Nevada County Grand Jury
2005-2006
From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (9)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
For the fiscal year 2005-2006, Nevada County projected to distribute 72 monetary programs totaling $4,195,995 to various Outside Service Providers (OSPs).
F2:
Nevada County is responsible for monitoring programs issued by the County to OSPs to ensure they provide the funded service in an effective and efficient manner.
F3:
Selected services are provided by OSPs because they are more cost effective than equivalent services provided directly by the County.
F4:
In reviewing the information obtained from the Office of the County Executive Officer many acronyms were used and are defined in a glossary (see Appendix A).
F5:
These programs are funded as follows (see Appendix B): a. 6 programs totaling $208,771 from County funds b. 5 programs totaling $456,674 from Federal funds c. 30 programs totaling $2,216,964 from a combination of Federal, State and County funds d. 4 programs totaling $360,495 from other sources e. 27 programs totaling $953,091 from State funds
F6:
These programs are directed to the following areas (see Appendix C): a. 6 programs totaling $520,595 are focused on economic development b. 61 programs totaling $3,558,203 were awarded to various outside service providers (including non-profits) to provide social services including child care, elder care, drug abuse treatment, transportation, and mental health c. 5 programs totaling $117,197 were provided to the County Superintendent of Schools office and various schools to support programs for children
F7:
Of the 61 OSP programs mentioned above in 6b, 7 totaling $432,537 provided funds to organizations outside of Nevada County (see Appendix D). These programs include mental health and child care services being provided by agencies outside Nevada County because there are no known facilities and/or OSPs available within Nevada County capable of providing or having the capacity to provide these services.
F8:
Nevada County does not currently maintain an ongoing consolidated listing of the programs funding the OSPs. Grand Jury 0506 Audit and Finance CONCLUSIONS
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Board of Supervisors should direct County staff to create, maintain, update and utilize a computer aided County system for administering programs to Outside Service Providers. RESPONSES Nevada County Board of Supervisors – August 14, 2006 Grand Jury 0506 Audit and Finance
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
Major factors contributing to homelessness in Western Nevada County are the lack of affordable housing, low-paying entry-level employment opportunities, and substance abuse.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
To the extent possible, law and government agencies should ensure that homeless citizens are integrated into our larger community without casting them as a threat to business or the community. RESPONSES None
F2:
According to statistics gathered by HH and EAC, 90% of the homeless in Western Nevada County are local citizens.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
To the extent possible, law and government agencies should ensure that homeless citizens are integrated into our larger community without casting them as a threat to business or the community. RESPONSES None
F3:
In June 2005 a count by HH found 238 homeless individuals in Western Nevada County, of which 46 were children. This street count includes only a portion of the homeless population. Some may be living deep in the woods, in abandoned buildings, or sleeping on private property. According to HH testimony, HUD recommends that such counts be doubled to reflect the number of homeless.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
To the extent possible, law and government agencies should ensure that homeless citizens are integrated into our larger community without casting them as a threat to business or the community. RESPONSES None
F4:
DSS determines an individual’s eligibility for and administers numerous programs that provide ongoing long-term assistance to Nevada County citizens. These programs include CalWorks, Medi-Cal, and Welfare–to-Work.
F5:
Many of the homeless are part of the workforce, and some of the children attend local schools. Emergency Assistance Coalition
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
The Nevada County Department of Social Services and the Nevada County Housing Development Corporation should continue to encourage and cooperate with self- financed private service groups such as Hospitality House and the Emergency Assistance Coalition. These groups provide unique and needed services to our homeless citizens and to those who need temporary assistance through a difficult or unforeseen situation, and thereby extend the reach of county-funded social services.
R2:
Law enforcement agencies should continue to refer those in need to Hospitality House and the Emergency Assistance Coalition, whichever is appropriate for the need.
R3:
To the extent possible, law and government agencies should ensure that homeless citizens are integrated into our larger community without casting them as a threat to business or the community. RESPONSES None
F6:
DSS helps coordinate EAC services by hosting a weekly case management meeting.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The Nevada County Department of Social Services and the Nevada County Housing Development Corporation should continue to encourage and cooperate with self- financed private service groups such as Hospitality House and the Emergency Assistance Coalition. These groups provide unique and needed services to our homeless citizens and to those who need temporary assistance through a difficult or unforeseen situation, and thereby extend the reach of county-funded social services.
R2:
Law enforcement agencies should continue to refer those in need to Hospitality House and the Emergency Assistance Coalition, whichever is appropriate for the need.
F7:
EAC responded to 1,186 calls in 2005. These calls involved 1,402 clients: 469 adult males, 606 adult females, and 327 children. Since its inception 16 years ago, EAC has responded to more than 10,700 calls.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
The Nevada County Department of Social Services and the Nevada County Housing Development Corporation should continue to encourage and cooperate with self- financed private service groups such as Hospitality House and the Emergency Assistance Coalition. These groups provide unique and needed services to our homeless citizens and to those who need temporary assistance through a difficult or unforeseen situation, and thereby extend the reach of county-funded social services.
R2:
Law enforcement agencies should continue to refer those in need to Hospitality House and the Emergency Assistance Coalition, whichever is appropriate for the need.
R3:
To the extent possible, law and government agencies should ensure that homeless citizens are integrated into our larger community without casting them as a threat to business or the community. RESPONSES None
F8:
Services provided in 2005 were: 359 nights of lodging for 585 persons, 133 meals, and 297 gasoline vouchers.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The Nevada County Department of Social Services and the Nevada County Housing Development Corporation should continue to encourage and cooperate with self- financed private service groups such as Hospitality House and the Emergency Assistance Coalition. These groups provide unique and needed services to our homeless citizens and to those who need temporary assistance through a difficult or unforeseen situation, and thereby extend the reach of county-funded social services.
R2:
Law enforcement agencies should continue to refer those in need to Hospitality House and the Emergency Assistance Coalition, whichever is appropriate for the need.
F9:
The monthly average of donations received in 2005 was $2,869. The monthly average spent to meet emergency needs was $2,908. Hospitality House
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The Nevada County Department of Social Services and the Nevada County Housing Development Corporation should continue to encourage and cooperate with self- financed private service groups such as Hospitality House and the Emergency Assistance Coalition. These groups provide unique and needed services to our homeless citizens and to those who need temporary assistance through a difficult or unforeseen situation, and thereby extend the reach of county-funded social services.
R2:
Law enforcement agencies should continue to refer those in need to Hospitality House and the Emergency Assistance Coalition, whichever is appropriate for the need.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
14 findings
F1:
Elder abuse laws cover seniors 65 years of age or older and dependent adults 18 through 64 years of age who have a physical or developmental disability.
F2:
California’s Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act provides protection for elders from financial abuse, physical abuse and neglect. Under the Act, elder abuse is defined as: a. Physical abuse b. Neglect c. Financial abuse d. Abandonment e. Isolation f. Abduction g. Other treatment of an elder which results in physical harm or pain or mental suffering h. A caregiver depriving an elder of goods or services necessary to prevent physical harm or mental suffering
F3:
Physical abuse includes assault, battery, unreasonable physical constraint, deprivation of food or water, sexual assault or inappropriate use of physical or chemical restraint.
F4:
Neglect includes failure by a caregiver to provide food, clothing or shelter, failure to assist in personal hygiene, failure to provide medical care, failure to protect the elder from safety hazards, or failure to prevent malnutrition/dehydration.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Social services programs, both governmental and private, affecting seniors at risk should be supported and strengthened. The areas include housing, nutrition, health and transportation. These programs provide for a healthy constructive life environ- ment, offsetting opportunities for abuse to occur, identifying where abuse does occur, and implementing effective remedial action. RESPONSES No Response Required
F5:
Financial abuse includes situations where one or both of the following apply: (1) a person, including a caregiver or other trusted person, takes an elder’s money or property for wrongful use, or with intent to defraud; (2) a person gets property from an elder who lacks mental capacity and refuses in bad faith to return the property when the elder or his/her representative requests it.
F6:
The U.S. Census Bureau projects that California’s elderly population will nearly double within the next 20 years from 3.7 million to more than 6.6 million.
F7:
Nevada County has the 7th highest proportion of elder population per county in California. Nearly 30% of Nevada County residents were over 55 years of age as of the 2000 census.
F8:
One of every 20 elderly people will be a victim of neglect or physical, psychological or financial abuse this year.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Any person who suspects that abuse of an elder has occurred can and should report it immediately. Another’s assets, health, dignity and/or life may depend on the courage to act.
F9:
Elders control 70% of the wealth in our country making them obvious targets of financial abuse.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Any person who suspects that abuse of an elder has occurred can and should report it immediately. Another’s assets, health, dignity and/or life may depend on the courage to act.
F10:
Abusers are most often family members or care givers.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
All member agencies in the criminal justice system should ensure that effective programs and polices are in place and that laws and ordinances are enforced to guarantee pro- secution of family or other offenders who commit crimes and acts of abuse against elders.
F11:
Adult Protective Services is the primary contact for suspected elder abuse that does not immediately jeopardize the life or well being of the victim and occurs outside a licensed care facility.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Suspected elder abuse outside of a licensed care facility should be immediately reported to Nevada County Adult Protective Services at (530) 265-1639 or (888) 339-7248. These numbers are available 24-hours per day seven days per week.
F12:
The Office of the Ombudsman is the primary contact for suspected elder abuse that occurs in a licensed care facility.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Suspected elder abuse inside a licensed care facility in Nevada County should be immediately reported to the Long Term Care Ombudsman at (530) 274-2825 or (916) 376-8910.
F13:
Law enforcement is the primary contact for suspected elder abuse that immediately jeopardizes the life or well being of the victim.
F14:
Under California law, certain individuals are legally mandated to report known or suspected instances of elder abuse. Mandated reporters include physicians and medical professionals, clergy, employees of health care facilities, law enforcement and any individual who assumes responsibility for the care or custody of an elderly person. CONCLUSIONS
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
20 findings
F1:
In FY 2004-2005 all libraries in Nevada County had a combined annual circulation of approximately 650,0001 books, books on tape and CD, videos, CD’s, DVD’s, and magazines. This is a 4.5% increase from FY 2003-20042 and a 230% increase from FY 1997-19983.
F2:
The Nevada County Library currently employs a staff of 28.85 Full Time Equivalency (FTE) to serve three full service libraries, two part-time station libraries, one historical research library, and a literacy service. The library staff has experienced a net reduction of 5.00 FTE from FY 2002-2003.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Board of Supervisors should fund additional library staff as required to increase library open hours in the branch satellite libraries and extend the weekend hours coverage in the three main libraries.
F3:
In 2002 the voters approved Measure “C”, a countywide 1/8th cent sales tax augmentation to improve library services. In FY 2005-2006, it will provide an estimated $1,570,000, approximately two-thirds of the annual library revenues. Measure “C” expires in FY 2018-2019.
F4:
The County General Fund allocated $685,900 to Library Services in FY 2005-2006. This included a one-time special allocation of $120,000 toward the purchase of books and materials, and for carpet replacement. The annual County library allocations, as illustrated in Table A, have not changed significantly over the past 5 years. Table A Nevada County Budget – General Fund Library Allocations 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 $573,708 $601,502 $601,402 $565,902 $570,902 $685,902
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The Board of Supervisors should continue to support the Nevada County Library by augmenting the Library General Fund budget as specific needs are identified and defined.
R3:
The Board of Supervisors should seek other sources of revenues for Library services.
F5:
Fund Balance Reserves are intended for unusual financial circumstances such as sales tax receipt fluctuations, and/or to provide matching funds for potential future facility expansions. Table B lists the annual increases and decreases to the Library Fund Balance Reserve. After adding to these reserves for several years, the Library has been using these funds for normal operational expenditures since FY 2002-2003. Table B Annual Increases/Decreases to Library Fund Balance Reserve4 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 $101,264 $176,348 $32,315 (-$106,727) ($-172,827) (-$84,207) (-$120,484) Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Projected Proposed 1 Nevada County Library Circulation Statistics, FY 2004-2005 2 California State Public Library Services, FY 2003-2004 3 California State Public Library Services, FY 1997-1998 4 County Budget Library Overview, FY 2005-2006 G rand Jury 0506 Schools and Library
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The Board of Supervisors should continue to support the Nevada County Library by augmenting the Library General Fund budget as specific needs are identified and defined.
R3:
The Board of Supervisors should seek other sources of revenues for Library services.
F6:
Table C illustrates the annual Nevada County Library allocations from the State of California. There has been a significant decrease in those allocations from FY 2001-2002 to the present. Table C State Library Allocations to Nevada County Library5 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 $247,213 $292,229 $323,051 $137,509 $125,770 $75,160 $75,160 Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Projected Proposed
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
The Board of Supervisors should petition the State of California to reinstate library allocations to fiscal year 2001-2002 levels.
R3:
The Board of Supervisors should seek other sources of revenues for Library services.
F7:
The data in Table D lists productivity and performance indicators of the Nevada County Library compared to other California public libraries throughout the state. Table D FY 2003-2004 Data6 Nevada County Statewide Library Average7 Annual Operating Expenditures $1,476,754 $5,632,166 Annual expenditures per capita $15.37 $27.35 Annual materials expenditures per capita $1.15 $2.81 Number of Books 174,902 391,537 Total books per capita 1.83 2.15 Annual total materials available for circulation per capita 1.94 2.32
F8:
The data in Table E compares and ranks the Nevada County Library with the other 32 Libraries in Group 48. Table E FY 2003-20049 Total Children FTE Staff Annual Annual Open Revenue Material Per 10,000 Circulation Service Hours Per Capita Expenditures Population Per Capita Per Capita Per Capita Group 4 Median $28.30 $0.64 4.6 6.27 674 Nevada County $17.31 $0.35 3.0 6.57 1,407 Nevada County 27th 27th 24th 16th 3rd Ranking 5 County Budget Library Overview, FY 2005-2006 6 Fiscal Year 2003-2004 is the most recent year for which these library statistics are available. Average of 175 California public library systems. Group 4: Libraries serving populations ranging from 60,000 to 100,000. The comparison indicators are based on data for FY 2003-2004, the most recent year that statistics are available for all 33 Group 4 Libraries. G rand Jury 0506 Schools and Library
F9:
The Nevada County Library’s annual population served per FTE staff is 3,378 compared to the statewide average of 2,995. The six library locations and the literacy service are open to the public a total of 13,520 hours per year, 1,000 hours more than the next highest library in Group 4.
F10:
There are approximately 62,000 active library cardholders, or about 65% of the total county population.
F11:
The Grass Valley, Penn Valley and Doris Foley Libraries are extremely short on space for circulation materials, reading areas and computers. In addition there is a lack of adequate parking at the Grass Valley and Doris Foley Libraries.
F12:
Library facility requirements are not addressed in the Nevada County Facilities Master Plan 1988-2020. The County updates this plan annually, however, it has not addressed library facility needs for additional space in each Master Plan revision.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The Board of Supervisors should ensure that future Library Facilities requirements are an integral part of the County’s Capital Facilities Master Plan.
F13:
The library provides literacy services to the general public at no cost to the participants. A half-time Literacy Coordinator was reinstated in the FY 2004-2005 County budget. The coordinator oversees a tutorial staff of over 40 volunteers, many of whom are retired teachers.
Related Recommendations (2)
R5:
The Board of Supervisors should fund the expansion of the literacy program with the reinstatement of the Literacy Coordinator to a full time position.
R6:
The Board of Supervisors should draw attention to illiteracy in the County and provide the means for the expansion of services to participants in the literacy program.
F14:
The literacy program actively advertises to reach prospective students, many of whom are reluctant to admit their reading and writing difficulties. There are currently about 35 participants in the literacy program.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The Board of Supervisors should draw attention to illiteracy in the County and provide the means for the expansion of services to participants in the literacy program.
F15:
The literacy program utilizes AmeriCorps volunteers who actively solicit small and medium businesses to encourage their employees with reading problems to contact the library for help.
F16:
The Nevada County Library and The Nevada County Superintendent of Schools sponsor a countywide community reading program called Nevada County Reads. The project's goal is to encourage the entire community to read and discuss with others a selected work of literature.
F17:
The Friends of the Nevada County Library and The Friends of the Truckee Library are volunteer, non-profit 501(c)(3) organizations with over four hundred members. They collect and sell used books, seek out gifts of materials, services, monetary contributions, and raise funds for the purchase of new books and source materials.
F18:
The Nevada County Library Foundation accepts, manages and disburses funds from gifts and bequests. This volunteer organization helps the Library sustain a level of excellence and expands resources, public services, and facilities.
F19:
The Library provides children’s activities at each location. These include reading programs and materials for toddlers, pre-school children, elementary grade youths, teens and young adults. G rand Jury 0506 Schools and Library
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The Board of Supervisors should ensure that children’s programs are provided adequate staff, physical space, books, films, materials and equipment.
F20:
The Paws to Read at the Library program is a unique way of reaching out to children who are reluctant readers. It provides a child an opportunity to read to a “Therapy Dog” in an unthreatening environment. CONCLUSIONS
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
12 findings
F1:
NID has made substantial changes to its budgeting process in recent years. The major change was made in the 2005-2007 budget when separate budgets were created for Operations and Maintenance (O&M) and Capital. The O&M budget supports normal day-to-day service and repair work. The Capital budget supports construction of new facilities including treatment plants and pipelines.
F2:
The annual NID budget includes specific line items for withdrawals from or deposits to reserves.
F3:
NID has repeatedly reported that expenses continue to exceed revenues for the O&M portion of the budget resulting in increased rates for both agricultural and treated water in each of the last five years.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
NID rate increases should be tied directly to the need for balancing revenues against expenses. Nevada County Civil Grand Jury www.civilgrandjury.com Gran d Jury 0506 Special Districts REQUIRED RESPONSE NID Board of Directors – July 18, 2006 Nevada County Civil Grand Jury www.civilgrandjury.com Gran d Jury 0506 Special Districts
F4:
In each year from 1999 to 2004, the original approved NID budget substantially underestimated revenues. The total amount of the underestimation of revenue for the six year period was $24,000,000, which represents an average of 20% of budgeted revenues over the same time period.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
NID should review the process used to estimate water sale revenues, service connections and interest revenues to ensure that budgeted revenues more closely approximate actual revenues.
F5:
For 2004, the amount of the underestimation of revenues was $3,100,000. NID staff stated at a Board of Directors meeting that a 1% change in rates is roughly equivalent to $150,000 in revenues. Therefore, the $3,100,000 underestimation has an equivalent impact of a 20% rate increase.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
NID should review the process used to estimate water sale revenues, service connections and interest revenues to ensure that budgeted revenues more closely approximate actual revenues.
F6:
During recent public hearings on the rate increase process, NID did not clearly state the amount of additional revenues required to balance the budget or the amount intended to be raised by the proposed rate increase.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
NID rate increases should be tied directly to the need for balancing revenues against expenses. Nevada County Civil Grand Jury www.civilgrandjury.com Gran d Jury 0506 Special Districts REQUIRED RESPONSE NID Board of Directors – July 18, 2006 Nevada County Civil Grand Jury www.civilgrandjury.com Gran d Jury 0506 Special Districts
F7:
In 2006, NID formally made proactively expanding water services to the existing and new customers within its service territory its top priority.
F8:
NID has been charging all labor costs to the O&M budget even if the labor was related to the Capital budget. As part of the 2006 proposed rate increase process, NID stated that the amount of labor that should be assigned to Capital rather than O&M was $1,200,000 for 2006.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
NID should allocate day-to-day labor costs to the O&M budget and labor associated with construction projects to the Capital budget to support the process of setting rates to properly support associated costs.
F9:
According to NID, the State of California took approximately $1,600,000 in assessment revenues from NID in 2004, $3,200,000 in 2005, and will take an additional $1,600,000 in 2006. The money transferred from NID to the State amounts to approximately $6,400,000.
F10:
Under current NID procedures, if a construction project cannot be completed on schedule, the moneys assigned to the project remain unspent resulting in under running current year capital outlays. Nevada County Civil Grand Jury www.civilgrandjury.com Gran d Jury 0506 Special Districts
F11:
More than 50% of NID projects over the last five years have not been completed on schedule.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
NID should implement a tighter control over construction projects including a documented five year construction program complete with a list of current year approved projects with schedules and budgets.
R3:
NID needs to improve overall management of its construction program in order to accomplish work identified in the Capital budget in a timely manner.
F12:
The costs of construction materials and labor have continued to increase over the last five years. CONCLUSIONS
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
19 findings
F1:
The Juvenile Hall facility appears to be well maintained.
F2:
The facility includes a secure intake area for acceptance and transfer of juvenile offenders.
F3:
Juveniles must be arraigned within 72 hours of arrest.
F4:
The law prohibits booking status offenders such as runaways in Juvenile Hall.
F5:
The facility is designed to accommodate 60 wards. Grand Jury 0506 Law
F6:
Housing units are monitored from a sophisticated electronic central control station. Control is maintained over general areas, classrooms, individual cells, and an outside recreation yard. Surveillance includes broad, direct sightlines and remote television cameras.
F7:
During the grand jury inspection, the fence gate to the recreation yard was unlocked while a county employee mowed the grassy area.
F8:
Facility security has been improved since last year’s grand jury inspection, but issues remain: a) There is not enough outdoor lighting to allow 24-hour surveillance of the recreation yard. b) The single video camera in the recreation yard does not have a direct line of sight to all points in the yard. c) The area surrounding the recreation yard is not secure.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Improvements should be made in facility security: a) Outdoor lights should be installed in the recreation yard and the surrounding area. b) An additional video camera should be installed in the recreation yard to complete line-of-sight coverage. c) The recreation yard fence gate should be locked during yard maintenance. d) Juveniles should be strip thoroughly searched after contact visits.
F9:
There is no emergency eyewash basin in the kitchen or laundry as required by California law.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Improvements should be made for ward and staff safety and well being: a) Eyewash basins should be installed in the kitchen and laundry. b) Hours and days of medical coverage by professional health care providers should be increased. REQUIRED RESPONSE Nevada County Board of Supervisors August 09, 22006 Grand Jury 0506 Law Grand Jury 0506 Law
F10:
Generally, a third of the wards have work detail in the kitchen, laundry, and general clean up.
F11:
Most juveniles are incarcerated because of criminal behavior due to drug or alcohol use. Common offenses include burglary, petty theft, and assault.
F12:
Those under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of arrest are transported to the Sierra Nevada Memorial Hospital for evaluation.
F13:
Most juveniles who are repeat offenders often “graduate” to the Wayne Brown Correctional Facility after the age of 18.
F14:
Juvenile Hall contracts with the California Forensic Medical Group (CFMG) to provide and coordinate medical services for individuals incarcerated in the County's correctional system. The services provided by CFMG include medical, mental health, and dental care for the ward population.
F15:
Juveniles receive a medical evaluation upon entering the facility. This evaluation often reveals the use of multiple medications prescribed by different physicians.
F16:
A contracted psychiatrist is available to evaluate the ward’s medications and confer with the ward’s personal physician. Parents must initiate any action or follow-up appointments.
F17:
The county provides on-site health care 4 to 5 hours per day, 5 days per week. Wayne Brown health care staff provides urgent health care needs at other times. Grand Jury 0506 Law
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Improvements should be made for ward and staff safety and well being: a) Eyewash basins should be installed in the kitchen and laundry. b) Hours and days of medical coverage by professional health care providers should be increased. REQUIRED RESPONSE Nevada County Board of Supervisors August 09, 22006 Grand Jury 0506 Law Grand Jury 0506 Law
F18:
Health of the wards is monitored and determined by non-medical Juvenile Hall employees when an on-site health care professional is unavailable.
F19:
Contact visits are allowed, and juveniles are not always strip thoroughly searched after these visits. CONCLUSIONS
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
The holding facility was built in the early 1960’s and has an inmate capacity of 11.
F2:
The holding facility is staffed with six female correctional officers, one court bailiff and one transport officer.
F3:
The holding facility includes an outdoor inmate loading/unloading dock located in an unsecured open area in close proximity to a public library.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Board of Supervisors should make every effort to expedite the Spring 2006 construction of the high-security fence enclosure at the holding facility.
F4:
Inmates are walked, or driven, by an armed officer to and from the nearby courthouse. Inmates are handcuffed and in leg shackles during transport. ___________________________________________________________________________ Grand Jury 0506 LAW __
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Sheriff’s Department should direct that transportation of inmates between the holding facility and the courthouse is always done in a secure vehicle. ___________________________________________________________________________ Grand Jury 0506 LAW __
F5:
The Sheriff’s Department has requested installation of a high-security fence enclosure around the loading/unloading area (sally port). The 2003-2004 Grand Jury recommended a security enclosure. The enclosure is scheduled for installation in the spring of 2006.
F6:
Inmates are generally not thoroughly searched due to gender-specific officer limitations.
F7:
The inmate worker housed in the facility is responsible for cooking, general cleaning, and other duties as assigned.
F8:
The inmate worker has unmonitored access to the outside area adjacent to the holding facility, including the parking lot, public library and courthouse.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Sheriff’s Department should monitor the inmate worker at all times while he/she is outside the holding facility.
F9:
The inmate worker is not searched for contraband on his return from the area outside the holding facility.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Sheriff’s Department should monitor the inmate worker at all times while he/she is outside the holding facility.
F10:
Construction of a new regional correctional facility has been informally discussed within the law enforcement community. CONCLUSIONS
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Board of Supervisors should continue to review the feasibility of a regional correctional facility in light of the rapidly growing population in the Truckee community and surrounding area.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
25 findings
F1:
Much of the upgrade expenditures to meet increasing state and federal water quality requirements are tracked as Capital Improvements in the SD#1 portion of County Budgets. In the table below, these expenditures, listed as SD#1 and paid entirely by the sewage services ratepayers, are compared with the County capital expenditures in DOTS and with the capital expenditures for all of Nevada County. As the table illustrates, SD#1 expenditures dominate within DOTS and exceed total County capital improvement expenditures. In FY 2005/06, SD#1’s $9,480,000 budget is 115% of the total County budget for Capital improvements, and in FY 2006/07 SD#1’s $29,140,000 is 444% of the total County budget for Capital improvements. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGETS FOR FY 2005/06 AND FY 2006/07 FY 2005/06 a FY 2006/07 b Change Functional Amount % of Amount % of Increase % Increase Areas (thousands) County (thousands) County (thousands) (decrease) Roads & other DOTS $3,764 46% $5,856 89% $2,092 56% All Other County Departments $4,445 54% $700 11% ($3,745) (84%) Total County $8,209 100% $6,556 100% ($1,653) (20%) SD#1 (not part of County) $9,480 115% $29,140 444% $19,660 207% a Based on projected actual FY 2005/06 Budget, b Based on FY 2006/07 Budget requests, 5/18/06
F2:
As shown in the table below, sewer rates per equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) have been increasing substantially to pay for the SD#1 capital improvements in the table above, plus WWTP operations. Future rates in the table are proposed by SD#1 and are subject to ratepayer approval following public hearings. HISTORICAL & PROJECTED ANNUAL SEWER RATES PER CONNECTED EDU Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 Zone 7 Zone 8 Zone 9 Zone 10 Zone 11 LWW LOP N. San Gold Penn Mtn. Cascade Eden Dark Higgins Fiscal Juan Creek Valley Lakes Shores Ranch Horse Village Year 2,903* 2,056 85 44 347 40 83 29 54 48 2001/02 $260 $315 $318 $145 $449 $315 $680 $355 2002/03 $315 $315 $451 $145 $539 $315 $910 $355 2003/04 $315 $315 $451 $145 $539 $315 $1,795 $355 $1,550 $1,675 2004/05 $650 $550 $451 $145 $720 $365 $1,795 $410 $1,550 $1,675 2005/06 $750 $890 $451 $145 $720 $415 $1,795 $465 $1,550 $1,675 2006/07 $905 $1,075 $660 $145 $950 $465 $1,995 $520 $1,550 $1,675 2007/08 $905 $1,075 $660 $195 $950 $465 $2,810 $520 $1,825 $1,875 2008/09 $1,125 $1,125 $730 $195 $950 $465 $2,810 $575 $1,900 $1,975 *Entries in this row are the numbers of sewer system customers in each zone. Grand Jury 0506 COUNTY Nevada County Civil Grand Jury www.civilgrandjury.com The proposed rates include estimates of possible future assessments by CVB of Mandatory Minimum Penalties (such as discussed in findings below). The numbers of connected EDUs (i.e., sewer system customers) as of February 2006 are included in the column headings (all data from Source 9). The district also collects sewer charges for unconnected EDUs on unimproved land, but these are omitted here for simplicity.
F3:
State law establishing effluent regulations for stream-discharge WWTPs was passed in
F4:
Wastewater treatment regulations are a very complex combination of federal and state law, as are the state enforcement policies of the SWRCB and CVB, and require intense effort for understanding, compliance, and record keeping. (Sources 1 and 2)
F5:
The SWRCB and its Regional Boards impose regulations and penalties based on “one size fits all.” For example, the Mandatory Minimum Penalty (MMP) for an individual violation would be $3000 in Cascade Shores, with 83 ratepayers, just as it is for the City of Los Angeles with about two million ratepayers. Thus, the cost of every $3000 MMP would be $36.14 for each ratepayer in Cascade Shores, whereas the cost would be a small fraction of a penny for each ratepayer in Los Angeles. (Source 2)
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The SD#1 Board of Directors, acting independently and also together with leaders from other rural counties and cities, should aggressively and relentlessly lobby state govern- ment for equitable treatment of rural communities concerning water quality control matters and their financial impact per ratepayer. One goal should be to modify the structure of the MMP fine system from the present fixed $3,000 for any WWTP, regardless of size, to a variable fine that bears a reasonable relationship to the number of EDUs served by the WWTP. Grand Jury 0506 COUNTY Nevada County Civil Grand Jury www.civilgrandjury.com
F6:
Twenty-two full-time equivalent employees constitute the Wastewater group in DOTS, and act as SD#1 staff responsible for managing the operations and upgrades of WWTPs in all ten SD#1 zones.
F7:
In addition to these operations and plant upgrade activities, the Wastewater group is also responsible for: (i) communicating with the CVB, (ii) keeping abreast of applicable rules and regulations, (iii) monitoring the quality of water entering and exiting WWTPs, (iv) maintaining compliance records and their financial implications, and (v) training new hires in these topics.
F8:
SD#1 staff members are on duty at the Cascade Shores WWTP only a few days per week, and generally not at all during nighttime hours, as a cost-saving measure.
F9:
The main sewer line of the Cascade Shores WWTP was ruptured by a rain-triggered landslide on May 9, 2005. As a result, raw sewage spilled into Gas Canyon Creek at an average rate of approximately 20,000 gallons per day (gpd) for nine days. (Source 4)
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
ason C air Board ofSupervisors
F10:
The CVB representatives stated in written reports that, out of concern for the public safety and protection of the beneficial uses of the downstream waters, SD#1 should capture this sewage spill with one of two County-owned vactor trucks and transport it to another WWTP. (Sources 3, 7)
F11:
SD#1 and Environmental Health Department staff stated in a written response to the first (Source 3) of these reports that the environmental impact of the spill was small because of: (i) its relatively small average flow of 20,000 gpd (equivalent to the flow from a 1- inch hose), (ii) limited use by humans of Gas Canyon Creek during the time of the spill (only one dwelling was inhabited near Gas Canyon Creek downstream of the accident), Grand Jury 0506 COUNTY Nevada County Civil Grand Jury www.civilgrandjury.com (iii) substantial dilution of the raw sewage by heavy water flow in the creek from the severe winter storms that precipitated and followed the accident, and (iv) tests by the Nevada Irrigation District (NID) indicated that the spill was not causing a measurable negative impact on the source of its water supply. (Source 4)
F12:
SD#1 staff decided at the time of the accident to focus their efforts immediately on installing a replacement pipe to transport the sewage to the Cascade Shores WWTP, rather than on creating a temporary containment for the spill, piping the contained sewage into vactor trucks, and transporting it to another WWTP.
F13:
Lines of communication between SD#1 and outside resources and agencies, including the CVB, are specified in myriad emergency plan documents for each WWTP zone. These documents include Emergency Action Plans, Sanitary Sewer Overflow Response Plans, and Business Plans.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The SD#1 Board of Directors should establish appropriate protocols to ensure effective communication with the State Water Quality Resource Control Board and the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, in order to establish optimal ongoing relationships, more effective coordination, and mutual understanding during emergencies and incidents such as the Cascade Shores landslide and resulting spill that occurred in May 2005.
F14:
Specification of lines of communication from the CVB to SD#1 are included in an annual report submitted by SD#1 to the CVB for each of the three stream-discharge WWTPs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The SD#1 Board of Directors should establish appropriate protocols to ensure effective communication with the State Water Quality Resource Control Board and the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, in order to establish optimal ongoing relationships, more effective coordination, and mutual understanding during emergencies and incidents such as the Cascade Shores landslide and resulting spill that occurred in May 2005.
F15:
According to The Union (December 13, 2003), during the week of December 9, 2003, the town of Colfax, less than a square mile in area with a population of about 1,600, located just east of the Nevada County line, was penalized about $350,000 by CVB for a myriad of wastewater permit violations spanning several years.
F16:
A 2003/2004 Grand Jury Report identified the possibility of substantial fines being levied against SD#1.
F17:
In a letter dated August 10, 2005, the CVB proposed a total penalty (Administrative Civil Liability) against the SD#1 Cascade Shores WWTP, in the amount of $574,000. This amount was an accumulation of (i) 177 mandatory minimum $3000 penalties totaling $531,000 for violations dating back to April 30, 2000, (ii) a $33,000 CVB-estimated economic benefit of allowing the landslide sewage spill to continue for nine days, plus (iii) $10,000 to cover estimated CVB administrative costs (Source 7). In subsequent discussions between SD#1 staff and the CVB, the 177 MMPs were reduced to 166 MMPs totaling $498,000.
F18:
At the time the $574,000 penalty was proposed, SD#1 was keeping a file of CVB- required self-reported violations, but it was not keeping a running log of violations and MMPs, nor their cumulative financial magnitude, for any of the three stream-discharge WWTPs (Cascade Shores, LOP, and LWW).
Related Recommendations (3)
R3:
The SD#1 Board of Directors should direct SD#1 staff to develop a system to monitor and analyze violations associated with Self-Monitoring Reports in order to determine their potential penalties and cumulative financial impact for each zone.
R4:
The SD#1 Board of Directors should direct SD#1 staff to provide recommendations to the CEO and to the Board of Directors for dealing with the cumulative financial impact of potential violations and related fines.
R5:
The SD#1 Board of Directors should direct SD#1 staff to: (i) develop a formal system to analyze violations that result in mandatory minimum penalties, (ii) examine what failures have occurred, and (iii) take appropriate action to ensure they are less likely to occur in the future.
F19:
SD#1 later prepared lists of MMPs and their cumulative dollar amounts for LOP and LWW and documented them in a memo of February 6, 2006 (Source 8).
F20:
The SWRCB has indicated that the Cascade Shores WWTP may be qualified, by virtue of its ratepayers’ low median income level, to apply the $498,000 of MMPs toward the required upgrade of the WWTP by September 2007. Funding to cover upgrade costs is being sought from grants, insurance claims, and low interest loans. Grand Jury 0506 COUNTY Nevada County Civil Grand Jury www.civilgrandjury.com
F21:
The median income of the ratepayers in the other two stream-discharge WWTPs in SD#1 (LOP and LWW) may be too high to permit application of their cumulative MMP fines against the cost of their required upgrades.
F22:
SD#1 consultant reports state that the LWW WWTP cannot meet the required higher effluent water quality standards prior to scheduled plant upgrades (Source 8).
F23:
The Board of Supervisors has approved a request to add a Principal Engineer in DOTS to help with the numerous demands on SD#1 staff.
F24:
Minutes from SD#1 Board of Directors meetings are included as part of the Nevada County Board of Directors meetings, and now are also published separately. All these documents are available via http://new.mynevadacounty.com/clerkofboard/.
F25:
Hearings are in progress for California Senate Bill 1733 on water quality civil penalties. Among several paragraphs explaining the purpose of the bill, its author states, “Senate Bill 1733 attempts to provide assistance to [small rural] communities that are trapped in a cycle that vacillates between non-compliance and the inability to upgrade to meet compliance standards.” CONCLUSIONS
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
17 findings
F1:
A Nevada County Sheriff’s Captain directs and oversees Wayne Brown Correctional Facility.
F2:
WBCF provides a variety of programs and opportunities for the inmates, including educational programs. In 2005, inmates received 6 high school diplomas and 23 G.E.D.s.
F3:
WBCF contracts with the California Forensic Medical Group (CFMG) to provide and coordinate medical services for the inmates.
F4:
Many inmates have mental health issues due to substance abuse. ___________________________________________________________________________ Grand Jury 0506 LAW 1
F5:
WBCF contracts for a psychiatrist to be on site 5 hours per week and a psychologist 10 hours per week. When a mental health provider is not on site, services are obtained through the on-call provider and/or county behavioral health.
F6:
The number of assaultive inmates is increasing due to methamphetamine use.
F7:
WBCF provides a grievance procedure for the inmates.
F8:
Installation of additional security cameras has been scheduled since last year’s Grand Jury inspection.
F9:
All inmates go through a classification process to determine where they will be housed.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Board of Supervisors should consider immediate expansion or alteration of the Wayne Brown Correctional Facility to alleviate the inmate classification issues.
F10:
The Maximum Security section is used to house inmates who are violent offenders, on parole holds, are going through the court process, or inmates who have been sentenced to County jail but fail to meet the qualifications for Minimum Security housing.
F11:
The Minimum Security section has 94 beds in a dorm style setting. Male and female inmates are housed separately but share a co-ed dayroom.
F12:
On the date of the Grand Jury’s inspection, 40 female inmates were housed in a facility designed for sixteen.
F13:
Lone correctional officers perform inmate counts and room checks without being visually monitored.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Sheriff should direct all officers entering an inmate housing area to be visually monitored.
F14:
WBCF operates with a “No Hostage” policy according to Nevada County Sheriff’s Office, Corrections Division Directive; “Under no circumstance will weapons be given to any inmate, suspect, or hostage taker. Employees will NOT offer themselves in exchange for any hostage….”
F15:
Minimum Security inmates work at various job assignments inside and outside the facility and are given the opportunity to acquire basic work skills. Facility job assignments include the kitchen, laundry, library, and maintenance.
F16:
Minimum Security inmates may be assigned to work outside the facility with other government agencies and non-profit organizations. Inmates provide the community with over 22,000 hours of service each year.
F17:
Inmates are not always thoroughly searched when they return from outside of WBCF, nor is the holding area or multi-purpose room routinely searched prior to or after their presence. ___________________________________________________________________________ Grand Jury 0506 LAW 2 CONCLUSIONS
Related Recommendations (2)
R3:
The Sheriff should direct the officers assigned to Wayne Brown Correctional Facility to thoroughly search all inmates upon return from outside the facility.
R4:
The Sheriff should direct the officers assigned to Wayne Brown Correctional Facility to thoroughly search all multi-purpose rooms and holding areas before and after inmates are present.