Gran Jurado del Condado de Nevada
2008-2009
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 (7)
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos y recomendaciones aún no extraídos.
Hallazgos y recomendaciones aún no extraídos.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
18 hallazgos
F1:
There has been a “Finance Committee” in Nevada City government in one form or another for at least 15 years.
F2:
On 2/25/09 the City Council of Nevada City voted unanimously to prepare Resolution No. 2009-09, consenting to the dissolution of the Finance and Administration Committee.
F3:
As a result of the City Council’s dissolution action on 2/25/09 (above), the City Treasurer tendered his resignation to the City Council on 3/6/09, citing an inability to make further contributions without the Finance Committee.
F4:
On 3/11/09 the City Council of Nevada City voted unanimously to pass and adopt Resolution 2009-09, abolishing its Finance and Administration Committee, which was made up of the City Treasurer, three appointed members of the public, and two City Council members.
F5:
The Jury was not provided with clear and/or compelling rationale to explain the City Council’s action to abolish its Finance Committee.
F6:
The Jury was told that the City Council, City Manager and City Financial Officer will fill the void left by the Finance Committee.
F7:
In the 2006-2007 Grand Jury Report entitled NEVADA CITY GOVERNMENT: Asleep at the Wheel, which was generally critical of overall city management, the Jury made the following recommendation under the section titled “Finances”: “The City Council should exercise diligent oversight of the City’s financial resources and take steps to assure its members understand the relevant processes and are given timely periodic reports.”
F8:
Both the City Manager and Mayor responded to the above Recommendation with the following statement: “The City agrees and is in the process of implementing. Diligent oversight of the financial resources is being provided by the Council directly through two finance-experienced Council members serving full-time on the Finance Committee and Finance Manager and City Treasurer reports to the City Council, and additionally through the Finance Committee’s citizen expertise and detailed oversight and reporting back to City Council.”
F9:
The 2007-2008 Grand Jury Report entitled Nevada City Government, which was a follow-up to the previous year’s Report, applauded the City in finding that, “Detailed oversight of City finances is provided by the Finance Committee, consisting of the Mayor, one other Council member, the elected City Treasurer, and three citizens appointed by the Mayor.”
F10:
Although the Mayor has the authority to establish or abolish any standing or Ad Hoc Committee, the Finance Committee was dissolved by action of the full City Council. Nevada City’s Financial Oversight Committee Grand Jury Reports 2008-09
F11:
The Mayor has the discretion to name the Chair and appoint members to the City’s various committees.
F12:
The Finance Committee had no written charter or mission statement from the City Council. It was clear and broadly recognized that the Committee could make
F13:
The City Treasurer has no written description of duties or responsibilities other than the generic description that exists in State Code.
F14:
Persons interviewed by the Jury had diverse opinions regarding the role and responsibilities of the City Treasurer.
F15:
For at least the past several years, Finance Committee meetings were publicly noticed and open to the public, complying with the Brown Act and the Committee was transparent in its business.
F16:
Other than the City Treasurer, members of the Finance Committee were not paid.
F17:
City staff time to prepare information requested by the Finance Committee may have added to the workload, but did not significantly add cost.
F18:
In the past several years the Finance Committee spent time reviewing City and Department budgets as well as other aspects of City finances. The Committee also brought important financial matters, some of them previously unknown, to the attention of the City Council and others. Conclusions
Recomendaciones adicionales
3
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
Consider a reconstituted oversight group, with written and well defined duties and parameters, made up of members with special financial skills and available time, to assist the City Council in its financial oversight responsibilities, while also gaining the benefits of greater transparency and additional citizen involvement.
R2:
Prepare a written description of duties and responsibilities for the City Treasurer.
R3:
Review its financial oversight responsibilities, realistically recognizing how much time it (the Council as a body) has to devote to researching, studying, analyzing, and deliberating on complex financial matters, and what level of individual expertise and experience Council members have to contribute to that effort. Following that evaluation, devise and implement a system by which it will effectively fulfill its financial oversight responsibilities. Required Response The City Council of Nevada City October 16, 2009 Nevada City’s Financial Oversight Committee Grand Jury Reports 2008-09
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
23 hallazgos
F1:
The Code Compliance Division is organizationally separated from the Building Department.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
The Board should direct staff to consolidate the Code Compliance Division with the Building Department.
F2:
The philosophy of Code is to secure voluntary compliance with applicable codes rather than to punish violators, although fines and penalties are included in the tools available to Code in pursuit of this objective. In discussion, staff continually distinguished between compliance and enforcement, noting that the County’s preference was for the former. The Jury understood this to mean the Board’s preference.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2:
The Board should modify its philosophy to emphasize enforcement over voluntary compliance.
F3:
It is the practice of the County that neither Code staff nor any other County staff members are to proactively look for Code violations. Code opens an investigation only after receipt of a written complaint.
F4:
Code does not issue permits. This is done by other departments in the CDA, e.g., Building and Environmental Health.
F5:
Code officers have authority to issue infraction-level citations in cases in which they are not able to secure voluntary compliance. Infractions are the lowest level of criminal complaint. As are all crimes, they are adjudicated through the Superior Court (Court). Fines are the maximum level of punishment for infractions. County Code Enforcement – A Continuing Concern Grand Jury Reports 2008-09 The dollar amounts of fines for Code violations are set by County Code (LUDC Section L-II 5.21, F, 1, a-c).
F6:
Most citations are issued only after numerous and time consuming efforts are made to secure compliance. Health and safety issues may be handled in a more timely manner.
F7:
The Court does not always assess fines in response to citations and sometimes suspends fines it does assess, pending compliance, and waives them if compliance is achieved.
F8:
An existing Ordinance provides for “Nuisance Abatement,” a process by which Code Officers obtain authority to abate an ongoing violation. This is done without the property owner’s consent, and the cost of abatement is charged to the property owner.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3:
The Board should direct staff to give greater urgency to the implementation of the existing Nuisance Abatement Ordinance.
F9:
Code has been in consultation with County Counsel, for about a year, on fine tuning procedures to assure due process in implementation of the Nuisance Abatement Ordinance, following about five years of disuse.
F10:
An alternative to the criminal infraction would be the Administrative Citation. These are non-criminal citations adjudicated by Administrative Hearing Officers, with backgrounds in land use issues. This would provide an alternative to going to Court. Administrative Citations are in use in other jurisdictions. Code is working with County Counsel to develop an Administrative Citation Ordinance for their division, providing a more efficient and effective citation process. Efforts to implement this tool have also been in discussion for approximately one year.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4:
The Board should also direct staff to develop a plan for the approval and implementation of the proposed Administrative Citation Ordinance. This plan should include dates that can be tracked. County Code Enforcement – A Continuing Concern Grand Jury Reports 2008-09
F11:
The Procedural Guidelines of the Code Compliance Department document, which was adopted by the Board of Supervisors on February 10, 2004, contains conflicting guidance as to when Code cases may be closed: a. The following guidance appears on : “Do not close a case until the necessary permits have been obtained, a complete abatement has occurred, inspections have been made to verify compliance (Zoning, Building, Environmental, and Safety) and Code Compliance billings have been sent and collected.” b. Contradictory guidance is found on : “When it is determined that a complaint needs to be remedied with a permit, the Code Enforcement Officer shall work cooperatively together with the other department to determine what permits are needed. Once that is done, the case can be closed: the needed permit(s) and permit fee(s) shall be noted in the contact report.”
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R5:
The Board should direct staff to revise the Procedural Guidelines of the Code Compliance Department to clearly state that Code cases resulting in permits shall not be closed until the final inspection(s) on the permit(s) are completed and all fines and fees collected.
F12:
All County staff interviewed stated that Code’s standard operating procedure is to consider issuance of a building permit (by Building) as compliance, and to close the Code case at that point. County Code Enforcement – A Continuing Concern Grand Jury Reports 2008-09
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R5:
The Board should direct staff to revise the Procedural Guidelines of the Code Compliance Department to clearly state that Code cases resulting in permits shall not be closed until the final inspection(s) on the permit(s) are completed and all fines and fees collected.
F13:
Code will re-open a case if notified by Building that a permit had expired without abatement of the condition that caused the original complaint. However, there is no written guideline or policy that would require Building to provide this notice.
F14:
In the first case that brought this matter to the Jury’s attention, there was already a multi- year history of attempts to resolve the issues through both an informal process and formal complaints to Code.
F15:
Building permits are valid for six months.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R9:
The Board should direct staff to find a means of limiting the number of permit renewals or extensions.
F16:
Building has the authority to issue permits with a shorter time-limit. This authority covers issues resulting in dangerous, substandard or illegal conditions.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R6:
The Board should direct Building to issue limited-term permits in all cases in which a Code case involving dangerous, substandard or illegal conditions led to the permit application.
F17:
One of the outstanding violations in the first case was a safety issue of such importance that the property owner had been ordered by both Code and Building to not allow public use until it was corrected.
F18:
The property owner in the first case continued to allow public use of this building on a regular basis, in defiance of the above order. This was verified by Jury members, on site.
F19:
Since the Jury investigation began, all outstanding permits on the property involved have been closed with a final inspection, except for one. This remaining permit, open since 2003, is a subject of the original complaint to the Jury. The work required for the permit has not yet been completed.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R7:
The Board should direct Building to follow up to close existing permits initiated because of a code violation.
F20:
Building does not always use its authority to double inspection fees in cases in which construction was initiated without a permit.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R8:
The Board should direct Building to routinely charge double inspection fees for permits resulting from Code actions.
F21:
Building is considered a fee-based department. Money collected by this department for building permits and inspection fees is used to fund Building.
F22:
Code is not a fee-based division. Only ½ of 1% of the budget comes from fines resulting from infraction level citations issued by Code officers.
F23:
Code has only three case officers; each officer averages between 80 and 100 active cases at any one time. Conclusions
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
22 hallazgos
F1:
Available records show a sharp increase in the number of people applying for short-term assistance with food and shelter. Every agency interviewed indicated that its resources are stretched to the limit.
F2:
There is no indication that the increase in demand is due to new arrivals from outside the county.
F3:
A census of the homeless population in Nevada County was conducted on January 23,
F4:
It is estimated there are 50 to 60 homeless children in Nevada County.
F5:
Some examples of the expanding need: a. The Food Bank provided food to 770 families in January 2009 compared to 392 in the same month in 2008. b. The demand for services from the Emergency Assistance Coalition, which provides food, shelter, and/or gasoline, has more than doubled.
F6:
Nevada County funding for the support community increased 40% over the past year.
F7:
Some coordination exists among the non-profit organizations for the homeless. The Nevada County Health & Human Services Agency is planning a workshop in the Fall to better coordinate these efforts.
F8:
The Food Bank gives food to anyone without exception. a. The Food Bank utilizes 78 volunteers and employs three staff members. b. The Food Bank’s annual budget is approximately $233,000. The greater portion of this money comes from private donations. c. The Food Bank receives food monthly from a Sacramento farmer’s group. A truckload of food is also provided by the Mountain People’s Warehouse in Auburn twice a month. d. The Food Bank delivers food to Hospitality House once a week. e. Approximately one third of the Food Bank food is provided directly to families. f. The main distribution point for families to pick up their grocery supplies is located in an industrial area. The parking lot has heavy truck traffic, presenting a safety hazard for families with young children.
F9:
The Interfaith Food Ministry is a collective of religious groups, civic organizations, volunteers and donors, distributing groceries at their Whiting Street location.
F10:
Three churches serve food prepared by volunteers: a. St. Patrick’s Church b. United Methodist Church c. St. Canice Church
F11:
Details on time and location are available at the Hospitality House Welcome Center.
F12:
The Salvation Army provides shelter at the Booth Center for nine families for up to 180 days. They currently have a waiting list.
F13:
The Emergency Assistance Coalition provides vouchers for shelter, gasoline and/or food. Their goal is to provide short-term assistance.
F14:
The Family Resource Center of Truckee provides gift cards for food and sponsors a weekly hot meal night.
F15:
The Town of Truckee does not have a shelter for its homeless population.
F16:
Hospitality House receives guests at the Welcome Center where they are screened for security assurance, health conditions, sobriety, and police record check. The following services are provided year-round at the Welcome Center: a. Lunch five days a week b. Showers and laundry facilities c. Information referral
F17:
In addition to the above, from October 15 thru April 30, Hospitality House coordinates the services provided by participating churches. The following is provided to approximately 30 people: a. Transportation to and from the host church. b. Overnight shelter at various western Nevada County churches. c. Dinner at the host church
F18:
There is no limit to the number of nights of shelter for each guest from October 15th to April 30th.
F19:
Volunteers of the hosting church monitor and provide overnight security.
F20:
Pets are not allowed at these shelters.
F21:
The Nevada County Department of Social Services publishes a directory of organizations one can go to for support. The pamphlet is called Nevada County Community Resource Directory and is available at local libraries and online at www.Dial211.com.
F22:
During the months when shelter is not available, many homeless shelter in communal camps in high fire hazard areas. Conclusions
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
8 hallazgos
F1:
Voting machines were delivered to the 53 precincts with security seals intact.
F2:
Inspectors are responsible for picking up all election day material for their precincts, except for the machines, from the Elections Office prior to election day,
F3:
Due to accidents and illness, several poll workers had to be replaced on or shortly before the day of the election. In spite of this, the Elections Office was able to find enough replacement poll workers to fully staff each precinct.
F4:
Last minute replacements resulted in some poll workers having minimal or no training.
F5:
Several polling places had students as poll workers; they performed well and were particularly effective with the voting machines.
F6:
Two polling places were staffed with community organizations: The Grey Goose was staffed by the National Association of Retired Federal Employees (NARFE) serving in their second election, and the American Legion Women’s Auxiliary staffed the Rough & Ready Firehouse for their first election. Conclusions
F7:
Despite additional duties and responsibilities, Inspectors receive no specialized training to cover these. Conclusions
F8:
The Elections Office is aware of the problem of accessibility in some of the polling places, and is pursuing the possibility of providing portable wheelchair ramps and other ADA mitigation supplies. Nevada County Presidential Election – November 2008 Grand Jury Reports 2008-09 Conclusions
Recomendaciones adicionales
9
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
The Nevada County Clerk Recorder should direct staff to include additional time in the training for dealing with all types of voters not listed on the precinct roster. Nevada County Presidential Election – November 2008 Grand Jury Reports 2008-09
R2:
The Nevada County Clerk Recorder should work to increase the recruitment efforts in high schools and Sierra College to interest more students in participating in the election as poll workers.
R3:
The Nevada County Clerk Recorder should look into expanding the use of organized community groups for the purpose of staffing a precinct with qualified poll workers. Training
R4:
The Board of Supervisors (BOS) did not allow compensation for training. Partially disagree. The current Board of Supervisor's resolution authorIZing poll worker pay does not address compensation for training.
R5:
Inspectors have numerous duties and responsibilities beyond those of Judges, both prior to and on Election Day. Agree.
R6:
Despite additional duties and responsibilities, Inspectors receive no specialized training to cover these. Partially disagree. Wbile Judges and Inspectors receive tbe same training, tbe training is geared more toward Inspectors and covers all their job duties. Instead, tbe Judges are receiving specialized training beyond wbat tbeir job actually requires. Training: Recommendations I. The Nevada County Board of Supervisors should support additional compensation for mandatory training. The recommendation requires additional analysis. As Clerk-Recorder I bave always maintained that Poll Workers in Nevada County and across the state deserve far more compensation tban tbey are currently getting. Their job is complex, and requires dedication, knowledge of voting laws and they are required to attend several training sessions prior to each Election Day. However, given current bUdget constraints the Elections Office must balance the desire to increase Poll Worker compensation with our commitment to fiscal responsibility. A preliminary survey shows that many surrounding counties pay Poll Workers for attending training classes (up to $40 for a class), and if Nevada County were to pay $10 for each training session a Poll Worker attends, tbis would bring us more in line witb Poll Worker compensation in surrounding counties. Our office will conduct an in-depth study of Poll Worker compensation in surrounding counties and make a reeommendation to tbe board on tbis matter prior to December 31, 2009.
R7:
The Nevada County Clerk Recorder estimates the cost of processing a ballot cast at a polling place to be $14.00 vs. $7.25 for a vote-by-mail ballot. Agree.
R8:
The Elections Office is aware of the problem ofaccessibility in some of the polling places, and is pursuing the possibility of providing portable wheelchair ramps and other ADA mitigation supplies. Agree. Page4of7 Polling Places: Recommendations I. The Nevada County Clerk Recorder should direct staffto continue to seek to remedy accessibility issues where they exist. The recommendation has been impiemented.. The Nevada County Elections Office has received a HAVA VOTE Grant in the amount of $145,200 to survey polling places for accessibility, purchase mitigation supplies, and upgrade training materials. The Elections Office will continue conducting surveys of the remaining polling places throughout the summer and fall and hopes to have all polling place accessibility issues solved in time for the June 8, 2010 Primary Election.
R112:
5. Personnel in the Elections Office were aware that they were not in compliance with the State Code, and were actively seeking replacement polling places for those polling places located in bars. Agree. 6. As of the date of this report, one of these polling places has been replaced and another has been reconfigured to meet State Code requirements. A third, although it did not serve alcohol during election hours, has been replaced to avoid the perception of impropriety. Agree. 7. The Nevada County Clerk Recorder estimates the cost of processing a ballot cast at a polling place to be $14.00 vs. $7.25 for a vote-by-mail ballot. Agree. 8. The Elections Office is aware of the problem of accessibility in some of the polling places, and is pursuing the possibility of providing portable wheelchair ramps and other ADA mitigation supplies. Agree. Page4of7 Polling Places: Recommendations I. The Nevada County Clerk Recorder should direct staff to continue to seek to remedy accessibility issues where they exist. The recommendation has been impiemented.. The Nevada County Elections Office has received a HAVA VOTE Grant in the amount of $145,200 to survey polling places for accessibility, purchase mitigation supplies, and upgrade training materials. The Elections Office will continue conducting surveys of the remaining polling places throughout the summer and fall and hopes to have all polling place accessibility issues solved in time for the June 8, 2010 Primary Election. 2. The Nevada County Clerk Recorder should continue to make every reasonable effort to secure polling places which are in compliant with State Code Section 12288 regarding polls located in bars. The recommendation has been implemented. In the May Statewide Special Election, no bar or location where there was dispensation of alCOhol was used as a PolIing Place. Field Election Deputy System (FED):
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Recomendaciones adicionales
1
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
B1. The Grass Valley Animal Shelter should consult with other shelters regarding alternatives to euthanasia. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future with an expected time frame of not more than six months. Dogo 2 of C 2.1 City of Grass Valley Grass Valley Police Department Grass Valley Animal Shelter Response to Nevada County Grand Jury C. HEALTH AND WELFARE OF ANIMALS FINDINGS: C1. The Grass Valley shelter does not use a volunteer program. Truckee and Nevada County shelters have active volunteer programs to supplement staff. AGREE C2. Hours for public access to the Grass Valley shelter are limited and inconsistent. DISAGREE - Hours of operation are consistent and readily posted for customer convenience. Hours are limited in part due to limited staffing levels and call response. Staffing levels have been reduced by one full-time supervising animal control officer position this past fiscal year. C3. Animals are not vaccinated and not generally quarantined upon entry to the shelter AGRÉE C4. No common area exists for cats to move about for exercise and socialization. AGREE C5. Dog enclosures do provide both indoor and outdoor accommodations. However, there is no established program for walking the dogs. AGREE C6. Limited or no bedding for the animals was observed. DISAGREE - Animals are provided with appropriate bedding. C7. A small amount of litter is provided in each cat cage. DISAGREE - Cats are provided with appropriate quantities of litter. C8. Unused space in the shelter was observed. AGREE - While space was not being used during visit, the space is used as ŧ needed and allows for public boarding of animals upon request. Space also allows for growth in shelter activities. : C9. Public boarding is allowed. AGREE р.Д City of Grass Valley Grass Valley Police Department Grass Valley Animal Shelter Response to Nevada County Grand Jury RECOMMENDATIONS: C1. Create a volunteer program at the Grass Valley Animal Shelter. Neighboring animal shelters could provide assistance in developing and establishing a program. The recommendation requires further analysis including, but not limited to, the identification of a job description and/or scope of work to be performed, development of training program, policy and procedures, and designation of supervision responsibility of a volunteer program at the Shelter. Program development includes review of related risks associated with volunteers in the handling of animals and any potential liability to the City. The Police Department is in the process of expanding its volunteer program. The program will ultimately be expanded to the Shelter. C2. Use volunteers to enhance and provide twice daily socialization and exercise for dogs. The recommendation requires further analysis including, but not limited to, the identification of a job description and/or scope of work to be performed, supervision of a volunteer program at the Shelter, related risks associated with volunteers in the handling of animals, and any potential liability to the City. C3. Extend and provide consistent public hours at the shelter. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted based upon current and established public hours and limitations of staff personnel. C4. Vaccinate for basic diseases. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted as the Shelter is not designed for the provision of medical care, long term boarding or diagnosis of animals. Taking on additional medical care of animals in not achievable under current funding levels. C5. Provide adequate bedding for the comfort of the dogs and cats. The recommendation has been implemented through past and existing practices. Care for animals is adequate and appropriate bedding material is provided. C6. Ensure there is sufficient litter in the cat cages to contain excreta. The recommendation has been implemented through past and existing practices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . City of Grass Valley Grass Valley Police Department Grass Valley Animal Shelter Response to Nevada County Grand Jury C7. Create a common area for cats utilizing available space. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted and would allow for the greater potential exchange of disease, increased violence between animals and may allow not already spayed or neutered animals to cohabitate in the common area. C8. Discontinue public boarding. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted and is not justified by the Grand Jury's report. This is a service that benefits the community and the Shelter. D. RECORDS MANAGEMENT FINDINGS: D1. An analysis of the Grass Valley shelter's intake records for fiscal year 2007/08 showed that intake/disposition records were not being completely filled out. These records are hand written and less than half of the animals could be tracked from intake to disposition. AGREE D2. No recent fee analysis has been conducted. DISAGREE - A formal "Cost of Services Study" was conducted in March 2005 by Revenue & Cost Specialists, LLC followed by a report submission to the Grass Valley City Council. Additionally, a fee analysis is conducted internally on an annual basis with any recommended adjustments being submitted for formal review and action by City Council. Minor fee adjustments have been made as part of the current budget approvals. The original fee analysis was not fully implemented and the City at the time determined to charge a reduced fee. RECOMMENDATIONS: D1. Completely fill out and automate records so that each animal can be tracked from intake to disposition. i The recommendation had been initiated prior to this report with manual completion of existing forms pending the complete automation of this function. . D2. Review and update the fee schedule to determine if fees are sufficient. The recommendation had been initiated prior to this report and is a recurring step in the annual budget preparation by the Grass Valley Police Department. GRASS VALLEY CITY COUNCIL Council Members 125 East Main St., Grass Valley, CA 95945 Lisa Swarthout, Mayor Jan Arbuckle, Vice Mayor Chauncey Poston Office of the Mayor Dan Miller Yolanda Cookson Daniel C. Holler, City Administrator A CENTENNIAL CITY November 20, 2009 The Honorable Robert L. Tamietti Presiding Judge of the Grand Jury 201 Church Street Nevada City, California 95959 Dear Judge Tamietti: Please be advised that the City of Grass Valley is in receipt of a letter dated November 4. 2009 from Robert Erickson - Foreman of the Nevada County Civil Grand Jury. In his letter, Mr. Erickson requests an update on the recommendations for Spay and Neutering services at the Grass Valley Animal Shelter in accordance with Section 933,05 (b)(3). In response to this item, I have confirmed with Captain Rex Marks of the Grass Valley Police Department that the Animal Shelter did, in fact, institute a program to address this issue in September. The Shelter secured agreements with several area veterinarians as well as Animal Save to provide services on an "as needed" basis. The Shelter now maintains a menu from which the customers may select a service provider that meets with their budgets. Animals are then transported to the selected provider by Shelter staff and picked up by the adopting customer. Thus far, the program has been relatively well received by customers frequenting our Shelter. Captain Marks and his staff will continue to monitor the program and ensure its success. On behalf of the City of Grass Valley, we appreciate the efforts of the Civil Grand Jury, Regards, Swallow Lisa Swarthout, Mayor Cc: Robert Erickson, Grand Jury Foreman Telephone (530) 274-4310 - Fax (530) 274-4399 www.cityofgrassvailey.com