Nevada County Grand Jury
2013-2014
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 (14)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
14 findings
F1:
- Although the Stall' is attempting to remedy some of the identificd sal'Cty and security issues. there arc still ddiciencies in the security camcra syslCm that needs immediate attention b) the AOC. Agree. Fi.3 NCSO could be active in assisting the Statl in their request for camera upgrades because the cameras are a first-line observation of potential harm, Disagree. The COllit \\mild certainly \\elcome any help the NCSO might offer tu enhance the Court's camera system. Ilowc\er. this system is the COlllt's responsibility and rely on the Judicial \\l' COllncil fl.,!' 1i.lI1ding to expand! enhance the system.
F2:
Although the Staff is attempting to remedy some of the identified safety and security issues, there are still deficiencies in the security camera system that needs Immediate attention by the AOe. Disagree. The Nevada County Board of Supervisors provides leadership in working with the Sheriff and Court to help direct funding to the highest priorities. Safety and security concerns have not risen to a level high enough to make this a priority project.
F3:
NCSO could be active in assisting the Staff in their request for camera upgrades because the cameras are a first-line observation of potential harm. Agree. The Nevada County Sheriff Office has agreed to participate in discussions with Court Staff regarding Courthouse Security.
F4:
This issue has been on the forefront for several years without resolution. The safety of the public, the Courthouse employees and NCSO staff remains at risk. Disagree. The Nevada County Board of Supervisors concurs with the Nevada County Sheriff Office that there is not an imminent threat of serious injury to the public, the Courthouse employees and NCSO staff. The NCSO has an excellent record in transporting prisoners from transportation unit to the Courthouse. B. RESPONSES TO RECOMMENDATIONS:
F5:
The extent to which pupils who have elected to receive intensive instruction and services are being served
F6:
The increased expense of processing provisional ballots may be reduced if poll workers encourage voters to go to their correct polling location. Agree 2 of6
F7:
The rules regarding observers allowed before, during, and after elections have been followed by the Elections Office. Agree
F8:
The Elections Office and Court have no formal agreement regarding their roles and responsibilities to comply with Election Code §2211 and §2212. Agree
F9:
There is a lack of effective communication between the Elections Office and the Court regarding compliance with Elections Code §2211 and §2212. Disagree: The Elections Office and the Superior Court of Nevada County through G. Sean Metroka, the Court Executive Officer, have engaged in effective communication regarding compliance with California Elections Code §2211 and §2212. Correspondence, beginning September 2009 through 2010, documents the latest email thread between then Assistant Clerk-Recorder, Gail Smith, and G. Sean Metroka, engaging in dialogue regarding Elections Codes §2211 and §2212.
F10:
Since 2009, the lack of communication between the Elections Office and the Court has led to a failure to comply with the requirements of Elections Code §2211 and §2212, which affects the integrity of the voter rolls. Disagree: The report required by EC §2212 compels the Clerk of the Superior Court, based upon the records ofthe court, to produce and furnish the Registrar ofVoters with a statement showing the names, addresses, and dates of birth ofall persons who have been convicted ofa felony since the clerk's last report. The court has conSistently complied with this code section. Pursuant to EC §2212, the Registrar ofVoters shall cancel the affidavits of registration of those persons who are currently imprisoned or on parole for the conviction ofa felony. The Elections Office has consistently complied with this code section. As per the dialogue with G. Sean Metroka, the Court Executive Officer, the information necessary for the Elections Office to comply with EC §2212 is not ascertainable on the basis ofthe courts records. Moreover, further clarification of Elections Code §2212 comes in the form of 2002 Law Revision Commission Comments regarding the county clerk's alleviation ofthose powers, duties, and responsibilities: 30f 6 Law Revision Commission Comments 2002 Amendment "Section 2212 is amended to reflect elimination ofthe county clerk's role as ex officio clerk of the superior court. See former Gov't Code § 26800 (county clerk acting as clerk ofsuperior court). The powers, duties, and responsibilitiesformerly exercised by the county clerk as ex officio clerk ofthe court are delegated to the court administrative or executive officer, and the county clerk is relieved ofthose powers, duties, and responsibilities. See Gov't Code §§ 69840 (powers, duties, and responsibilities ofclerk ofthe court and deputy clerk ofthe court), 71620 (trial court personnel). The section is also amended to eliminate certification ofwhich felons remain imprisonedj that determination may not be ascertainable on the basis ofcourt records. [32 Cal.L.Rev.Comm. Reports148 (2002))." The report furnished to the Elections Official, pursuant to EC §2212, will not have sufficient information for the Elections Official to cancel affidavits of registration of those persons who are currently imprisoned or on parole for the conviction ofa felony.
F12:
CC has the responsibility and the tools necessary to remedy the sub-standard conditions found in PVT encampments, but does not enforce these statutes. Disagree. The Code Compliance Division responds to complaints and is not authorized to independently act to remedy violations of the Codes. When a complaint is flied, and a violation is verified, the Code Compliance Division works with the property owner to rectify or eliminate the violation.
F13:
The four fire agencies, NCCFD, GVFD, PVFPD and NCFD serving the vast majority of western Nevada County will soon be without fire chiefs, the highest level of management, creating an opportune time to explore reorganization. The PVFPD disagrees partially with the finding. PVFPD has participated in discussions, but any reorganization would not be pursued if the same level of service were not provided to the District nor if costs were to increase.
F14:
An inter-jurisdictional task force with members from city and county law enforcement and fire, probation, code compliance, environmental health, homeless advocates, the chambers of commerce, and interested citizens should be able to come up with a plan, using existing laws and codes for resolving the situation with the PVTs. Partially Agree. Thus far, no community in the country has found a long term solution to dealing with the issues related to homelessness. However, existing efforts include: 1. The Homeless Resource Council of the Sierras' ongoing workgroup, the Nevada County Coordinating Council, meets monthly in Nevada County. The group consists of homeless advocates, non-profit leaders, mental health professionals, and county staff (HHSA) to address homeless outreach/ intake/assessment, prevention of housing loss, rapid re-housing, emergency shelter, transitional housing, permanent housing, and supportive housing. 2. Coordination between law Enforcement and Social Services exists through Eligibility Worker visits to the Wayne Brown Correctional facility and Probation offices to assist recently released individuals and probationers to apply for Medi-Cal. Life skills and financial planning classes are offered to these groups as well as an evidence based practice to improve self-sufficiency skills and reduce recidivism rates. 3. The Community Development Agency routinely coordinates with the Sheriffs Office and other county departments to enforce existing codes and regulations. 3 ~ B. RESPONSES TO RECOMMENDATIONS
F19:
The Jury showed the Superintendent current photographs illustrating hazardous conditions in Nevada County schools. Findings Fi. Grass Valley Charter School property conditions expose students, teachers, staff, parents and visitors attending school facilities to dangerous health and safety issues. Fi. Bell Hill Academy property conditions expose students, teachers, staff, parents and visitors attending school facilities to dangerous health and safety issues. Fi. These hazardous conditions are endangering the health and safety of students, teachers, staff, parents and visitors because no one has taken responsibility for repair even though administrators and the Board of Trustees have been notified in writing. Fi. Mold not properly removed continues to pose an inherent danger to students, teachers, staff, parents, and visitors. Fi. Repairs have been done without benefit of required State oversight placing anyone entering these facilities at risk. Fi. Inadequate inspections have placed students, teachers, staff, parents and visitors attending school facilities in danger. Lack of detail in observing and accurately reporting sub-standard and dangerous conditions are obvious even to a lay person and should have been reported by experts hired by GVSD. Fi. Because GVSD officials created a MSDS book with unnecessary and inappropriate information, this places first responders at risk during emergencies as well as students, teachers, staff, parents, and visitors attending school facilities if immediate first aid is needed to be applied while awaiting medical care. Recommendations R. The Nevada County Superintendent of Schools should direct staff to adhere to the requirements of their office including: • conducting required site visits, • verifying SARC reports for accuracy, • complying with requirements mandated by Eliezer Williams et al v. State of California et al (2000). R. The GVSD Board of Trustees should direct the Superintendent to review existing contracts with construction consultants to determine if there is a bad-faith clause and demand a refund because hazardous conditions were not repaired. R. The GVSD Board of Trustees should direct the Superintendent to review the contracts for work on Grass Valley Charter School and Bell Hill Academy to remove mold, mildew and rot from these sites and verify the work was done according to contract. R. The GVSD Board of Trustees should verify all this work performed was state approved, inspected, and complies with codes concerning safe schools. R. The Grass Valley School District Board of Trustees should direct the Superintendent to update each MSDS Book to reflect site specific hazards. /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// Responses Nevada County Superintendent of Schools: Findings 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 Recommendation 1 Due Date: August 30, 2014 Grass Valley School District Board of Trustees: Findings 1, 2, 3, 4 5, and 6 Recommendations: 2, 3, 4, and 5 Due Date: September 30, 2014 #3 #4 “MSDS” book. 1 ½ inches thick. Includes all chemical MSDS sheets. The use of this document is for WHAT IS ON SITE for use by emergency responders. #07 #08 WORK SHOP. Non-Rated cabinet with flammable chemicals. No CAUTION sign posted on outside. In case of fire, this is in one of the main EXIT routes. Grass Valley Charter School #17 - Rotted support. #18 Live electric box within play equipment area. #41 Broken electric conduit at ground level is at risk for high flooding from the adjacent Veteran’s Hall parking lot. Bell Hill Academy: #51 - Siding is separating from wall structure. This is evidence of water penetration to interior of wall structure. # 57 Rot at foundation. #61 Mold repairs were not done correctly. #62 Mold repairs were not done correctly. #63 Mold repairs were not done correctly. #67 Mold repairs were not done correctly. #85 - Siding is separating from wall Roof flashing on pipe is absent, structure. This is evidence of water allowing water to enter building. penetration to interior of wall structure. #86 Frayed and broken insulation used to carry 110 volts of electric power. This exposes the live wires to elements. Note also the routing is under the roofing material, no anchors to keep the wires from pulling away. #87 MAIN BUILDING Roof – conduit supported by 4.x, untreated blocks. The blocks rest directly on the roof material. Needed are Roof Pads to absorb movement between the 4x4 and the roof coating. #97 Rain Gutter drains water; in immediate area of live electric power. None of the drains routed roof water AWAY from the structures. HOlLY A. HERMANSEN, SUPERINTENDENT 11 2 NEVADA CITY HIGHWAY Nevada County NEVADA CITY, CA 95959 Superintendent of Schools 530-478-6400 ' fox 530-478-6410 August 26, 2014 The Honorable Thomas M. Anderson Presiding Judge of the Grand Jury Nevada County Superior Court 210 Church Street Nevada City, CA 95959 Dear Judge Anderson, This letter serves as the response from the Nevada County Superintendent of Schools on the findings and recommendations of the June 30, 2014 Grand Jury Report on the subject of "Grass Valley School District Unsafe Facilities?" for purposes of readability, we have shown our responses in bold. FINDINGS: 1. Grass Valley Charter School property conditions expose students, teachers, staff, parents and visitors attending school facilities to dangerous health and safety issues.
Additional Recommendations
12
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The current conditions at the Joseph Center are believed to pose an imminent threat of serious injury to the public, courthouse employees and county employees. Disagree Due to past experience, we do not feel an imminent threat of serious injury to the public, courthouse employees, and/or county employees exists. We have had an excellent record with our transport of prisoners from transportation units to the Courthouse in Truckee with no threats, escapes or injuries. We are committed to mitigating risk at every opportunity within the County's existing resources. Inmates are transported from the transportation unit to the Courthouse in customary restraints, including leg shackles and waist shackles.
R2:
The Nevada County Board of Supervisors, Nevada County Sheriff's Office, Administrative Offices of the Court and Nevada County Superior Court staff need to prioritize funding requests and obtain the funding from the AOC to implement the safety improvements. This recommendation will not be implemented. See R.i. above.
R3:
The Nevada County Board of Supervisors, Nevada County Sheriff's Office, Administrative Offices of the Court and Nevada County Superior Court staff need to follow through with the request for funding, the implementation ofthe safety improvements and ensure the required work is completed. This recommendation will not be implemented. See R.i. above. NEVADA COUNTY ELECTIONS OFFICE
R4:
The BOS and the Court have not provided leadership in urging the AOC to release the necessary funds to improve the safety at the Joseph Center. Disagree Our experience has been that both the BOS and the Court provide leadership and are prudent in prioritizing funding requests to the AOC. RECOMMENDATIONS:
R5:
The i~cluded districts in the new fire authority should begin discussions for reorganization into an independent fire authority that is under the supervision of the Nevada County Board of Supervisors in order to preserve fire protection services in western Nevada County: • Nevada County Consolidated Fire District, • Penn Valley Fire Protection District, • Rough and Ready Fire Protection District, • Grass Valley Fire Department, • Nevada City Fire Department, • Higgins Area Fire Protection District, • North San Juan Fire Protection District, • Ophir Hill Fire Protection District, • Peardale-Chicago Park Fire District, • Washington County Water Fire District. The recommendation will not be implemented. The County agrees that consolidation of all western county fire districts into one Western Nevada County Fire Authority could be more efficient and effective in providing fire prevention, suppression and other emergency services and that LAFCo is the appropriate body to review a proposed re-organization or consolidation. As stated above, the Board of Supervisors as an incentive could use Proposition 172 funding to encourage consolidation. The County does not agree that the Board of the Fire Authority be appointed by the Board of Supervisors. This consolidation will eliminate many elected positions, but five elected directors should be in policy control of the Fire Authority and be directly elected by the citizens of Nevada County. PENN VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Interim Fire Chief Directors Don Wagner KUI1 Grundel, Chairperson P.O. Box 180 David FaneJl, Vice-Chairperson Penn Valley, CA 95946 John Pelonio, Director (530) 432-2630 Bob Webster, Director Fax (530) 432-4561 J Positiion Open -Director dwal!ncn@pennvalkyfirc.com dhugh~s@pennvuJJcvlire.c(lm September 4,2014 Nevada County Grand Jury
R6:
The increased expense of processing provisional ballots may be reduced if poll workers encourage voters to go to their correct polling location. Agree 2 of6
R7:
The rules regarding observers allowed before, during, and after elections have been followed by the Elections Office. Agree
R8:
The Elections Office and Court have no formal agreement regarding their roles and responsibilities to comply with Election Code §2211 and §2212. Agree
R9:
There is a lack of effective communication between the Elections Office and the Court regarding compliance with Elections Code §2211 and §2212. Disagree: The Elections Office and the Superior Court of Nevada County through G. Sean Metroka, the Court Executive Officer, have engaged in effective communication regarding compliance with California Elections Code §2211 and §2212. Correspondence, beginning September 2009 through 2010, documents the latest email thread between then Assistant Clerk-Recorder, Gail Smith, and G. Sean Metroka, engaging in dialogue regarding Elections Codes §2211 and §2212.
R10:
Since 2009, the lack of communication between the Elections Office and the Court has led to a failure to comply with the requirements of Elections Code §2211 and §2212, which affects the integrity of the voter rolls. Disagree: The report required by EC §2212 compels the Clerk of the Superior Court, based upon the records ofthe court, to produce and furnish the Registrar ofVoters with a statement showing the names, addresses, and dates of birth ofall persons who have been convicted ofa felony since the clerk's last report. The court has conSistently complied with this code section. Pursuant to EC §2212, the Registrar ofVoters shall cancel the affidavits of registration of those persons who are currently imprisoned or on parole for the conviction ofa felony. The Elections Office has consistently complied with this code section. As per the dialogue with G. Sean Metroka, the Court Executive Officer, the information necessary for the Elections Office to comply with EC §2212 is not ascertainable on the basis ofthe courts records. Moreover, further clarification of Elections Code §2212 comes in the form of 2002 Law Revision Commission Comments regarding the county clerk's alleviation ofthose powers, duties, and responsibilities: 30f 6 Law Revision Commission Comments 2002 Amendment "Section 2212 is amended to reflect elimination ofthe county clerk's role as ex officio clerk of the superior court. See former Gov't Code § 26800 (county clerk acting as clerk ofsuperior court). The powers, duties, and responsibilitiesformerly exercised by the county clerk as ex officio clerk ofthe court are delegated to the court administrative or executive officer, and the county clerk is relieved ofthose powers, duties, and responsibilities. See Gov't Code §§ 69840 (powers, duties, and responsibilities ofclerk ofthe court and deputy clerk ofthe court), 71620 (trial court personnel). The section is also amended to eliminate certification ofwhich felons remain imprisonedj that determination may not be ascertainable on the basis ofcourt records. [32 Cal.L.Rev.Comm. Reports148 (2002))." The report furnished to the Elections Official, pursuant to EC §2212, will not have sufficient information for the Elections Official to cancel affidavits of registration of those persons who are currently imprisoned or on parole for the conviction ofa felony. RECOMMENDATIONS:
R12:
Purchase necessary parts for emergency repairs. i3, Obtain prior approval from supervisor for purchase of parts, material or equipment except in emergencies. i4. Advise supervisor of safety hazards or items in need of replacement or maintenance work. is. Ability to maintain, diagnose, and repair district machinery, equipment, heating systems and ai r conditioni ng uni ts. i6. Ability to fabricate wood or metal for needed projects. 17, Other duties as may be assigned or reasonably expected of a district maintenance person. \!:tctn!u,h H D: Uscrsdonnahard) '20 1-l.20 I S School Yeaf'Jub Descriptions "lal!1(cn~nce \Vorker doc Page I uf 2 Job Description Job Title: General Maintenance Person Qualification Requirements: Ahility to pass a Post-Offer Placemellt Exam (POPP). To perform thisjoh sliccessflll(v, an individual must he ahle to perform each essential dl/tv sati.sfactorily. The requirements listed below are representative of the knoH'ledge, skill, and/or abilitv required. Reasonahle accommodations may be made to enable individuals with disahilities to pe;jorm the essential jrlllcrions. While performing the duties of this job, the employee is regularly required to stand; walk; use hands and fingers to handle or feel objects, tools, or controls; and talk or hear. The employee frequently is required to reach with hands and arms. The employee is occasionally required to sit. The employee frequently must squat, stoop or kneel, reach above the head and reach forward. The employee continuously uses hand strength to grasp tools and climbs on to ladders. The employee will frequently bend or twist at the neck and trunk more than the average person while performing the duties of this job. The employee must frequently lift and/or move up to 50 pounds such as cleaning supplies, pails and unloading trucks. Occasionally the employee will lift and lor move up to 75 pounds such as bulk furniture. The employee will sometimes push/pull items such as tables, bleachers, scrubbing machines, Specific vision abilities required by this job include close vision, color vision, peripheral vision, depth perception, and the ability to adjust fOCliS. Work Environment: The work environment characteristics described here are representative of those employee ellcounters \'i'hile performing tlze esselllial jrlflctions of this joh. Reasonahle accollllllodations may he made to enahle individuals with disabilities to perform the esselltial JilllctiotZs. While performing the duties of this job, the employee regularly works indoors and outdoors. The employee will work near or with moving mechanical equipment. The employee may occasionally work with toxic or caustic chemicals such as petroleum products, degreasers, and sprays. The employee must be able to meet deadlines with severe time constraints. The noise level in the work environment is usually moderate. Education and/or Experience: Equivalent to completion of high school or general education degree (GED) and one year of general work experience, preferably including some custodial or janitorial work. Language Skills: Ability to read and interpret documents such as safety rules, operating and maintenance instructions, and procedure manuals. Ability to write routine reports and correspondence. Reasoning Ability: Ability to apply common sense understanding to carry out instructions furnished in written, oral or diagram form. Ability to deal with problems involving several concrete variables in standardized situations. Ability to establish and maintain effective working relationships with students, staff and community. Ability to perform duties with awareness of all district requirements and Board of Education policies. The information contained in this job description is for compliance with the American with Disabilities Act (AD.A.) and is not an exhaustive list of the duties performed for this position. Additional duties are performed by the individuals currently holding this position and additional duties may be assigned. \ laeintosh HD'[lsers:t1onnahanh, 20 1.+20 15 School Ycar:Job Descriptions: Maintenance Worker Joe Work Order Flow Chart Work Requests are generated at the site by site staff. These are generally done be filling out a form on paper. The paper requests are sent to the site Administrator for review. If approved, the request is passed onto the Lead Custodian. The Lead Custodian determines if the work can be completed by local custodial services or not. If not, the Lead Custodian will enter the information into an On-Line Maintenance Work Request System. Occasionally, the Principal or the Site Secretary will enter an On Line Maintenance Work Request, by-passing the Lead Custodian when necessary and appropriate. Once the Work Request has been entered on-line, the Director of Maintenance or Maintenance Workers will turn the Work Request into a Work Order. Once the Work Order has been generated, it is assigned to a Maintenance Worker or Outside Vendor (Contractor) as necessary, or the Work Order may receive a backlog status until such time that may be better suited for that type of work. Upon completion, the Maintenance Worker fill is whatever notes he may have, and any invoices from purchases are recorded along with the labor hours. The Maintenance Director, after checking the information entered, will close the work order. A list of completed work orders are made into a report that is presented to the Business Office, Superintendant, and School Board for information purposes on a monthly basis. The completed work orders are maintained in a database for future reference. 24 egaP naidotsuC metsyS redrO kroW enil-nO tnemtrapeD ecnanetniaM i i rekroW ecnanetniaM O&M rotceriD I :tuO slli-! dracemiT stnemngissA seciovnI gniludehcS setoN O&M rotceriD :skcehC sdracemiT seciovnI setoN ---' redrO kroW sesolC ~ s--ye-bm-eM- d-raoB lo - o - hc S~ tnednetnirepuS MYSTIC MINE ROAD COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT DYSFUNCTIONAL DISTRICT Summary The Mystic Mine Road Community Services District is an independent special district responsible for public road maintenance services in the area of Mystic Mine Road in unincorporated Nevada County. The Mystic Mine Road Community Services District is governed by a Board of Directors elected by the district’s voters. The Nevada County Grand Jury received a citizen complaint regarding the Mystic Mine Road Community Services District. In the process of investigating the complaint, the Nevada County Grand Jury found that the Mystic Mine Road Community Services District has incomplete by-laws and has two vacant seats on the Board of Directors. The Nevada County Grand Jury also found that the current annual property tax assessment is not being used to properly maintain all public roads within the Mystic Mine Road Community Services District. Reasons for Investigation On October 9, 2013, the Nevada County Grand Jury (Jury) received a complaint regarding the Mystic Mine Road Community Services District (District). The complaint alleged lack of diligence by the Mystic Mine Road Community Services District Board (Board) in carrying out its responsibilities for road maintenance of all roads within the District.
R13:
E\periellce working with \arious public agencies, such as DSA (Dept. of State Architects) and DGS (Dept. of Gelleral Services), as it pertains to public st:hool facilities I-I. Il1\clltorying and ordering equipment, supplies and materials and rccordkecping techniques. Pre pari ng cost esti mates, budgets. correspondence and status n:ports.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
- Although the Stall' is attempting to remedy some of the identificd sal'Cty and security issues. there arc still ddiciencies in the security camcra syslCm that needs immediate attention b) the AOC. Agree. Fi.3 NCSO could be active in assisting the Statl in their request for camera upgrades because the cameras are a first-line observation of potential harm, Disagree. The COllit \\mild certainly \\elcome any help the NCSO might offer tu enhance the Court's camera system. Ilowc\er. this system is the COlllt's responsibility and rely on the Judicial \\l' COllncil fl.,!' 1i.lI1ding to expand! enhance the system.
F2:
Safety improvements identified by the county and AOC have not been approved and/or funded by the AOe. Partially agree. Several improvement requests havc been approved and funded by the AOe. These include tinting or exterior windows, installing obstacles to preve nt running a vehicle into sensitive areas ol'the building and installation of bullet resistant windows. There are other requests awaiting approval and funding, howe ver, they are still in the approval process.
F3:
Proposed safety improvement would enhance the safety of the public and COUlt and county employees . Ag ree. FiA The 80S and the Court have not provided leadership in urging the AOC to release the neceSS<lry funds to improve the safety at the Joseph Center. Ui sag ree. The Court has made seve ral attempts to gain approval of our requests for safety improvcments at the Joseph Center. We regularly follow up on these requests and provide additional information as necessary to establish an appropriate priority for funding. The plain fact is that funding across the State is too little to meet all security needs in all courthouses. The Grand Jury's assumpt ion that this is a shortfall in leadership on the part of the 80S and COLilt completely lacks foundation. Recommendations R. l The Nevada County Board of Supervisors, the Nevada County Sheriffs Office, the Administrati ve Office of the COLlItS and the Nevada County Superior Court should take all the measures necesSAry to move forwArd with a formal agreement which provides the recommended S8fety improvements immediately to ensure the safety of the public and employees. Partially implemented. The Court has taken all appropriate steps to secure funding for the identif'ied security improvements. The recommendation that this effort should be pushed forward at all cost clearly fails to consider the statewide limitations on funding and competing priorities - not the least of which is simply providing sufficient staffing of court operations to prov ide basic access to justice foral!. R. The Nevada County Board of Supervisors, the Nevada Coun ty Sheriffs Office, the Administrative Office of the Courts and the Nevada County Superior Court staff' should prioritize funciing requ ests to implement the recommended safety improvements. Partially implemented. We have prioritized our security requests and submitted them to the State for consideration 8nd funding. The State considers requests from all jurisdictions and establishes statewide priorities. We do not control that process.
F4:
This issue has been on the forefront for several years without resolution. The safety of the public, the Courthouse employees and NCSO staff remains at risk. Partially Disagree The issue has not been fully resolved, yet, due to past experience, we do not feel an imminent threat of serious injury to the public, courthouse employees, and/or county employees exists. We have had an excellent record with our transport of prisoners from transportation units to the Courthouse in Nevada City. We are committed to mitigating risk at every opportunity within the County's existing resources. Inmates are transported from the transportation unit to the Courthouse in customary restraints, including leg shackles and waist shackles. Officer safety practices are primary in maintaining a safe environment while transporting prisoners; although security cameras may provide additional security.
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The safety of county and court employees and the public is compromised by a lack of security cameras in some areas of the Courthouse. Partially Disagree Due to past experience, we do not feel an imminent threat of serious injury to the public, courthouse employees, andlor county employees exists. We have had an excellent record with our transport of prisoners from transportation units to the Courthouse in Nevada City. We are committed to mitigating risk at every opportunity within the County's existing resources. Inmates are transported from the transportation unit to the Courthouse in customary restraints, including leg shackles and waist shackles. Officer safety practices are primary in maintaining a safe environment while transporting prisoners; although security cameras may provide additional security.
R2:
The Nevada County Board of Supervisors, Nevada County Sheriff's Oflice, Adm inistrat ive Omces of the Court and Nevada County Superior Court staff need to prioritize funding requests and obtain the funding from the AOC to implement the safety improvements. Not implementcd. funding for the Judicial Branch and our coul1 is very limited and expenditures must be prioritized according to greatest need. While we agree that this system is important to the overall security of our coul1 buildings. we cannot say with certainty that the proposed system enhancement should be made the highest priority for funding statewide \Ve rely on the .I uelic ial COline i I to make that assessment and allocate fund i ng accord ingly.
R3:
The Nevada Cou nty Board of Supervisors, the Nevada County Sheriffs Office, the Administrative Office of the Courts and the Nevada County Superior COUlt staff should coordinate effolts to follovv through with the request for funding, the illlplementation orthe safety improvements and ensure the required work is completed. Partially implemented. We do currently coordinate our effolts in this area and will continue to do so. Ensuring these improvements are completed is outside of our control and subject to approval and funding by the State. Respectfully submitted , a/{N/~ ;j})JJd-~ Candace S. HeidelberO'cr G. Se8n Metroi<a Presiding Judge e Court Executive Officer 2 NEVADA COUNTY HOLDING FACILITY NEVADA COUNTY COURTHOUSE IN NEVADA CITY
R4:
This issue has been on the forefront for several years without resolution. The safety of the public, the Courthouse employees and NCSO staff remains at risk. Partially Disagree The issue has not been fully resolved, yet, due to past experience, we do not feel an imminent threat of serious injury to the public, courthouse employees, and/or county employees exists. We have had an excellent record with our transport of prisoners from transportation units to the Courthouse in Nevada City. We are committed to mitigating risk at every opportunity within the County's existing resources. Inmates are transported from the transportation unit to the Courthouse in customary restraints, including leg shackles and waist shackles. Officer safety practices are primary in maintaining a safe environment while transporting prisoners; although security cameras may provide additional security. RECOMMENDATIONS:
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The current conditions at the Joseph Center are believed to pose an imminent threat of serious injury to the public, courthouse employees and county employees. Disagree Due to past experience, we do not feel an imminent threat of serious injury to the public, courthouse employees, and/or county employees exists. We have had an excellent record with our transport of prisoners from transportation units to the Courthouse in Truckee with no threats, escapes or injuries. We are committed to mitigating risk at every opportunity within the County's existing resources. Inmates are transported from the transportation unit to the Courthouse in customary restraints, including leg shackles and waist shackles.
F2:
Safety improvements identified by the county and AOC have not been approved and/or funded by the AOC. Agree
F3:
Proposed safety improvements would enhance the safety of the public and Court and county employees. Agree MAIN OFFICE: 950 MAIDU A VE ANIMAL CONTROL: 950 MAIDU AVE CORRECTIONS: P. O. BOX 928 TRUCKEE: 10879 DONNER PASS RD NEVADA CITY, CA 95959 (53(/) 265-1471 NEVADA CITY, CA 95959 (53(/) 265·1471 NEVADA CITY, CA 95959 (53(1) 265·1291 TRUCKEE. CA 96161 (530) 582-7838 Grand Jury Response July 22. 2014
F4:
The BOS and the Court have not provided leadership in urging the AOC to release the necessary funds to improve the safety at the Joseph Center. Disagree Our experience has been that both the BOS and the Court provide leadership and are prudent in prioritizing funding requests to the AOC.
F13:
The four fire agencies, NCCFD, GVFD, PVFPD and NCFD serving the vast majority of western Nevada County will soon be without fire chiefs, the highest level of management, creating an opportune time to explore reorganization. The PVFPD disagrees partially with the finding. PVFPD has participated in discussions, but any reorganization would not be pursued if the same level of service were not provided to the District nor if costs were to increase.
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Nevada County Fire Chief's Association should continue to move forward to integrate administrative functions under a JPA in western Nevada County. The recommendation is being implemented. A JPA is just one of the options being considered. PVFPD has participated in discussions, but any reorganization would not be pursued if the same level of service were not provided to the District nor if costs were to increase.
R2:
The Nevada County Board of Supervisors should direct LAFCo to begin research on the steps necessary to reorganize western Nevada County fire districts into a single fire authority. This should be a priority for the safety of residents in western Nevada County. The recommendation will not be implemented as it is not warranted or is not reasonable. This recommendation is beyond the authority of PVFPD. All of the current special districts fulfill the taxpayer's wants and needs. The PVFPD does not have authority over the Board of Supervisors. However, prior to initiating a proposal for reorganization, LAFCo is required by Government Code (GC) 56375(a) (3) to conduct a study pursuant to GC Section 56378, 56425 or 56430, and the commission makes the determination specified in subdivision (b) of Section 56881.
R3:
The proposed new fire authority should consider: • Having one governing board selected by the Board of Supervisors, using the current district designations for representation purposes, • Having one chief and one business office, • Retaining current fire tax fees for each current district, • Having a plan to implement a leveling of the fees within four years, • Being called the Western Nevada County Fire Authority, • Not initially including Ophir Hill Fire Protection District, Peardale-Chicago Park Fire, Rough and Ready Fire, or North San Juan Fire District. The recommendation will not be implemented as it is not warranted or is not reasonable. This recommendation is beyond the authority of PVFPD. However, the 2 Penn Valley Fire Protection District Health and Safety Code Division 12 Part 2.7 addresses governing boards of fire districts. It appears that changing from an elected board to an appointed board would require an election. An appointed board would remove local control from the voters who created each district. Having one business office would make non-emergency services less accessible to the residents and businesses in each district. PVFPD would need to have personnel in its office for ambulance billing and other administrative functions not provided by the new fire authority. As taxes and parcel fees are established by ballot measures, any changes would require additional elections at additional expense.
R4:
An interim JPA should be established which would be an interim governing body. That governing body would be a transitional board until a permanent board is established. The interim board would consist of one elected official and one staff member of each agency and one member from the Nevada County Board of Supervisors. The recommendation will not be implemented as it is not warranted or is not reasonable. This recommendation is beyond the authority of PVFPD. As recommendation three (3) would make all districts involved dependent with appointed members, who would the elected official be?
R5:
The included districts on the new fire authority should begin discussions for reorganization into an independent fire authority that is under the supervision of the Nevada County Board of Supervisors in order to preserve fire protection services in western Nevada County: • Nevada County Consolidated Fire District • Penn Valley Fire Protection District • Rough and Ready Fire Protection District • Grass Valley Fire Department • Nevada City Fire Department • Higgins Area Fire Protection District • North San Juan Fire Protection District • Ophir Hill Fire Protection District • Peardale-Chicago Park Fire District • Washington County Water Fire District The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study. Out of the ten (10) agencies listed above six (6) agencies have not participated and chose not to be involved. Grass Valley Fire and Nevada City Fire are fire departments (as opposed to Special Districts) and 3 Penn Valley Fire Protection District administratively managed in a different way. It has not been established that such a consolidation would benefit the public within PVFPD. Existing proposals would include significant reductions in oversight and increases in cost. Sharing one duty officer for four (4) departments would reduce oversight during significant incidents. It is common for more than one incident to occur at the same time within the ten agencies. The sample organizational chart indicates three (3) personnel for each engine. This would cause PVFPD to hire six (6) additional full-time people as these personnel are not available to staff the ambulances, there would be the additional cost for ambulance coverage. The sample organizational chart would increase staffing to 145 personnel with associated costs to all districts. Staffing for all districts is approximately Y2 of that currently. Closing the PVFPD office would reduce service forcing residents and businesses to travel further for services. Ambulance billing would also have to be addressed. The sample organization chart indicates a significant increase in administrative staff over existing PVFPD staff. There is nothing to indicate any cost savings to the District. NEVADA COUNTY HOLDING FACILITY TRUCKEE COURTHOUSE
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F2:
The problems with PVTs will continue to increase until city and county leaders seriously address the problem. Partially Agree. The statement "the problems with PVTs will continue to increase" is based on perception, not data. The data shows that the number of homeless individuals in our community has actually decreased slightly since 2009. Data collected is a ((Point-in-Time Homeless Persons Count" following data collection criteria of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The data collection provides a count of sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons. Counts are further broken down into subpopulation categories including counts of persons who are chronically homeless, persons with severe mental illness, chronic substance abusers, Veterans, persons with HIV/AIDS, and victims of domestic violence. The number of persons on General Assista nce aid has aIso decreased in the last five years. Typically, homeless populations are subcategorized by "families, individuals, youth, veterans, and the chronically homeless" because of the unique experiences and challenges that each of these groups face. It is important to note, the County has received reports that homeless services provided by local non-profit providers have increased. County programs are designed to target the root causes of homelessness through assisting individuals as they are released from jail or on probation, and through providing housing, job training, substance abuse treatment, medication management and coordinated case management. These programs are significantly less expensive than the inevitable alternatives (hospitalization or jail). Additional resources for these programs would improve effectiveness. However some individuals will continue to choose a "homeless" lifestyle and for the most part, these individuals do not engage in criminal behavior. 1
F3:
It is only a matter of time until a health incident or serious fire occurs in one of the illegal camps. Partially Agree. The report focuses on a sub-population called Panhandlers, Vagrants and Transients. However, homeless individuals who inhabit encampments are not necessarily the same sub-populations. We agree that encampments are not safe for those who live there and do pose a risk to the greater community, but this is a different issue than panhandling as it is estimated that only 40-60% of panhandlers are actually homeless. In addition, only 44% of homeless people are "unsheltered" and therefore might live in an encampment and only 12% are unsheltered and chronically homeless. Research shows that most residents of homeless encampments say they would prefer to live in a more conventional way with their own room and a job, however a significant number are addicted to drugs or alcohol, and/or are mentally ill. Specialty trained staff, through a County contract, visit encampments regularly to check on known mentally ill individuals and encourage them to participate in County services. Although CalFire estimates that 90% of all wildfires in California are caused by humans, campfires (recreational or otherwise) only accounted for 4% of wildfires in Nevada County in 2012.
F6:
Enforcement actions authorized by law and/or codes, which are the responsibility of city and county agencies, are woefully lacking in their consistency and continuity of effort. Disagree. All complaints received regarding properties located within unincorporated areas are investigated by Nevada County Code Compliance. A majority of the complaints received deal with trespass issues which are not enforceable by the Community Development Agency or the Code Compliance Division.
F9:
Mixed jurisdictions and agency responsibilities can complicate enforcement efforts. Agree.
F10:
Very few city and county agencies accurately track incidents or costs associated with PVTs. Agree. The Department of Social Services tracks the number and cost of services for General Assistance and nutritional assistance to individuals, who are homeless. In addition, Behavior-al Health tracks the costs of providing housing and mental health treatment services to its clients, who may be homeless. Numerous cost studies have shown that providing shelter and basic services to the homeless population is significantly less expensive than the inevitable alternative: hospitalization, emergency medical treatment, prison/jail. Although the Grand Jury's definition of "transient and vagrant" does not stipulate an amount of time associated with that definition, the annual Homeless Count includes surveying homeless individuals and tracks the length of time individuals have been in Nevada County. For example, in 2013 of the 141 completed surveys, only ten responden ts indicated they had resided in Nevada County for less than one year and only one individual indicated they were "just passing through." In contrast, 74 individuals 2 indicated they have been in the county their whole lives or more than 5 years up to. Many statistics are maintained on homeless and low income populations; however the term "Panhandlers, Vagrants, and Transients (PVT)" is not a term the County uses and is not a stand-alone tracked category.
F12:
CC has the responsibility and the tools necessary to remedy the sub-standard conditions found in PVT encampments, but does not enforce these statutes. Disagree. The Code Compliance Division responds to complaints and is not authorized to independently act to remedy violations of the Codes. When a complaint is flied, and a violation is verified, the Code Compliance Division works with the property owner to rectify or eliminate the violation.
F13:
The CDA and CC fail to follow their own mission statement and do not investigate the complaints directed at PVT encampments. This allows imminent health and safety conditions to continue and worsen. Disagree. All complaints received regarding properties located within unincorporated areas are investigated. A majority of the complaints received deal with trespass issues which are not enforceable by the Community Development Agency or the Code Complia nce Division.
F14:
An inter-jurisdictional task force with members from city and county law enforcement and fire, probation, code compliance, environmental health, homeless advocates, the chambers of commerce, and interested citizens should be able to come up with a plan, using existing laws and codes for resolving the situation with the PVTs. Partially Agree. Thus far, no community in the country has found a long term solution to dealing with the issues related to homelessness. However, existing efforts include: 1. The Homeless Resource Council of the Sierras' ongoing workgroup, the Nevada County Coordinating Council, meets monthly in Nevada County. The group consists of homeless advocates, non-profit leaders, mental health professionals, and county staff (HHSA) to address homeless outreach/ intake/assessment, prevention of housing loss, rapid re-housing, emergency shelter, transitional housing, permanent housing, and supportive housing. 2. Coordination between law Enforcement and Social Services exists through Eligibility Worker visits to the Wayne Brown Correctional facility and Probation offices to assist recently released individuals and probationers to apply for Medi-Cal. Life skills and financial planning classes are offered to these groups as well as an evidence based practice to improve self-sufficiency skills and reduce recidivism rates. 3. The Community Development Agency routinely coordinates with the Sheriffs Office and other county departments to enforce existing codes and regulations. 3 ~ B. RESPONSES TO RECOMMENDATIONS
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Nevada County Board of Supervisors should take the lead in establishing an inter-jurisdictional task force with members from city and county law enforcement and fire, probation, Code Compliance, Environmental Healt h, mental health professionals, homeless advocates, the chambers of commerce and interested citizens to develop a plan, using existing laws and codes, for improving the situation with the PVTs. The recommendation will not be implemented. Existing efforts preclude the need for the Board of Supervisors to take the lead in establishing an additional taskforce. Already addressing these issues are the Homeless Resource Council of the Sierras which has an ongoing workgroup, the Nevada County Coordinating Council that meets monthly in Nevada County. This group is working on homeless outreach/intake/assessment process, prevention of housing loss, rapid re-housing, emergency shelter, transitional housing, permanent housing, and supportive housing. Individuals from city and government agencies are members of this work group. Other city and county agencies can join this existing group. Coordination between Law Enforcement and Social Services exists through Eligibility Worker visits to the Wayne Brown Correctional facility and Probation offices. The Community Development Agency routinely coordinates with the Sheriff's Office and other county departments to enforce existing codes and regu lations.
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Nevada County Board of Supervisors should direct the Community Development Agency to work in conjunction with the Nevada County Sheriff's Office and other city and county agencies to enforce existing codes and regulations to reduce the number of hazardous encampm ents . The recommendation has been implemented. The Community Development Agency routinely coordinates with the Sheriffs Office and other county departments to enforce existing codes and regulations.
R2:
Due Date: September 27, 2014 Nevada County Board of Supervisors
R4:
The Nevada County Board of Supervisors should direct the Information Technology Department to design and implement a tracking and reporting system to enable city and county departments to determine how much money is being spent on the PVT problem. The recommendation will not be implemented. "Panhandlers, Vagrants, and Transients (PVT)" is not a term the County uses, nor a subpopulation that is specifically tracked. Identified social and criminal issues associated with the homeless population are addressed by the County. The County addresses the criminal element (to the extent that the behavior is actually illegal) through Law Enforcement and Code Compliance. The social element (to the extent that individuals are willing and interested in assistance) is addressed through Health and Human Services programs which assist residents in overcoming their barriers to permanent housing and self-sufficiency through substance abuse treatment, mental health treatment, temporary and transitional housing, case 4 management, life skills development and public assistance for those who qualify. Both of these elements are tracked through existing systems. The cost to implement an additional tracking system would be prohibitive and would not address the core causes of the overall problems. 5
Findings & Recommendations
27 findings
F1:
Grass Valley Charter School property conditions expose students, teachers, staff, parents and visitors attending school facilities to dangerous health and safety issues. Response to Finding 1: The Board strongly disagrees. No credible evidence exists to substantiate this finding. More particularly, the only information the Grand Jury presented to the Board in support of Finding I above were photocopies of photographs taken by unjdentified and unknown members of the 2013-2014 Nevada County Grand Jury. Not only did the Grand Jury fail to provide any information to authenticate these photographs, the Grand Jury provided no documentation in the way of licenses, certifications and/or other qualifications, if any, the unidentified and unknown members of the Grand Jury possess with respect to conducting inspections of school facilities. The Board further has no knowledge of the specific dates, times and locations pertaining to the photocopied photographs, as the Grand Jurors who, according to the Grand Jury's report, "conducted site visits to observe current conditions at three specific GYSD facilities" and "took 97 photographs at the three sites" did not comply with the Board' s policy no. 1070, adopted pursuant to Penal Code section 627.2, which requires all outsiders to register with the school Principal or designee in the main school office prior to entering the remainder of the school grounds. Based on the above-described fundamental uncertamtles and deficiencies pertammg to the information that the Grand Jury provided to the Board in Sllpport of Finding 1, the Board cannot responsibly deem sllch information adequate to support the Grand Jury's broad, general finding that Grass Valley Charter School facilities conditions expose all persons who enter the grounds to "dangerous health and safety issues." Moreover, upon receipt of the Grand Jury 's report, the District engaged the services of licensed, professional experts to conduct inspections of each one of the specific items identified in the Grand Jury's report by narrative description and corresponding copies of photographs. NOTE: Although the Grand Jury did not ask the Board to respond to Ule factual assertions (Fa. J through Fa. J9) underlying the Findings contained in the report, the Board feels compelled to generally respond to those assertions by clarifying that, as with the Findings discussed below, the Board has very serious concerns regarding the accuracy of, and lack of evidentiary support for, those purported statements of fact. In particular, the Board disputes the veracity of the Grand Jury's factual contentions (in whole or in part) found at Fa. 3 through Fa. 7, Fa. 15, and Fa. 19. Therefore, the absence of individual responses to each and every factual contention contained in the Facts section of the Grand Jury's report should not be construed to indicate the Board's agreement thereto or adoption thereof. 005937 00009 124 645492 Honorable Thomas M. Anderson Nevada County Superior Court September 23, 2014 Page: 3 With respect to the allegedly unsafe conditions at Grass Valley Charter School, the District engaged a licensed electrician qualified to conduct code inspections, as well as a licensed general contractor qualified to conduct facilities and construction inspections. The licensed electrician inspected the conditions depicted in photographs #18 (described as "live electric box within play equipment area") and #41 (described as "broken electric conduit at ground level is at risk for high flooding from the adjacent Veteran's Hall parking lot"). Based on his inspection, the electrician's conclusion was that minor repairs are recommended with respect to both items, but that in his professional opinion, the items requiring repair do not pose any significant safety risk to people occupying the areas. The licensed contractor inspected the conditions depicted in photograph #17 (described as "dangerous conditions present at the playground including roned support beams"). Based on his inspection, the contractor concluded that the playground support beams are located below the deck walking surface and thus not observable. The contractor further inspected one (1) post above the deck level that showed some damage, and concluded that the post should be repaired to prevent any further deterioration and potential for some safety risk in the future. The District's maintenance staff is in the process of placing a smooth cap over the damaged post. Based on all the foregoing, the Board disagrees with the Grand Jury's finding that the facilities conditions at Grass Valley Charter School expose all persons on the property to "dangerous health and safety issues."
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Due Date: August 30, 2014 Grass Valley School District Board of Trustees:
F2:
Bell Hill Academy property conditions expose students, teachers, staff, parents and visitors attending school facilities to dangerous health and safety issues. Response to Finding 2: The Board strongly disagrees. No credible evidence exists to substantiate this finding. With respect to the Board's concerns regarding the infonnation it received from the Grand Jury in support of this conclusion, please refer to the explanation provided under "Response to
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The condition of a faciJity that poses an emergency or urgent threat to the health and safety of pupils or staff
F3:
These hazardous conditions are endangering the health and safety of students, teachers, staff, parents and visitors because no one has taken responsibili ty for repair even though administrators and the Board of Trustees have been notified in writing. Response to Finding 3: The Board strongly disagrees. No evidence whatsoever exists to substantiate this finding. First and foremost, the above conclusion presupposes the fact that there are "hazardous conditions ... endangering the health and safety of [all persons]" at Grass Valley Charter School and Bell Hill Academy. As explained more particularly in the Board's responses to the Grand Jury's finding nos. 1, 2 and 4 herein, no evidence exists to support the Grand Jury's underlying determination concerning the existence of"hazardous conditions" at these sites. Second, the Grand Jury's above conclusion assumes the truth of the allegation that "administrators and the Board of Trustees have been notified in writing" regarding the items identified in the Grand Jury report. The Board does not have any evidence, documentary, testimonial, or otherwise, supporting this allegation regarding prior written notice to the Board and District administration. To the contrary, the Board's receipt of the Grand Jury report was the first time that the Board or the District's administration was informed about the allegedly unsafe conditions identified in the 00593700009 12464549. Honorable Thomas M. Anderson Nevada County Superior Court September 23, 2014 Page: 6 anonymous complaint that prompted the Grand Jury's investigation. Had the anonymous complainant, or any other knowledgeable person, brought those items of concern to the attention of the Board or the District's administration sooner, the District would have been able to conduct its investigation and make the recommended minor repairs where applicable far earlier than it has been able to do following its receipt of the Grand Jury report. As the report states in its Fact 18, during the District Superintendent's interview with the Grand JUly , he stated that "he is unaware of any notifications of sub-standard conditions in any classroom or building within the district." There are no facts alleged in the report that controvert the Superintendent's statement, and neither the Grand Jury nor the District have produced any evidence to the Board to substantiate the Grand Jury's contradictory finding concerning prior written notice. The Board therefore disputes this factual assumption. Finally, with respect to the Grand Jury 's conclusion that "no one has taken responsibility for repair," the District Maintenance Supervisor, and District maintenance staff, are responsible for identify ing the need for, and ensuring the completion of, District facilities maintenance and repair projects. (See attached job descriptions for Director of Maintenance and Operations3 and for General Maintenance Person4 ) Please see the attached Work Order Flow Chart and narrative description, which illustrate and explain the District's above-described system for facilities maintenance and repair. The District's Superintendent relics upon the maintenance supervisor and staff to report and promptly address any issues or concerns with respect to facilities. Again, as explained above, had the District's Superintendent been given earlier notice of the items identified in the Grand Jury' s report for which the District's licensed inspectors have recommended minor repairs, either by the District's former Supervisor of Maintenance and Grounds or by the anonymous complainant, the District would have been able to complete work orders for those repairs much sooner. NOTE: there is one limited exception relating to the storage of chemicals in the workshop and the Safety Data Sheets identifying all chemicals on site. As explained in the District Superintendent's May 5, 2014 written response to the Grand Jury's request for information (a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto), the District'S previous Supervisor of Maintenance and Grounds was directed to address these issues during the period of his employment, but he did not do so. As is further explained in the Superintendent' s response, the District has since taken appropriate steps to implement the prior directive regarding the Safety Data Sheets, and the District has already completed the purchase of a special storage container to house the chemicals in the workshop depicted in the Grand Jury's Photographs #7 and 8, and that storage container will be arriving very shortly. However, the Board emphasizes that despite the former District Supervisor of Maintenance and Grounds' failure to complete these tasks as directed, there is no evidence that either of these issues have ever constituted an actual health or safety risk to anyone. ) See, in particular, Essential Functions #12 ("Conduct inspections of buildings and facilities to determine maintenance and repair needs and quality of work performed") and f! I 6: ("Determ ine safety and fire hazards and recommend corrective action"). See, in particular, Duties and Responsibilities #14 ("Advise supervisor of safety hazards or items in need of replacement or maintenance work"). u()5937 0U009 1~464S49 2 Honorable Thomas M. Anderson Nevada County Superior Court September 23,2014 Page: 7 Nevertheless, with respect to those items identified in the Grand Jury report for which the District's licensed inspectors recommended minor repairs, the District has made or is in the process of repai ring all items. Based on all the foregoing, the Board must disagree with the Grand Jury's finding that "no one has taken responsi bility" for facilities repairs despite alleged prior written notice to the Board and administration. There is no evidence to support the conclusion.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The GVSD Board of Trustees should direct the Superintendent to review the contracts for work on Grass Valley Charter School and Bell Hill Academy to remove mold, miJdew and rot from these sites and verify the work was done according to contract. Response to Recommendation 3: While the Board believes that all prior mold inspection, testing and remediation work conducted at the above-referenced sites involved different classroom areas than those which were most recently inspected, tested and remediated in response to the Grand Jury's report, the Board nevertheless agrees with the Grand Jury's recommendation that the District Superintendent conduct a thorough, careful review of the contracts and warranties pertaining to the prior work in this area to be certain that its understanding is correct. The Board expects this to be completed by no later than the end of the 2014-2015 school year.
F4:
Mold not properly removed continues to pose an inherent danger to students, teachers, staff, parents, and visitors. Response to Finding 4: The Board strongly disagrees. The Board does not have credible evidence to substantiate this finding. With respect to the Board's concerns regarding the information provided by the Grand Jury in support of this finding, please refer to the explanation provided under "Response to Finding I" above, as the Board harbors identical concerns with respect to the Grand Jury's support for its
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The GVSD Board of Trustees should verify all this work performed was state approved, inspected, and complies with codes concerning safe schools. Response to Recommendation 4: For the reasons given in the Board's Response to Finding 5 above, the Board does not believe that it is necessary or appropriate to implement the above recommendation.
F5:
Repairs have been done without benefit of required State oversight placing anyone entering these facilities at risk. Response to Finding 5: The Board strongly disagrees. The Board does not have credible evidence to substantiate this finding. The Grand Jury report, in its Fact 9, indicates that the repairs to which the foregoing finding makes reference were mold remediation and related repair projects which the District completed in or about 20 I 0-20 II. The Board does not have any evidence showing that such projects were subject to approval by the State of California Depal1ment of General Services' Division of the State Architect ("DSA"). To the contrary, the Board is informed and believes that the mold remediation and repair projects referenced by the Grand Jury were specifically exempt from DSA approval based on the type and the extent of the work involved. Moreover, the District engaged the services of licensed, certified mold inspectors to complete the above-referenced mold remediation projects, which resulted in the issuance of a mold clearance certification. Based on the foregoing, the Board disagrees with the Grand Jury's finding that the District's previous mold remediation and related repair projects "placed anyone entering these facilities at risk" based on the absence of State oversight. No credible evidence exists to support the Grand Jury's conclusion.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Grass Valley School District Board of Trustees should direct the Superintendent to update each MSDS Book to reflect site-specific hazards. Response to Recommendation 5: As is discussed in the Board' s Response to Finding 3 above, and as is further explained in the District Superintendent's May 5, 2014 written response to the Grand Jury's request for information (see attached), the Superintendent has already taken steps to ensure that updated Safety Data Sheets are in place at each site in the District, and has further taken steps to incorporate sllch safety information into the District's online "Public School Works" system. On that basis, the Board asserts that the District has already implemented the Grand Jury's recommendation, and it will continue to implement the recommendation to ensure that the Superintendent continues to take all necessary and appropriate actions in relation to updating this safety information and making it readily accessible to anyone who requires such access, including first responders in the event of an emergency. 00593700009 124645 49 .2 Honorable Thomas M. Anderson Nevada County Superior Court September 23 , 20 14 Page: 11
F6:
Inadequate inspections have placed students, teachers, staff, parents and visitors attending school facilities in danger. Lack of detail in observing and accurately reporting sub-standard and dangerous conditions are obvious even to a layperson and should have been reported by experts hired by GVSD. Response to Finding 6: The Board strongly disagrees. No evidence exists to substantiate this finding. 005937.00009 12464549. Honorable Thomas M. Anderson Nevada County Superior Court September 23 , 2014 Page: 9 Once again, the above conclusion presupposes the fact that there are "dangerous conditions" at Grass Valley Charter School and Bell Hill Academy. As explained more particularly in the Board's responses to the Grand Jury's finding nos. 1, 2 and 4 herein, there is no credible evidence to support the Grand Jury's underlying factual determination concerning the existence of "dangerous conditions" at these sites. As such, the Grand Jury's conclusion that the District's facilities inspection experts did inadequate work rests on a factual foundation that has not been and cannot be substantiated. Based on the foregoing, the Board disagrees with the Grand Jury's finding that the District's previous facilities inspections were "inadequate" and therefore placed all persons present at these sites in "danger." The evidence does not support the conclusion.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Teacher misassignments
F7:
Because GVSD officials created a MSDS book with unnecessary and inappropriate information, this places first responders at risk during emergencies as well as students, teachers, staff, parents, and visitors attending school facilities if immediate fU'st aid is needed to be applied while awaiting medical care. Response to Finding 7: While the Grand Jury did not direct the Board to respond to Finding 7, it is clear that Finding 7 is directed to the District. The Board has substantively responded to the allegations contained in
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
Teacher vacancies The Nevada County Superintendent of Schools does not have the authority or information to formulate opinions on the condition of the facilities of the Grass Valley School District. The County Superintendent is in contact with the Grass Valley School District about these issues and is aware of the steps the District is taking to ensure that all the District's facilities continue to be safe for students, teachers, staff, parents and visitors.
F8:
Techniques for effectively dealing \\'ith a \'ariety of incli\'iduals from nlriollS socio-economic, cultural and ethnic backgrounds. in person and over the telephone.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
Techniques for effectively dealing \\'ith a \'ariety of incli\'iduals from nlriollS socio-economic, cultural and ethnic
F9:
Coordinate responses to emergency calls.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
Coordinate responses to emergency calls.
F10:
Prepare and maintain records, files. logs, spreadsheets, and reports related to personnel. i11l cntory supplies. Ilork requcsts. work performed and safety issues as assigned. II. Establishes and maintains current and accurate imcntor) of cquipment and assets. Implemcnts procedures for uelil'ery, and imentory control to compl;. with district requircments for asset managemcnt.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
Prepare and maintain records, files. logs, spreadsheets, and reports related to personnel. i11l cntory supplies. Ilork requcsts. work performed and safety issues as assigned. II. Establishes and maintains current and accurate imcntor) of cquipment and assets. Implemcnts procedures for uelil'ery, and imentory control to compl;. with district requircments for asset managemcnt.
F11:
Observe proper lise and care of hand and power tools.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
Observe proper lise and care of hand and power tools.
F12:
Conduct inspections of buildings and facilities to determine maintenance and repair ncecls and qualit) of work performed. U. Assists the District's Administration to develop. implement and update long range plans for deferred maintenance, facilit;. construction and remodel i ng.
Related Recommendations (1)
R12:
Conduct inspections of buildings and facilities to determine maintenance and repair ncecls and qualit) of work performed. U. Assists the District's Administration to develop. implement and update long range plans for deferred maintenance, facilit;. construction and remodel i ng.
F13:
E\periellce working with \arious public agencies, such as DSA (Dept. of State Architects) and DGS (Dept. of Gelleral Services), as it pertains to public st:hool facilities I-I. Il1\clltorying and ordering equipment, supplies and materials and rccordkecping techniques. Pre pari ng cost esti mates, budgets. correspondence and status n:ports.
Related Recommendations (1)
R13:
E\periellce working with \arious public agencies, such as DSA (Dept. of State Architects) and DGS (Dept. of Gelleral Services), as it pertains to public st:hool facilities I-I. Il1\clltorying and ordering equipment, supplies and materials and rccordkecping techniques. Pre pari ng cost esti mates, budgets. correspondence and status n:ports.
F14:
Monitors and participates in operations in assigned sections including inspecting projects, developing and implementing modifications and impnwemellts, recommending specifications and scheduling for contracts, negotiating prices and inspecting contractor's work to ensure that safe work practices and standard operating procedures are follO\led.
Related Recommendations (1)
R14:
Monitors and participates in operations in assigned sections including inspecting projects, developing and implementing modifications and impnwemellts, recommending specifications and scheduling for contracts, negotiating prices and inspecting contractor's work to ensure that safe work practices and standard operating procedures are follO\led.
F15:
Conduct imestigations. identifications, documentations, schedul ing. and oversee the removal of all hazardous m,lterials including, but not limited to, asbestos, lead, and chemicals. mold remediation and air quality. Reeord findings inYolving mold Issues.
Related Recommendations (1)
R15:
Conduct imestigations. identifications, documentations, schedul ing. and oversee the removal of all hazardous m,lterials including, but not limited to, asbestos, lead, and chemicals. mold remediation and air quality. Reeord findings inYolving mold Issues.
F16:
Determine safelY and fire l1awrds and recommend correcti\e action.
Related Recommendations (1)
R16:
005937 00009 1"',64549." Honorable Thomas M. Anderson Nevada County Superior Court September 23, 20 I 4 Page: 8 mold inspector in Bell Hill Academy classrooms #15 and 16. The mold remediation was completed, and a clearance celtificate issued, prior to the first day of the 2014-2015 school year. Based on all the foregoing, the Board disagrees with the Grand Jury's finding that the facilities conditions in Bell Hill Academy classrooms # 15 and 16 expose all persons in those classrooms to "dangerous mold." No credible evidence exists to support the Grand Jury's conclusion.
F17:
Participate in the establishment and implementation of a systematic pre\entive maintenance program. Investigate vandalism as necessan. IR. Oversees the district procedures for storage. disposal and rec) cl ing.
Related Recommendations (1)
R17:
Participate in the establishment and implementation of a systematic pre\entive maintenance program. Investigate vandalism as necessan. IR. Oversees the district procedures for storage. disposal and rec) cl ing.
F19:
The Jury showed the Superintendent current photographs illustrating hazardous conditions in Nevada County schools. Findings Fi. Grass Valley Charter School property conditions expose students, teachers, staff, parents and visitors attending school facilities to dangerous health and safety issues. Fi. Bell Hill Academy property conditions expose students, teachers, staff, parents and visitors attending school facilities to dangerous health and safety issues. Fi. These hazardous conditions are endangering the health and safety of students, teachers, staff, parents and visitors because no one has taken responsibility for repair even though administrators and the Board of Trustees have been notified in writing. Fi. Mold not properly removed continues to pose an inherent danger to students, teachers, staff, parents, and visitors. Fi. Repairs have been done without benefit of required State oversight placing anyone entering these facilities at risk. Grass Valley School District Inadequate inspections have placed students, teachers, staff, parents and visitors attending school facilities in danger. Lack of detail in observing and accurately reporting sub-standard and dangerous conditions are obvious even to a lay person and should have been reported by experts hired by GVSD. Fi. Because GVSD officials created a MSDS book with unnecessary and inappropriate information, this places first responders at risk during emergencies as well as students, teachers, staff, parents, and visitors attending school facilities if immediate first aid is needed to be applied while awaiting medical care. Recommendations R. The Nevada County Superintendent of Schools should direct staff to adhere to the requirements of their office including: • conducting required site visits, • verifying SARC reports for accuracy, • complying with requirements mandated by Eliezer Williams et al v. State of California et al (2000). R. The GVSD Board of Trustees should direct the Superintendent to review existing contracts with construction consultants to determine if there is a bad-faith clause and demand a refund because hazardous conditions were not repaired. R. The GVSD Board of Trustees should direct the Superintendent to review the contracts for work on Grass Valley Charter School and Bell Hill Academy to remove mold, mildew and rot from these sites and verify the work was done according to contract. R. The GVSD Board of Trustees should verify all this work performed was state approved, inspected, and complies with codes concerning safe schools. R. The Grass Valley School District Board of Trustees should direct the Superintendent to update each MSDS Book to reflect site specific hazards. /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// Grass Valley School District , 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 Recommendation 1 Due Date: August 30, 2014 Grass Valley School District Board of Trustees: Findings 1, 2, 3, 4 5, and 6 Recommendations: 2, 3, 4, and 5 Due Date: September 30, 2014 Grass Valley School District #4 “MSDS” book. 1 ½ inches thick. Includes all chemical MSDS sheets. The use of this document is for WHAT IS ON SITE for use by emergency responders. #07 #08 WORK SHOP. Non-Rated cabinet with flammable chemicals. No CAUTION sign posted on outside. In case of fire, this is in one of the main EXIT routes. Grass Valley Charter School #17 - Rotted support. #18 Live electric box within play equipment area. #41 Broken electric conduit at ground level is at risk for high flooding from the adjacent Veteran’s Hall parking lot. Bell Hill Academy: #51 - Siding is separating from wall structure. This is evidence of water penetration to interior of wall structure. # 57 Rot at foundation. #61 Mold repairs were not done correctly. #62 Mold repairs were not done correctly. #63 Mold repairs were not done correctly. #67 Mold repairs were not done correctly. #85 - Siding is separating from wall Roof flashing on pipe is absent, structure. This is evidence of water allowing water to enter building. penetration to interior of wall structure. #86 Frayed and broken insulation used to carry 110 volts of electric power. This exposes the live wires to elements. Note also the routing is under the roofing material, no anchors to keep the wires from pulling away. #87 MAIN BUILDING Roof – conduit supported by 4.x, untreated blocks. The blocks rest directly on the roof material. Needed are Roof Pads to absorb movement between the 4x4 and the roof coating. #97 Rain Gutter drains water; in immediate area of live electric power. None of the drains routed roof water AWAY from the structures. HOlLY A. HERMANSEN, SUPERINTENDENT 11 2 NEVADA CITY HIGHWAY Nevada County NEVADA CITY, CA 95959 Superintendent of Schools 530-478-6400 ' fox 530-478-6410 August 26, 2014 The Honorable Thomas M. Anderson Presiding Judge of the Grand Jury Nevada County Superior Court 210 Church Street Nevada City, CA 95959 Dear Judge Anderson, This letter serves as the response from the Nevada County Superintendent of Schools on the findings and recommendations of the June 30, 2014 Grand Jury Report on the subject of "Grass Valley School District Unsafe Facilities?" for purposes of readability, we have shown our responses in bold. FINDINGS: 1. Grass Valley Charter School property conditions expose students, teachers, staff, parents and visitors attending school facilities to dangerous health and safety issues.
Related Recommendations (1)
R19:
Assist in determining needcd equipment, materials and supplies for the Di~trict maintenance operations. Requisition a widc yariety of supplies, maintenance tools and equipment.
F20:
Conduct annual fire extinguisher inspections and semi-annual fire alarm inspections and re-service as necessary. Contact fire department for certification acti\ities as requireci.
Related Recommendations (1)
R20:
Conduct annual fire extinguisher inspections and semi-annual fire alarm inspections and re-service as necessary. Contact fire department for certification acti\ities as requireci.
F21:
In [cracts professionally \\ i til the publ ic maintai ning effective \lorking relationships and works in cooperation \\ itil the management team [0 effectivdy meet departmental objectives.
Related Recommendations (1)
R21:
In [cracts professionally \\ i til the publ ic maintai ning effective \lorking relationships and works in cooperation \\ itil the management team [0 effectivdy meet departmental objectives.
F22:
Prmides input into the den~lopmen[ of the operating budget for the assigned area of responsibility. Orders materials and supplies. Assists in the monitoring and tracking of expenditures D. Implements and monitors the Injury and Illness Pre\cntion Program for District. 2-1. Ensures that safety training is provided to staff and that proper safety practices <Ire folkmed. Directur of l\l3incenance and Operations 7-13.Joc Page I of--1 25 Responds to emergencies as requested. Coordinates activities with other responders. Directs the work of staff and utilization of resources to effect repair and ensure the safety of the Grass Valley School District. Establishes and maintains procedures for system seclirity and protection of district facilities and property. In collahoration with the District's Administration, leads the District's Emergency Planning and implementation process. including but not limited to the formation of the District's Safety Committee.
Related Recommendations (1)
R22:
Prmides input into the den~lopmen[ of the operating budget for the assigned area of responsibility. Orders materials and supplies. Assists in the monitoring and tracking of expenditures D. Implements and monitors the Injury and Illness Pre\cntion Program for District. 2-1. Ensures that safety training is provided to staff and that proper safety practices <Ire folkmed. Directur of l\l3incenance and Operations 7-13.Joc Page I of--1 25 Responds to emergencies as requested. Coordinates activities with other responders. Directs the work of staff and utilization of resources to effect repair and ensure the safety of the Grass Valley School District. Establishes and maintains procedures for system seclirity and protection of district facilities and property. In collahoration with the District's Administration, leads the District's Emergency Planning and implementation process. including but not limited to the formation of the District's Safety Committee.
F28:
Adheres to Board policies anci regulations and maintain a thorough working knmdedge of the district procedures.
Related Recommendations (1)
R28:
Adheres to Board policies anci regulations and maintain a thorough working knmdedge of the district procedures.
F29:
Responds accurately and diplomatically to inquiries and requests from District staff. other agencies, and memhers of the puhlic consistent \\ith district policies and department practices,
Related Recommendations (1)
R29:
Responds accurately and diplomatically to inquiries and requests from District staff. other agencies, and memhers of the puhlic consistent \\ith district policies and department practices,
F30:
Prepares reports, statistical data, and maintain pertinent files related to Buildings, Grounds and Operations: check documents and transactions to ensure compliance \vith legal and inventory requirements; adhere to district requirements for contracted sen ices; and assist in the preparation of annual reports for the district, count) and state. :II. Ensure that mail and packages are delivered each school day between the school sites and the District Office.
Related Recommendations (1)
R30:
Prepares reports, statistical data, and maintain pertinent files related to Buildings, Grounds and Operations: check documents and transactions to ensure compliance \vith legal and inventory requirements; adhere to district requirements for contracted sen ices; and assist in the preparation of annual reports for the district, count) and state. :II. Ensure that mail and packages are delivered each school day between the school sites and the District Office.
F35:
Methods and procedures related 10 Hazardous Materials and asbestos abatement. Read, interprd amI work from construction drawings ancl blueprints.
Related Recommendations (1)
R35:
Methods and procedures related 10 Hazardous Materials and asbestos abatement. Read, interprd amI work from construction drawings ancl blueprints.
F37:
Estimate materials and labor costs. 38, Work independently \\ith littk direction.
Related Recommendations (1)
R37:
Estimate materials and labor costs. 38, Work independently \\ith littk direction.
F39:
Obsene legal and defensi\e driving practices, Oi rector of \Iaint.:nance and Operaliolls 7 ·13 .doc of .f REASONING ABILITY: I. Ahility to apply common sense understanding to carr) out instructions furnished in wrilten. oral or diagram form. Ability to establish and maintain cffecti\e working relationships Ilith students, c(HI orkers, stafr and community . .l. Ability to perform duties Ilith awareness of all district requirements ancl Board of Education policies. +. While performing the duties of this job, the employee is regularl) required to stand; walk; lise hands and fingers to handle or feel ohjects, tools, or controls: and talk or hear. The employee frequently is required to reach with hanels and arms. The employee is occasionally required to sit. The employee frequently mllst squat. stoop or kneel, reach aho\e the head and reach fommd. The employee continuously uses hand strength to grasp tools and climhs on to ladders. The employee II ill freqllently bend or twist at the neck and trunk more than the 3\erage person II'hile performing the duties of this job. S. The employee must frequently lift and/or mOl'e up to 50 pounds sllch as cleaning supplies. pails and unloading trucks Occasionally the employee II ill lift and/or move up to 75 pounds to 100 pounds occasionally sllch as bulk furniture. The employee Ilill sometimes pllsh/pull items sllch as tables. bleachers. scruhhing machines. Specific vision ahilities required by thi s joh inc lude close vision. color \ ision, peri pheral vision. depth perception. and the abil it) to adjust focus. LANGUAGE SKILtS: I. Abilit) to read and interpret documents such as safety rules, operating and maintenance instructions, and manuals.
Related Recommendations (1)
R39:
Obsene legal and defensi\e driving practices, Oi rector of \Iaint.:nance and Operaliolls 7 ·13 .doc of .f REASONING ABILITY: I. Ahility to apply common sense understanding to carr) out instructions furnished in wrilten. oral or diagram form. Ability to establish and maintain cffecti\e working relationships Ilith students, c(HI orkers, stafr and community . .l. Ability to perform duties Ilith awareness of all district requirements ancl Board of Education policies. +. While performing the duties of this job, the employee is regularl) required to stand; walk; lise hands and fingers to handle or feel ohjects, tools, or controls: and talk or hear. The employee frequently is required to reach with hanels and arms. The employee is occasionally required to sit. The employee frequently mllst squat. stoop or kneel, reach aho\e the head and reach fommd. The employee continuously uses hand strength to grasp tools and climhs on to ladders. The employee II ill freqllently bend or twist at the neck and trunk more than the 3\erage person II'hile performing the duties of this job. S. The employee must frequently lift and/or mOl'e up to 50 pounds sllch as cleaning supplies. pails and unloading trucks Occasionally the employee II ill lift and/or move up to 75 pounds to 100 pounds occasionally sllch as bulk furniture. The employee Ilill sometimes pllsh/pull items sllch as tables. bleachers. scruhhing machines. Specific vision ahilities required by thi s joh inc lude close vision. color \ ision, peri pheral vision. depth perception. and the abil it) to adjust focus. LANGUAGE SKILtS: I. Abilit) to read and interpret documents such as safety rules, operating and maintenance instructions, and manuals.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R26:
The GVSD Board of Trustees should direct the Superintendent to review existing contracts with construction consultants to determine if there is a bad-faith clause and demand a refund because hazardous conditions were not repaired. Note that the Grand Jury's Recommendation I pertains solely to the Nevada County Superintendent of Schools, and the Grass Valley School District Board of Trustees was not requested to respond to Recommendation I for that reason. 005937.00009 12464549.2 Honorable Thomas M. Anderson Nevada County Superior Court September 23, 2014 Page: 10 Response to Recommendation 2: For the reasons given in the Board's Response to Finding 6 above, the Board does not believe that it is necessary or appropriate to implement the above recommendation.
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
For over 30 years, the following agencies have failed in their responsibilities to monitor water quality in Nevada County due to a lack of coordination and communication and failure to follow through with mandated clean up orders. Due to these omissions, the health and welfare of residents of Nevada County and their water quality is compromised. The responsible agencies are: State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), California Department of Fish and Game (F&G), State Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC), Nevada County Department of Environmental Health (EH), Nevada County Planning Department (Planning), City of Grass Valley (City). Disagree. The Banner/Lava Cap Mine was designated a Federal Superfund site in 1998. Responsibility for the coordination of the remediation of the site was assumed by the US EPA at that time. Adequate and appropriate public agency coordination has insured that public health has not been endangered. The Nevada County Planning Department does not engage in water quality testing or analysis. Current information regarding the EPA's management of this site is attached and available at www.epa.gov.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Nevada County Board of Supervisors should request the following agencies to meet and confer to develop and implement a written agreement to define the responsibilities of each agency for the safeguarding of water quality in Nevada County: • US EPA, • State Water Resources Control Board, • California Department of Fish & Game, • California Department of Toxic Substance Control, • Nevada County Department of Environmental Health, • Nevada County Planning Department. This recommendation will not be implemented. Adequate definition of responsibilities and avenues for coordination and cooperation exist to safeguard water quality in Nevada County. The Nevada County Planning Department does not engage in water quality testing or analysis.
F2:
Due to a lack of agency cooperation to address the problems effectively and efficiently, public health is potentially endangered. Disagree. Adequate and appropriate public agency coordination has insured, to the greatest extent practicable, that public health has not been endangered.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Nevada County Board of Supervisors directs the Director of Community Development Agency to: • develop and implement policy and procedures for periodic testing of surface and ground water at the locations identified in this report and communicate the findings to the general public, • revisit and examine the lava Cap Mine incidents of 1979 and 1997 and develop and implement policy and procedures to ensure appropriate clean-up of such incidents, • develop and implement a plan for the immediate enforcement of the 1979 Clean Up and Abatement Order concerning the area below the lava Cap Mine. This recommendation will not be implemented. • Adequate testing of surface and ground water to insure the public health and welfare is currently conducted by appropriate State and Federal agencies. • Appropriate policies and procedures are currently in place at the Federal, State and Local level. • See comment in response to Finding 1 above. The remediation of the Banner/Lava Cap Mine is under the jurisdiction of the US EPA. , Sup~rfund Site Overview Lava Cap Mine, Pacific Southwest, US EPA .... hllp:llyosemile.epa.gov/r9lsfund/r9sfdocw .nsfNiewByEPA ID /CAD98361 8893 . " .. ..-:. EPA " (J - " : ~" I " " -" 1 01 ' '1 t, ;: . 1· ""~""" '-:'":;0 , r"f').'~-.;!. t~ Pacific Southwest, Region 9: Superfund SelVing Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, Ihe Pacific Islands, and Tribal Nalions Lava Cap Mine ,7;>___ I On this page ! -~~'''.-. .'. , Bulletin 80ard EPA #: CAD983618893 '1 I . too-' Description and History Siale: Calilornta(CA) County: Nevada Links I NPL Listing History City: 5 miles SE of Nevada Cily I Congressional District: 02 NPL Status: Flnal Description Other Names: Proposed Date: 09/29/98 and Hisl!lli' FIIl,,1 Dale: 0 1/1 9/99 Deleted Dale: Mao this SIte in Cleanups In My Community Who is Involved The Lava Cap Mine site Investigation occupies approximately 33 and Cleanup acres in a semi-rural residential Activities area of the Sierra Nevada foothills in western Nevada Cleanup County, California. The site is Resu lts to approximately 5 miles Dti!f! POleFlliaUy southeasl of Nevada City and ResponSible 6 miles east of Grass Valley at Par1ies an elevation of about 2700 Documents feet. The site includes the and Reports Community mining area where ore was Involvement processed to recover gold, and areas where tailings which . Public originated at the mine have I Information been washed downstream and Repositories deposited over time. The ~ Additional downstream areas of the site I Unks include Lost Lake, a private Contacts Progress lake surrounded by homes, Profile (EPA located approximately 1-1/4 I Headquarters) miles downstream of the Lava Cap mine site. ~ In 1994, an estimated 1,776 people lived within one mile of the site, and 24,091 lived within four miles of the site. The immediate watershed basin ecosystem contains two California Species-of-Special-Interest: foothill yellow·legged frog and western pond turtle, in addition to more common species of reptiles, amphibians, fish, birds, and mammals. Gold and silver mining activities were initiated at Lava Cap Mine in 1861. From 1861 to 1918, processing of the ore and disposal of the waste rock, overburden, and tailings occurred off-site at the Banner Mine, which IS located approximately 1.5 miles north of the Lava Cap Mine. The Lava Cap Mine was inactive from 191 B to 1934, at which time mining activities were resumed and a flotation plant was tiuilt to process the ore at the site. The gold and silver concentrates from the flotation plant were shipped to two smellers, one in California and the other in Washington. In 1940, a cyanide plant was built to recover the concentrates on site. However, this operation proved to be relatively ineffective. From 1941 to 1943, the cyanide plant only handfed the middlings and tailings from the flotation plant. The middlings and tailings were ground to a very fine size (i.e., able to pass through a 400-mesh screen), then vat leached with cyanide to remove the residual gold and silver. Slurries from the flotation and cyanide processes were deposited in a ravine on the site. Where the ravine steepened and narrowed, a log dam approximately 60 feet high was built to hold the tailings in place. The waste rock and overburden were also deposited in two piles located at the site between the mineshaft and the tailings pond . In 1943, Lava Cap Mine was closed due to World War II. An attempt was made to re-open the mine in the mid-1980s. However, community opposition resulted in the defeat of a proposed re-zoning of the property which would have allowed mining activities to resume at the site. In 1979, complaints from local residents initiated an action from Calilornia's Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) that led to issuance of a Cleanup and Abatement Order (CAO). The CAO called for the property owners at that time to take measures to limit tailings discharges to Lit1le Clipper Creek, to divert surface water runoH from the mine and mill waste fill deposits, and to obtain an evaluation of the dam. http://yosemite,epa.gov/r9/sfund/r9sfdocw.nsf/ViewByEPAID/CAD983618... 5/24/20 l4 Superfund Site Overview Lava Cap Mine, Pacitic Southwest, US b PA Page J ot 6 additional data are gathered and analyzed. The Interim Record of Decision can be found in the Technical Documents section, dated September 30, 2008. Initial Actions Initial response. In October 1997, the EPA Region 9 Emergency Response Office determined that conditions associated with the tailings release from the Lava Cap Mine site met the National Contingency Plan (NCP) section 300.415(b)(2) criteria for a removal action. During October and November 1997, 4,000 cubic yards of taitings were removed from the damaged dam area and stockpiled on the waste rock pile immediately to the north of the tailings pile The lower half of the dam (i.e., approximately 30 leet in height) was found to be in relatively good condition. The oversteepened slopes of the tailings pile immediately behind the dam were graded and the entire tailings pile was covered with waste rock. Stream diversions were also created around the tailings pile. In February 1998 a second response was constructed at Ihe site to stabilize another tailings release and to further improve the drainage. The removal action has been completed and included covering approximately 4,000 cubic yards of stockpiled tailings with a clay cap. Site Studies Remedial Investigation. As part of its longer term study of the site, EPA conducted several rounds of sampling upgradient f,om IIle mine, on the mine property, afong Little Clipper and Clipper Creeks in the stretch from approximately 2,000 feet upstream 01 the mine to approximately 1,000 feet downstream of Losl Lake, and from In and around Lost Lake. EPA sampled several media, including surlace soli, subsur1ace 501 1, air, groundwater, mine discharge, surface water, and sediment. To collect subsur'face soil and groundwater samples, EPA installed borings and constructed groundwater monitoring welis USing a truck-mounted drilling rig. Tho resutting remedial investigation report was released in November 2001. It concludes that arsenic in mine tailings is the primary threat to human health, while both arsenic and metals threaten the ecology of the area. A Remedial Investigalion for the Groundwater Operabfe Unit was completed in July 2008 and is avallablo in the information ropoSitorio(; for «)vi[Jw A supplement to this document may be developed once funher studies ot the groundwater/surface water interactions have been completed. SIte Studies Feasibitity Study. EPA distributed the public release draft of the Feasibility Study for the Mine Area in OU1 where mining took place in 2004 The feasibility study defined the goals of EPA's remedial action, evaluated different technologies for reaching those goals, and combined those available technologies into several alternative cleanup plans. Alternatives considered include: taking no action installing physical access and legal land use controls • decontaminating the mine buildings • demolishing the mine buildings • capping the tailings and waste rock piles and constructing surtace water diversion channels • excavating and disposing of the tailings and waste rock pile in an on-site landfill • excavating and shipping the tailings and waste rock pile to an off-site disposal facility • capping tailings and contaminated sediment in Little Clipper Creek down to Greenhorn Road • excavating the contaminated sedimet in Little Clipper Creek down to Greenhorn Road The Feasibility Study was completed for the drinking water component for Groundwater (OU2) in July 2008. Alternatives considered in this study include: • taking no action installing point-of-use undersink treatment units, land use notifications, and monitoring of groundwater installing wellhead treatment units, land use notifications, and monitoring at groundwater • providing an alternative water supply via pipeline from Nevada Irrigation District, land use notifications, and monitoring of groundwater The proposed plan is available now for the drinking water component of the Groundwater Operable Unit. A revised Feasibility Study and proposed cleanup alternatives for the Lost Lake Area (OU3) are expected in 2015. Cleanup Ongoing Construction. Mine Area Cap Construction of the cap on the mine area in OU1 has been essenlially completed. Excavated tailings and contaminated soils from LiHle Clipper Creek http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/sfund/r9sfdocw.nsfNiewByEPAID/CAD9836 18.,. 5/24/2014 Superfund Site Overview Lava Cap Mine, Pacific Southwest, US EPA of6 11101/01 Final Human Health Risk Assessment --Lava Cap Mine Superfund Site 11 /01/01 Remedial lnvestigalion, Lava Cap Mine Superfund Site 11/01/01 Supporting data: Lava Cap Mine Remedial Investigation 02l01/04Public Release Draft Mine Area Feasibility Study 07/01 /080perable Unit 2 Feasibility Study Report 11 /01 / 10Remedial Action Report Mine Area Operable Unit (OUt) 09/ 14/ 11 First Five-Year Review Report Community Involvement Public Meetings; EPA is committed to involving the public in the cleanup decision-making process. Its Community Involvement Program focuses on answering the community's questions about the cleanup eHort, providing information to the community about site activities, and incorporating community issues and concerns into Agency decisions, particularly when a cleanup remedy is proposed. Community Involvement History: In November 2000, EPA held public meetings in Grass Valley and Nevada City on our preliminary results from initial rounds of sampling. In November 2001, EPA again held pubfic meetings in the same locations, in cooperation with the Lava Cap Mine Superfund Coalition, recipient of an EPA grant to provide technical expertise to the community in understanding the Lava Cap cleanup. At these meetings, EPA presented the results of its human health and ecological risk assessments. EPA also began a discussion with community members on their p
F3:
There was internal acknowledgement of frequent failures by governmental agencies in these matters. Numerous efforts were made to conceal these failures from the public. Disagree. The County has no evidence of frequent failures by governmental agencies or of efforts to conceal failures. B. RESPONSES TO RECOMMENDATIONS:
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F7:
Since NCCFD is failing financially, LAFCo could review and approve changes of organization, reorganization, or consolidation. Partially Agree The Board of Supervisors does not have direct knowledge of the NCCFD financial situation and cannot confirm whether or not the District is failing financially. However, the Board agrees that LAFCo has the authority to review and approve changes of organization, reorganization, or consolidation. B. RESPONSES TO RECOMMENDATIONS
F11:
Forming a single Nevada County Fire Authority would allow opportunities to staff for promotion opportunities, uniform advanced training, diversity of assignment, cost savings for taxpayers and uniform operations for the residents across western Nevada County. Response The City agrees.
F12:
If a JPA is successful, there will be substantial saving in the administrative overhead cost. Response The City partly agrees. The amount of savings realized depends upon the structure of the administrative staff. Saving may be expected; however, care must be taken to avoid overstating likely fiscal benefits. Telephone (530) 274-4310 - Fax (530) 274-4399
F13:
The four fire agencies, NCCFD, GVFD, PVFPD and NCFD serving the vast majority of western Nevada County will soon be without fire chiefs, the highest level of management, creating an opportune time to explore reorganization. Response The City agrees. The City of Grass Valley, Nevada County Consolidated Fire District and Penn Valley Fire District are currently managed with Interim Chief Officers; the Fire Chief of Nevada City is a half time position. The four agencies, absent a seated, full time Fire Chief had a unique opportunity for collaboration of a Fire Chief. Although Nevada County Consolidated has apPointed a new Chief and Penn Valley Fire may be preparing to do so, this opportunity may arise again in the future. In any event, the City will continue to pursue cooperation with its neighboring agencies to ensure the highest level of service at the best price for residents and property owners in the City and the surrounding communities we help serve. Telephone (530) 274-4310 - Fax (530) 274-4399
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Nevada County Fire Chief's Association should continue moving forward to integrate administrative functions under a JPA in western Nevada County. Response The City agrees .
R2:
The Nevada County Board of Supervisors should direct lAFCo to begi n research on the steps necessary to reorgan ize western Nevada County fire districts into a single fire authority. This should be a priority for the safety of residents in western Nevada County. Response The City partly agrees with the recommendation. The City supports research into the concept of a single fire authority by a committee of Fire Chiefs and elected officials. LAFCO is an independent state-agency w hich is not subject to direction by the County. Moreover, a collaborative solution is, in the City's view, more likely to succeed than one imposed by others.
R3:
The proposed new fire authority should consider: Having one governing board selected by Board of Supervisors, using the current district designations for representation purposes Have one chief and one business office Retaining current fire tax fees for each current district Telephone (530) 274-4310 - Fax (530) 274-4399 Have a plan to implement a leveling of the fees within four years Being called the Western Nevada County Fire Authority Not initially including Ophir Hill Fire Protection District, Peardale Chicago Park Fire, Rough and Ready Fire or North San Juan Fire District. Response: The City partly agrees with the recommendation. Conceptually, the City agrees that the concept of a single Western Nevada County Fire Authority has merit. The proposed Shared Administrative Services agreement had included many of the suggestions in the Grand Jury report. Complex issues such as governance and legal restrictions on revenues necessitate participation from all fire agencies. Development of a single agency for western Nevada County must include all agencies for the benefit of all residents.
R4:
An interim JPA should be established which would be an interim governing body. That governing body would be a transitional board until a permanent board is established. The interim board would consist of one elected official and one staff member from each agency and one member from the Nevada County Board of Supervisors. Response The City partly agrees with the recommendation. Dialogue in development of the proposed Shared Services agreement between Nevada City, Grass Valley and Nevada County Consolidated included governance consisting of the City Managers and a board member from Nevada Co. Consolidated Fire. Should a JPA be established as described by this recommendation, the governance structure considered by the Shared Service proposal may be suitable in the interim and long term. Telephone (530) 274-4310 - Fax (530) 274-4399
R5:
The included districts in the new fire authority should begin discussion for reorganization into an independent fire authority that is under the supervision of the Nevada County Board of Supervisors in order to preserve fire protection services in western Nevada County. Response The City partly agrees with the recommendation. The City will participate in discussions to consider an independent fire authority in western Nevada County. Governance of an independent fire authority can only be determined by those participating in the fire authority discussions. The City must fulfill its service responsibilities in the meantime and will advocate for its residents to ensure adequate, appropriately funded services, as other local governments should do for those they serve. This response was reviewed and approved by City Council at its September 23, 2014, meeting. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, a~ Dan Miller Mayor cc: City Council Tim Kiser, Public Works Director/City Engineer Telephone (530) 274-431 0 - Fax (530) 274-4399 N e v ada County LA FC o Lo ca l 95 0 Maidu A venu e A ge ncy Nevada C ity, CA 95 959-8617 F ormati on Phone 530 265 7180 Fax 530 265 9862 C om mi ssion E mail lafco@co.nevada.ca.lIs On the vl'eh at: 11:"),!'H'. In)mevadacoull(v. w nz/nc//uj(;() Richard Anderson County Patrick Flora September 22, 201 4 Cities Kurt Grundel The Honorable Thomas Anderson Districls Presiding Judge of the Nevada County Grand Jury Lisa Swarthout Nevada County Courthouse Cities Alternate 201 Church Street Paul Norsell. Vice-Chair Nevada City, CA 95959 Public Hank Weston, Chair RE: Nevada LAFCo's Responses to the 2013-2014 Nevada County Civil County Grand Jury Report: "Nevada COlmty Consolidated Fire District - To Be or Not Nick Wilcox to Be, That is the Question" Districts Dear Judge Anderson: Nate Beason County A Itemate As required by California Penal Code Section 933, Nevada County's Local Agency Formation Commission (Nevada LAFCo) hereby submits responses to Ed Beckenbach Districts Alternate the subject Grand Jury Report, dated June 24, 2014. These responses were approved by the Commission on September 18,2014. Robert Bergman Cities On behalf of Nevada LAFCo, I would like to thank the 2013-20 14 Grand Jury Josh Susman Public Alternate panel for their participation and effort in preparing their reports, and for participating in the Grand JUly process. SR Jones Executive Officer Jttk-W~ P. Scot1 Browne Legal Counsel Hank Weston, Chair Deborah Gilcrest Nevada LAPeo Clerk/A nalyst Kate Duroux Cc: Keith Overbey, Foreman, Grand Jury \ / AssIstant Clerk SR Jones, LAFCo Executive Officer NEVADA LAFCO RESPONSES TO 2013-2014 Nevada County Civil Grand Jury Report "Nevada COWlty Consolidated Fire District - To Be or Not to Be, That is the Question" June 24, 201 4 These responses to the Grand Jury's Findings and Recommendations were approved by Nevada LAFCo at their September 18, 2014 meetj ng. Response to Findings: Fi. Since NCCFD isfailingfinancially, LAFCo could review and approve changes of organization, reorganization, or consolidation. Disagree ,,,ith the first assertion and agree with the second. The Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) does not agree with the assertion that the Nevada County Consolidated Fire District (NCCFD) is "failing financially." The district's FY 12-13 audit and financial reports for FY 13-14 indicate improvements in the district's financial situation. Relative to LAFCo's authority to review and approve changes of organization, reorganization and consolidations, pmsuant to Government Code § 56375, the Commission is responsible for reviewing all proposed changes of organization and reorganizations, including consolidations. In certain circumstances, and when sUPPolied by the recommendation or conclusion of a special study, LAFCo can initiate proposals for consolidation, dissolution, merger, establishment of subsidiary district, or formation of a new district (GC § 56375 (a) (2». It should be noted that any reorganization proposal can be subject to an election if protested by a specific percentage of voters. Reorganizations that are initiated by LAPCo are generally subject to a lower protest threshold than proposals initiated by the affected local agencies or by voter petition. However, in the absence of a special study, it is not clear that a reorganization including NCCFD and (presumably) several other fire agencies would resolve NCCFD's financial problems without adversely impacting the service levels of the others. Fi. The lack offiduciary responsibility on the part ofthe Board may lead to {he eventual downfall ofNCCFD. Neither agree or disagree. LAFCo does not have facts that pemlit it to agree or disagree with the conclusion. Fi. The Jury found that Teeter Funds are needed by NCCFD 10 remain in operation. Even though this is a legal practice used by special districfs for constant supply ofoperationalfunds, NCCFD is forced to borrow againstfuture tax revenue. Agree. LAFCo is aware that NCCFD has utilized Teeter Plan funds. As the Grand Jury notes, this practice is legal and the County's Auditor-Controller indicates that two other rue districts, one school district, and one city have also utilized Teeter Plan funding for FY 2013 -201 4. Fi. Forming a single Nevada County fire authority would allow opportunities to stafffor promotion opportunities, uniform-advanced training, diversity ofassignments, cost savings for taxpayers, and uniform operations for the residents across western Nevada County. Partially Agree. Many of the listed benefits are already being realized through the Joint Operating Agreement and through agreements and contracts between the fire agencies. Relative to training and operations, the Joint Operating Agreement provides for standardized operational response and joint training. This agreement was initially established in 2001 between NCCFD, Grass Valley and Nevada City; and since that time, Penn Valley Fire has joined the JOA. The JOA can be expanded to accommodate other fire agencies. Countywide dispatch procedures already allow for the closest available resource to respond to any type of emergency, regardless of agency boundaries. Regarding uniform operations throughout western Nevada County, LAFCo notes that each of the fire districts and cities serve a distinct community with unique service needs. Generally speaking, establishing a uniform level of operations throughout the western COWlty will require some fire agencies to increase their service levels, the cost of which would in turn need to be financed by residents. LAFCo also points out the progress that has been made county-wide in the last twenty five years toward increasing the efficiency and accountability of the fire and emergency services system. Since 1990, five Western County fire districts have been consolidated (Bullion, Gold Flat, Alta Oaks-Sunset, Watt Park and Forty-Niner Fire Protection Districts). In the eastern county, the fire and emergency response operations ofthe Soda SpringslKingvale area were transferred from Donner Summit Public Utility District to Truckee Fire Protection District. Each of these reorganizations involved lengthy and extensive negotiations between elected officials, labor representatives, and citizen groups. Each proceeded at its own pace, with LAFCo's involvement including the provision of technical assistance and impartial review ofthe resulting reorganization proposals. In several cases, an extended period of "functional consolidation" between agencies provided a very useful "adjustment period" ofjoint operations wherein personnel and administrative issues could be addressed in advance of a fonnal consolidation. Fi. Ifa JPA is successful, there will be substantial savings in administrative overhead costs. Partially Agr'ee. LAFCo recognizes that carefully crafted JPAs can potentially assist agencies to contain (i.e., not necessarily reduce) administrative costs. However, in the absence of the specific terms of such an agreement, the assertion of "substantial savings" appears to be speculative. Fi.13 The four fire agencies, NCCFD, GV}J), PVFPD and NCFD serving the vast majority of western Nevada County will soon be without fire chiefs, the highest level ofmanagement, creating an opportune lime 10 explore reorganization. Agree. LAFCo is aware that the listed agencies have engaged in discussions about consolidating administrative operations and fire chief positions. Fi. When the SAFER grant expires within two years, the HFPD will be unable to Jully staff their stations. This would be an ideal time to work toward reorganization. Agree. LAFCo is aware that HFPD's financial position results from the district voters' decision to not approve a tax measure to fund enhanced fire and emergency services. LAFCo also observes that HFPD's financial situation could present an obstacle to its full participation in a wider fire agency reorganization (i.e., if HFPD is underfunded, consolidation would require the partner agencies to subsidize services to the Higgins area). Response to Recommendations: R. The proposed new fire authority should consider: • having one governing board selected by Board o[Supervisors, using the current district designationsJor representation pwposes, • having one chieJ and one business office, • retaining current fire laxJees Jor each current district, • having a plan to implement a leveling ojthe Jees within Jour years, • being called the Western Nevada County Fire Authority, • not initially including Ophir Hill Fire Protection District, Peardale-Chicago Park Fire, Rough and Ready Fire, or North San Juan Fire District. This recommendation cannot be implemented by LAFCo for the following reason. It is not clear whether the recommendation is to establish a 10int Powers Authority (presumably comprised of several existing fire agencies) or to reorganize the existing fire agenCies. LAFCo has no authority to either establish a lPA or to unilaterally require any agency to join alPA. Relative to a reorganization of several existing agencies, no such proposal has been submitted for LAFCo's consideration at this time. Although LAFCo can in certain circumstances initiate reorganization proposals, such action can only be taken after a comprehensive study ofthe financial and govemance circumstances and implications of the proposed reorganization on all involved agency service levels. Given that several of the agencies presumably included in the recommendation appear to be financially stable and capable of providing service at the level desired by their residents, there does not appear to be justification for allocating the significant resources that would be req uired to conduct such a study. As a practical matter, LAFCo notes that a plan to "level fees" tlu'oughout the western county will need to balance the service needs of each community with its financial ability to participate, and must also provide for consistency with Propositions 13 and 218. R. An interim JP A should be established which would be an interim governing body. That governing body would be a transitional board until a permanent board is established. The interim board would consist 0/one elected official and one staffmember from each agency and one member from the Nevada County Board o/Supervisors. This recommendation cannot be implemented by LAFCo for tbe following reason. Local Agency Fonnation Commissions do not have authority to initiate the formation of Joint Powers Authorities. R. The included districts in the new fire authority should begin discussions Jor reorganization into an independent fire authority that is under the supervision oJthe Nevada County Board oj Supervisors in order to preserve fire protection services in western Nevada County: Nevada County Consolidated Fire District, • Penn Valley Fire Protection District, • Rough and Ready Fire Protection District, Grass Valley Fire Department, • Nevada City Fire Department, Higgins Area Fire Protection District, • North San Juan Fire Protection District, Ophir Hill Fire Protection District, Peardale-Chicago Park Fire District, Washington County Water Fire District. See
R20:
I Church-Stree"Mmite-6- ..!) /() /;( <:L I? .5::-) Nevada City, CA 95959 RE: Response to 2013114 Nevada County Consolidated Fire District to be or not to be, that is the question Dear Grand Jury Members, Attached is the Penn Valley Fire Protection District's response as approved by the Board of Directors at the 9/2/14 regular board meeting. Thank you. SSt> '8 10 . <"9'11 e?'/ Board Chairman
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
- Although the Stall' is attempting to remedy some of the identificd sal'Cty and security issues. there arc still ddiciencies in the security camcra syslCm that needs immediate attention b) the AOC. Agree. Fi.3 NCSO could be active in assisting the Statl in their request for camera upgrades because the cameras are a first-line observation of potential harm, Disagree. The COllit \\mild certainly \\elcome any help the NCSO might offer tu enhance the Court's camera system. Ilowc\er. this system is the COlllt's responsibility and rely on the Judicial \\l' COllncil fl.,!' 1i.lI1ding to expand! enhance the system.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The safety of county and court employees and the public is compromised by a lack of security cameras in some areas of the Courthouse. Partially Disagree Due to past experience, we do not feel an imminent threat of serious injury to the public, courthouse employees, andlor county employees exists. We have had an excellent record with our transport of prisoners from transportation units to the Courthouse in Nevada City. We are committed to mitigating risk at every opportunity within the County's existing resources. Inmates are transported from the transportation unit to the Courthouse in customary restraints, including leg shackles and waist shackles. Officer safety practices are primary in maintaining a safe environment while transporting prisoners; although security cameras may provide additional security.
F2:
Although the Staff is attempting to remedy some of the identified safety and security issues, there are still deficiencies in the security camera system that needs Immediate attention by the AOe. Disagree. The Nevada County Board of Supervisors provides leadership in working with the Sheriff and Court to help direct funding to the highest priorities. Safety and security concerns have not risen to a level high enough to make this a priority project.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Nevada County Board of Supervisors, Nevada County Sheriff's Office, Administrative Offices of the Court and Nevada County Superior Court staff need to prioritize funding requests and obtain the funding from the AOC to implement the safety improvements. This recommendation will not be implemented. See R.i. above.
F3:
NCSO could be active in assisting the Staff in their request for camera upgrades because the cameras are a first-line observation of potential harm. Agree. The Nevada County Sheriff Office has agreed to participate in discussions with Court Staff regarding Courthouse Security.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Nevada County Board of Supervisors, Nevada County Sheriff's Office, Administrative Offices of the Court and Nevada County Superior Court staff need to follow through with the request for funding, the implementation ofthe safety improvements and ensure the required work is completed. This recommendation will not be implemented. See R.i. above.
F4:
This issue has been on the forefront for several years without resolution. The safety of the public, the Courthouse employees and NCSO staff remains at risk. Disagree. The Nevada County Board of Supervisors concurs with the Nevada County Sheriff Office that there is not an imminent threat of serious injury to the public, the Courthouse employees and NCSO staff. The NCSO has an excellent record in transporting prisoners from transportation unit to the Courthouse. B. RESPONSES TO RECOMMENDATIONS:
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
This issue has been on the forefront for several years without resolution. The safety of the public, the Courthouse employees and NCSO staff remains at risk. Partially Disagree The issue has not been fully resolved, yet, due to past experience, we do not feel an imminent threat of serious injury to the public, courthouse employees, and/or county employees exists. We have had an excellent record with our transport of prisoners from transportation units to the Courthouse in Nevada City. We are committed to mitigating risk at every opportunity within the County's existing resources. Inmates are transported from the transportation unit to the Courthouse in customary restraints, including leg shackles and waist shackles. Officer safety practices are primary in maintaining a safe environment while transporting prisoners; although security cameras may provide additional security. RECOMMENDATIONS:
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
Upon review of the District's By-Laws, the Jury detennined there has been no progress in updating them since the report by the 20 12-2013 Jury Disagree The Board reviewed and revised the By-Laws in January and February, and the new By-Laws were approved by the Board and posted March 25,2014.
F2:
Alternate audit procedures allowed in §26909(a)(S) ofthe California Government Code may help reduce costs of regular audits. Agree
F3:
The District did not properly report to the Jury when asked about the fund balance held by the office of the Nevada County Auditor-Controller Agree
F4:
The District is remiss in its duty to use a competitive bidding process to attempt to control maintenance and repair costs. Thus, the District does not have a way of knowing whether they are getting fair value for their money. Partially Disagree The District has a long history of using competitive bidding for maintenance and repair work. It bas also used multi-year contracts in order to be cost-effective. However, over the past two years the District has been lax in consistently obtaining bids. It has relied on a handful of proven contractors instead of bidding every road maintenance job. Recommenda tions
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
The current conditions at the Joseph Center are believed to pose an imminent threat of serious injury to the public, courthouse employees and county employees. Disagree Due to past experience, we do not feel an imminent threat of serious injury to the public, courthouse employees, and/or county employees exists. We have had an excellent record with our transport of prisoners from transportation units to the Courthouse in Truckee with no threats, escapes or injuries. We are committed to mitigating risk at every opportunity within the County's existing resources. Inmates are transported from the transportation unit to the Courthouse in customary restraints, including leg shackles and waist shackles.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The current conditions at the Joseph Center are believed to pose an imminent threat of serious injury to the public, courthouse employees and county employees. Disagree Due to past experience, we do not feel an imminent threat of serious injury to the public, courthouse employees, and/or county employees exists. We have had an excellent record with our transport of prisoners from transportation units to the Courthouse in Truckee with no threats, escapes or injuries. We are committed to mitigating risk at every opportunity within the County's existing resources. Inmates are transported from the transportation unit to the Courthouse in customary restraints, including leg shackles and waist shackles.
F2:
Safety improvements identified by the county and AOC have not been approved and/or funded by the AOe. Partially agree. Several improvement requests havc been approved and funded by the AOe. These include tinting or exterior windows, installing obstacles to preve nt running a vehicle into sensitive areas ol'the building and installation of bullet resistant windows. There are other requests awaiting approval and funding, howe ver, they are still in the approval process.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Safety improvements identified by the county and AOC have not been approved and/or funded by the AOC. Agree
F3:
Proposed safety improvement would enhance the safety of the public and COUlt and county employees . Ag ree. FiA The 80S and the Court have not provided leadership in urging the AOC to release the neceSS<lry funds to improve the safety at the Joseph Center. Ui sag ree. The Court has made seve ral attempts to gain approval of our requests for safety improvcments at the Joseph Center. We regularly follow up on these requests and provide additional information as necessary to establish an appropriate priority for funding. The plain fact is that funding across the State is too little to meet all security needs in all courthouses. The Grand Jury's assumpt ion that this is a shortfall in leadership on the part of the 80S and COLilt completely lacks foundation. Recommendations R. l The Nevada County Board of Supervisors, the Nevada County Sheriffs Office, the Administrati ve Office of the COLlItS and the Nevada County Superior Court should take all the measures necesSAry to move forwArd with a formal agreement which provides the recommended S8fety improvements immediately to ensure the safety of the public and employees. Partially implemented. The Court has taken all appropriate steps to secure funding for the identif'ied security improvements. The recommendation that this effort should be pushed forward at all cost clearly fails to consider the statewide limitations on funding and competing priorities - not the least of which is simply providing sufficient staffing of court operations to prov ide basic access to justice foral!. R. The Nevada County Board of Supervisors, the Nevada Coun ty Sheriffs Office, the Administrative Office of the Courts and the Nevada County Superior Court staff' should prioritize funciing requ ests to implement the recommended safety improvements. Partially implemented. We have prioritized our security requests and submitted them to the State for consideration 8nd funding. The State considers requests from all jurisdictions and establishes statewide priorities. We do not control that process.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Nevada Cou nty Board of Supervisors, the Nevada County Sheriffs Office, the Administrative Office of the Courts and the Nevada County Superior COUlt staff should coordinate effolts to follovv through with the request for funding, the illlplementation orthe safety improvements and ensure the required work is completed. Partially implemented. We do currently coordinate our effolts in this area and will continue to do so. Ensuring these improvements are completed is outside of our control and subject to approval and funding by the State. Respectfully submitted , a/{N/~ ;j})JJd-~ Candace S. HeidelberO'cr G. Se8n Metroi<a Presiding Judge e Court Executive Officer 2
F4:
The BOS and the Court have not provided leadership in urging the AOC to release the necessary funds to improve the safety at the Joseph Center. Disagree Our experience has been that both the BOS and the Court provide leadership and are prudent in prioritizing funding requests to the AOC.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The BOS and the Court have not provided leadership in urging the AOC to release the necessary funds to improve the safety at the Joseph Center. Disagree Our experience has been that both the BOS and the Court provide leadership and are prudent in prioritizing funding requests to the AOC. RECOMMENDATIONS:
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
The Nevada County-Clerk/Registrar ofVoters should direct the Elections Office to develop and implement policies and procedures to ensure consistent application of existing policy and procedures, specifically: • To ensure all poll workers repeat the name and address ofeach voter as they check in to vote, • To ensure that poll workers advise voters that a provisional ballot, if chosen, could be different than the ballot from the voter's assigned polling place, • To ensure poll workers suggest to voters they go to their assigned polling place, • To place the blue VBM ballot boxes so poll workers may verbally ensure that the VBM envelope is signed by the registered voter. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. Elections staffhave been working to ensure that poll workers are repeating back the voters' name and address, as discussed in Finding 1, and we will continue to emphasize this point in the future. As explained in Finding 2, we do not instruct poll workers to inform voters that a provisional ballot might not be their assigned ballot because this is not required by California Elections Code, and because there is no way for a poll worker to determine this information. Poll workers are instructed and encouraged to redirect voters to their correct 4of6 polling location when possible. The implementation ofe-poll books will provide the correct polling location of individual voters, allowing poll workers to redirect the voter to the assigned polling location, consequently, reducing the number of provisionals. Finally, signing ofthe Vote-by-Mail envelope is the responsibility ofthe voter and is clearly instructed on the envelope. It is not the responsibiUty of the poll workers to check that a Vote-by-Mail ballot being dropped offhas been signed. Checking for a signature would require the poll worker to remove the protective privacy strip on the outside ofthe envelope, a task which is typically done in the security ofthe Elections Office.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Nevada County-Clerk/Registrar ofVoters should direct the Elections Office to develop and implement policies and procedures to ensure consistent application of existing policy and procedures, specifically: • To ensure all poll workers repeat the name and address ofeach voter as they check in to vote, • To ensure that poll workers advise voters that a provisional ballot, if chosen, could be different than the ballot from the voter's assigned polling place, • To ensure poll workers suggest to voters they go to their assigned polling place, • To place the blue VBM ballot boxes so poll workers may verbally ensure that the VBM envelope is signed by the registered voter. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. Elections staffhave been working to ensure that poll workers are repeating back the voters' name and address, as discussed in Finding 1, and we will continue to emphasize this point in the future. As explained in Finding 2, we do not instruct poll workers to inform voters that a provisional ballot might not be their assigned ballot because this is not required by California Elections Code, and because there is no way for a poll worker to determine this information. Poll workers are instructed and encouraged to redirect voters to their correct 4of6 polling location when possible. The implementation ofe-poll books will provide the correct polling location of individual voters, allowing poll workers to redirect the voter to the assigned polling location, consequently, reducing the number of provisionals. Finally, signing ofthe Vote-by-Mail envelope is the responsibility ofthe voter and is clearly instructed on the envelope. It is not the responsibiUty of the poll workers to check that a Vote-by-Mail ballot being dropped offhas been signed. Checking for a signature would require the poll worker to remove the protective privacy strip on the outside ofthe envelope, a task which is typically done in the security ofthe Elections Office.
F2:
Poll workers are not instructed: • To advise voters that provisional ballots may differ from the voters' ballots provided at the correct polling place and, • To advise the voters they may be unable to vote on candidates and ballot measures specific to their residence if they vote provisionally. Partially Agree: Poll workers do not have the ability to determine the correct ballot style for an individual voter. That is why this policy is not included in poll worker training or CaJifornia Elections Code. That being said, we will not be advising poll workers to inform voters that they may not be able to vote on candidates and ballot measures specific to their residence. In addition, the Elections Office is actively taking measures to reduce the number ofprovisional ballots issued. One of these steps includes the implementation ofe poll books, which are electronic rosters. During the June 2014 Primary Election, the number ofprovisional ballots issued decreased significantly. The implementation ofthese devices county-wide will allow poll workers to easily redirect voters to their correct polling location, subsequently reducing the number ofprovisional ballots issued.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Nevada County Clerk-Recorder/Registrar of Voters and the Nevada County Superior Cuurt should develop and adopt a formal agreement which: • establishes an effective communication process between the Nevada County Elections Office anclthe Nevada County Superior Court with respect to ongoing compliance with Elections Code §§ 2211 and 22 J 2, • defines the respective roles and responsibilities of the Nevada County Elections Office and the Nevada County Superior Court with respect to compl iance with Elections Code §§ 221 J and 2212, • ensures the information received by the Elections Office is in a useable format, • provides retroactive reporting for the period 01'2009 through 2014 with respect to compliance with Elections Code §§ 2211 and 2212. The rccommendation will not be implemented at the present time. The Nevada County Clerk-Recorder/Registrar of Voters and the Superior Court of Nevada County arc not required by California Law or Rules of Court to adopt a formal agreement in order to comply with Elections Code §§ 22 J 1 and 2212. Nevcl1heless, we have established effective communications, we eaeh understand our respective roles and responsibilities and the Court docs provide the report required by Elections Code §§ 221 1 and 2212 in the format specilied in the law. The Court does not 11<l\e any economically feasible way to provide retroactive reporting for the period of 2009 through March 2013 to the Elections Office. Moreover, that information would be ll( little \ alue to the Elections Office in the performance of its duties as the information would not be currently applicable to the tasks required by the Elections Code. The required reporting for the period beginning April 2013 to present has been accomplished. Respectfu Ily subm in ed. aj~S7t~ /}f i(ijJ(~~ Candacc S Hel·(lell G. Sean Metroka I) . ... Jerger ITSldlllg Judge Court Executive Ollicer :2
F3:
There is no consistent verification by poll workers that VBM (Vote-by-Mail) envelopes bear the signature of the registered voter. Agree
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
There is no consistent verification by poll workers that VBM (Vote-by-Mail) envelopes bear the signature of the registered voter. Agree
F4:
The number of voters using provisional ballots has increased approximately 96% between 2004 and 2012. Agree S. The increase in voter use of provisional ballots has increased the overall costs to Nevada County to conduct elections. Agree
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The number of voters using provisional ballots has increased approximately 96% between 2004 and 2012. Agree S. The increase in voter use of provisional ballots has increased the overall costs to Nevada County to conduct elections. Agree
F6:
The increased expense of processing provisional ballots may be reduced if poll workers encourage voters to go to their correct polling location. Agree 2 of6
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The increased expense of processing provisional ballots may be reduced if poll workers encourage voters to go to their correct polling location. Agree 2 of6
F7:
The rules regarding observers allowed before, during, and after elections have been followed by the Elections Office. Agree
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The rules regarding observers allowed before, during, and after elections have been followed by the Elections Office. Agree
F8:
The Elections Office and Court have no formal agreement regarding their roles and responsibilities to comply with Election Code §2211 and §2212. Agree
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The Elections Office and Court have no formal agreement regarding their roles and responsibilities to comply with Election Code §2211 and §2212. Agree
F9:
There is a lack of effective communication between the Elections Office and the Court regarding compliance with Elections Code §2211 and §2212. Disagree: The Elections Office and the Superior Court of Nevada County through G. Sean Metroka, the Court Executive Officer, have engaged in effective communication regarding compliance with California Elections Code §2211 and §2212. Correspondence, beginning September 2009 through 2010, documents the latest email thread between then Assistant Clerk-Recorder, Gail Smith, and G. Sean Metroka, engaging in dialogue regarding Elections Codes §2211 and §2212.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
There is a lack of effective communication between the Elections Office and the Court regarding compliance with Elections Code §2211 and §2212. Disagree: The Elections Office and the Superior Court of Nevada County through G. Sean Metroka, the Court Executive Officer, have engaged in effective communication regarding compliance with California Elections Code §2211 and §2212. Correspondence, beginning September 2009 through 2010, documents the latest email thread between then Assistant Clerk-Recorder, Gail Smith, and G. Sean Metroka, engaging in dialogue regarding Elections Codes §2211 and §2212.
F10:
Since 2009, the lack of communication between the Elections Office and the Court has led to a failure to comply with the requirements of Elections Code §2211 and §2212, which affects the integrity of the voter rolls. Disagree: The report required by EC §2212 compels the Clerk of the Superior Court, based upon the records ofthe court, to produce and furnish the Registrar ofVoters with a statement showing the names, addresses, and dates of birth ofall persons who have been convicted ofa felony since the clerk's last report. The court has conSistently complied with this code section. Pursuant to EC §2212, the Registrar ofVoters shall cancel the affidavits of registration of those persons who are currently imprisoned or on parole for the conviction ofa felony. The Elections Office has consistently complied with this code section. As per the dialogue with G. Sean Metroka, the Court Executive Officer, the information necessary for the Elections Office to comply with EC §2212 is not ascertainable on the basis ofthe courts records. Moreover, further clarification of Elections Code §2212 comes in the form of 2002 Law Revision Commission Comments regarding the county clerk's alleviation ofthose powers, duties, and responsibilities: 30f 6 Law Revision Commission Comments 2002 Amendment "Section 2212 is amended to reflect elimination ofthe county clerk's role as ex officio clerk of the superior court. See former Gov't Code § 26800 (county clerk acting as clerk ofsuperior court). The powers, duties, and responsibilitiesformerly exercised by the county clerk as ex officio clerk ofthe court are delegated to the court administrative or executive officer, and the county clerk is relieved ofthose powers, duties, and responsibilities. See Gov't Code §§ 69840 (powers, duties, and responsibilities ofclerk ofthe court and deputy clerk ofthe court), 71620 (trial court personnel). The section is also amended to eliminate certification ofwhich felons remain imprisonedj that determination may not be ascertainable on the basis ofcourt records. [32 Cal.L.Rev.Comm. Reports148 (2002))." The report furnished to the Elections Official, pursuant to EC §2212, will not have sufficient information for the Elections Official to cancel affidavits of registration of those persons who are currently imprisoned or on parole for the conviction ofa felony.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
Since 2009, the lack of communication between the Elections Office and the Court has led to a failure to comply with the requirements of Elections Code §2211 and §2212, which affects the integrity of the voter rolls. Disagree: The report required by EC §2212 compels the Clerk of the Superior Court, based upon the records ofthe court, to produce and furnish the Registrar ofVoters with a statement showing the names, addresses, and dates of birth ofall persons who have been convicted ofa felony since the clerk's last report. The court has conSistently complied with this code section. Pursuant to EC §2212, the Registrar ofVoters shall cancel the affidavits of registration of those persons who are currently imprisoned or on parole for the conviction ofa felony. The Elections Office has consistently complied with this code section. As per the dialogue with G. Sean Metroka, the Court Executive Officer, the information necessary for the Elections Office to comply with EC §2212 is not ascertainable on the basis ofthe courts records. Moreover, further clarification of Elections Code §2212 comes in the form of 2002 Law Revision Commission Comments regarding the county clerk's alleviation ofthose powers, duties, and responsibilities: 30f 6 Law Revision Commission Comments 2002 Amendment "Section 2212 is amended to reflect elimination ofthe county clerk's role as ex officio clerk of the superior court. See former Gov't Code § 26800 (county clerk acting as clerk ofsuperior court). The powers, duties, and responsibilitiesformerly exercised by the county clerk as ex officio clerk ofthe court are delegated to the court administrative or executive officer, and the county clerk is relieved ofthose powers, duties, and responsibilities. See Gov't Code §§ 69840 (powers, duties, and responsibilities ofclerk ofthe court and deputy clerk ofthe court), 71620 (trial court personnel). The section is also amended to eliminate certification ofwhich felons remain imprisonedj that determination may not be ascertainable on the basis ofcourt records. [32 Cal.L.Rev.Comm. Reports148 (2002))." The report furnished to the Elections Official, pursuant to EC §2212, will not have sufficient information for the Elections Official to cancel affidavits of registration of those persons who are currently imprisoned or on parole for the conviction ofa felony. RECOMMENDATIONS:
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R2:
has since been implemented by the TFPD. Fa. Truckee Fire Protection District Board of Directors All members of the Board have now attended training regarding the roles and Fa. 6 responsibilities of board members in special districts. The Board has developed and implemented a finance policy which requires the Fa. 7 thorough review of checks to be signed and detailed supporting documentation for all TFPD expenditures. The Board has improved on existing policy to facilitate open and ongoing Fa. 8 communication with TFPD personnel. The Board, TFPD management and staff have developed and implemented an active Fa. 9 partnership in the rebuilding of the TFPD's public image and in actively communicating with their constituents to restore and maintain the public's trust.