEO addressing MO 02-39 (see Addendum A). Pursuant to this report the Board closed MO 02-39.

F6: The report on Utility Franchises by the 2001-2002 Grand Jury issued recommendation No. 4: “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.” On September 10, 2002, the Board responded to this recommendation by saying: “The

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: The report on Utility Franchises by the 2001-2002 Grand Jury issued recommendation No. 4: “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.” On September 10, 2002, the Board responded to this recommendation by saying: “The recommendation has not yet been fully implemented, but will be as stated in the Board response to Recommendation Number 1. The CEO has been directed to develop, in cooperation with concerned departments and the Auditor-Controller, a work plan and schedule for accomplishing a review and update of the County Code regarding franchises and report back to the Board by January 14, 2003. The franchise fee audits are presently scheduled to be completed on September 30, 2002.” On September 10, 2002, the Board issued MO 02-38, which directed the CEO, the Auditor-Controller and the County Counsel to take action on Recommendations No. 1 & No. 4 of the 2001-2002 Grand Jury report. MO 02-38 incorporated MO 01-71, 01-72 and 01-73 which were addressed to the County Administrator and were issued because of the 2000-2001 Grand Jury recommendations on Utility Franchises and which had return dates of June 30, 2002. No action had been taken on MO 01-71, 01-72 and 01-73. MO 02-38 directed the CEO to report to the Board by January 14, 2003 with a plan and a schedule for accomplishing the review and update of the Code. On February 4, 2003, the Board accepted a report from the CEO addressing requirements in MO 02-38 (see Addendum A). Pursuant to this report the Board closed MO 02-38.

F7: On July 12, 2002, in a letter to the Honorable Judge Ersel Edwards, the Auditor- Controller reported that he had received funding of $20,000 on March 26, 2002 to perform franchise audits of AT&T and USA Media. He further reported that the county purchasing agent had approved two contracts with the Buske Group to perform the audits and that the expected completion date of the audits was August 31, 2002.

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: On July 12, 2002, in a letter to the Honorable Judge Ersel Edwards, the Auditor- Controller reported that he had received funding of $20,000 on March 26, 2002 to perform franchise audits of AT&T and USA Media. He further reported that the county purchasing agent had approved two contracts with the Buske Group to perform the audits and that the expected completion date of the audits was August 31, 2002.

F8: On October 30, 2002, C2 Consulting Services, Inc. provided a review of the cable services franchise fees received by the County of Nevada from USA Media Group LLC for the period April 1999 through June 2002. This review found an underpayment to the County of Nevada of $24,837 including interest.

Related Recommendations (1)

R8: On October 30, 2002, C2 Consulting Services, Inc. provided a review of the cable services franchise fees received by the County of Nevada from USA Media Group LLC for the period April 1999 through June 2002. This review found an underpayment to the County of Nevada of $24,837 including interest.

F9: On January 13, 2003, C2 Consulting Services, Inc. provided a preliminary report of a review of the cable services franchise fees received by the County of Nevada from AT&T for the period October 1998 through September 2002. Although this report is still preliminary, it found an underpayment to the County of $63,064 including interest.

Related Recommendations (1)

R9: On January 13, 2003, C2 Consulting Services, Inc. provided a preliminary report of a review of the cable services franchise fees received by the County of Nevada from AT&T for the period October 1998 through September 2002. Although this report is still preliminary, it found an underpayment to the County of $63,064 including interest.

F10: The USA Media Group LLC and AT&T reviews were not concluded by the Board’s committed date of June 30, 2002 or by the expected completion date of August 31, 2002 provided by the Auditor-Controller on July 12, 2002. The Grand Jury has not received the final review for AT&T.

Related Recommendations (1)

R10: The USA Media Group LLC and AT&T reviews were not concluded by the Board’s committed date of June 30, 2002 or by the expected completion date of August 31, 2002 provided by the Auditor-Controller on July 12, 2002. The Grand Jury has not received the final review for AT&T.

F11: In fiscal year 2001-2002, the County of Nevada collected $798,268.69 from franchise fees. See Table below: County of Nevada – Franchise Fees Type Franchisee FY 2001-2002 Cable USA Media $52,423.58 AT&T 102,409.92 154,833.50 Garbage Collection Waste Management 174,962.44 Tahoe Truckee 134,387.71 309,350.15 Electric PG&E 272,161.42 Sierra Pacific Power 19,028.86 291,190.28 Gas PG&E 42,894.76 Totals $798,268.69

Related Recommendations (1)

R11: In fiscal year 2001-2002, the County of Nevada collected $798,268.69 from franchise fees. See Table below: County of Nevada – Franchise Fees Type Franchisee FY 2001-2002 Cable USA Media $52,423.58 AT&T 102,409.92 154,833.50 Garbage Collection Waste Management 174,962.44 Tahoe Truckee 134,387.71 309,350.15 Electric PG&E 272,161.42 Sierra Pacific Power 19,028.86 291,190.28 Gas PG&E 42,894.76 Totals $798,268.69

F12: At the request of the Grand Jury, County Counsel is researching if the County has the right to charge franchise fees of any other utilities, (e.g., SBC and NID). CONCLUSIONS

Related Recommendations (1)

R12: At the request of the Grand Jury, County Counsel is researching if the County has the right to charge franchise fees of any other utilities, (e.g., SBC and NID). 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.