Nevada County Grand Jury
2004-2005
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
The District Attorney’s office has an annual budget of almost $2.8 million
F2:
According to the District Attorney’s office, approximately 72% of their criminal caseloads are meth related.
F3:
The Probation Department has an annual budget of approximately $3 million for adult offenders.
F4:
In fiscal year 2003 - 2004, 36% of the people supervised by Probation were substance abuse related offenders.
F5:
The Public Defender’s office has an annual budget of nearly $1.3 million. ______________________________________________________________________________________ Grand Jury 0405 Law Report
F6:
The Public Defender’s office reports that at least 50% of their cases are related to meth.
F7:
The Behavioral Health Department has an annual budget close to $1.8 million for alcohol and drug programs. They provide and oversee treatment of meth users in Nevada County using several sources of funding. The chart below shows the funds used for the treatment of meth users according to the information provided by Behavioral Health staff: Total Used for Meth Source of Funds Treatment Proposition 36 $ 385,000 State General Funds 203,264 Substance Abuse Prevention & 650,069 Treatment Block Grant (SAPT) Total $1,238,333
F8:
The average daily population of Wayne Brown Correctional Facility (WBCF) is 200 inmates of which 90 (45%) are incarcerated on meth or meth related charges. The cost to the taxpayer is $58 per day to house an inmate. Based on these figures the annual cost to house inmates for meth related charges in WBCF would be approximately $2 million.
F9:
Many individuals and departments funded by the taxpayers are involved in the arrest, prosecution and incarceration of a meth user. These include city police, sheriff’s department, judges, bailiff, court reporter, court staff, probation officer, district attorney staff and public defender staff. The cost to prosecute, defend, incarcerate and monitor the probation of one person was as follows: Department Total Court (Judges, court reporter, bailiff and staff salaries) $ 4,205 District Attorney’s Office 2,600 Public Defender’s Office 2,835 Probation Officer 6,075 Probation Department – other 1,143 Wayne Brown Correctional Facility 6,496 Sheriff’s Department – transportation 1,565 Total $24,919 The above is solely staffing costs, and does not include operating and overhead expenses, except for WBCF. ______________________________________________________________________________________ Grand Jury 0405 Law Report
Related Recommendations (4)
R1:
The Board of Supervisors should take the lead in the war on methamphetamine in Nevada County.
R2:
In order to fully grasp the county’s methamphetamine problem, the Board of Supervisors should establish a process to systematically collect and evaluate the costs to the county related to the methamphetamine epidemic.
R3:
The Board of Supervisors should aggressively pursue grant funding to address the methamphetamine problem in Nevada County.
R4:
The Board of Supervisors should mandate departments and agencies to freely share statistics and information with each other regarding methamphetamine in order to coordinate programs to maximize county resources.
F10:
It should also be noted the person whose case was followed for this report has been arrested and prosecuted numerous times for meth related offenses. CONCLUSIONS
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
11 findings
F1:
The Pentamation system now enables the County to comply with the newly mandated state and federal general accounting standards and provides transparency with the public.
F2:
A major enhancement to Pentamation, implemented in mid 2005, is the Graphics User Interface (GUI) release. The release provides easier information access through the internet, improves functionality, and is user friendly.
F3:
A comprehensive and continuous employee-training program has been established which includes a new dedicated computer training room. The program employs “train the trainer” methodology which allows for additional training and support within departments.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Nevada County Board of Supervisors should direct the CEO to continue the successful training program for all involved employees.
F4:
The Pentamation system permits for additional levels of cost collection within the chart of accounts enabling departments to better track their expenditures. Pentamation also has the capability to provide numerical summaries and analysis.
F5:
Users state that Pentamation’s budget planning feature has the capability to improve the annual budget allocation process. It also supports budget adjustments during the year.
F6:
Nevada County belongs to the national Pentamation Users Group. The group provides the opportunity to discuss problems of mutual interest, share best practices, and develop improvements with other Pentamation users from other county governments.
F7:
The Pentamation purchase-order receiving function is not being utilized, resulting in uncertainty as to outstanding liabilities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Nevada County Board of Supervisors should direct the CEO to require the utilization of the Pentamation purchase order receiving function.
F8:
The County does not have a single entry time collection system that feeds both the Cost Accountying Management System (CAMS) and Pentamation. CAMS is a job tracking system used by the Department of Transportation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Nevada County Board of Supervisors should direct the CEO to incorporate the Pentamation time entry module being developed by the Design Group. This should ensure that the time entry module updates both Pentamation and CAMS.
F9:
The County is participating with other counties in a Pentamation design group. This Design Group is working to develop a new web based time entry module.
F10:
The Treasurer-Tax Collector Department continues to use a 30-year-old legacy system for tax collection functions. While Pentamation supports the treasury function, it does not now support the tax collection function.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Nevada County Board of Supervisors should direct the CEO, with input from the Treasurer-Tax Collector, to investigate the availability of new tax collection software that is compatible with Pentamation.
F11:
In combination with the installation of Pentamation in 2003, the County has been engaged in adopting a number of state of the art technologies to enhance the goal of attaining e-government status. These include a land management and permitting system, a new website (www.mynevadacounty.com) with e-mail contacts, Customer Resource Management (CRM), document imaging, workflow redesign, enhanced video teleconferencing, Global Positioning System (GPS), and network FAX/printing/scanning. Grand Jury 0405 Audit & Finance CONCLUSIONS
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Nevada County Board of Supervisors should direct the CEO to continue to ensure the citizens’ ability to access county information on-line and improve their ability to conduct business with the County.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
Since 2000, the County Drug Court has discontinued referrals to MIR due to inappropriate behavior by the program facilitator that included writing a letter containing false allegations against County Probation staff and signing client names to the letter.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
The BOS should direct the CEO to work with Drug Court to study and determine the best way to deliver drug recovery programs within the county.
R3:
The BOS should direct the CEO to ensure that BH reestablishes good working relationships with all related county and external agencies in order to provide county-led recovery programs accessible to all qualified participants.
F2:
The responsible manager at the time characterized MIR as “the shining star of Behavioral Health,” even complimenting the program facilitator for not letting external forces distract or influence conduct of the program, when in fact the program facilitator had been disciplined for inappropriate behavior with an external agency.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The BOS should direct the CEO to ensure that BH reestablishes good working relationships with all related county and external agencies in order to provide county-led recovery programs accessible to all qualified participants.
F3:
The Human Resources (HR) department took fourteen months to complete an investigation into a county employee’s complaint filed in 2003 of a hostile working environment caused by the program facilitator of the MIR program. Although HR conducted interviews regarding the complaint, no one from the complainant’s list of nineteen witnesses was interviewed. HR found “no merit” to the allegations of a hostile work environment.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The BOS should direct the CEO to review the current policy regarding complaints and/or grievances involving county employees and to ensure timely and thorough completion of investigations by HR.
F4:
The Grand Jury was unable to find any established, written protocol for operation of the MIR program. There is evidence that this lack of structure has led to allegations of favoritism and unequal treatment of clients by the facilitator of the program.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Board of Supervisors (BOS) should direct the CEO to suspend operation of the MIR program until proper management and treatment protocols can be ensured. Current clients should be re-directed to other programs.
F5:
At least one MIR program client has filed a formal complaint with the county alleging that MIR staff compromised therapist-client confidentiality.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Board of Supervisors (BOS) should direct the CEO to suspend operation of the MIR program until proper management and treatment protocols can be ensured. Current clients should be re-directed to other programs.
F6:
Evidence shows a history within BH of certain staff filing false accusations shortly before performance reviews are due resulting in changes of supervisors and delay of anticipated poor reviews. For example, there have been four different supervisors for the MIR program facilitator in less than two years, including the Director of BH.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The BOS should direct the CEO to ensure that BH management strictly adheres to personnel code requirements regarding timely and accurate employee evaluations and that all supervisors, managers, and directors are held accountable for maintaining a supportive and cooperative work environment for county employees.
F7:
Recently, a few drug recovery program staff members from BH filed a grievance with the county’s HR department against their current supervisor shortly before their performance reviews were due. The grievance was promptly investigated and found to be without merit by HR.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The BOS should direct the CEO to ensure that BH management strictly adheres to personnel code requirements regarding timely and accurate employee evaluations and that all supervisors, managers, and directors are held accountable for maintaining a supportive and cooperative work environment for county employees.
F8:
Several BH clients have been made to wait for hours for appointments with drug recovery program staff that are reportedly chronically late or fail to show up.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Board of Supervisors (BOS) should direct the CEO to suspend operation of the MIR program until proper management and treatment protocols can be ensured. Current clients should be re-directed to other programs.
F9:
The Director of BH has allowed inappropriate behavior such as repeated false allegations against co-workers and poor attendance by a few drug recovery program staff to continue with little or no disciplinary action taken. CONCLUSIONS
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The BOS should direct the CEO to take immediate action to determine the root cause of the current hands-off management style within BH and work to cleanse the department of the atmosphere caused by a failure to appropriately discipline staff. Such action should include progressive discipline, letters of reprimand, administrative leave, suspension, and/or termination.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
12 findings
F1:
The following chart shows the growth in drug related arrests in Nevada County from 2000 thru 2004. Nevada County - Total Drug Related Arrests 600 488 500 463 377 400 298 300 176 200 100 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 stserrA
F2:
Methamphetamine usage can result in hyperactivity, disturbed sleep patterns, irritability, paranoia, aggressive behavior, shortness of breath, involuntary muscle movements, malnutrition, and severe depression with suicidal tendencies. Chronic users may develop sores on their bodies from scratching at "crank bugs," which describes the common delusion that bugs are crawling under the skin. Long term use may lead to fatal kidney and lung disease, brain damage, liver damage, stroke, lowered resistance to illnesses and permanent psychological problems.
F3:
Methamphetamine is one of the most addictive drugs. It is potentially addictive from the first use.
F4:
After methamphetamine use is stopped, several withdrawal symptoms can occur, including depression, anxiety, fatigue, paranoia, aggression, and an intense craving for the drug. Psychotic symptoms can sometimes persist for months or years after use has ceased.
F5:
Many of the items required to produce methamphetamine are readily available at the local grocery and hardware store. Because many of the chemicals used to make meth are explosive, caustic and known carcinogens, they pose serious health hazards if ingested. The chemicals can create dangerous gases, fire or explosions if mixed together or stored improperly.
F6:
With an investment of $200 to $300, a batch of methamphetamine can be manufactured (cooked) and sold for a street value of approximately $8,000.
F7:
The potential risk to the environment is significant. The ratio of waste materials to finished product is approximately 6 to 1. For every pound of methamphetamine manufactured there are six pounds of toxic waste materials that must be disposed. Meth producers have been known to leave waste at the site, dump it into streams and rivers, spread it out over open fields, dump into sewage systems or leave it in garbage bags for the local trash collector. Motel or hotel rooms may be used for the purpose of manufacturing meth. This may result in toxic fumes that expose other guests and the cleaning staff to health hazards. The chemical vapors produced during the manufacturing process permeate the walls and carpets, making them uninhabitable. Cleaning up these sites requires specialized training and costs an average of $2,000-$4,000 per site in funds that come out of the already-strained budgets of state and local police.
F8:
The manufacture of methamphetamine is hard to prevent as the process is simple and involves uncomplicated equipment and supplies. A producer can set up a lab in a garage, bathroom or kitchen of a residence, a small shed, or in a vehicle. They often cook up a batch and then move on.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3:
Community members should assist law enforcement in uncovering methamphetamine labs by being aware of suspicious odors, trash, and unusual traffic flow in their neighborhoods through neighborhood watch programs, homeowners associations, etc.
R4:
All agencies should encourage and cooperate with citizens' methamphetamine suppression efforts. Agencies should expand efforts to inform community residents about the meth problem and how to deal with it, and where possible to provide resources for community meth suppression efforts. NO RESPONSE REQUIRED
F9:
Methamphetamine use during pregnancy results in a higher risk of premature births, babies with low birth weight, cardiac blockages and birth defects. The use of meth during pregnancy impacts the fetus by reducing blood flow or by a direct toxic effect on the developing brain.
F10:
Children who are exposed to methamphetamine via second hand smoke can have detectable levels of meth found in their urine. They are often subjected to physical and emotional neglect as a result of addicted parents. Children who are legally removed from a meth environment cannot take their clothing and toys due to contamination.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Agencies that deal with families who are affected by methamphetamine must share information and work together to provide ongoing needed services.
F11:
Many Child Protective Service and domestic violence cases are directly related to the use of methamphetamine by a parent or family member. The following chart shows the growth in child endangerment arrests in Nevada County from 2000 thru
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Agencies that deal with families who are affected by methamphetamine must share information and work together to provide ongoing needed services.
F12:
Substance abuse programs available in Nevada County include: a. Community Recovery Resources (http://www.corr.us/corrservices.htm) b. Hope House (http://www: corr.us/hopehouse.htm) c. Progress House (formerly Lovett House) d. Mothers in Recovery (Behavioral Health) e. The Probation Department gives an educational and informative presentation to schools and other groups in Nevada County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Education is the primary weapon that must be used to combat the methamphetamine epidemic. The Grand Jury strongly recommends the Substance Abuse Task Force continue in its education of the citizens of Nevada County.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
21 findings
F1:
All fire agencies in Nevada County participate with and rely on the ECC for communications and dispatching. The ECC has developed a new software program system, “MapTool”, which provides key data such as location, access and water sources for firefighters responding to the emergency. This software is also utilized in the field via laptop computers mounted in the fire agencies’ apparatus.
F2:
When a 911 call is received within Nevada County, if it is not a crime related call for the police or sheriff’s office, the call is immediately connected to the ECC, which sends a call to the appropriate FPD or City Fire Department. These calls go not only to the fire stations but to pagers worn by volunteers and paid call firefighters.
F3:
The Nevada County FPDs provide the first emergency response to fire, accident and medical emergencies within their jurisdiction. Services provided by these FPDs include fire prevention, fire suppression, hazardous material response, medical emergencies, highway accidents, rescue and public assistance. Fire suppression accounts for approximately 20% of the total calls.
F4:
The remaining 80% of calls are non-fire related. They include emergency medical service (EMS), and in some cases advanced life support (ALS), personal assistance, rescue and hazardous material response.
F5:
In Nevada County, emergency response is provided by the fire departments of the cities of Grass Valley and Nevada City, the ten independent FPDs plus CDF and the US Forest Service. Table A (data from LAFCo MSR) indicates the area served and average response time of the 10 independent FPDs. Table A FPD Areas and Response times Area Average Fire Protection District Square Miles Response* Western Nevada County North San Juan FPD 70 10 Penn Valley FPD 92 9 Higgins Area FPD 90 6.5 Rough and Ready FPD 9 5 Central Nevada County Ophir Hill FPD 9 5 Peardale/Chicago Park FPD 21 8 Washington Co. Water Dist. 2.5 12 Nev. Co. Consolidated FPD 143 6 Eastern Nevada County Donner Summit PUD 100 8 Truckee FPD 66 5 *Average response in minutes
F6:
Nevada County Consolidated FPD was created by combining five small FPDs resulting in the largest FPD in the county. This FPD is the largest in terms of number of parcels, number of fire stations and square miles of territory.
F7:
Within each of the three areas of the county there is at least one large FPD that operates twenty-four hours per day, 7 days a week with full time career firefighters. Smaller FPDs are mostly staffed by volunteers or paid call firefighters. See Table B.
F8:
The Insurance Service Office (ISO) rates all FPDs. The ISO is a nationwide nonprofit service organization that provides rating services to the property and casualty insurance industries. The ISO’s Fire Suppression Rating Schedule classifies fire protection into ten categories: Class 1 recognizing the highest level of fire protection and Class 10 recognizing the lowest or no level of fire protection. See Table B Table B Fire Protection Districts on April 1, 2005 Fire Full time Paid Volunteer ISO Stations Staff or Paid Rating Fire Protection Districts Call Total 24X7 Chief Firefighter Within** Outside*** Western Nevada County North San Juan FPD 3 0 no 0 24 n/a 8 Penn Valley FPD 3 1 yes 7 20 5 8/9 Higgins Area FPD 3 3 CDF* 13 23 4 8/9 Rough and Ready FPD 1 0 no 0 12 5 8 Central Nevada County Ophir Hill FPD 1 0 no 2 15 4 8 Peardale-Chicago Park FPD 2 0 yes 3 12 5 8 Washington Co. Wtr. Dist. 1 0 no 0 7 n/a 10 Nev. Co. Consolidated FPD 14 2 yes 21 31 4 8 Eastern Nevada County Donner Summit PUD 2 1 CDF* 7 13 5 9 Truckee FPD 6 5 yes 28 14 6 8/9/10 * “CDF” refers to contract with CDF for fire chief ** “Within” refers to within hydrated area and within 5 miles of fire station *** “Outside” refers to outside hydrated areas that are no further than 5 miles from fire station or / the area beyond.
F9:
The CDF has four fire stations in Nevada County, one of which is staffed seasonally. CDF shares facilities with two FPDs: Higgins Area FPD, and Truckee FPD.
F10:
Donner Summit PUD fire department and Higgins Area FPD contract with CDF under the “Amador Plan.” This plan allows the fire districts to pay CDF only the differential costs to keep their stations open during the non-fire season months.
F11:
Outside of the incorporated cities NID provides potable water for all hydrants in the Western and Central part of the county as well as installation of all hydrants. The only limit on the NID water supply to fight an urban wildfire in the hydranted areas is the capacity of storage facilities at the water treatment plants. In rural areas water is provided for fire suppression via raw water hydrants, storage tanks, and canals; otherwise the FPD water tenders are used.
F12:
Three of the districts, Penn Valley FPD, Donner Summit PUD, and Truckee FPD, operate and staff an ambulance service for their communities. Penn Valley FPD has an ambulance/rescue assessment that supplements the operation of their ambulance service. Ambulance service for other FPDs is provided by Sierra Nevada Memorial Hospital.
F13:
All FPDs provide basic life support services training for the firefighters. FPDs that provide ambulance service are staffed with trained paramedics.
F14:
Firefighters in Nevada County are classified as career full time, part time, paid call or non-paid volunteers.
F15:
Depending upon the FPD’s budget constraints, the compensation for paid call varies. FPDs reimburse volunteers for their expenses at different levels.
F16:
There is cooperation among all Nevada County FPDs exhibited primarily by the mutual aid and automatic aid agreements that insure help if one district needs outside assistance.
F17:
Since the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978, tax rates for FPDs have been frozen thus greatly limiting FPD revenues. This makes it especially difficult for FPDs in growth areas that need to make the transition from volunteer staffing to career full time firefighters.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that efforts be taken by the Nevada County Board of Supervisors to increase financially support for the FPDs. For example, the Board of Supervisor could consider increasing the percentage of Proposition 172 allocations to the FPDs. RESPONSE REQUIRED Board of Supervisors 90 days
F18:
FPDs receive revenue from a variety of sources: property taxes, special taxes, special assessments, Proposition 172 revenues and Proposition 218 assessments, mitigation fees, ambulance fees, grants and fund raising events. See Table C. • Most FPDs receive some revenue from property taxes although the property tax percentages that are used to determine the FPD revenue vary greatly from area to area. FPDs formed after 1978 receive very little, if any, property tax revenue. • Mitigation fees from building permits can provide additional revenue for capital growth expenditures. These funds only come from new development on parcels within the district. • Proposition 172 authorized an additional half-cent sales tax to be used exclusively for public safety services provided by local government. The Nevada County Board of Supervisors has in recent years authorized 7.75% of these funds to be distributed to the FPDs. • Proposition 218 defines the difference between a “special tax” and a “special assessment.” A special tax requires a two-thirds majority vote in an election. A special assessment requires a simple majority from ballots mailed to property owners. Table C Fire Protection District Revenue Sources Parcels 2002/03 Prop. Prop. Assessment Prop. Fire Protection District in Expense Taxes Taxes Per 172 District ($K) to FPD as % of Parcel Fees ($K) Revenue ($K) Western Nevada County North San Juan FPD 1679 280 99.8 72% $27.50 20.5 Penn Valley FPD 5076 1,966 265.3 25% $11.22 64.1 Higgins Area FPD 3857 1,076 758.9 60% $25.00 47.5 Rough and Ready FPD 657 141 131.2 66% $0.00 16.9 Central Nevada County Ophir Hill FPD 1598 267 267.3 62% $0.00 31.2 Peardale/Chicago Park FPD 1952 299 131.0 35% $58.00 14.2 Washington Co. Water Dist. 170 3 0 NP* $0.00 2.8 Nev. Co. Consolidated FPD 16,342 2,480 1,919.0 70% $89.00 212.5 Eastern Nevada County Donner Summit PUD 209 714 0 11% $100.00 10.0 Truckee FPD 14,005 3,236 2,873.1 73% $0.00 0 *NP – Not provided
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that efforts be taken by the Nevada County Board of Supervisors to increase financially support for the FPDs. For example, the Board of Supervisor could consider increasing the percentage of Proposition 172 allocations to the FPDs. RESPONSE REQUIRED Board of Supervisors 90 days
F19:
Special tax ballot measures can limit the number of years they will be in effect. Some of those tax measures are now expiring. Nevada County Consolidated FPD, Rough and Ready FPD, Higgins Area FPD and Penn Valley FPD have in recent election years had ballot measures asking for a special tax. None of these tax ballot measures received the required two-thirds majority required to pass.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that efforts be taken by the Nevada County Board of Supervisors to increase financially support for the FPDs. For example, the Board of Supervisor could consider increasing the percentage of Proposition 172 allocations to the FPDs. RESPONSE REQUIRED Board of Supervisors 90 days
F20:
In the LAFCo MSR it was reported that several FPDs were operating with deficit spending. This has forced them to expend dollars from equipment/apparatus reserves for operational expenses.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that efforts be taken by the Nevada County Board of Supervisors to increase financially support for the FPDs. For example, the Board of Supervisor could consider increasing the percentage of Proposition 172 allocations to the FPDs. RESPONSE REQUIRED Board of Supervisors 90 days
F21:
In 2004, Nevada County Consolidated FPD mailed a ballot to all parcel owners for a special assessment under Proposition 218. It passed with a 72% majority. This assessment of $89 per improved parcel will go into effect in July 2005. Other FPDs are considering this approach since only a simple majority of parcel owners is required. CONCLUSIONS
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that each member of the Nevada County Board of Supervisors visit each of the FPDs in their district to better understand the challenges that these dedicated firefighters face every day.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
In the last few years, a large number of well qualified and highly respected employees at the department and director level have left County employment for a variety of reasons. Some simply retired. But others have left because of their job-related involvement with County projects that became politically unpopular, some because of their treatment by individual members of the Board of Supervisors, and some for better opportunities, career growth, and similar reasons. In some cases, terminations and resignations become blurred. Forced separations are usually handled as resignations by mutual agreement of both parties. Severance packages are generally contingent upon a signed Letter of Confidentiality.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The success of the enterprise of County Government depends upon the hard work of each County employee. Every effort should be made by the Board of Supervisors (BOS) to value each employee, to help them progress on their career paths, to shield them from divisive County politics, to provide meaningful and timely performance evaluations, and to continue to award them with adequate compensation in relation to their peers in surrounding counties
F2:
Reacting to county budget constraints over the last two years, 82 positions were eliminated. Many employees were relocated to other departments, resulting in the lay off of only one staff member.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The BOS should develop a professional working relationship with the CEO whereby the CEO is recognized as the appropriate designated interface and buffer between the BOS and County department heads in matters of Board approved programs, policies, personnel, and organizational matters.
F3:
The County has developed a succession plan in anticipation of the fact that approximately 50% of the county workforce will be eligible to retire in 2006.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The BOS should adopt and practice a policy of treating department heads and other employees with respect and dignity during public meetings.
F4:
Numerous sources confirm that in recent years, members of the Board of Supervisors have publicly criticized and demeaned department heads during BOS meetings.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The BOS should adopt a policy which prevents members of the Board from exerting undue influence or otherwise encouraging the resignation of County employees who have been involved with politically unpopular programs but who are professionally competent and willing to adjust to new direction.
F5:
Some employees have reported feeling vulnerable and fearful of losing their jobs whenever there is a change in the BOS majority because current and former CEOs have not always acted as a buffer between the BOS and County department heads.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The BOS should direct the CEO to require all department heads and managers to get information from HR regarding the status, morale, and general performance of the employees in their department before conducting the periodic evaluations of supervisory employees.
F6:
Neglect of crucial fiscal matters in at least one department in the past was eventually discovered through a change in leadership and corrected by Administration staff.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
As part of succession planning, the BOS should direct the CEO to ensure that all department heads encourage and facilitate broad participation by interested employees in the planned program of leadership training and hands on opportunities to exercise management and supervision skills.
F7:
In recent years there were problems in some departments leadership and mentoring, resulting in the breakdown of staff morale, internal communications and cooperation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The BOS should direct the CEO to weigh performance evaluations for supervisors, managers, and directors more heavily toward their ability to manage their subordinates, to encourage their professional growth, and to motivate them to excellence in the performance of their job.
F8:
Some recent staff turnover is a direct result of a few department heads and managers who do not adequately manage, who refuse or are unable to make decisions, and who continue to pass off taking action regarding problem personnel under their supervision. This management deficiency continues to result in questionable terminations and evaluations, staff infighting, low morale, and adverse impacts on service delivery to the public.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The BOS should direct the CEO to ask department heads to encourage their managers and supervisors to conduct the interim performance review of probationary employees in addition to the mandatory 3 and 6 month reviews where this might help retain skilled employees new to our county government culture.
F9:
Some employees have felt it necessary to contact their union to express their grievances due to lack of management response.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
Elimination of positions, transfers and department reorganizations were valid responses to tight fiscal times, but the BOS should direct the CEO to be attentive to the effect on delivery of essential services to the public as staffing decisions are made, particularly as finances improve in the future.
F10:
In the last two years, performance evaluations of department heads and above are being conducted by the CEO with increasing involvement by the Director of Human Resources (HR) to help assess leadership, mentoring and department morale. CONCLUSIONS
Findings & Recommendations
17 findings
F1:
The California Toxics Rule (CTR) of 1994 has identified 23 toxins hazardous to aquatic life and 57 toxins that can be harmful to humans.
F2:
The City’s WWTP is the first Nevada County facility to complete all the testing as required by the CTR.
F3:
The City is in the process of preparing an NPDES permit for storm water discharge from the City’s drainage system as directed by the CVB.
F4:
The City prepared a sewer system master plan in 1995 that estimated wastewater service costs through the year 2015.
F5:
At present, the City’s WWTP is processing approximately 2.1 mgd under average dry weather conditions. The designed flow of the facility is 2.78 mgd.
F6:
By the year 2013, it has been estimated the City would require a WWTP that had the capacity to process 4.2 mgd of treated wastewater.
F7:
The current CVB order regulates discharge prohibitions, effluent limitations, emergency storage, flow equalization limitations, sludge disposal, receiving water limitations and ground water limitations.
F8:
The CVB has ordered the City to comply with the following schedule as published to assure compliance with the aluminum, chloroform, iron, manganese, methyl tert butyl ether (MTBE), methylene blue active substances (MBAS), nitrite, and nitrate plus nitrite effluent limitations contained in the Wastewater Order No. R5-2003-0089: TASK COMPLIANCE DATES Progress Report/Implementation Schedule 1 January 2004 Submit Pollution Presentation Plan* 1 April 2004 Submit Pollution Presentation Plan** 1 June & December Progress Reports 1 June & December of each year Achieve Full Compliance 1 March 2008 *The Pollution Plan shall be prepared for all constituents listed above and shall meet the requirements specified in the California Water Code Section 13263.2. ** The progress report shall detail what steps have been implemented towards achieving compliance with waste discharge requirements, including construction progress, evaluation of the effectiveness of the implemented measures and assess whether additional measures are necessary to meet the time schedule.
F9:
As of May 12, 2005, the City is current on all report submittals as set forth in the CVB Order found in finding #8 above.
F10:
On November 1, 2005, the City is required to be in compliance with specific limits on a few selected effluents. Some of these effluents include biochemical oxygen demand, suspended solids, coliform and turbidity.
F11:
The cost to achieve full compliance has recently been estimated by the City to be as much as $12,000,000.
Related Recommendations (5)
R1:
The City Council should do everything within the scope of their responsibilities to move the WWTP project to a level of the highest priority.
R2:
The City Council should evaluate an opportunity to collaborate on wastewater treatment with other agencies as deemed appropriate.
R3:
The City Council should examine future opportunities to share facilities with other wastewater providers in Western Nevada County.
R4:
The City Council should launch a comprehensive search for grant funding and other methods of financing the upgrade project.
R5:
The City Council should initiate a plan for communicating to the public the current factors involved in the task of fully complying with governmental orders and the estimated associated costs.
F12:
The City funds infrastructure upgrades through the collection fees charged for new developments and through sewer fees for existing customers.
F13:
The City indicated State and Federal grant funding is not presently available to cities the size of Grass Valley.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The City Council should launch a comprehensive search for grant funding and other methods of financing the upgrade project.
F14:
At present, approximately 0.35 mgd of mine drainage is processed through the City’s WWTP. This drainage contains concentrations of iron, manganese and sulfate. These minerals are causing the drainage to have pH levels below the CVB requirements. The mine drainage originates from the Drew Tunnel of the Watt Incline of the Massachusetts Hills Mine, which is now owned by Newmont Mining.
F15:
On January 22, 2004, the City filed suit for unspecified damages in U.S. District Court Eastern District of California against Newmont Mining.
F16:
The City retained the services of a specialized consultant on October 12, 2004. The consultant’s prescribed functions are numerable. The primary assignment is to aid the City in accomplishing specific tasks that will assure full compliance to the standing CVB order.
F17:
An article published April 10, 2004 in the City’s newsletter, “City Messenger”, stated in part, the following: “The city’s wastewater operations are permitted through the federal EPA’s National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit program. The city’s recent permit renewal in June of 2003 includes complying with the California Toxics Rule and requires an enhancement of the city’s discharge quality. The results of these studies could require further plant upgrades by 2008. Given the experiences of other jurisdictions, these costs could potentially affect sewer rates. Everyone wants clean water, but it is appalling when the standards for a wastewater treatment plant’s discharge have to achieve a quality as high as some drinking water standards. Ultimately, how much are the ratepayers and public willing to pay for slight improvements in water quality? Hopefully, more reason and economic realities will enter into such considerations in the future.” CONCLUSIONS
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
11 findings
F1:
On November 29, 2000, the City applied for a permit renewal to discharge waste under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) from the City’s domestic Waste Water Treatment Plant.
F2:
The current Nevada City wastewater discharge requirements are contained in CVB Order No. R5-2002-0050 dated April 26, 2002. Effluent compliance limitations are contained in Cease and Desist Order No. R5-2002-0051 dated April 26, 2002. Full compliance with the provisions of this order must be certified by April 15, 2007.
F3:
The Board Order contains effluent compliance limitations for ammonia, nitrite, and nitrate plus nitrite. During low temperature conditions, the current plant design and operation can result in incomplete nitrification and/or denitrification of wastewater resulting in increased concentrations of ammonia, nitrate, and nitrite. A modified pH adjustment system may be necessary to consistently comply with pH effluent limitations. Dates for achieving compliance limitations are: Task Compliance Date Progress Reports 30 April and 31 October of each year Achieve Full Compliance 15 April 2007
F4:
The planned upgrade of the NCWWTP will convert sequencing batch reactors to a continuous flow selector activated sludge system. The upgrade is designed to produce substantial improvements in year-round nitrification-denitrification and average effluent turbidity. Clarifiers, automated fine screening, washing and compaction and a new disk filter are designed to increase clarification efficiency. The chlorination/dechlorination system will be renovated. The final pH correction will use medium-dilution liquid sodium hydroxide if necessary.
F5:
The engineering design plans for the upgraded and expanded facilities, including enlarging the office and laboratory building, have been reviewed and approved by an independent engineering contractor.
F6:
Key internal milestones for the plant upgrade project are design and approval in March 2005, award of construction contract in June 2005, construction from July 2005 to October 2006 and completion of plant start-up and training in April 2007.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The City Council of Nevada City should exercise best business practices and due diligence in the conduct and coordination of the construction of the upgraded NCWWTP with the on-going operations of the facility. An on-site construction inspector with wastewater experience could help to ensure efficient operations and maintenance of the plant concurrent with the construction activities associated with the new facilities at the same location.
F7:
Financing of the project will be through a grant and loan from U. S. Department of Agriculture. Total cost is projected at $3.723 million, of which $1 million is a grant and $2.723 million is a loan.
F8:
The City Council is investigating the feasibility of contracting for operations and maintenance personnel for the NCWWTP. The City currently has three full time wastewater operator positions and two part time positions. However, industry demands and salaries for certified operators with highly specialized skills have increased significantly. This has triggered the City’s interest in contracting for fully qualified certified personnel.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The City Council of Nevada City should determine the relative merits of hiring qualified certified wastewater operators and maintenance personnel as city employees vis-à-vis contracting for these services.
F9:
The Nevada City sewer rate is currently $33.50 per month for a single-family dwelling. On July 1, 2005, the rate will be increased to $35.25 per month. The base rate can be adjusted to cover increased operations and maintenance expenses, upgrades and debt service costs.
F10:
The NCWWTP upgrade project does not require increasing the licensed design capacity of the current plant. Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) population model projections, based on the general plan, indicate a population increase of only 152 in 2007 and 1,083 in 2012. Nevada City has determined the increased sewage flows attributable to this population growth are well within the licensed design capacity of the current NCWWTP.
F11:
Nevada City was recently served with Notice of Violation from the CVB pertaining to the practice of performing non-certified in-house analyses of ammonia and coliform. This violates Board Order requirements that the monitoring and reporting program for these elements be performed by certified laboratory analyses procedures. Previously the City had been performing the analyses using certified personnel, but the City laboratory was not certified. The City has now contracted for certified laboratory analysis services and plans for certification of the laboratory in the plant upgrade. CONCLUSIONS
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The City Council of Nevada City should investigate sharing of certified facilities and personnel with neighboring wastewater plants for required testing and analyses of wastewater and effluents elements as a cost saving measure.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R3:
The City Council of Nevada City should investigate the technical and operational feasibility of consolidating selected operations and maintenance services with neighboring wastewater plants including those of the City of Grass Valley and the several Waste Water Special Districts in Nevada County.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
12 findings
F1:
TTSA is currently capable of transporting, treating, and disposing of a maximum 7-day average municipal wastewater flow, during summer months, of 7.4 million gallons per day (mgd).
F2:
The Board Order has revised previous waste discharge requirements to permit an increase in wastewater treatment capacity and a change in treatment methods for nitrogen removal, and to modify the monitoring and reporting program in response to these changes. Key requirements include decreasing the total load of nitrogen, dissolved solids, and chlorides discharged into the Truckee River.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The TTSA Board of Directors should maintain a dialog with the LRB in order to become proactive regarding changes to wastewater discharge requirements and become a part of the process to set future discharge requirements.
F3:
To meet the new wastewater discharge requirements, the TTSA facility will be expanded to include numerous replacement, upgraded, modified and additional components and units to provide additional capacity and improve treatment. The expansion will provide the capability to transport, treat and dispose of a maximum 7-day average flow during summer months of 9.6 mgd.
F4:
The expansion will replace the existing ion-exchange nitrogen removal system with a more advanced Biological Nitrogen Removal system for the full 9.6 mgd capacity.
F5:
The expansion will also incorporate enlargement of and improvements to the Truckee River Interceptor1.
F6:
The wastewater treatment plant expansion and upgrades are expected to cost between $65 - $75 million and will be funded using a combination of TTSA reserves, a $53 million State Revolving Fund Loan, and an $11.6 million grant from the Department of Water Resources.
F7:
The Construction Milestone Schedule is shown in the following table. TTSA indicates construction is on schedule. The Truckee River Interceptor is a 17-mile collection pipeline that runs from Tahoe City to the TTSA Treatment Plant. Task Date Notice of Award November 19, 2003 Notice to Proceed December 10, 2003 Substantial Completion • BNR Superstructure May 1, 2004 • 365 Day Milestone Solids Handling Bldg - 1st new system, December 9, 2004 Digester, Stripper Basin • 455 Day Milestone March 9, 2005 Solids Handling Bldg - 2nd new system •730 Day Milestone December 9, 2005 Operation of BNR system & Solid Dewatering Facility • 912 Day Milestone June 9, 2006 Mainstream Process Improvements Final Completion •1,000 Day Milestone September 5, 2006 Construction Milestone Schedule provided by TTSA. Each milestone event identifies a list of construction tasks.
F8:
TTSA does not anticipate an increase in service charge rates because of the wastewater treatment plant expansion. Correspondence from TTSA indicates about one-third of the expansion will serve current users by means of improvements to the current facility. TTSA breaks down the processes that serve current users and those which serve only future users. Reserves funded by service charges and taxes are used to pay for portions of the construction project that are only upgrades to the current facility benefiting current users. Reserves funded by connection charges are used to pay for the portion of the construction project that increase the capacity of the plant and benefit new development.
F9:
The current residential service charge rate is $18.00 per month, compared to a residential service rate of $20.07 in areas where TTSA does not receive property tax. The connection fee for a residential living unit is $5,000 in both taxed and non-taxed areas.
F10:
TSA has the authority to perform wastewater collection services in addition to wastewater treatment. Although member agencies currently perform wastewater collection services, these agencies provide the service at different cost and efficiency levels.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
The TTSA Board of Directors should consider ways to merge or consolidate TTSA wastewater treatment with the collection activities of its member agencies and other agencies such as the Town of Truckee.
R3:
The TTSA Board of Directors should develop an inflow and infiltration plan and involve its member agencies in addressing the problems of unwanted inflow and infiltration into the wastewater collection infrastructure.
F11:
TTSA does not have a Master Plan. Instead, TTSA reviews its capital improvement needs on an annual basis and adopts a revised 5-year capital improvement budget annually.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Tahoe Truckee Sanitation Agency (TTSA) Board of Directors should take a leadership role in developing a comprehensive document for planning purposes, i.e., Master Plan, for projecting wastewater flows to prepare for the next treatment plant expansion.
F12:
The Local Area Formation Commission (LAFCO) report provides the following information regarding TTSA treatment plant expansion and current operational issues: a. “TTSA planned capacity will be fully maximized at a summer population of 143,000 during the summer months and 148,000 during the winter months around the year 2015. These figures are based on probable development in the Martis Valley, the Town of Truckee and North Lake Tahoe based on the General Plans currently in place. b. There is no regional approach to managing growth and resolving land use planning issues between jurisdictions in the study area. TTSA was established principally to process sewage and serve member jurisdictions. Wastewater treatment is provided on a first-come first-served basis. As development occurs within a given member agency’s boundaries, capacity that could otherwise be used by other member agencies is reduced. c. While TTSA is taking steps to reduce Inflow and Infiltration2 on its Truckee River Interceptor, there appears to be no consistent program throughout the member agencies to reduce Inflow and Infiltration, and little incentive collectively to member agencies to address the problem comprehensively. While some agencies have active Inflow and Infiltration reduction programs, others do not.” CONCLUSIONS
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
From September 2001 to March 2002, activities took place in the community to discuss the Bond election. The District Facility Improvement Plan and drawings were used to promote Measure A in many of these informational meetings.
F2:
The District plan showed the placement of the competition pool and performing arts building located on the recently acquired ten-acre parcel fronting Magnolia Road. However, cost estimates were based on construction of the competition pool being on the existing campus adjacent to the gym.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The District should sponsor and conduct studies and public forums to plan any future expansion of needed facilities. Meetings pertaining to BRHS should address appropriate use of the ten-acre parcel on Magnolia Road.
F3:
The ballot and proposition language of Measure A for improvements at BRHS stated, construct and furnish an addition to BRHS, including a new performing arts building and aquatic center. The budget in the District Facility Improvement Plan however, identified the improvements as pool facility, competition pool, community pool, aquatic center, performing arts auditorium and performing arts theater.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Nevada Joint Union High School District (District) should ensure that future campaign information presented to the public is supported by accurate, comprehensive and complete data.
F4:
Of the $15 million provided by Measure A, $7 million was allocated to construct and furnish an addition to Bear River High School, including a new performing arts building and aquatic center.
F5:
After the voters approved Measure A, District officials learned that finishing the BRHS project on the ten-acre parcel could cost as much as $2 million more than budgeted. These costs were largely due to extensive grading and the compliance requirements in the Americans with Disabilities Act. The District made the decision to locate the competition pool and performing arts building to the rear of the existing campus. This action had been recommended by the design committee on October 21, 2002. Announcement of the relocation occurred at a public forum in February, 2003.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The District should heed the lessons learned in this episode, applicable to new construction on any campus and be more thorough in estimating construction costs, especially when the data are for use in supporting a bond election.
F6:
The project design committee requested the District place a job sign on site to inform the community of the project s progress. This did not occur.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The District should alleviate misunderstandings with the community by making a greater effort for full, open and timely communications.
F7:
The District was aware of previous lead deposits at the site found during the construction of the library prior to 2002. The levels were within the safety requirements set by the Department of Toxic Substances Control in effect at that time. New and more stringent standards resulted in the required removal of lead contaminated soil at the performing arts building site and arsenic contaminated soil found in test borings at the competition pool site.
F8:
From the date of the Measure A Bond proposal to present, the District has experienced top level administrative turnover.
F9:
Construction of the performing arts building was finally initiated in March 2005 with completion expected in 15 months. Construction of the competition pool is anticipated to begin in May 2005 with completion expected in 9 months. The facilities will be available to the public when not in use for school activities and outside of school hours.
F10:
The Grand Jury was unable to locate the District s Bear River High School Master Plan. CONCLUSIONS
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The District should ensure that there is a current Master Plan for Bear River High School that includes the ten acre parcel. RESPONSE REQUIRED Nevada Joint Union High School District Board of Trustees June 20, 2005