Gran Jurado del Condado de Nevada
2007-2008
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 (13)
Hallazgos y recomendaciones aún no extraídos.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos y recomendaciones aún no extraídos.
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
12 hallazgos
F1:
Records management policy and procedures, based on State guidelines, are now in place, including a records destruction schedule.
F2:
All boxes and stacks of records and mail have been examined and properly filed.
F3:
The Municipal Code documentation is now complete and current.
F4:
All new documents are filed properly in a timely manner.
F5:
Record digitization has yet to begin. Conclusions City records management has been significantly improved.
F6:
Automated collection processes are in place for water, sewer and other receivables. This includes automation of late payment and shut-off notices.
F7:
Transient Occupancy Tax receipts are being monitored on a trend basis.
F8:
The City is now in compliance with Government Accounting Standards Bulletin 34 (GASB 34).
F9:
The Finance Manager meets regularly with the Finance Committee, and with the City Council on financial matters, as needed.
F10:
A new auditing firm has completed the most recent annual audit and has provided a substantive management letter to the City Council.
F11:
All City departments now prepare annual budgets.
F12:
A five-year projection of general and special fund revenues and grants has recently been completed. Conclusions
Recomendaciones adicionales
3
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
The City should continue the improved practices in the management of current records.
R2:
The City should establish and complete digital storage of archived records to facilitate access by city staff and the public. Finances Last year’s Jury report concluded that the City’s financial management practices and record keeping were inadequate and lacked proper oversight and meaningful audits.
R3:
The interim City Manager and the new City Manager should take care to assure that the Finance Manager is not overloaded with too many responsibilities and that backup is provided to cover absences. City Council Oversight Among the issues identified in last year’s Jury report: • Apparently the Council had never conducted a comprehensive performance evaluation of the City Manager. • The Council’s accommodation of the City Clerk, to assure performance of the City Clerk duties, after that person was relieved of the Office Operations Supervisor duties, did not appear to be working. • The City had contracted with the same auditing firm for the past 14 years for an annual audit of the City’s finances. Comprehensive audits were not performed. Only one Audit Management Letter had been located from the past seven years. Summarizing the conclusions, last year’s Jury report stated “It is evident the City has been suffering from a lengthy chronic malady and has become the victim of institutionalized inertia. Whatever the cause of the City’s difficulties, it is inescapable that ‘the buck stops’ with the City Council”.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
8 hallazgos
F1:
The Nevada County CCSDO has only met once a year during the last three years, and then only to re-elect members during the annual county school district dinner and award ceremony.
F2:
Available minutes from meetings of the CCSDO were sporadic and indicate the Committee has not performed any useful function or task since it considered a high school boundary question more than three years ago.
F3:
The philosophy of the current and former county superintendents has been to “call you if I need you” The former superintendent used the CCSDO only for a district boundary change over three years ago, and the current superintendent has not convened the CCSDO to consider any issue or recommendation.
F4:
Local school identity is considered essential to any organization or administrative configuration of schools and school districts.
F5:
The administrative consolidation of the Ready Springs and Pleasant Valley school districts is an example of administrative savings while preserving local school identity. It is a model for examination and consideration by the CCSDO.
F6:
There are five small schools districts in Nevada County, three with fewer than five hundred students.
F7:
No investigation of consolidation of the five small school districts has been initiated by the CCSDO, nor has the CCSDO been directed by the county superintendent of schools to commence any such consideration.
F8:
The Grand Jury is aware that the state’s proposed budget cuts may result in the possible reduction of local teaching and program positions. The Nevada County Superintendent of Nevada County Committee on School District Organization P a g e 2 Schools estimated the possibility of the elimination of up to 26 teaching positions that would be accomplished partially by layoffs and the balance by not filling positions opened by retirements, as well as other school cuts. There was no mention of any anticipated involvement of the CCSDO in these considerations. Conclusions
Recomendaciones adicionales
4
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
The CCSDO should be active and meet on a regular monthly or quarterly basis.
R2:
The CCSDO should take the initiative in its mandated role instead of passively waiting to participate in consideration of organizational issues and concerns involving potential administrative and fiscal efficiencies of county schools and school districts. Frequency of meetings should be determined by the urgency of the fiscal reductions facing the districts.
R3:
CCSDO inquiries should actively include the input of parents of students, teachers, administrators and administrative staff of all schools studied, as well as staff and administrators of the office of the county superintendent of schools.
R4:
The CCSDO should issue a comprehensive and detailed report of its findings and recommendations on consolidations, reorganizations, and administrative mergers to the County Board of Education on or before December 31, 2008.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
15 hallazgos
F1:
The Nevada County Libraries are currently in the Group 3 category with populations of 100,000 to 150,000.
F2:
The branches offer numerous varieties of volumes including books, magazines, newspapers, audio books, video recordings, music recordings, as well as internet services at all branches. The historical branch mainly carries items such as census THE LIBRARIES OF NEVADA COUNTY Page | 1 indexes, genealogy records, various maps, past newspapers, vital records, assessor’s maps, and extensive information on local history.
F3:
All branches are vigorously used by the public with total annual circulation in excess of 652,000 volumes. This number is expected to increase by 10% this year.
F4:
The libraries offer many free programs intended to stimulate an interest in reading and promote cultural awareness and literacy.
F5:
Children’s services are also available and several branches offer special hours and programs for children.
F6:
Volunteers are a tremendous asset to the libraries for special programs and fund raising.
F7:
Increased hours at the Penn Valley branch in the form of an additional day of operation with afternoon hours have improved utilization.
F8:
The Bear River branch, which also serves as the Bear River High School library, is open to the public when school is not in session.
F9:
The Bear River branch has a “sandwich board” type of sign that is displayed infrequently and therefore lacks consistent/effective signage that shows the location of hours that can easily be seen This is especially ineffective as the branch is available to the public during non-school hours only..
F10:
Lack of physical storage and display space within the Truckee, Grass Valley and Madelyn Helling branches results in problems managing computer access stations, card catalog features, and the general mobility of books and accessories. Safety codes require the anchoring of bookcases therefore they are limited to places where they can be anchored.
F11:
Available parking is a problem at most of the branches.
F12:
The libraries have an inter-branch system of transferring volumes between each other on a special order basis. However, the Truckee branch has a system that uses UPS shipping and can take up to a week to pick up and deliver to other branches. This creates a storage problem at the Truckee branch that is already stretched to the limit on space.
F13:
The libraries encourage promotion of personnel from within to the different levels of qualifications in the system.
F14:
A recently negotiated salary increase has brought all the staff to a more equitable level in comparison with surrounding county libraries. There are cost of living increases for the term of the contract.
F15:
The libraries have 28.6 full time equivalent employees. This is the same number as reported in the 2005/2006 Jury report. THE LIBRARIES OF NEVADA COUNTY Page | 2 CONCLUSIONS
Recomendaciones adicionales
4
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
The Board of Supervisors should fund for additional library staff as necessary to enable for more hours among the branches and fund more needed literacy programs.
R2:
The Jury confirms the recommendations of the 2005/2006 Jury that The Board of Supervisors should continue to support the Nevada County Library by augmenting the Library General Fund as specific needs are defined, such as ways to increase space needed.
R3:
The Board of Supervisors should maintain and improve the state and conditions of the county’s libraries by ensuring they are an integral part of the county’s Capital Facilities Master Plan.
R4:
The Bear River branch should erect a clear and visible sign indicating location and hours of operation for the branch located within the high school. RESPONSES Board of Supervisors September 4, 2008 THE LIBRARIES OF NEVADA COUNTY Page | 3
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
5 hallazgos
F1:
Current Supervisor duties and time spent in the performance thereof warrant finding that the position requires full time work.
F2:
When compared to the BOS salaries generated by all but one of the methodologies reviewed (even where the Jury rejects or discounts a methodology as not necessarily appropriate for Nevada County), the current salaries paid to Nevada County Supervisors are noticeably lower.
F3:
The Nevada County Supervisors are paid, on average, less than most other County employees.
F4:
Regardless of the methodology selected the determination of the Supervisors' salary and benefits cannot be delegated; but must be accomplished by adoption of an Ordinance, by the Supervisors, after a public hearing.
F5:
There will always be opposition to a pay raise for the BOS. X. CONCLUSIONS
Recomendaciones adicionales
5
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
The BOS should adopt the Performance Proximity Method for establishing a new, current, base salary for the members of the BOS.
R2:
The BOS should adopt the Social Security COLA Method for determining future adjustments to the base salary.
R3:
Any increases in the BOS Member salaries should take effect on January 5, 2009.
R4:
The BOS should adjust their salary yearly using the Social Security COLA to determine the amount of increase.
R5:
BOS should review their base salary every five fiscal years, using the Performance Proximity Method. XII. Attachments Compensation History Committee Assignments BOS Salary Survey June 2007 Responses Board of Supervisors, October 29, 2008 NEVADA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORSCOMPENSATION AND BENEFITS REVIEW P age | 2 3 NC BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COMPENSATION HISTORY 1981 TO 2006 Ordinance DATE Monthly Salary Benefits 1035 9/8/1981 Member $1,271.51 Same as other County Officers. Chair $1321.51 1214 4/2/1984 Member $1,335.09 Dependent health care coverage NTE $82/month. Chair $ 1435.09 All other forms of compensation same as other elected County Officers. 1246 9/4/1984 Member $ 1599.99 Dependent health care coverage NTE $82/month. Chair $1699.99 5/7 of each Supervisor's Contribution to PERS. Such other fringe benefits as heretorfore granted by BOS to each member. 1324 8/19/1985 Member $1,928 Dependent health care coverage NTE $82/month. Chair $2,028 5/7 of each Supervisor's Contribution to PERS. Dental Insurance for Supervisor only. Such other fringe benefits as heretorfore granted bbyy BBOOSS ttoo eeaacchh mmeemmbbeerr. 1556 2/7/1989 Member $2,389.50 Dependent health care coverage NTE $82/month. Chair $2489.50 5/7 of each Supervisor's Contribution to PERS. Dental Insurance for Supervisor only. Such other fringe benefits as heretorfore granted by BOS to each member. 1590 9/12/1989 Repealed Ord. #1556 because a Referendum was qualified for the ballot, against Ord.1556 on April 6, 1989. Salary and Benefits reverted to those established by Ord. #1324 in 1985. 1667 9/18/1990 Added Mileage allowance of $500 per month for Districts 1-4 and $575 for District 5 or use of County Vehicle. CCoommppeennssaattiioonn HHiissttoorryy AAttttaacchhmmeenntt 11 11 NC BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COMPENSATION HISTORY 1981 TO 2006 Ordinance DATE Monthly Salary Benefits 1707 4/23/1991 Member $2,263 Dependent health care coverage NTE $82/month. Chair $2,363 5/7 of each Supervisor's Contribution to PERS. 1858 4/19/1994 Member $2,353.52 Same benefits as authorized by Ordinance Chair $2457.52 Number 1707. Retro to 01/01/1994 1907 7/23/1996 Member $2,518.27 $350/month toward Cafeteria Health Benefit Plan Chair $2,629.55 7% of Members contribution to PERS in excess of $133.33 per month. Such other fringe benefits as heretorfore granted by BOS to each member. 1983 9/15/1998 Member $2,568.63 Same benefits as authorized by Ordinance Chair $2,682.20 number 1907. 22004433 11//99//22000011 MMeemmbbeerr $$22,884433.4477 $$440000//mmoonntthh ttoowwaarrdd CCaaffeetteerriiaa HHeeaalltthh BBeenneeffiitt PPllaann Chair $ 2,969.20 7% of Members contribution to PERS in excess of $133.33 per month. Such other fringe benefits as heretorfore granted by BOS to each member. 2104 1/23/2003 Member $3,098.81 Same benefits as authorized by Ordinance Chair $3,253.79 number 2043. 2194 1/24/2006 Member $3,222.77 Same benefits provided for other County Elected Chair $3,383.94 Officials (except Sheriff). May retain existing $400/month toward Cafeteria 2194 1/24/2006 Effective 07/01/06: Health Benefit Plan or opt for traditional health Member $3287.22 plan as provided for County's Elected Officials. Chair $3451.62 CCoommppeennssaattiioonn HHiissttoorryy AAttttaacchhmmeenntt 11 22 -, NEVADA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COMMITTEES, COMMISSIONS, ETC. - 2008 ) DISTRICT I- NATE BEASON: Member Ad Hoc Committee for HEW Reuse Opportunities Area 4 Agency on Aging Governing Board Foothill Airport Land Use Commission Nevada County Substance Abuse Advisory Board Remote Access Network (RAN) Sierra Economic Development Corporation (SEDCorp) Sierra Planning Organization Board (SPO) Transit Services Commission Transportation Commission (Chair) Yuba Watershed Council i \. Alternate Finance Authority (Nevada County) Golden Sierra Job Training Agency Governing Board Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) 10 (R) 3(A) -~ REV: 1118/08 0. ..~..~ - ._ -;. Committee Assignments District 1Attachment 2 NEVADA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COMMITTEES, COMMISSIONS, ETC. - 2008 DISTRICT II - SUE HORNE: Member Ad Hoc General Plan Update Steering Committee Audit Review Committee California Rural Home Mortgage Finance Authority (CRHMFA) (RCRC) Environmental Services Joint Powers Authority (ESJPA) (RCRC) (Alternate member attends) Mental Health Advisory Board National Association of Counties (NACo) Regional Council of Rural Counties (RCRC) Solid and Hazardous Waste Commission Alternate ,. • Central Sierra Subregional Selection Committee/Sierra Nevada Conservancy Board Sierra Sacramento Valley Emergency Medical Services Joint Powers Authority Governing Board 8(R) 2 (A) • _~RELLV: 1122/08 ------ Committee Assignments District 2Attachment 2 NEVADA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COMMITTEES, COMMISSIONS, ETC. - 2008 DISTRICT III - JOHN SPENCER Member Ad Hoc Committee for Dorsey Drive Interchange Ad Hoc General Plan Update Steering Committee Economic Resource Council (Nevada County) Finance Authority (Nevada County) - Housing Authority Representative Golden Sierra Job Training Agency Governing Board Northem Sierra Air Quality Management District Board Transit Services Commission Transportation Commission Alternate / *CRHMFA (California Rural Home Mortgage Finance Authority) Homebuyers Fund (RCRC) Fire Safe Council ofNevada County High Sierra Resource Conservation and Development Council Operational Area Emergency Services Council Regional Council of Rural Counties (RCRC) 8(R) 5(A) __ ~RE~V~:.l.!1I-.!.'18Q!.'/O~8~ -- Committee Assignments District 3Attachment 2 NEVADA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ( COMMITTEES, COMMISSIONS, ETC. - 2008 DISTRICT IV - HANK WESTON Member Ad Hoc Committee for Capital Facilities Planning (western) Audit Review Committee Budget Review Committee Fire Safe Council of Nevada County First Five Nevada County Children &Families First Commission High Sierra Resource Conservation and Development Council Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) (Chair) Nevada Power Authority Operational Area Emergency Services Council Sierra Sacramento Valley Emergency Medical Services Joint Powers Authority Governing Board Solid &Hazardous Waste Commission (Nevada County) Alternate Economic Resource Council (Nevada County) Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District Board (NSAQMD) Risk Management Committee 11(R) 3(A) REV: 1118/08 --- Committee Assignments District 4Attachment 2 NEVADA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COMMITTEES, COMMISSIONS, ETC. - 2008 DISTRICT V -TED OWENS: Member Ad Hoc Committee for Capital Facilities Planning (eastern) Ad Hoc Committee for HEW Reuse Opportunities Budget Review Committee California State Association of Counties (CSAC) Central Sierra Subregional Selection Committee/Sierra Nevada Conservancy Board Community Development Agency Land Use Efficiency Committee Finance Authority (Nevada County) Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) Multi-Agency Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District Board Risk Management Committee Sacramento Mother Lode Regional Association of County Supervisors Truckee River Basin Water Group Truckee River Watershed Council Alternate Foothill Airport Land Use Commission Mental Health Advisory Board National Association of Counties (NACo) Nevada Power Authority Regional Council of Rural Counties (RCRC) Risk Management Committee Sierra Economic Development Corporation (SEDCorp) Sierra Planning Organization Board (SPO) Transit Services Commission Transportation Commission 14 (R) 10 (A) Committee Assignments District 5Attachment 2 BOS Salary Survey June 2007 11I1III Sort by Po ulation Sort by Salary Population as of Current Annual Rank County 1/1/07 County Salary 1 Los Anoeles 10,331,93 171,648 Los Anoeles 10,331,939 171,64 2 Riverside 2,031,62 137,319 San Diego 3,098,269 137,318 3 Santa Clara 1,808,05 137,318 Oranoe 3,098,121 137,31 4 San Dieqo 3,098,26 137,318 Riverside 2,031,62 137,31 5 Alameda 1,526,14 137,318 San Bernardino 2,028,01 121,02' 6 Oranoe 3,098,121 137,318 Santa Clara 1,808,05 137,318 7 Sonoma County 481,765 123,576 Alameda 1,526,148 137,318 8 San Bernardino 2,028,01 121,024 Sacramento 1,406,804 94,404 9 Ventura 825,51 113,338 Contra Costa 1,042,341 97,479 10 Monterey 425,96 113,196 Fresno 917,51 102,989 11 Fresno 917,515 102,989 Ventura 825,512 113,338 12 Santa Cruz 264,125 99,424 San Francisco 808,844 92,901 13 Contra Costa 1,042,341 97,479 Kern 801,648 83,070 14 Sacramento 1,406,804 94,404 San Mateo 733,496 85,896 15 San Francisco 808,844 92,901 San Joaquin 679,68 73,278 16 Marin 255,982 91,957 Stanislaus 521,49 68,073 17 Solano 424,82" 90,972 Sonoma County 481,76 123,576 __ 18 San Mateo 733,496 85,896 Tulare 429,00 80,537 19 Santa Barbara 424,425 84,200 Monterey 425,96 113,196 20 Kern 801,648 83,070 Solano 424,823 90,972 21 Napa County 135,96 80,829 Santa Barbara 424,425 84,200 22 Tulare 429,00 80,537 Placer 324,495 30,000 23 San Luis Obispo 264,90 79,014 San Luis Obispo 264,900 79,014 24 EIDorado 178,674 76,876 Santa Cruz 264,125 99,424 25 Humboldt 131,959 73,92C Marin 255,982 91,957 26 San Joaquin 679,687 73,278 Merced 251,51 69,360 27 Merced 251,510 69,360 Butte 218,06 48,581 28 Madera 148,721 68,659 Yolo 193,98 49,73C 29 Mendocino 90,291 68,64C Shasta 181,401 54,60e 30 Stanislaus 521,497 68,073 EIDorado 178,674 76,876 31 Lake 64,276 57,689 Imperial 172,67 51,070 32 Kinos 151,381 55,931 Kinos 151,381 55,931 33 Shasta 181,401 54,600 Madera 148,721 68,659 34 Amador 38,435 51,494 Napa County 135,969 80,829 35 Imperial 172,672 51,070 Humboldt 131,959 73,920 36 Yolo 193,983 49,730 Nevada 99,766 39,447 37 Butte 218,069 48,581 Sutter 93,919 34,471 38 Calaveras 46,028 48,110 Mendocino 90,291 68,640 39 Inyo 18,383 46,448 Yuba 70,745 46,248 40 Yuba 70,745 46,248 Lake 64,276 57,689 41 San Benito 57,803 46,150 Tehama County 61,774 12,54C 42 Lassen 36,375 42,912 San Benito 57,803 46,15C 1-- 43 Mono 13,985 41,064 Tuolumne 57,223 37,210 44 Nevada 99,766 39,447 Calaveras 46,028 48,11 45 Plumas 21,128 38,040 Siskiyou 45,953 33,12 46 Mariposa 18,254 37,290 Amador 38,435 51,49 47 Tuolumne 57,223 37,210 Lassen 36,375 42,912 48 Sutter 93,919 34,471 Del Norte 29,341 28,08C 49 Siskiyou 45,953 33,129 Glenn 28,915 30,285 - 50 Sierra 3,485 31,000 Colusa 21,951 24,000 51 {Glenn 28,915 30,285 Plumas 21,128 38,04e 52 Placer 324,495 30,00t lnvo 18,383 46,448 53 Del Norte 29,341 28,080 Mariposa 18,254 37,290 54 Alpine 1,261 25,176 Trinity 14,171 25,008 55 Trinity 14,171 25,008 Mono 13,985 41,064 56 Colusa 21,951 24,OOC Modoc 9,721 15,859 57 Modoc 9,721 15,85S Sierra 3,485 31,000 58 Tehama County 61,774 12,540 Alpine 1,261 25,176 - BOSSalary Survey Attachment 3 Prepared June 2007 BOS Salary Survey June 2007 Sort by Budget I Population Current Annual Rank County as of 1/1/07 Salary Total FTE 1 Los Anaeles 10,33193 17131 21,241,000,00 102,058 2 San Francisco 808,8401 92,901 6,065,992 29 27990 3 Oranae 3,098121 137,31 5,904,027,06 18,733 4 San Dieao 3098,26 137,318 4,193,000,000 16,844 5 Santa Clara 1,808,05 137,318 3,900,000,000 15,000 6 Riverside 2,031,62 13731 3,860,000,00C 17,285 7 San Bernardino 2,028,01 121,0201 3428,014,63~ 18,165 8 Sacramento 140680 94,404 2,663,597,225 14,428 9 Alameda 1,526,14 137,31 2360,221,86' 9081 10 Fresno 917,51 10298 1652065,191 8,018 11 San Mateo 73349 85,89 1,648,095 471 5,777 12 Ventura 82551 11333 1,541,213431 7,932 13 Kern 801,64 8307 1384,730,30( 14 Contra Costa 1042,341 9747 1248,308,44f 5,658 15 San Joaauin 67968 73,278 1,129,000,000 16 Sonoma 481,76 123,576 1,100,00000 5,212 17 Solano 424,82 90,972 990,52654 3092 18 Monterev 425,96 113,19 879,800,00 4559 19 Santa Barbara 424,42 84,20 712,709201 4,296 20 Placer 32449 30,00 638,461,47~ 2,827 21 Tulare 429,00 80,537 614,798,095 4,919 22 San Luis Obisno 264,90 79,014 474,89877C 2,501 23 I EIDorado 17867 76,876 474,100 ODC 2,093 24 I Merced 251,51 69,360 416,308,606 2,312 25 Marin 25598 9195/ 402,200,00( 2 19~ 26 Butte 218,06 48,581 360,192,182 2300 27 Santa Cruz 264,12 9942 317,390,79 2,455 28 Shasta 181,401 5460 310,277,47 1,918 29 Yolo 19398 49,73 299,191,30 1,739 30 I Imperial 172,67 5106 293,806,69 2,105 31 I Naoa Countv 135,96 8082 276,70821 1339 32 Stanislaus 521,49 6807 272,920,531 4,582 33 Humboldt 131,95 73,92 263,205,06 2,056 34 Mendocino 90291 68,64 206,480,000 1554 35 Sutter 93,91~ 34,471 202,390,003 962 36 Kinas 151,381 55,931 193,646,67 1287 37 Lake 6427E 57,689 181,000,00 976 38 Nevada 99,76E 3944/ 180,12151 986 39 Madera 148,721 68,659 173491,786 1,520 40 Yuba 70,74 46248 154,21224!: 1,045 41 Tuolumne 57,22 37210 122,652,221 940 42 Tehama 61,77 12,54 120,247,251 828 43 San Benito 5780 46,15 112000,001 450 44 Siskivou 45,95 33,12 111,188,92 744 45 Calaveras 46,028 48,11 104650,27 46 Lassen 36,37 42,912 87,333,96E 472 47 MariDosa 1825 37,290 82,538,294 403 48 Plumas 21,12 38,040 81,340,41 438 49 Invo 18,38 46,448 76,068,47 534 50 Amador 38,43 51,49' 73,705,72 515 51 Glenn 28,91 30 28~ 64,883,92 466 52 Colusa 21,951 24,OO( 60898,77 53 Mono 13,98!: 41,06' 45,453,96 54 Del Norte 29341 2808 43,441,97 482 55 Modoc 9721 1585 32,228,01 229 56 Aloine 1,261 25,17 25000,00 70 57 Sierra 3,48S 31,00 18,146,26 119 58 Trinitv 14,171 25,00 *Budget can reflect either 2006-07 or 2007108 Prepared June 2007 BOSSalary Survey Attachment 3 'RlVerslde I 2031625/ 137 31~ :3 860,000 ooEf -'-72851 •••~. 7 8 v i ~ S r a . , .~ ... _ 0 r 0 :n .. : .. ' . ? . t • o .......-•.•.,.. 210.42E8J0?..1,.1.9, , 1" 9, ' 4 -1 4 . ~0" 0 " 2 1 " - - ~~2 3 .~ ..• 6 28 3 .0 .59 . 7 •.. . . : .. : 0 : . Z 3 S 11 ~ 041...2~ ••••8G ,,~ '\i>,"\!;."\fu ~\')~~ "'~~.L~~~~ •• 11 San Mateo 733,49E 85,89 1,648,095,47 5,7771 12 Ventura 825,51 113,33 1,541,213,431 7,932] 13 Kern 801,641 83,070 1,384,730,30 14 Contra Costa 1,042,341 97,47~ 1,248,308,44 5,658 15 San Joaquin 679,68 73,278 1,129,000,000 16 Sonoma 481,76~ 123,576 1,100,000,000 5,212 17 Solano 424,82 90,97 990,526,54E 3,092 18 Monterev 425,96C 113,19E 879,800,00 4,559 19 Santa Barbara 424,42~ 84,20C 712,709,201 4,296 20 Placer 324,49~ 30,00C 638,461,47 2,827 21 Tulare 429,OOE 80,537 614,798,095 4,919 22 San Luis Obispo 264,90C 79,Ol~ 474,898,77C 2,501 23 EI Dorado 178,67 76,87E 474,100,OOC 2,09 24 Merced 251,51C 69,360 416,308,606 2,312 25 Marin 255,98 91,95 402,200,00( 2,19 26 Butte 218,06~ 48,581 360,192,182 2300 27 Santa Cruz 264,12~ 99,42~ 317,390,79 2,455 28 Shasta 181,401 54,60e 31O,277,47~ 1,918 29 Yolo 193,98 49,73C 299,191,30 1,739 30 Imoerial 172,67 51,06~ 293,806,69 2,105 31 Naoa County 135,96~ 80,82~ 276,708,21 , 1,339 32 Stanislaus 521,49 68,07 272,920,531 4,582 33 Humboldt 131,95~ 73,920 263,205,06 2,056 34 Mendocino 90,291 68,64C 206,480,000 1554 35 Sutter 93,91£ 34,471 202,390,003 962 36 Kinas 151,381 55,931 193,646,67( 1,287 37 Lake 64,276 57,68£ 181,OOO,OOC 976 38 Nevada 99,766 39,44 180,121,51£ 986 39 Madera 148,721 68,659 173,491,786 1,52C 40 Yuba 70,745 46,248 154,212,24~ 1,045 41 Tuolumne 57,22 37,210 122,652,221 940 42 Tehama 61,774 12,540 120,247,25E 828 43 San Benito 57,80 46,150 112,OOO,Ooe 450 44 Siskiyou 45,95 33,129 111,188,92~ 744 45 Calaveras 46,028 48,llC 104,650,27 46 Lassen 36,375 42,91 87,333,96E 472 47 Marioosa 18,254 37,290 82,538,294 403 48 Plumas 21,128 38,04C 81,340,41£ 438 49 Invo 18,38 46,448 76,068,47£ 534 50 Amador 38,435 51,494 73,705,72 515 51 Glenn 28,915 30,28 64,883,92 466 52 Colusa 21,951 24,OOC 60,898,771l 53 Mono 13,985 41,064 45,453,96fl 54 Del Norte 29,341 28,080 43,441,97 482 55 Modoc 9,721 15,859 32,228,015 229 56 Alpine 1,261 25,176 25,OOO,OOC 70 57 Sierra 3,485 31,00C 18,146,~ 119 58 I Trinity 14,171 25,008 I I I • Budaet can reflect either 2006-07 or 2007/08 -- - Prepared June 2007 BOS Salary Survey Attachment 3
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
11 hallazgos
F1:
There are two permanent Veterans Service Representatives who handle claims. One of these is the Veterans Service Officer, the other is the Assistant Veterans Service Officer. There is also a permanent, part-time office assistant, who effective in April 2008 works 10hrs./week for the VSO; previous to that, the office assistant was a temporary employee who was utilized approximately 30 hrs./week
F2:
Since 2006 the VSO, on occasion has given incorrect and misleading information to veterans and their families, and has not always been timely in the handling of claims.
F3:
Van service, originally established by a previous Veterans Service Officer has been reduced from three to two times per week, between the Auburn Medical Clinic and the Reno Veterans Administration Hospital.
F4:
Placing the VSO under the Social Services Department was intended to enhance intra- county agency co-ordination of services for veterans and their family members.
F5:
Since 2006 disharmony among the VSO employees has had a marked effect on the ability of the office to provide services to Nevada County veterans.
F6:
Only a small percentage of the 12,000 veterans living in Nevada County seek assistance through the VSO. There are pockets of under-served and housebound veterans living in Nevada County who are currently not being adequately served by the VSO.
F7:
The anticipated return of veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan and expanded outreach services will exceed the current capacity of the VSO.
F8:
In 2007, because of disharmony in the VSO, the Social Services Director engaged a Veterans Affairs Consultant to analyze the operations and staffing of the office. Nevada County Veterans Service Office P ag e 2
F9:
The Social Services Director is addressing the issues identified in the Consultant’s report and is implementing a number of the recommendations including those relating to staffing, training, and co-ordination of services.
F10:
The Nevada County veteran’s community is unaware of the VSO’s organizational structure, and in particular, the roles played by the Social Services Department and its Director in the support and oversight of the VSO mission. Conclusions
F11:
The BOS treatment of the Fire Plan on April 8, 2008 significantly reduced the importance of the Fire Plan, shifting its focus from mandates and requirements to persuasion and cooperation. Conclusions
Recomendaciones adicionales
11
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
The BOS should support the Social Services Director’s ongoing efforts to resolve the problems that currently exist at the VSO.
R2:
The BOS should authorize funds for the Social Services Department to enable the VSO to extend veteran out-reach services and provide a mobile-assisted office to effectively aid hard-to-serve and housebound veterans.
R3:
The BOS should authorize funds for the Social Services Department to enable the VSO office assistant position to be a permanent, full-time position. Nevada County Veterans Service Office P ag e 3
R4:
The BOS should direct the staff to study whether co-ordination of veteran service referrals for other County benefits is adequate to meet the needs of veterans and their families.
R5:
The BOS should direct staff to request the Veterans Administration to restore van service to its previous level.
R6:
BOS should direct the staff to update the VSO website. It should include the departmental structure with contact information for the Social Service Director and an organizational wall chart with this information should be posted at the VSO.
R7:
The BOS should direct staff to periodically determine the satisfaction of services provided by the VSO. These surveys should originate from and be mailed back to the Social Services Department to assure confidentiality. Required Response: Nevada County Board of Supervisors October 20, 2008 Nevada County Veterans Service Office P ag e 4
R8:
In 2007, because of disharmony in the VSO, the Social Services Director engaged a Veterans Affairs Consultant to analyze the operations and staffing of the office. Agree.
R9:
The Social Services Director is addressing the issues identified in the Consultant's report and it is implementing a number of the recommendations including those relating to staffing, training, and coordination of services. Agree.
R10:
The Nevada County veteran's community is unaware of the VSO's organizational structure, and in particular, the roles played by the Social Services Department and its Director in the support and oversight of the VSO mission. Partially agree.
R11:
The BOS treatment of the Fire Plan on April 8, 2008 significantly reduced the importance of the Fire Plan, shifting its focus from mandates and requirements to persuasion and cooperation. Conclusions
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
11 hallazgos
F1:
The President of the Board receives $300, the Vice-President receives $260 and the Directors receive $225 per regular monthly meeting. In addition, each director receives $100 for any other meetings. They are paid whether they attend or are excused. The monthly meetings include complimentary dinner for everyone present. The current budget includes direct Board expenses of $16,820. By comparison, the Truckee-Tahoe Sanitary Agency, operating a larger wastewater treatment plant, and whose budget is 7.5 times that of DSPUD, includes $12,000 in its current budget for Board of Directors’ fees and expenses.
F2:
Other than the licensed operating personnel, there is no engineering expertise on site to evaluate the information received from retained outside consultants. The Board members, three of whom, are in their first term, and the General Manager rely on these consultants for technical knowledge and expertise at an annual cost of $247,000 (Includes Chief Plant Operator for part of the year).
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R1:
The District should embark on an extensive training program to equip the Board and Staff with the knowledge and skills to manage the District’s future needs.
R7:
The Board should exercise greater supervision over the General Manger. This supervision should include measurable performance indicators linked to his major duties and to the District’s objectives. Required Response Donner Summit Public Utility District Board of Directors: October 6, 2008 Attachments Attachment A DSPUD – Selected Comparisons, dated 11.13.07 revised 4/13/2008 Donner Summit Public Utility District P a ge 5 Donner Summit PUD - Selected Comparisons OPERATING BUDGET ’07- 08 Expenses Employees Donner Summit PUD $ 1,592,876 8 Tahoe-Truckee Sanitary Agency (T-TSA) 11,951,855 61 (6 open) Tahoe Donner PUD 31,000,000 67 GENERAL MANAGER SALARIES ’06- 07 Donner Summit PUD $153,142* T-TSA 149,965 Truckee Donner PUD 147,430 -179,192 Tahoe City PUD 137,786 Truckee Town Mgr. 126,203 *Only benefit is Long Term Disability Insurance SALARY COMPARISON ’07- 08 Donner Summit PUD T-TSA General Mgr. $158,133 $ 149,965 Chief Plant Operator 105,000 88,608 Operations Supt. - 98,352 Field Services Supvr. 63,139 98,352 Operator II 52,000 61,176 Operator I 41,899 54,300 BOARD MEMBER MEETING FEES Regular Monthly Other Donner Summit PUD* President $ 300 $100 Vice Pres. 260 100 Directors (3) 225 100 *Paid even if excused T-TSA $100 $100 Tahoe Donner PUD $400 per month + Medical Plan BOARD EXPENSE Donner Summit T-TSA ’05-06 $10,100 NA ’06-07 12,740* $ 6,700 ’07-08 (budget) 16,820 12,000 4/13/2008 Attachment A
F3:
A comparison of salaries (Attachment A) shows that the salaries of the General Manager and the Chief Plant Operator are higher than comparable positions at T- TSA. The T-TSA has a ’07-08 Operating Budget 7.5 times larger than DSPUD, and 61 staff positions compared with six full-time and two part-time employees at DSPUD.
F4:
The District is spending $30,500 to insure property valued at $11,867,000. By comparison, the T-TSA is spending $30,000 to insure property valued at $68,000,000.
F5:
The District does not have reserve funds.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3:
The District should develop a policy for establishment of reserve funds and create such funds.
F6:
Failure to have an operating website makes it difficult to provide stakeholders with relevant information.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2:
The District should give high priority to developing and executing a communications strategy that will open the window for all stakeholders and interested parties. They should complete the upgrade of the web site; expand the content, include on the web site the Board Meeting Minutes, and publish a regular newsletter.
F7:
The minutes of the Board meetings are inadequate to provide a clear understanding of Board activities.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2:
The District should give high priority to developing and executing a communications strategy that will open the window for all stakeholders and interested parties. They should complete the upgrade of the web site; expand the content, include on the web site the Board Meeting Minutes, and publish a regular newsletter.
F8:
The minutes of the Board meetings indicate that with the exception of invited guests - attorneys, engineers, potential new board members, etc - almost no stakeholders attend Board meetings.
F9:
The dispute with the TFPD was a result of DSPUD staff failure to execute the contracts with Nevada County for two years to provide fire services to County Service Area 31 and other Nevada and Placer County areas outside the DSPUD. It involved approximately $63,000 claimed by DSPUD and the TFPD cross-complaint for $164,462 in damages. The settlement provided that DSPUD receive $25,000 to be spent to upgrade of the water distribution system and $5000 to upgrade the fire station to meet code. TFPD will spend $33,000 to upgrade the fire equipment serving the Donner Summit area. Donner Summit Public Utility District P a ge 3
F10:
Under the agreement between the DSPUD and SLCWD, DSPUD is entitled to 56% of the capacity of the wastewater treatment plant capacity and SLCWD is entitled to 44 %. DSPUD has 83 registered voters from which to draw Board members. SLCWD has no representation on the DSPUD Board.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R6:
Nevada and Placer County LAFCOs, together with the DSPUD and SLCWD, should explore the feasibility of a merger of the two districts. Boards of both districts should seek alternate means to provide representation to the large number of users in the SLCWD who have virtually no voice in the affairs of the District.
F11:
For ten months of the year, DSPUD discharges wastewater to the South Yuba River in the amount of 0.52 million gallons per day with the capacity to be expanded to 0.80 million gallons per day by 2010. In dry or cold years, the stream is low, and high wastewater flows can be discharged into low stream flows. Conclusions
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R4:
The District should investigate the extent of new technology that is or may become available to discharge wastewater - for example, year round subsurface disposal of wastewater.
R5:
The DSPUD and its related stakeholders should carefully and completely explore all potential impacts on current users of the system and others affected before entering into any agreements with Royal Gorge LLC or any other future development.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
11 hallazgos
F1:
The District enjoys a virtual monopoly since, with a limited exception, there are no other entities that provide its services within its service territory.
F2:
There were egregious delays of more than three years in reconciling the deposit and costs and in billing the Developer under the 2002 Agreement.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2:
The Board should ensure that staff promptly completes its reconciliation of costs and deposits and promptly bills or refunds the balance to developers.
F3:
This dispute, which took ten months to resolve, was marked by acrimony on both sides.
F4:
Developer was delinquent in promptly submitting as-built drawings under the 2002 Agreement.
F5:
The District treated the Developer as a credit risk in spite of having his significant deposits on hand. 3
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4:
The Board should establish clear Board policy for resolution of any credit risk issues that may arise despite the existence of deposits.
F6:
The Board was aware of the decision to withhold services under the 2006 and 2007 agreements as a way of forcing payment under the 2002 Agreement.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3:
The Board should ensure that the practice of holding a developer hostage, by not serving a different project, does not occur again.
F7:
The District currently has no published process for resolving disputes between the District and developers, although it does have such a process for resolving disputes between the District and customers.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
The Board should set up a clear dispute resolution process for development issues, culminating in access to the Board.
F8:
The new General Manager has begun a thorough and complete review of the District Code. To date, only review of Title 1, General Provisions, has been completed. Conclusions
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R5:
The Board should enthusiastically support the complete review and revision of polices, rules, and procedures in the District Code being undertaken by the new General Manager. In light of the leverage that being the only game in town creates, the Board should make sure that the revisions address the matters set forth in this Report, as well as any other shortcomings that may be found during the review. Response Truckee Donner Public Utility District Board of Directors: October 1, 2008 5
F9:
It was inappropriate to require the Developer to release the District from liability for its conduct as a condition for receiving service.
F10:
The Board’s disengagement in this matter contributed to escalation of the dispute. The matter should have been put on the first available Board meeting agenda. A hearing 4
F11:
The Board of Directors’ focus on the collection of the bill rather than the relationship between the District and a Developer who provides capital improvements for the District was shortsighted.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
5 hallazgos
F1:
The County was the party charged under the Mediation and Conciliation Service’s Procedures with the giving of notice for the August 15, 2007 Agency Shop Elections.
F2:
In order to give five calendar days notice for an Agency Shop Election to be held on Wednesday, August 15, 2007, the notice would have had to be posted on or before Thursday, August 9, 2007, and in order to give five working days notice, excluding Saturday and Sunday, the notice would have had to be posted on or before Wednesday, August 8, 2007.
F3:
The County's posting of notice on Friday, August 10, 2007 failed to give the required five working days notice of the Agency Shop Elections. The County gave only three working days notice.
F4:
The Union's posting of notice on August 9, 2007 failed to give five working days notice of the Agency Shop Elections. The Union gave only four working days notice.
F5:
The Union’s Affidavit, as provided by the Mediation and Conciliation Service, does not reflect the locations where the Union posted notices of the August 15, 2007 elections. Conclusions
Recomendaciones adicionales
14
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
The BOS should send the Jury's Reports to the Mediation and Conciliation Service for its consideration.
R2:
In future union elections, the County should avail itself of the alternative provided in the Mediation and Conciliation Service’s “Procedures for Mandated Agency Shop Elections” and distribute the notice to all bargaining unit members, in addition to the traditional posting of notices.
R3:
The BOS should determine whether Mediation and Conciliation Service procedures include permitting the County to use the County's electronic facilities (e-mail) to give employees notice of agency shop elections. Attachments
R4:
Challenged Votes: Any observer or the Election Supervisor may challenge the eligibility of a voter. The Election Supervisor will mark the outer envelope containing the challenged ballot and subsequently determine the eligibility of the voter. The Election Supervisor will either count or reject said vote based on the eligibility list and any other information germane to the question.
R5:
Election Results: After the conclusion of the election, the Election Supervisor will certify the result to the employer and the employee organization. There will be no other election on the question of agency shop for this unit for at least one (1) year from the date of this election. Attachment 1 100
R6:
Confidentiality: The ballots, ballot envelopes, and other election materials are confidential and will not be released by the SMCS after the election. Back to Agency shop elections page Back to Mediation & Conciliation home page Updated: April 2005 13 • 3 00 . Attachment 1 2 3 2000 . . . . 02/01/2008 11:52 FAX 2001 Jan 31 2008 4:46PM Local 39 530-823-9374 p.2 Stationary Engineers, Local 39 INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS AFL-CIO JERRY KALMAR BURNESS NANAGER-SECRETARY January 31, 2008 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Joan Bryant, Director of Public Employees Contact: (916) 928-0399 Telephone: (916) 813-3250 Cell: [email protected] E-mail: Gary Winegar, Business Representative Contact: (530) 823-7736 Telephone: [email protected] E-mail: Sacramento, California-Stationary Engineers, Local 39, questions the use of public funds to investigate whether the fair share election for the Nevada County employees is appropriate given that the State agency responsible for overseeing such elections determined that the election proceeded in accordance with California law. The Nevada County Grand Jury was convened to allegedly investigate the manner in which employees were given notice of a secret ballot election to determine whether they wished to be covered by an Agency Shop Agreement that would require all employees to either join the International Union of Operating Engineers, Stationary Engineers, Local 39, or pay an agency fee for representation. The election, including the notice of election, was handled by a third- party, the California Department of Industrial Relations Mediation and Conciliation Service. Local 39 maintains that the use of a Grand Jury to investigate the Agency Shop election is a waste of public resources for two reasons. First, the issues investigated by the Grand Jury have previously been submitted to the California Department of Industrial Relations, which concluded that the election was properly conducted. Second, matters concerning Agency Shop elections are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the California Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), and public funds should not be wasted on grand jury investigations on matters that fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of another public agency. Specifically, because the Agency Shop rules are outlined under the Meyers-Milias- Brown Act (MMBA), which is found in California Government Code, PERB is the public agency with jurisdiction to investigate and determine whether there has been any violation of the Agency Shop regulations. 2840 RICHARDSON DRIVE . AUBURN, CALIFORNIA 95603 . FAX (530) 823-9374 . (630) 823-7738 Attachment 2 530~823~9374 P. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS CONCILIATION SERVICE AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING EMPLOYER: County of Nevada EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATION: IUOE, Stationary Engineers, Local 39 The undersigned hereby states that Notices of Election in the above-entitled matter were posted personally by him/her in the following places on or before the 3th day of August,
R7:
OBSERVERS: Each party hereto may station one authorized observer or representative at each voting place during the election. Under the direction of the Election Supervisor the Observers may act as checkers and watchers, assist in the identification of voters, challenge voters and ballots, and otherwise assist the Election Supervisor. The names of observers shall be provided to the Election Supervisor by the parties. Failure to appoint an observer or failure of an observer to appear shall be deemed a waiver of the right to station such observer.
R8:
CHALLENGED VOTES: Any of the Observers or the Election Supervisor may challenge the eligibility of a voter. It shall be the duty of the Election Supervisor to mark the envelope containing the challenged ballot of the voter and subsequently to determine the eligibility of the voter and either count or reject said vote based on the eligibility list as provided for herein. The decision of the Election Supervisor shall not be subject to appeal and shall be final and binding on both parties.
R9:
DUTIES OF ELECTION SUPERVISOR: The Election Supervisor shall hand the ballot to each eligible voter appearing at the voting place. The voter will mark the ballot in secret and fold it. The voter will then personally deposit the ballot in the ballot box under the supervision of the Election Supervisor. After closing the polls, the Election Supervisor, in the presence of the Observer of the Employer and the Observer of the Employee Organization shall count the votes cast. This count shall be reduced to written form and witnessed in writing by the authorized Observers, if any, of the Employer and the Employee Organization signifying that they have witnessed the counting of the ballots.
R10:
SECRET BALLOT: The election will be by secret ballot and it is mutually understood that the voters will be allowed to vote without interference, restraint, or coercion. Electioneering will not be permitted at or near the voting places. At the conclusion of the election, a Certification on Conduct of Election signed by the authorized Observers, if any, and by the Election Supervisor will be issued to both parties.
R11:
BINDING RESULTS: A majority of the valid ballots cast will determine the results of the election. The results of the election shall be accepted as binding on both parties. The parties further agree that there will not be another election on the same question for this unit for at least one year from the date of this election.
R12:
NON-STATUTORY PROCEEDINGS: This agreement for an election to determine employee preference in the matter of an Agency Shop is voluntarily entered into by the parties in full understanding that this election shall not be regarded as a substitute for any legal obligation which may rest on either party.
R13:
CONFIDENTIALITY: The parties agree that the ballots, ballot envelopes and other election materials are confidential and will not be released by the Service after the election. For the For the Employee Organization Employer Date: 8/15/07 Date: __ 3 - 19
R39:
We only conduct elections with the consent of the parties involved. If you believe that your rights have been violated by your employer and/or your exclusive bargaining representative, you may have recourse through the Public Employment Relations Board. However, I would suggest you get legal advice prior to proceeding. Sincerely, Paul D. Roose Supervisor cc: Bob Losik EI 9.0 < D to the or the term of the term of the term of the term of the term of the term of the term of the term of the term of the term of the term of the term of the term of the term of the term of the term of the term of the t 7.2 1.5 . ¥2): 980 2 . COUNTY GOVERNMENT Nevada County Veterans Service Nevada County Veterans Service Office Nevada County Grand Jury Report with Responses 2007-2008 A HERMANIA WITH A SWITTER 2.5
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
11 hallazgos
F1:
Some areas of Nevada County are not within the boundaries of any fire district and rely on Cal Fire and/or USFS for response in the event of a fire. (See Figure 3, Fire Agencies) Wildfire Danger 3 | Pa ge
F2:
Nevada County fire agencies rely on paid staff and/or volunteers. Many of the volunteers work out of the area and are not available to respond to all emergency calls. Volunteers and paid staff have to complete the same considerable amount of training time required for certification.
F3:
Nevada County fire agencies are losing well-trained emergency professionals to wealthier districts, to Cal Fire, and to the USFS.
F4:
In spite of limited budgets and staff, cooperative efforts have to date allowed the various fire agencies to perform their fire suppression functions in an adequate manner.
F5:
Successful mergers between fire agencies usually result from the desire to improve services and reduce costs. In general, mergers occur between agencies with similar financial resources.
F6:
The voters must approve taxes or assessments to increase funding for fire protection. Proposition 13 requires a 2/3 majority for any tax increase. However, under Proposition 218, a fire district assessment requires only a simple majority. (See Figure 7,Voter Requirements For Different Types of Elections and Assessments)
F7:
Availability of effective fire services is a factor in determining insurance rates for property in Nevada County. Recently, several insurance companies have stopped writing insurance policies in Nevada County because of the increasing risk of catastrophic fires.(See Figure 8, Insurance Service Office (ISO) Rating’s of Nevada County Fire Agencies)
F8:
A recent election sponsored by Chicago Park /Peardale FPD to finance improved fire services failed while the property owners approved a similar election sponsored by the Truckee FPD.
F9:
Many residents of Nevada County are not aware that the County has no statutory duty to provide fire protection services within the County and assumes no responsibility for providing these services
F10:
There is a great disparity among fire agencies in the scope and quality of services. (See Figure 6 Emergency Response Time, and Figure 9, Costs and Population Served)
F11:
The BOS treatment of the Fire Plan on April 8, 2008 significantly reduced the importance of the Fire Plan, shifting its focus from mandates and requirements to persuasion and cooperation. Conclusions
Recomendaciones adicionales
9
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
The BOS should request that LAFCO commission a study to determine by fire agency the accurate cost of fire protection services in Nevada County. This could be done as a separate study or by modifying the next scheduled MSR on Fire Protection and Emergency Services and by having that Review conducted earlier than is now planned.
R2:
The BOS should initiate a concerted public education program to increase public awareness and understanding of fire services and how they are financed. Such a program would extend beyond the goal proposed under Nevada General Plan Goal FP-10.9 that directs the County to “Encourage fire safety education and support programs to promote participation, voluntary compliance, and community awareness of fire safety issues.” Wildfire Danger 5 | Pa ge
R3:
The BOS should sponsor a meeting including LAFCO and all agencies and districts that relate to fire services to discuss the feasibility of developing a uniform and consistent set of services and the potential for future efficiencies through consolidation.
R4:
The BOS should reassess their action of April 8, 2008 and return the teeth to the Fire Plan that their actions removed. They should strengthen the proposed update to the Nevada County General Plan Safety Element, (Chapter 10; Safety). The changes should include rewording of Goal FP-10.12 to read; “The County should implement policies FP- 10.12.1.1 through FP-10.12.1.28 prioritizing by the order in which they appear and designate them to be Action Policies.” (Attachment 10 provides the current wording of the Goal and the Advisory Policies.) Response Required Nevada County Board of Supervisors October 3, 2008 Attachments
R5:
Emergency Responses by Fire Agency Source, MSR
R6:
Emergency Response Times by Agency Source, MSR
R7:
Voter Requirements for Different Types of Elections and Assessments Source, MSR
R8:
Insurance Service Office (ISO) Rating’s of Nevada County Fire Agencies Source, Nevada County Grand Jury Report on Fire Districts, 2005 modified
R9:
Costs and Population Served Source, MSR 10.GOAL FP-10.12 “AS desirable and as funding becomes available; the County should consider Advisory Policies FP-10.12.1.1 through FP-10.12.1.28” Source, Nevada County General Plan; Chapter 10: Safety-DRAFT Wildfire Danger 6 | Pa ge
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
7 hallazgos
F1:
Nevada County is compliant with OWCA guidelines as it is not mandatory for Counties to provide the State with an Oak Woodlands Management Plan.
F2:
As of September 7, 2007, there is $16 million in the State Wildlife Conservation Board grant fund for OWCA. No further funding has been authorized by the California legislature.
F3:
State Wildlife Conservation Board OWCA funds are generated from taxpayer dollars.
F4:
State Wildlife Conservation Board OWCA funds are not available to Nevada County residents or other entities because the County has not provided an Oak Woodlands Management Plan.
F5:
The County Planning Department will include in their planning projects for the next fiscal year an Oak Woodlands Management Plan. The project will be submitted to the Board of Supervisors for prioritization and funding.
F6:
The Grand Jury found that the State Wildlife Conservation Board OWCA funds are available to Nevada County to fund the cost of a plan in order for County landowners/residents/builders to avail themselves of the grant funds. Oak Woodlands P a g e 2
F7:
Fourteen counties currently have submitted Oak Woodlands Conservation plans. This includes counties nearby Nevada County: Placer, Yuba, Butte, and Sutter. $7.6 million has been paid in grants under OWCA to counties since 2002. Conclusions The Nevada County Planning Department has not taken advantage of grant monies available from the State in order to develop and submit to the state an Oak Management Plan. The State Wildlife Conservation Board OWCA funds are not available to Nevada County residents or other entities because the County has not provided an Oak Woodlands Management Plan.
Recomendaciones adicionales
2
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
The County should apply for grant monies from the Wildlife Conservation Board in order to develop an Oak Management Plan.
R2:
The County should submit an Oak Management Plan to the State in order for residents to have available to them grant monies from the Wildlife Conservation Board. Required Response Board of Supervisors May 12, 2008 Oak Woodlands P a g e 3
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
4 hallazgos
F1:
Five (5) working days notice was not given for the August 15, 2007 Agency Shop Secret Ballot Elections. Only three (3) working days notice was given, Saturday and Sunday not being “working days” for purpose of the MMBA.
F2:
The Affidavit of Posting was incorrect, the notices of election having not been personally posted by the Director of Human Resources.
F3:
The Human Resources Department did not understand nor appreciate the importance of personal posting of the notices of the election, i.e. to assure and be able to verify that the posting was in fact done. A g en c y S h o p E l ect i o n Page | 3
F4:
There is no assurance that the notices of election were posted in twenty-two (22) of the twenty-seven (27) locations identified by the Human Resources Department. Conclusions
Recomendaciones adicionales
13
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
The Board of Supervisors (BOS) should direct staff to make every reasonable effort and pursue all available remedies to work with the Mediation and Conciliation Service and the Union to resubmit the issue of Agency Shop to a new election on adequate advance notice to the County employees.
R2:
The BOS should either direct the cessation of collection of fees from non-union members pending resolution of these issues or that such fees be held in suspense pending resolution of these issues.
R3:
The BOS should make every reasonable effort to secure return of fees collected on the basis of this invalid election, from the Union, pending resolution of these issues.
R4:
The BOS should establish a policy under which more than minimum notice is given to County employees in collective bargaining election matters.
R5:
The BOS should establish a policy that all County employees are provided with individual notice of any collective bargaining election and that a verifiable procedure for the giving of such notices be established. Attachments
R6:
California Administrative Code, Title 8, Section 32085(d)
R7:
August 28, 2007 Memorandum from County Department of Human Resources Re Implementation of Agency Shop Payroll Deductions
R8:
November 16, 2007 email from Human Resources staff member, Susan Kadera to Human Resources Director, Gayle Satchwell with subject, “Posting Information.”
R9:
DUTIES OF ELECTION SUPERVISOR: The Election Supervisor shall hand the ballot to each eligible voter appearing at the voting place. The voter will mark the ballot in secret and fold it. The voter will then personally deposit the ballot in the ballot box under the supervision of the Election Supervisor. After closing the polls, the Election Supervisor, in the presence of the Observer of the Employer and the Observer of the Employee Organization shall count the votes cast. This count shall be reduced to written form and witnessed in writing by the authorized Observers, if any, of the Employer and the Employee Organization signifying that they have witnessed the counting of the ballots.
R10:
SECRET BALLOT: The election will be by secret ballot and it is mutually understood that the voters will be allowed to vote without interference, restraint, or coercion. Electioneering will not be permitted at or near the voting places. At the conclusion of the election, a Certification on Conduct of Election signed by the authorized Observers, if any, and by the Election Supervisor will be issued to both parties. Agency Shop Elections Attachments I promes when the contract the contract with the contract of the contract of the contract of the contract of the contract of the contract of the contract of the contract of the contract of the contract of the contract of t
R11:
BINDING RESULTS: A majority of the valid ballots cast will determine the results of the election. The results of the election shall be accepted as binding on both parties. The parties further agree that there will not be another election on the same question for this unit for at least one year from the date of this election.
R12:
NON-STATUTORY PROCEEDINGS: This agreement for an election to determine employee preference in the matter of an Agency Shop is voluntarily entered into by the parties in full understanding that this election shall not be regarded as a substitute for any legal obligation which may rest on either party.
R13:
CONFIDENTIALITY: The parties agree that the ballots, ballot envelopes and other election materials are confidential and will not be released by the Service after the election. For the For the Employer Employee Organization Date: 2/15/07 Date: Agency Shop Elections Attachments