Nevada County Grand Jury
2019-2020
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
In 2017, the County was the eighth lowest in California in its CalFresh PRI, which results in more food insecurity and the loss of economic benefits to the County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The County should set an interim goal to increase CalFresh rates to the statewide PRI average of 71.8% by the end of FY 2021.
F2:
The failure to enroll all eligible County CalFresh residents results in direct loss of over ten million dollars and an even higher indirect loss to the County economy.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The County should review operations of like counties, identifying practices that can be used to increase CalFresh participation rates.
F3:
Other counties have higher participation rates and good outreach programs. They may provide helpful models for the County to use to improve local CalFresh participation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The County should appoint a task force including community stakeholders, municipalities, and local businesses to provide recommendations to increase participation rates in CalFresh.
F4:
Other counties are employing newer technology to assist in their outreach strategies, including text messaging, e-mail solicitation and prepopulated forms to all Medi-Cal recipients. Some also use IVRS systems, interactive call centers and electronic signatures to improve the customer experience.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The County should set up and follow new protocols regarding the telephone system making sure that all the features (e.g. Spanish option and voicemail) are working all the time.
F5:
The County’s 20-year-old telephone system used by HHSA is not configured properly, functions poorly, and is it not attended to regularly. It limits and discourages access.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The County should expand IVRS capabilities to its communication system, and should make sure that during initial inquiries a live person can be reached.
F6:
The lack of a one-on-one case management system and use of group rather than individual interviews negatively impacted the application process.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The County should adopt a system that allows the same Eligibility Worker to follow individual clients all the way through the process.
F7:
The County CalFresh team has not been staffed to its number of budgeted positions. In this budget year, three Eligibility Worker positions and one Office Assistant position have been eliminated. In addition, the active error rate in the application preparation was higher than many counties and the County is out of compliance (and well below statewide averages) with 30-day and three day expedited applications. All of these result in delayed benefits for recipients.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The County should conduct individual client interviews instead of group sessions.
F8:
Nearby counties require their CalFresh employees to attend community events, which increases the visibility or the program and lowering the perceived stigma of assistance programs. The County has an opportunity to participate in many more community events.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The County should fill all budgeted positions in HHSA.
F9:
HHSA outreach data makes it difficult to evaluate the performance success of outreach funds paid to other entities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
The County should identify why the current applications are out of compliance with State response expectations and do whatever is necessary to reestablish and maintain compliance.
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R10:
The County should use its current staffing to perform outreach functions at more public events and locations (e.g., farmers markets, senior centers and housing, etc.) in the County.
R11:
The County should review its outreach contracts with community organizations to determine if there are opportunities to improve coordination, training, metrics, and to achieve better results.
R12:
The County should explore and expand technology used by other counties such as electronic signature by phone or e-mail, IVRS, text messaging reminders, and video conferencing.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
Two fire agencies reported that they were not current with mandated school inspections.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Fire agencies should review and comply with HSC § 13146.3 to conduct the mandated annual school fire inspections within their areas of responsibility.
F2:
All fire agencies that reported licensed care facilities in their jurisdictions reported that they were current with the mandated inspections.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Fire agencies should review and comply with the requirement to conduct the mandated annual licensed care facilities fire inspections within their areas of responsibility.
F3:
Two fire agencies reported that they were not current with mandated multi-family unit and temporary residence fire inspections.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Fire agencies should review and comply with HSC § 13146 to conduct the mandated annual multi-family and temporary residence fire inspections within their areas of responsibility.
F4:
One fire agency reported that it was not current with mandated jail inspections.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Fire agencies should review and comply with the requirement to conduct mandated biennial jail fire inspections within their areas of responsibility.
F5:
As of October and November 2019, six fire agencies reported they had completed the annual report required by HSC § 13146.4. The remaining agencies had until December 31, 2019 to meet the requirement to report to their administering authority.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Fire agencies should review and comply with HSC § 13146.4 requiring every fire department or fire district to report to their administering authority every year on their level of compliance with the inspection mandates.
F6:
One volunteer fire agency hired a County fire inspector to perform its required inspections, although it failed to report the results as required by the HSC.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Higgins, Ophir Hill, Peardale-Chicago Park, and Rough and Ready FPDs, and Washington FD should consider charging for fire inspections and other services to improve their financial position as necessary.
F7:
Five fire agencies reported that they did not charge fees for inspections and one did not report whether or not it charged for fire inspections
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
North San Juan FPD should obtain fire inspection data from the County Fire Inspector hired to perform the agency fire inspections and provide it to its administering authority.
F8:
The administering authorities of fire agencies may adopt ordinances or policies to include non-mandated fire inspections in their areas of responsibility.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
16 findings
F1:
Wildfire prevention is a collective goal for the community and we rely on each other to help reduce the risk.
F2:
The number of Firewise Communities has increased over the past few years, proving that more county residents are involved in fire prevention activities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The BOS and OES should financially support certification of the Firewise Communities currently on the waiting list.
F3:
By the end of 2019 there were 47 communities listed on the Firewise USA site for Nevada County, leaving 39 communities on the waiting list.
F4:
Defensible space regulations, designed to reduce the potential impact of wildfire, are critical to the community. There are over 100 inspectors in the county who have been trained by the Fire Safe Council and Truckee Fire Protection District to assist with DSI inspections.
F5:
Not every homeowner will comply voluntarily with state, county and local ordinances. Nevada County has been enforcing Ordinance No. 2463 using defensible space inspectors to cite those out of compliance.
F6:
Nevada County’s DSI inspectors conduct few proactive inspections because the majority of their time is spent on the complaints received.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Nevada County DSI inspectors should significantly increase their efforts to inspect more than just complaint-driven properties.
F7:
Nevada County is on track to end the fiscal year without using all the funds budgeted to hire DSI inspectors because it has been unable to hire for the positions available.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Nevada County should meet with trained defensible space inspectors who volunteer their time to better understand why the paid DSI positions remain unfilled.
F8:
Even if all Nevada County DSI positions were filled, the county does not have enough DSI’s to inspect vegetation management at every property with a structure every five years, which is best practice.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
The BOS should direct staff, based on statistics, to determine the number of inspectors needed to inspect occupied structures, private roads and undeveloped property in accordance with best practices. Once the number has been determined, Nevada County should work toward increasing the number of DSI in order to meet the goal.
F9:
The lack of a central repository of data makes it difficult to know how many defensible space inspections have been completed and when a property was last inspected. Wildfire Prevention: Let’s Treat It as If Our Lives Depend on It
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The BOS should direct staff to collect information from CAL FIRE, Fire Districts, HOAs, Fire Safe Council and others to develop a database on defensible space inspections, which would be searchable by property to reveal the date that a property was last inspected.
F10:
Not all property owners in the county are aware that they are responsible for clearing their private roads.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The BOS and local fire districts should develop a campaign to educate landowners about their responsibility to clear private roads. Wildfire Prevention: Let’s Treat It as If Our Lives Depend on It
F11:
Not all residents in the county are aware that they may file a complaint with DSI’s to inspect private roads for ingress/egress and compliance with Ordinance No. 2463.
Related Recommendations (2)
R6:
The BOS and local fire districts should develop a campaign to educate county residents that they may file a complaint on private roads as well as on defensible space.
R7:
To assist in effective evacuation efforts, members of the public should file complaints with the OES DSI program if private road vegetation management impedes ingress and egress to their home.
F12:
A public awareness campaign about owner responsibility of clearing private roads would assist in compliance.
F13:
Nevada County does not have enough DSI’s to inspect every private road every five years, which is best practice.
Related Recommendations (2)
R8:
The BOS should develop and fund a private road inspection program that prioritizes private roads and inspects high priority roads in alignment with best practices.
R10:
The BOS should direct staff, based on statistics, to determine the number of inspectors needed to inspect occupied structures, private roads and undeveloped property in accordance with best practices. Once the number has been determined, Nevada County should work toward increasing the number of DSI in order to meet the goal.
F14:
Current Nevada County ordinances do not deal adequately with vegetation management of vacant properties
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
The BOS should direct staff, with stakeholders including members of the public, to develop appropriate vegetation management regulations for vacant properties.
F15:
The free green waste community cleanup campaign in 2019 was more successful than anticipated and is being planned again for 2020.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
The BOS should continue to financially support the free community green waste pick- up program.
F16:
Current fire prevention funding levels are inadequate. Nevada County OES staff has presented the BOS with a funding gap of $5.4-$10.1 million dollars, along with the idea of a sales or property tax to close the gap.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R50-70:
miles and mows an estimated 40-50 miles of the 560 miles of county-maintained roadway. The maintenance cycle is completed every eight to ten years. The plan reveals that the County has now set the target objective of increasing the maintenance cycle to three to five years, which is aligned with best practices. Nevada County has had recent success getting grants to help fund these efforts. In March 2020, CAL FIRE awarded a $868,084 grant to Nevada County to remove hazardous vegetation along 200 miles of county-maintained roads and an additional $1.5 million to the Truckee Community Wildfire Protection Plan to create shaded fuel breaks and right of way clearance on 682 acres. Vacant land Vacant properties are located throughout the county, some are in close proximity to neighborhoods. As has been pointed out by officials, wildfire knows no property line so unmaintained vacant properties can hold the same kind of fire risk as unmaintained properties 8 Wildfire Prevention: Let’s Treat It as If Our Lives Depend on It with a structure. One of the higher-profile fires of 2019 was started at a vacant property in a homeless campground near the corner of Sutton and Dorsey way. According to the Nevada County Assessor, as of June 30, 2019, there were 14,560 parcels in Nevada County without a permitted structure, also known as vacant land. Fire officials report the only vegetation management regulations that exist over vacant properties are in the areas where the vacant property might be part of a neighbor’s defensible space zone or along a roadway. Vacant property poses a difficult challenge for regulators, both because the property owner may not live in the county and because the cost of vegetation management can be expensive. A 2007 community wildfire report details resistance the county met as they attempted to address vegetation management on vacant and large properties. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) was reported to be the least cooperative agency regarding forest management or vegetation management by all state and local officials interviewed by the Jury. On February 13, 2020, BLM announced that it will construct and maintain up to 11,000 miles of strategic fuel breaks to reduce wildfire in six states, including California. At the writing of this report, locations of the fuel breaks had not been determined. As noted by Nevada County, the federal government provides oversight on US Forest Service and BLM lands (approximately 178,400 and 10,500 acres respectively), while state government provides oversight on state parks and other smaller state properties (approximately 23,600 acres within holdings like Malakoff Diggins State Historic Park and Empire Mine State Historic Park). State and federal lands, which occupy about one-third of the county, are outside of the purview of the Jury and therefore not addressed in this report. Additional context 1) Fiscal Year 2020 Budget: The total Nevada County budget for the current fiscal year is $258 million and there are approximately 794 employees. The Emergency Services budget, which covers more than the defensible space program, is $1.292 million and calls for two full time employees (a program manager and an Administrative Analyst II) as well as 5,000 hours of employment for temporary, part-time defensible space inspectors. In the budget, the OES program manager position is in the Sheriff’s Office and is reimbursed under “other charges”. The county’s budget for the defensible space program in 2019-2020 is $224,328 and includes DSI staff, office expenditures related to that staff and contracts with the Fire Safe Council. Budget documents also indicate that there are “1,000 Hrs. to be used for Defensible” but the meaning of that is unclear. OES reports to the Director of Information and General Services. Wildfire Prevention: Let’s Treat It as If Our Lives Depend on It 2) Board Objectives: The County BOS has included wildfire prevention as one of its top priorities for this fiscal year. A full copy of the objectives may be found on the Nevada County website. The 2019-2020 wildfire objective is: Prioritize the implementation of existing county policies and programs to reduce the risk of wildfire and the effects of wildfire on life, property and the environment. Pursue hazardous vegetation mitigation funding sources and support related community partners with their efforts. Explore other ways to reduce the threat and damage from wildfires. There are 13 initiatives tied to this objective (one is listed twice), ranging from “increase the number of county staff trained and responsible for responding to emergencies” to “[p]rovide the public more convenient and affordable green waste disposal”. On December 17, 2019 in a presentation to the BOS, only six of the thirteen initiatives were reviewed and all were rated on target. Those initiatives were: Launch and maintain a public awareness campaign to increase wildfire prevention, preparedness and personal responsibility Bring together community organizations with a shared wildfire mission to establish ongoing, coordinated approach to wildfire prevention, plans and projects Increase Code Red registrations Further mature and develop the Emergency Operations Center staffing, capabilities, training systems, resources and response readiness Seek and secure funding for wildfire prevention and preparedness initiatives Complete the Ponderosa West Fuel Break 3) General Plan: Nevada County has a BOS-approved, long-term policy guide that directs its physical, economic and environmental future. It is called the General Plan and can be located on Nevada County’s website. Chapter 10 of the General Plan, adopted in February 2020, lists ten prioritized Emergency Preparedness goals; the first goal listed was “Maintain the cooperative relationship between the Nevada County Community Development Agency and the Nevada County Fire Marshal, and provide funding for the appropriate staffing of the County Fire Marshal services to provide oversight and implement fire protections policies.” The Nevada County Fire Marshal referenced in this goal works for CAL FIRE and is responsible for reviewing building plans to ensure code compliance. Wildfire Prevention: Let’s Treat It as If Our Lives Depend on It 4) Funding: Funding that is dedicated to fire prevention traditionally comes from three sources: discretionary budget allotment by the County BOS, funding supplied by grants and the money spent by homeowners. The 2018-2019 Grand Jury report Facing Year-Long Fire Seasons: Are We Prepared found: “The county doesn’t allocate sufficient budgetary resources for its abatement ordinance or fire prevention efforts.” The BOS responded with the following: Disagree. The County has increased its overall Emergency Management budget by 88% since FY2017/18 from $622,443 to $1,292,996 in FY2019/20. Within the overall service budget unit, the County has quadrupled its Defensible Space Inspection Program and prevention efforts. Moreover, Nevada County Public Works is projecting to spend approximately $708,000 for vegetation removal along the County's maintained roadways for FY2019/20, which is approximately 30% of the Roads-Maintenance service budget unit. The Jury finds no evidence that the current funding levels are sufficient, even though the budget increased in the current year. In fact, County OES staff presented the BOS with a fire prevention funding gap of over $5 million dollars six months after providing the above response to the Jury. Currently, Nevada County is collaborating with stakeholders to bring a formal needs assessment, a timeline, and more details to the BOS before a summer deadline to place a tax measure on the November ballot. The County has applied for and received a number of grants to help fund fire suppression efforts. In total, OES applied for $10.6 million dollars in grants in 2018-19 and was awarded $3.5 million. In December 2019, the Board of Supervisors authorized OES to submit seven applications to CAL FIRE in the total amount of $8,858,397. In March 2020, CAL FIRE announced the award of $868,000 for egress and ingress work. The amount of money spent by homeowners on fire prevention is unknown, but clearly the levels have increased in recent years. 5) Home Insurance: The 2020 Nevada County General Plan states the following: “The County shall work with the California Department of Insurance to obtain recognition that Nevada County has developed fire safety programs that promote compliance with fire safety regulations, which may help to address homeowner fire insurance challenges.” 11 Wildfire Prevention: Let’s Treat It as If Our Lives Depend on It Home Insurance remains a concern for many Nevada County homeowners. Many homeowners have lost their current carrier or face significant increases to coverage rates. State Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara visited this area last August and spoke to standing room only crowds. Among other things, he reported that complaints about non-renewals have increased 600% since 2010 in areas with increased fire risk. Commissioner Lara also clearly stated that communities must set – and follow – fire prevention standards as a way of helping to offset future insurance cancellations. Findings F1 Wildfire prevention is a collective goal for the community and we rely on each other to help reduce the risk. F2 The number of Firewise Communities has increased over the past few years, proving that more county residents are involved in fire prevention activities. F3 By the end of 2019 there were 47 communities listed on the Firewise USA site for Nevada County, leaving 39 communities on the waiting list. F4 Defensible space regulations, designed to reduce the potential impact of wildfire, are critical to the community. There are over 100 inspectors in the county who have been trained by the Fire Safe Council and Truckee Fire Protection District to assist with DSI inspections. F5 Not every homeowner will comply voluntarily with state, county and local ordinances. Nevada County has been enforcing Ordinance No. 2463 using defensible space inspectors to cite those out of compliance. F6 Nevada County’s DSI inspectors conduct few proactive inspections because the majority of their time is spent on the complaints received. F7 Nevada County is on track to end the fiscal year without using all the funds budgeted to hire DSI inspectors because it has been unable to hire for the positions available. F8 Even if all Nevada County DSI positions were filled, the county does not have enough DSI’s to inspect vegetation management at every property with a structure every five years, which is best practice. F9 The lack of a central repository of data makes it difficult to know how many defensible space inspections have been completed and when a property was last inspected. Wildfire Prevention: Let’s Treat It as If Our Lives Depend on It F10 Not all property owners in the county are aware that they are responsible for clearing their private roads. F11 Not all residents in the county are aware that they may file a complaint with DSI’s to inspect private roads for ingress/egress and compliance with Ordinance No. 2463. F12 A public awareness campaign about owner responsibility of clearing private roads would assist in compliance. F13 Nevada County does not have enough DSI’s to inspect every private road every five years, which is best practice. F14 Current Nevada County ordinances do not deal adequately with vegetation management of vacant properties F15 The free green waste community cleanup campaign in 2019 was more successful than anticipated and is being planned again for 2020. F16 Current fire prevention funding levels are inadequate. Nevada County OES staff has presented the BOS with a funding gap of $5.4-$10.1 million dollars, along with the idea of a sales or property tax to close the gap. Recommendations The Nevada County Grand Jury recommends the following: R1 The BOS and OES should financially support certification of the Firewise Communities currently on the waiting list. R2 Nevada County should meet with trained defensible space inspectors who volunteer their time to better understand why the paid DSI positions remain unfilled. R3 Nevada County DSI inspectors should significantly increase their efforts to inspect more than just complaint-driven properties. R4 The BOS should direct staff to collect information from CAL FIRE, Fire Districts, HOAs, Fire Safe Council and others to develop a database on defensible space inspections, which would be searchable by property to reveal the date that a property was last inspected. R5 The BOS and local fire districts should develop a campaign to educate landowners about their responsibility to clear private roads. Wildfire Prevention: Let’s Treat It as If Our Lives Depend on It R6 The BOS and local fire districts should develop a campaign to educate county residents that they may file a complaint on private roads as well as on defensible space. R7 To assist in effective evacuation efforts, members of the public should file complaints with the OES DSI program if private road vegetation management impedes ingress and egress to their home. R8 The BOS should develop and fund a private road inspection program that prioritizes private roads and inspects high priority roads in alignment with best practices. R9 The BOS should direct staff, with stakeholders including members of the public, to develop appropriate vegetation management regulations for vacant properties. R10 The BOS should direct staff, based on statistics, to determine the number of inspectors needed to inspect occupied structures, private roads and undeveloped property in accordance with best practices. Once the number has been determined, Nevada County should work toward increasing the number of DSI in order to meet the goal. R11 The BOS should continue to financially support the free community green waste pick- up program. Request for Responses Pursuant to Penal Code section 933.05, the Nevada County Civil Grand Jury requires responses from the following: • The Nevada County Board of Supervisors for: o Findings F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11, F12, F13, F14, and F16. o Recommendations R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R8, R9, R10, and R11. o Responses are due by September 3, 2020. • Grass Valley Fire Department, Higgins Fire Protection District, Nevada City Fire Department, Nevada County Consolidated Fire District, North San Juan Fire Protection District, Ophir Hill Fire Protection District, Rough and Ready Fire Protection District, Penn Valley Fire Protection District, Peardale-Chicago Park Fire Protection District and Truckee Fire protection District for: o Findings F5, F10, F11 and F12. o Recommendations R5 and R6. o Responses are due by August 4, 2020. Wildfire Prevention: Let’s Treat It as If Our Lives Depend on It Pursuant to Penal Code section 933.05, the Nevada County Civil Grand Jury invites responses from the following: • The Nevada County Office of Emergency Services for: o Findings F5, F6, F7, F8, F13 and F14. o Recommendations R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R8, R9, R10, and R11. o Responses are invited by September 3, 2020. • The Nevada County Human Resources Department. o Recommendation R2. o Responses are invited by September 3, 2020. Attachments: County of Nevada Hazardous Vegetation Abatement Ordinance No. 2463 15 Wildfire Prevention: Let’s Treat It as If Our Lives Depend on It ORDINANCE No. 2~~3 OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF NEVADA AN URGENCY ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE 7 OF CHAPTER IV OF THE NEVADA COUNTY GENERAL CODE REGARDING HAZARDOUS VEGETATION ABATEMENT (4/5 AFFIRMATIVE VOTE REQUIRED) THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF NEVADA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS SECTION I: The Nevada County Board of Supervisors hereby finds and determines as follows: 1. Of paramount importance to the Nevada County Board of Supervisors and the citizens of Nevada County are the protection of lives and structures from the threat of wildfire, and the safety of fire and law enforcement during wildfires. The proper establishment of defensible space benefits property owners, public safety personnel and all citizens of Nevada County by dramatically increasing the likelihood that structures will survive a wildfire, provides for firefighter safety during a firestorm and generally aids in the protection of lives. 2. During the fire season, Nevada County generally has a dry, arid climate conducive to wildfires. Nevada County also has a very diverse and complex landscape , which includes dry, brush-covered and grass-covered wildlands, mountainous areas, dense heavily forested properties and other terrains which are home to many sensitive plant and animalspecies. Many of the County's native and non-native plant species can be highly combustible during normal dry periods and have contributed to significant wildfires within the County. Difficult topography and terrain exacerbate the fire danger and the difficulty off ighting wildfires, and have resulted in catastrophic fire losses to life, property and the environment. Due to the extreme dry weather that we have had recently this justifies the need for an urgency ordinance. 3. With the recent fire events, the community has expressed concern about fire safety. The Board of Supervisors Objectives include to "Reduce the risk of local wildfire and the effects of wildfire on life, property and the environment by providing leadership and support to community partners, pursuing State and Federal funding, implementing county policies and programs, and assisting the public to be "wildfire ready." Explore other ways to reduce the threat and damage from wildfires." This Ordinance provides mechanisms for inspections, notices, enforcement, and vegetation abatement. To allow time for an effective defensible space inspection period to occur prior to the start of fire season an update to the vegetation abatement ordinance is necessary. 4. The proposed ordinance is an urgency measure which, if adopted by a 4/Sths vote, will become effective immediately. Government Code section 25123(d) authorizes the Board to adopt an urgency ordinance "for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety." SECTION II: Article 7 of Chapter IV of the Nevada County General Code is hereby amended to read as shown in E~ibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION III: The County finds that this Article is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)p ursuant to the following categorical exemptions: Section 15304( minor public or private alterations in the condition of land, water and/or vegetation which do not involve the removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees except for forestry and agricultural purposes, including but not limited to specified fuels management activities within 100 feet of a dwelling), 15301 (maintenance or minor alteration of topograph ical features, including existing landscaping and native growth), 15307 (actions taken as authorized by local ordinance to assure the protection of natural resources), 15308 (actions taken as authorized by local ordinance to assure the protection of the environment) and 15321 (action by agency for enforcement of a law, general rule, standard or objective administered or adopted by the agency, including by direct referral to the County Counsel as appropriate for judicial enforcement). SECTION IV: Severability. If any provision of this Article or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of this Article, including the application_ of such part or provision to other circumstances shall not be affected thereby and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, provisions of this Article are severable. The Board of Supervisors hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase hereof irrespective of the fact that any one (1) or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases be held unconstitutional, invalid or unenforceable. Pursuant to Government Code section 25123(d), this Ordinance shall take effect and be in force immediately upo n the passage hereof, and before the expiration of fifteen (1S) days after its passage it shall be published once, with the names of the Supervisors voting for and against same in The Union, a newspaper of general circulation printed and published in the County of Nevada. PASSED AND ADOPTED by a majority vote of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Nevada at a regular meeting of said Board, held on the 26th day of March, 2019, by the following vote of said Board: Ayes: Supervisors Heidi Hall, Edward Scofield, Dan Miller, Susan K. Hoek and Richard Anderson. Noes: None. Absent: None. Abstain: None. ATTEST: JULIE PATTERSON HUNTER Clerk of the Board of Supervisors t c ~1 ~ n V yt Richard Anderson, Chair 3/26/2019 cc: GIS* Union* COB* Coco* nC* exhibit A ARTICLE 7 HAZARDOUS VEGETATION AND COMBUSTIBLE MATERIALABATEMENT Sec. G-IV 7.1 Findings A. The Nevada County Board of Supervisors supports the improved parcel defensible space obligations found in California Public Resources Code Section( PRC)4 291 and as adopted in the County's local amendments to the California Building Standards Code. However, PRC 4291 does not address hazardous vegetation and combustible material abatement beyond the property line of a parcel on which a protected building or structure is located or the potential impact that hazardous vegetation beyond a property line could have on an adjacent improved parcel. This Article extends and supplements state law, utilizing the same treatment requirements as provided by PRC 4291, to ensure defensible space is maintained on parcels adjacent to improved parcels and along emergency access and evacuation routes and fire access easements so that land owners benefit from defensible space on adjacent parcels where appropriate. B. During xhe fire season, Nevada County generally has a dry, grid climate conducive to wildfires. Nevada County also has a very diverse and complex landscape, which includes dry, brush-covered and grass-covered wildlands, mountainous areas, dense heavily forested properties and other terrains which are home to many sensitive plant and animal species. Many of the County's native and non-native plant species can be highly combustible during normal dry periods and have contributed to significant wildfires within the County. Difficult topography and terrain exacerbate the fire danger and the difficulty of fighting wildfires, and have resulted in catastrophic fire losses to life, property and the environment. C. Of paramount importance to the Nevada County Board of Supervisors and the citizens of Nevada County are the protection of lives and structures from the threat of wildfire, and the safety of fire and law enforcement during wildfires. The proper establishment of defensible space benefits property owners, public safety personnel and all citizens of Nevada County by dramatically increasing the likelihood that structures will survive a wildfire, provides for firefighter safety during a firestorm and generally aids in the protection of lives. D. The purpose of this Article is to provide for the removal of hazardous vegetation and combustible material from around the exterior of improvements situated in the unincorporated areas of the County to reduce the potential for fire and to promote the public health, safety and welfare of the community. It is the further purpose of this Article to establish a hazardous vegetation abatement program that provides a process to identify and abate hazardous vegetation on parcels and protects the lives and property of the citizens of Nevada County, while at the same time protecting sensitive plant and animal species and protecting against significant erosion and sedimentation. The removal of hazardous vegetation in the areas subject to this Article is recognized as an essential action homeowners and property owners can take to increase the chances that homes, structures and other property will survive a wildfire, while protecting the natural environment. Regular fuels management and modifications consistent with the requirements of this Article is necessary to ensure adequate defensible space is achieved. The defensible space required by this Article is necessary to significantly reduce the risk of transmission of flame or heat sufficient to ignite the structures, and there is no other feasible mitigation measure possible to reduce the risk of ignition or spread of wildfire to structures on adjacent improved parcels. E. The Nevada County Board of Supervisors does not provide fire protection or suppression services within the County. Such services within Nevada County are provided by CAL FIRE and numerous independent local fire protection districts, the United States Forest Service, and the Bureau of Land Management. The Nevada County Board of Supervisors finds and declares that CAL FIRE and the local fire protection districts, individually or collectively are best suited and equipped to implement this Article, with inspections, enforcement, and abatement by County officials when appropriate. F. This Article is enacted by ordinance pursuant to the powers granted to the board of supervisors concerning the abatement of hazardous vegetation and combustible material as contained in Section 14930 and Section 14931 of the Health and SafeTy Code of the state of California. Additional 1 authority for the abatement of nuisances, establishment of procedures, and establishment of real property liens through the board of supervisors is provided in Section 25845 and 25845.5 of the Govermnent Code of the state of California. Sec. G-IV 7.2 Application of Article This Article shall apply to: A. All Parcels adjacent to Improved Parcels where:( a) the owner/occupant of the Improved Parcel is unable to obtain the required defensible space, as delineated in adopted County Codes; and (b) the current condition of fuels on the subject Parcel is assessed by the Public Official as a hazardous fire condition. The owner of the subject Parcel shall provide the fuel modifications to meet the defensible space requirements of the adjacent Improved Parcel subject to applicable law including the finding that the clearing is necessary to significantly reduce the risk of transmission of flame or heat sufficient to ignite the structure, and there is no other feasible mitigation measure possible to reduce the risk of ignition or spread of wildfire to the structure. B. All Parcels where: a. The parcel is adjacent to a roadway which is determined by the Public Official to be necessary for the safe ingress and egress to the area served by the roadway or fire access easement; and b. The current condition of fuels on the adjacent Parcel is assessed by the Public Official as a hazardous fire condition. C. This Article shall be applicable to all unincorporated areas of the county. D. This Article may be enforced within those unincorporated areas by independent fire districts having governing bodies other than the Board, provided the governing body takes action to enforce this Article by adopting an appropriate resolution authorizing the fire chief of the district to enforce the requirements of this Article. E. The owner, occupant or other person in control of the improved parcel shall be responsible for fifty (50) percent of the abatement cost on the adjacent parcel if the owner of said adjacent parcel consents in writing to the abatement. F. If any part of this Article is in conflict with any other part of this code the more restrictive provisions) shall control. Sec. G-IV 7.3 Definitions As used in this Article, the following definitions shall apply: A. "Abate" or "Abatement" shall mean an act used to remove, destroy, eliminate, size, impound, or any action taken to mitigate a public nuisance. B. "Abatement costs" shall mean any and all costs incurred by the County or a local independent fire district to enforce this Article and to abate the hazardous vegetation or combustible material on any property pursuant to this Article, including physical abatement costs, administration fees and any additional actual costs incurred for the abatement proceeding(s), including attorney's fees, if applicable. C. "Biomass" shall mean all green waste material generated during the fuels treatment project. Biomass includes, without limitation, all grass, weeds, vegetation and tree trimmings. D. "Board of Supervisors" or "Board" shall mean the Board of Supervisors for the County of Nevada. E. "Citation" or "Administrative Citation" shall mean a civil citation issued pursuant to the Article stating there has been a violation of one or more provisions and setting the amount of the civil penalty to be paid by the responsible party. F. "Combustible material" shall mean all rubbish, litter or material of any kind other than hazardous vegetation that is combustible and endangers the public safety by creating a fire hazard. G. "County" shall mean the County of Nevada, a political subdivision of the State of California. H. "Days" shall mean calendar days. I. "Defensible space" means that area described in Public Resources Code section 4291 and as otherwise described in this Code, which is adjacent to each side of a building or structure and must be cleared of all brush, flammable vegetation, or combustible growth, subject however to the exceptions set forth in this Code. J. "Fire hazard" shall mean any condition, arrangement, act or omission which: a. Increases, or may cause an increase of hazard or menace of fire to a greater degree than that customarily recognized as normal by persons in the public service regularly engaged in preventing, suppressing or extinguishing fire; or b. May obstruct, delay, hinder or interfere with the operations of a fire department or the egress of occupants in the event of fire. K. "Fuel Modification Area" shall mean a strip of land in which the following fuel reduction activities are required to occur: a. Cut and remove all weeds and grasses down to four (4) inches or lower; b. Prune and remove "ladder fuels" up to ten (10)f eet or higher; c. "Mosaic" all stands of brush; d. Remove all dead or decaying trees and tree limbs; and e. Perform any other fire protection or maintenance activities within the Fuel Modification Areas) consistent with the standards and requirements contained in PRC 4290 or as required by a Public Official. L. "Hazardous vegetation" shall mean any vegetation that is combustible and endangers the public safety by creating a fire hazard. Hazardous vegetation includes material that in its natural state will readily ignite, burn and transmit fire from native or landscape plants to any structure or other vegetation. Hazardous vegetation includes, but is not limited to, dry grass and leaves, brush, weeds, green waste, dead or dying trees, low-hanging branches, litter or other flammable vegetation that create a fire hazard. Hazardous vegetation shall not include a commercial agricultural crop that is being actively grown and managed by the property owner or his or her legal tenant. M. "Improved Parcel" shall mean a portion of real property on which a structure is located, the area of which is determined by the assessor's maps and records and which may be identified by an Assessor's Parcel Number. N. "Ladder fuels" shall mean fuels that can carry a fire vertically between or within combustible material or hazardous vegetation. O. "Public Official" shall include the County of Nevada Fire Marshal, the Fire Chief of any local fire protection district located in whole or in part within the County of Nevada, company officers and trained prevention staff as may be designated by a Fire Chief to enforce the provisions of this Article, Office of Emergency Services staff. Public Officials include County Code Compliance officers. P. "Parcel" shall mean a portion of real property of any size, the area of which is determined by the assessor's maps and records and which may be identified by an Assessor's Parcel Number. Q. "PRC 4291" shall mean California Public Resources Code Section 4291, and any amendments thereto. R. "Responsible Party" shall mean an individual, association, co-partnership, political subdivision, government agency, municipality, industry, public or private corporation, firm, organization, partnership,j oint venture or any other person or entity whatsoever whose act or omission caused or contributed to a violation of this Article. S. "Structure" shall mean any dwelling, house, building, or other type of combustible construction, whether or not occupied, including but not limited to a wood fence attached to or near any other structure. T. "Unimproved parcel" shall mean a portion of land of any size, the area of which is determined by the assessor's maps and records and may be identified by an assessor's parcel number( APN)u pon which no structure is located. Sec. G-IV 7.4 Nuisance Declared; Duty to Abate Hazardous Vegetation and Combustible Material A. Hazardous Vegetation and Combustible Materials within one hundred (100') feet of a Structure (or greater as determined by the Public Official) or along roadways that serve as primary ingress and egress routes, are hereby declared to be a public nuisance that may be abated in accordance with this Article, and by any other means available by law. B. It shall be the duty of every owner, occupant, and person in control of any parcel or any interest therein, which is located in the unincorporated territory of the County of Nevada to abate therefrom, and from all sidewalks and roadways on or immediately adjacent thereto (except for those roads accepted into the County maintained system), all Combustible Material, and Hazardous Vegetation which constitutes a fire hazard and public nuisance which may endanger or damage neighboring property or forestland. C. The requirements of this section shall be satisfied if the Parcel is cleared in accordance with a Notice to Abate by cutting brush, trimming trees, thinning trees, disking, mowing, plowing or any other method described in a Notice to Abate, or, if no Notice to Abate is issued, by removing all Hazardous Vegetation and Combustible Materials as follows: a. Maintain a defensible space of one hundred (100') feet from each side and from the front and rear of the Structure, but not beyond the property line except as provided by law. b. Maintain a one hundred (100') foot wide strip of land around Structures) located on an adjacent Improved Parcel( some or all of this defensible space requirement may be required on an adjacent parcel depending upon the location of the Structure on the Improved Parcel); c. The amount of fuel modification necessary may take into account the flammability of the structure as affected by building material, building standards, location, and type of vegetation. Fuels shall be maintained in a condition so that a wildfire burning under average weather conditions would be unlikely to ignite the Structure. d. Maintain a minimum of a ten (10') foot wide strip of land beyond the shoulder of a roadway serving as primary ingress and egress to the parcel, to a height of fifteen (15') feet along the boundary of a Parcel; and/or e. The intensity of fuels management may vary within the one hundred (100')f oot perimeter of the Structure, the most intense being with the first thirty (30')f eet around the habitable Structure. Consistent with fuels management objectives, steps should be taken to minimize erosion. £ Remove the portion of a tree that extends within ten (10')f eet of the outline of a chimney or stovepipe. g. Climbing vines must be removed from trees and structures. h. Maintain a tree, shrub, or other plant adjacent to or overhanging a building free of dead or dying wood. i. Maintain the roof of a structure free of leaves, needles, or other vegetative materials. j. Maintain the property free of ladder fuels. D. The Public Official may mandate additional fuels management of an area more or less than the above- referenced widths or height, for the protection of public health, safety or welfare or the environment if the Public Official finds that the additional fuels management is necessary to significantly reduce the risk of transmission of flame or heat sufficient to ignite the structures, and there is no other feasible mitigation measure possible to reduce the risk of ignition or spread of wildfire to a Structure on an Improved Parcel. The Public Official shall determine appropriate defensible space distances based upon a visual inspection of the Parcel and shall consider all factors that place the Structures) on the adjacent Improved Parcel at risk from an approaching fire. These factors shall include, but are not limited to, local weather conditions, fuel type(s), topography, and the environment where the adjacent parcel or the structures) is located; E. When an occupied building is less than one hundred feet from a property line and Combustible Material or Hazardous Vegetation on an adjacent parcel presents a fire hazard for the occupied building the owner of the parcel where the fire hazard exists shall be responsible for clearing the area on that owner's land which is within one hundred feet of the occupied structure and is needed to provide the necessary fire protection in the manner and to the extent required by the Public Official. F. Where the terrain, condition or environment on the adjacent Parcel is such that it cannot or should not be disked or mowed,t he Public Official may require, or authorize, other means of hazardous vegetation or combustible material removal. G. No Parcel owner may allow any portion of vegetation on his property to interfere with street and emergency vehicle access, regardless of whether the access is along a public street or along a private residential access road. The Public Official may provide written notice to the property owner requiring vegetation to be trimmed for a specified additional distance when the Public Official determines the vegetation would otherwise interfere with street or emergency vehicle access. a. If the Parcel Owner fails to maintain these clearance requirements, the Public Official may abate this nuisance without further notice and at the Parcel Owner's expense. This subsection shall not apply to cultivated ground-cover such as green grass, ivy, succulents, or similar plants used as ground-covers, provided they do not constitute a fire hazard. b. Pursuant to California Health and Safety Code §1 4930 and Government Code §25845, as amended, a Public Official may summarily abate weeds or hazardous growth on private property that in any way hinders emergency access, and may charge the Parcel Owner for the costs of the abatement. Sec. G-IV 7.5 Enforcement A. The Public Official shall be the primary authority for enforcement of this Article, and shall administer and enforce the requirements as provided in this Article. B. The Public Official shall have the following responsibilities and authorities in the enforcement and administration of the provisions of this Article: 1. Receive and respond to complaints through planning and conducting inspections within the limits of available resources. 2. Review the requirements of this Article with property owners and/or occupants found to be out of compliance, to support voluntary compliance with the provisions of this Article. 3. The determination for appropriate clearance distances will be made based upon a visual inspection of the Parcel and shall consider all factors that place the Parcel or adjoining Structures) at risk from an approaching fire. These factors shall include local weather conditions, fuel type(s), topography, and the environment where the Parcel or adjoining Structures) is located. 4. Prepare and issue Notices to Abate, and such other notices as may be necessary to encourage voluntary compliance with the provisions of this Article. 5. Carry out all enforcement and abatement proceedings as described in this Article. 6. Conduct post-notice/pre-abatement inspections and documentation and conduct post- abatement inspections and documentation. 7. The Public Official may, at his or her discretion, issue an administrative citation for violations of this Article, in lieu of abating a parcel. 8. Within local fire district boundaries, inspections established by this Article may be performed by designated fire district personnel. 9. Conduct abatements and handle accounting, assessment and collection of costs, including recordation of liens. Sec. G-IV 7.6 Notice to Abate Whenever the Public Official determines, based on a planned inspection, that a Parcel is in violation of this Article and requires abatement, the Public Official shall send the owner of record for the Parcel a Notice to Abate. The Notice to Abate shall be in writing and shall: A. Identify the owners) of the Parcel upon which the violation exists, as named in the records of the County Assessor, and identify the occupants) or person in control of the property, if other than the owners)a nd if known or reasonably identifiable. B. Describe the location of the Parcel by its commonly used street address, if any, and identify the Parcel by reference to the Assessor's Parcel Number, if any. C. Briefly describe the violations) on the Parcel and identify the Fuel Modification Areas) which are required to abate the violations) and bring the Parcel into compliance with this Article. D. Contain a statement that the legal owner or occupant is required to correct the violation and allow at least thirty (30) calendar days from the date the Notice is served for the work to be completed. E. Outline the appeal process as provided in Section G-IV 7.9 of this Article. F. Contain a statement that, unless the legal owner or occupant abates the violations) and brings the parcel into compliance with this Article, or seeks an appeal within the time prescribed in the Notice, the violation may be abated at the legal owner and/or occupant's expense. It shall also state that the abatement costs, including administrative costs, may be made a special assessment added to the County assessment roll and become a lien on the real property, or be placed on the unsecured tax roll. G. Contain a statement that this Article provides that the Parcel owner and any person in possession of the Parcel upon which the Hazardous Vegetation or Combustible Material is found to exist shall be jointly and severally liable for all abatement costs incurred by the County. Sec. G-IV 7.7 Service of Notice to Abate All notices required by this Article shall be served in the following manner: A. By delivering it personally to the legal owners) of the Parcels) and to the occupant(s), or by mailing it by certified United States mail to the legal owners) of the Parcel at his or her address as it appears on the last equalized assessment roll and to any non-owner occupant(s), if known, at the street address for the Parcel. a. If the records of the Nevada County Assessor show that the ownership has changed since the last equalized assessment roll was completed, the Notice shall also be mailed to the new owners) at his or her address as it appears in said records; or b. In the event that, after reasonable effort, the Public Official is unable to serve the notice as set forth above, service shall be accomplished by posting copies of the notice along the frontage of the subject Parcel(s), and at such other locations on the Parcels) as are reasonably likely to provide notice to the owners) and any person known by the Public Official to be in possession of the Parcel(s). At least two (2) copies of the notice shall be posted on a Parcel pursuant to this section. B. The date of service for the notice is deemed to be the date of personal delivery or posting, or three (3) days after deposit in the U.S. mail. Sec. G-IV 7.8 Enforcement Process A. Not less than thirty (30) days after the Notice to Abate is served, the Public Official shall conduct a post-notice/pre-abatement inspection on the Parcel and, if the required Fuel Modification Areas) have not been performed, the Public Official may require that the required Fuel Modification Areas) be completed by the County, and the cost of enforcement and the abatement with administrative fee be attached to the property tax as a lien. B. For Parcels owned or controlled by public agencies, the Public Official or designee may provide a Notice of Nuisance and include the project area in the local community wildfire protection plan and request the hazardous vegetation or combustible material be abated in accordance with the Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003 (H.R. 1904) or the PRC. Sec. G-IV 7.9 Appeals Process A. Any person upon whom a Notice to Abate has been served may appeal the determination of the Public Official by delivering a written request for hearing to the Clerk of the Board's office within ten (10) days of the date of the Notice to Abate, together with payment of any appeal fee as maybe duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors. The written request shall include a statement of all facts supporting the appeal. The time requirement for filing such a written request shall be deemed jurisdictional and may not be waived. B. If a timely appeal is filed with the Clerk of the Board, no further enforcement action will be taken until after the Hazardous Vegetation Abatement Hearing Body has made a determination on the appeal. In the absence of a timely filed written request that complies fully with the requirements of this section, the determination of the Public Official as set forth in the Notice to Abate shall become final and conclusive on the thirty-first (31st) day following service of the Notice. D C. The hearing on the appeal shall occur not more than thirty (30) days after receipt of a timely appeal and shall provide written notice of the hearing date and time to the appellant at least ten (10) days prior to the date of the hearing, unless such time limits are waived in writing by the Public Official and the appellant. Sec. G-IV 7.10 Hazardous Vegetation Abatement Hearing Sody A Hazardous Vegetation Abatement Hearing Body is hereby established to hear appeals on any Notice to Abate issued by a Public Official. The Hazardous Vegetation Abatement Hearing Body shall consist of the County Fire Marshal or designee, the County's Emergency Services Program Manager or designee, and a Fire Chief from a local fire protection district selected by the Nevada County Fire Chiefs' Association; provided, however, that if the Notice to Abate being appealed was issued by the County Fire Marshal or designee, then the Hazardous Vegetation Abatement Hearing Body shall consist of the County's Emergency Services Program Manager or designee, and two (2) Fire Chiefs from a local fire protection district selected by the Emergency Services Program Manager. The Hazardous Vegetation Abatement Hearing Body shall have the authority to amend, dismiss, or uphold a Notice to Abate by a majority vote. Sec. G-IV 7.11 Abatement by Public Official A. If, at the end of the time allowed for compliance in the original Notice to Abate, or as extended in cases of appeal, or as specified by the Hazardous Vegetation Abatement Hearing Body, compliance has not been accomplished, the Public Official issuing the notice, or the agency of which he or she is an officer, may pursue a lawful abatement. The Public Official may proceed with the abatement of the Hazardous Vegetation or Combustible Material and provide that it be removed by public officers or by employees of the agency or by a private contractor selected by the agency in accordance with applicable statutes. The cost of such removal and enforcement accompanied by a reasonable administrative charge may be imposed as an assessment in the County tax roll. B. The costs so assessed shall be limited to the actual costs incurred by the Public Official and the County in enforcing the violation and abatement upon the subject Parcel. Such costs may include, but are not limited to, the costs of all prior inspections, appeal hearings and other enforcement actions leading up to the abatement, payments to the contractor, costs of site inspection, costs of notice, boundary determination and measurement, costs for material disposal and all clerical, personnel, consultant, and other administrative costs. Sec. G-IV 7.12 Abatement Penalties and Costs Upon expiration of the time limits and appeal processes established by this Article, the Public Official shall acquire jurisdiction to abate the nuisance, and may carry out the following as appropriate: A. Disposal of Materials. Any materials abated may be disposed of as a part of the removal process to include, as appropriate, recycling or as a part of a Biomass utilization program. B. Cost Accounting, Receipts and Notice of Assessment. The Public Official shall keep an itemized account of the costs of enforcing the provisions of this Article, and of the proceeds of the sale of any materials connected therewith. Upon completion of the abatement, the Public Official shall prepare a notice to be served on the affected Parcels) as provided in Section G-IV 7.7 and specifying: 1. The work done (supported by before and after pictures); 2. An itemized account of the costs and receipts of performing the work; 3. An address, legal description, or other description sufficient to identify the Parcel that was subject to abatement and/or lien; 4. The amount of the assessment proposed to be levied against the Parcel(s), or the amount to be refunded, if any, due to excess proceeds over the expenses; 5. The time and place where the Public Official will submit the account to the Hazardous Vegetation Abatement Hearing Body for confirmation. The time and place specified shall be no less than fifteen (15) days after service of the notice; 7 6. A statement that the Hazardous Vegetation Abatement Hearing Body will hear and consider objections and protests to the account and proposed assessment or refund. Sec. G-IV 7.13 Hearing on Proposed Lien At the time and place fixed in the notice, the Hazardous Vegetation Abatement Hearing Body will hear and consider the account and proposed assessment, together with objections and protests thereto. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Hazardous Vegetation Abatement Hearing Body may make such modifications and revisions of the proposed account and assessment as deemed just and may order the account and proposed assessment confirmed or denied, in whole or in part, or as modified and revised, and shall issue a written recommendation regarding the proposed lien to the Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors may summarily adopt the recommendation of the Hazardous Vegetation Abatement Hearing Body without further notice of hearing, or may set the matter for a de novo hearing in accordance with Government Code Section 25845(h). The determination of the Board of Supervisors as to all matters contained therein shall be final and conclusive. Sec. G-IV 7.14 Notice of Lien; Recordation of Lien; Collection of Lien A. Upon confirmation of an assessment by the Board of Supervisors, Code Compliance shall notify the affected Parcel owners by certified mail, return receipt requested, of the amount of the pending lien confirmed by the Board of Supervisors, and advise them that they may pay the account in full within thirty (30) days in order to avoid the lien being recorded against the parcel(s). If the lien amount is not paid by the date stated in the letter, Code Compliance shall prepare and have recorded a Notice of Lien with the Nevada County Clerk-Recorder's office. The Notice of Lien shall contain: 1. A legal description, address and/or other description sufficient to identify the Parcels) to be liened; 2. A description of the proceeding under which the special assessment was made, including the order of the Board of Supervisors under this code confirming the assessment; 3. The amount of the assessment; 4. A claim of lien upon the described Parcel(s). B. Upon the recordation of a Notice of Lien, the amount claimed shall constitute a lien upon the described Parcel(s), pursuant to Section 25845 of the California Government Code. Such lien shall be at parity with the liens of state and County taxes, to the extent allowed by applicable law. C. After recordation, the Notice of Lien shall be delivered to the County Auditor-Controller, who shall enter the amount of the lien on the assessment roll as a special assessment. The amount set forth shall be subject to the same penalties and interest as ordinary County taxes. All laws applicable to the levy, collection and enforcement of County taxes are hereby made applicable to such assessment to the extent allowed by applicable law. Sec. G-IV 7.15 Violations Pursuant to Nevada County Code, it shall be an infraction or misdemeanor for any person, natural or corporate, owning, possessing, occupying, or controlling any lands or premises to fail to perform the duty set forth in this Article, or to fail to comply with the requirements in the Notice to Abate as specified in this Article, or to interfere with the performance of the duties herein specified for any of the officers named in this part or their deputies, or to refuse to allow any such officer or their deputies or employees, or approved private contractors, to enter upon any Parcel for the purpose of lawfully inspecting and/or as ordered, removing any Hazardous Vegetation and Combustible Material hereinbefore described as a public nuisance, or to interfere in any manner whatever with the officers or contractors in the work of a lawful inspection and ordered removal herein provided. Sec,. G-IV 7.16 Penalties for Violations A. This Article is a local safety code. Every violation of this Article which is determined to be an infraction or an administrative violation shall be punishable in accordance with Government Code Sections 53069.4 and 25132, as may be amended from time to time. E3 B. Any person violating or failing to comply with the provisions of this Article shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, except that when the District Attorney or County Counsel shall elect to charge such violation as an infraction, it shall be an infraction. Each such person shall be guilty of a separate offense for each and every day during any portion of which any violation of any provision of this Article is committed, continued or permitted by such person and shall be punishable accordingly. C. Notwithstanding any other law, a violation of local building and safety codes that is an infraction is punishable under Government Code 25132, as may be amended from time to time, by the following: a. A fine not exceeding one hundred thirty dollars ($130)f or a first violation. b. A fine not exceeding seven hundred dollars ($700)f or a second violation of the same ordinance within one year of the first violation. c. A fine not exceeding one thousand three hundred dollars ($1,300)f or each additional violation of the same ordinance within one year of the first violation. D. Pursuant to Government Code Section 25132, subdivision (d), if the County levies a fine pursuant to subsections (b) or (c) of section G-IV 7.16 C., the County shall establish a process for granting a hardship waiver to reduce the amount of the fine upon a showing by the responsible party that the responsible party has made a bona fide effort to comply after the first violation and that payment of the full amount of the fine would impose an undue financial burden on the responsible party. E. Any person convicted of a misdemeanor under the provisions of this Code shall be punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six months, or by fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both. F. The Public Official may issue an administrative citation against any Responsible Party in accordance with Government Code section 53069.4 and the provisions of this Article, subject to the following provisions: 1. The administrative penalty for a violation of this Article shall be not less than one hundred ($100.00) dollars for the first violation, seven hundred ($700.00) dollars for each additional violation within one (1) year from the date of the first violation, and one thousand three hundred dollars ($1,300) for each additional violation of the same ordinance within one year of the first violation. 2. Upon a subsequent violation within a two (2) year period the violator shall be liable to the County for treble the abatement costs, including, but not limited to, costs incurred by local independent fire districts, in accordance with Government Code 25845.5. 3. Unless a violation creates an immediate danger to health and safety, a Responsible Party shall be provided with notice and an opportunity to correct the violation prior to the imposition of the administrative penalty. G. The administrative penalty, or any portion thereof, for afirst-time violation which has become effective following the corrective period, may be waived by the Public Official in his or her sole discretion only if the Responsible Party corrects the violation in accordance with all conditions established by the Public Official. H. If after a third inspection a Parcel owner continues to be noncompliant, the Public Official may issue a noncompliance citation. This can be waived by the Public Official if the Parcel owner is cooperating, performing best efforts, and mitigation progress is visible. I. Whenever a notice has been issued, the Public Official may record a notice of noncompliance with the office of the county recorder of Nevada County and shall notify the Parcel owner of such action. The notice of noncompliance shall describe the Parcel, shall set forth the noncomplying conditions, and shall state that any abatement costs incurred by the County as a result of the violations of this Article may be specially assessed as a lien on the property and that the Parcel owner has been so notified. F. Alternatively, the Public Official may prosecute violations of this Article by civil action, including, without limitation, issuance of administrative citations. Sec. G-IV 7.17 Authority to Promulgate Reasonable Rules and Regulations The Board of Supervisors reserves its right to adopt reasonable rules, regulations, and resolutions consistent with this Article to enforce, interpret, and carry out the provisions of this Article. Such rules, regulations and resolutions may vary between different areas within Nevada County. ~7 10
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
The County does not have approved policies or procedures for the efficient operation of the Purchasing Department. RES. RESPONSE 2019-2020 GJ OBSERVATIONS BOS DISAGREE At the time the Grand Jury report was issued, April 30, 2019, the Purchasing On May 28th 2019, the Board of Policy was not in place. However, we Supervisors by Resolution 19241 passed applaud the new policy and have and adopted the Nevada County Purchasing determined that it does respond to many of Policy. the 2018-2019 Jury findings. CEO NO RESPONSE Purchasing NO RESPONSE Agent
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The CEO, in cooperation with the County’s Purchasing Agent, should continue researching procurement best practices and establish appropriate written procurement policies, practices, and procedures that would be followed in executing County procurement processes. RES. RESPONSE 2019-2020 GJ OBSERVATIONS BOS The recommendation has been The adoption and implementation of the implemented. new Purchasing Policy has taken place. A Purchasing Procedures Manual has not On May 28th 2019, the Board of been completed as of April 2, 2020. Supervisors by resolution 19241 passed and adopted the Nevada County Purchasing Policy. CEO NO RESPONSE Purchasing NO RESPONSE Agent
F2:
The County’s Purchasing Guide is a training manual, not formal policy or procedure. The Purchasing Guide contains discrepancies between its contents, the Admin Code, and California Government Code; is not consistent with generally recognized best procurement practices, is ambiguous as to RFP procedures, and is not always followed by County Offices and Departments. RES. RESPONSE 2019-2020 GJ OBSERVATIONS BOS AGREE Purchasing NO RESPONSE None Agent
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The County’s Human Resources department and Purchasing Agent should conduct an assessment of the training needs of current procurement staff and implement a plan for the training of new procurement employees on generally recognized best procurement practices. RES. RESPONSE 2019-2020 GJ OBSERVATIONS BOS The recommendation has been partially The Jury has learned that the HR implemented. Department is not staffed to provide department-specific training. The HR On May 28th 2019, the Board of Department reports that each department is Supervisors by resolution 19241 passed responsible for developing its own training and adopted the Nevada County Purchasing and the HR Department is available to Policy. Purchasing Staff will be working assist them. with Human Resources to provide training on the Nevada County Purchasing Policy. The Jury was able to confirm that training CEO NO RESPONSE on the new Purchasing Policy had been Human NO RESPONSE provided for department managers and Resources purchasing staff. Interviews with County staff indicate that the Purchasing Department is responsive to requests for assistance.
F3:
County employees receive training on the Purchasing Guide, but many who conduct purchasing operations and/or manage contracts are not fully trained on and do not always follow best procurement and contract management practices. RES. RESPONSE 2019-2020 GJ OBSERVATIONS BOS DISAGREE The Jury understands that training has been provided by the Purchasing Department. The purchasing guide has been replaced with a Board of Supervisors adopted The Jury learned that the Contract Purchasing Policy recently. County staff Management System, Cobblestone, has who perform purchasing functions will be been partially implemented and is being trained on the policy. With the size of an used primarily as a repository system. A organization as large as the County, Business Solutions team, with departmental staff with purchasing duties representatives from the County Health and do change over time as people come and Human Services Agency, Auditor- go, get promoted, or shift positions. As Controller, Community Development such, it is an ongoing effort to train new Agency, Sheriff and Nevada County people on a regular basis across the year. Information and General Services (IGS) is The County has implemented a new working on further implementation of the contract management system to track Cobblestone software. countywide contracts to best practice standards. Purchasing NO RESPONSE Agent Human NO RESPONSE Resources
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Purchasing Agent should submit a report to the BOS on completed revisions to the Purchasing Guide, as well as policies and procedures. RES. RESPONSE 2019-2020 GJ OBSERVATIONS BOS The recommendation will not be The Jury understands that the Purchasing implemented at this time. Policy replaces the Purchasing Guide and the Admin Code has been updated. The Purchasing Guide has been replaced However, as of April 2, 2020, the with the Nevada County Purchasing Policy Purchasing Procedures Manual referenced via Resolution 19241. in the Purchasing Policy has not been Purchasing NO RESPONSE completed. Agent
F4:
RFP practices in the Purchasing Guide have a number of correctable issues that could be addressed with detailed procedures if properly followed by County Offices and Departments. RES. RESPONSE 2019-2020 GJ OBSERVATIONS BOS AGREE Many correctable issues were not Auditor- AGREE addressed with the new Purchasing Policy. Controller The most notable among these issues is the CEO NO RESPONSE lack of a finalized Purchasing Procedures Purchasing NO RESPONSE Manual. Through interviews with IGS Agent staff, the Jury understands that a finalized and approved Purchasing Procedures Manual will address these issues. The Purchasing Procedures Manual has not been completed as of April 2, 2020.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Purchasing Agent should, within 60 days of establishing formal written policies, practices, and procedures, and completing revisions to the Purchasing Guide, lead each County agency through training on the County’s new policies, practices, and procedures. RES. RESPONSE 2019-2020 GJ OBSERVATIONS BOS The recommendation will not be The Jury has learned that Purchasing staff implemented because it is not warranted. has provided training on the Purchasing Policy. The County has replaced the Purchasing Guide with the Nevada County Purchasing Further effort is required to finalize and Policy; therefore, the County will not approve the Purchasing Procedures provide training on the Purchasing Guide. Manual. Training will be required after it is However, training on the Nevada County finalized. Purchasing Policy will be provided over the course of the next year. Purchasing NO RESPONSE Agent
F5:
The Office of the Auditor-Controller lacks sufficient staff to conduct contract reviews pursuant to BOS Resolution No. 98479, dated 27 October 1988 [sic], which requires internal contract audits be conducted every third year of the contract. No internal contract audits have been conducted since 2008 when the Auditor-Controller’s office staff was reduced by 25%. RES. RESPONSE 2019-2020 GJ OBSERVATIONS BOS DISAGREE The Jury notes that the two responses do not align with each other. The Auditor Controller office has sufficient staff to conduct contract audits and does so The critical question is whether audits are regularly. being conducted as specified by Resolution Auditor- PARTIALLY AGREE No. 98479. Controller Staff reductions in the Auditor-Controller's The Jury has learned that the Auditor- office as well as other County departments Controller’s office continues to be began in the Fiscal Year 2009-10 through understaffed and is unable to comply with 2011-12 to address the downturn in the the Resolution. The Auditor-Controller is economy. A total of four positions of the now pursuing outsourcing the audit sixteen original allocated were eliminated functions. equating to a 25% reduction. In Fiscal Year 2016-17, one staff position was reinstated bringing the allocated staffing to thirteen. Beginning in Fiscal Year 2009-10 upon the elimination of the Senior Accountant- Auditor assigned to the Internal Audit Function, a reassignment of the duties occurred and the contract audits continued to be conducted through the Fiscal Year 2013-14. Following that year, with the loss of the assigned audit staff member due to a transfer to another County department and the unsuccessful recruitment that followed for a replacement candidate with equivalent experience, the office was unable to meet the goals as outlined in Resolution 98479. In the Fall of 2018, a qualified candidate to perform internal audits was hired by the office and the contract audit program has been re-established.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Purchasing Guide should be reviewed and updated annually. RES. RESPONSE 2019-2020 GJ OBSERVATIONS BOS The recommendation will not be implemented The Jury appreciates that the BOS agrees because it is not warranted. with annual review and appropriate updates of the Purchasing Policy. While the Purchasing Guide will not be reviewed and updated annually, the Purchasing Policy will be reviewed annually and updated as applicable. Purchasing NO RESPONSE Agent
F6:
The increased thresholds of the new Purchasing Policy have improved contract-processing efficiencies.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The Purchasing Guide should be updated to include the following: a. required BOS approvals prior to issuance of in RFP; b. establishment and handling of protest periods; c. evaluation panel reviewer selection and recusals; d. procedure in the event of evaluation panel reviewer statistical anomalies; e. bidder qualification reviews where contract administrators have escalated concerns regarding a vendor’s past contract performance; f. maintenance of documented administrative files during a blackout period of County employee contacts involved with the RFP process and RFP respondents other than the County person named in the RFP document; and g. maintenance of complete administrative files documenting and justifying final decisions when that decision goes against the evaluation panel’s recommendation. RES. RESPONSE 2019-2020 GJ OBSERVATIONS BOS The recommendation will not be The Jury recognizes that the Purchasing implemented because it is not warranted. Policy replaces the Purchasing Guide. The Board of Supervisors adopted the BOS response letter is silent on whether Nevada County Purchasing Policy on May each of these issues is addressed by the 28, 2019 that outline industry best practices new Purchasing Policy; a Jury review of for procurement policies. the new policy reveals that several of these Purchasing NO RESPONSE items were not addressed. Agent
F7:
The Purchasing Policy, the Admin Code, and Purchasing Procedures Manual require periodic review to ensure continuous improvement.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The CEO’s office should complete a review of the Office of the Auditor-Controller and the staffing needs required to comply with BOS Resolution No. 98479 as soon as possible. RES. RESPONSE 2019-2020 GJ OBSERVATIONS BOS The recommendation will not be The BOS indicates that a staffing review implemented because it is not warranted. isn’t warranted because staffing levels are sufficient. That seems to contradict the The Auditor Controller office has sufficient response provided by the Auditor- staff to conduct contract audits and does so Controller. regularly. Auditor- PARTIALLY AGREE However, the audits have not been Controller completed as required by Resolution No. The County has an established process in 98479 and staffing shortages have been preparation of the annual budget cycle for cited as the cause. departments to request a review of staffing needs. The Office of the Auditor-Controller will use that process to engage in the conversation with the CEO's office to address staffing needs and specifically to converting a temporary staff position to a permanent staff position to support the activities in the office including the Internal Audit Function.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R8:
The CEO’s office should work with the Office of the Auditor-Controller to develop a checklist for contract administrators to document at least annually vendor performance and compliance with liability insurance requirements. RES. RESPONSE 2019-2020 GJ OBSERVATIONS BOS The recommendation will not be The two responses conflict with each other. implemented because it is not warranted. As of the writing of this report, April 2, In general, a personal service contract that is 2020, the meeting had not occurred. approved by the Board includes a Scope of Work that is evaluated against before payment can be issued. Additionally, all contracts must meet the approval of the Risk Manager’s liability checklist. . CEO NO RESPONSE Auditor- PARTIALLY AGREE Controller The staff of the Auditor-Controller will schedule a meeting by September 1st with the CEO's Office, the Risk Manager and County Counsel to review department contract administrator's role, best practices and on-going contract oversight.
R9:
All County contract administrators should, using the checklist referred to in R8, conduct performance evaluations and document them in an administrative file. Problems or concerns with a vendor’s performance should be formally investigated and addressed. RES. RESPONSE 2019-2020 GJ OBSERVATIONS BOS The recommendation will not be Dealing with problems/concerns about implemented because it is not warranted. vendor performance are not addressed in this response. County personal service contracts include a Scope of Work that is evaluated against the work performed before payment can be issued. Additionally, all contracts must meet the approval of the Risk Manager’s liability checklist. CEO NO RESPONSE Purchasing NO RESPONSE Agent The Jury concludes that adoption of the new Purchasing Policy and approval of the revised Admin Code have addressed many of the issues raised in the recommendations. However, without the completion of the Purchasing Procedures Manual and improvement in the level of department and contract audits, the Jury is unable to agree that all issues have been addressed.
Findings & Recommendations
30 findings
F1:
Some of the Byers Lane CSD BOD members had not completed AB 1234 ethics training.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Byers Lane CSD, Kingsbury Greens CSD, Lake of the Pines Rancho CSD, Mystic Mines CSD, San Juan Ridge County Water District, Truckee Cemetery District, Washington County Water District, Nevada County Resource Conservation District and Rough and Ready FPD ensure that all of their BOD members have completed AB 1234 Ethics Training, have current Statements of Economic Interests (Form 700) on file, and have received Brown Act Training.
F2:
Byers Lane CSD provided no information regarding Brown Act training.
F3:
Byers Lane CSD did not have a written reimbursement policy.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Byers Lane CSD, Kingsbury Greens CSD, Lake of the Pines Rancho CSD, Bear River Recreation and Park District, Truckee Cemetery District, Washington County Water District, Ophir Hill FPD and Higgins FPD develop and implement written reimbursement policies.
F4:
Byers Lane CSD did not have a written conflict of interest policy.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Byers Lane CSD, Lake of the Pines Ranchos CSD, and Truckee Cemetery District need to confirm that it has a written conflict of interest policy.
F5:
Byers lane CSD did not have a written code of conduct.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Byers Lane CSD and Truckee Cemetery need to provide information as to their code of conduct.
F6:
The Byers Lane CSD did not have a website.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Byers Lane CSD, Kingsbury Greens CSD, and Mystic Mines CSD establish a website in accordance with California Government Code § 53087.8 or establish an exemption as provided in that code.
F7:
Some of the Kingsbury Greens CSD BOD members had not completed AB 1234 ethics training and no information was provided about Brown Act training.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Byers Lane CSD, Kingsbury Greens CSD, Lake of the Pines Rancho CSD, Mystic Mines CSD, San Juan Ridge County Water District, Truckee Cemetery District, Washington County Water District, Nevada County Resource Conservation District and Rough and Ready FPD ensure that all of their BOD members have completed AB 1234 Ethics Training, have current Statements of Economic Interests (Form 700) on file, and have received Brown Act Training.
F8:
Kingsbury Greens CSD. did not have a written reimbursement policy.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Byers Lane CSD, Kingsbury Greens CSD, Lake of the Pines Rancho CSD, Bear River Recreation and Park District, Truckee Cemetery District, Washington County Water District, Ophir Hill FPD and Higgins FPD develop and implement written reimbursement policies.
F9:
Kingsbury Greens CSD was delinquent on filings of audits.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Kingsbury Greens CSD, Washington County Water District, Western Gateway Recreation and Park District, and Higgins FPD provide certified audits as required to the Nevada County Auditor-Controller’s Office.
F10:
Kingsbury Greens CSD did not have a website.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Byers Lane CSD, Kingsbury Greens CSD, and Mystic Mines CSD establish a website in accordance with California Government Code § 53087.8 or establish an exemption as provided in that code.
F11:
Lake of the Pines Rancho CSD BOD members had not all completed AB 1234 ethics training. 21
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Byers Lane CSD, Kingsbury Greens CSD, Lake of the Pines Rancho CSD, Mystic Mines CSD, San Juan Ridge County Water District, Truckee Cemetery District, Washington County Water District, Nevada County Resource Conservation District and Rough and Ready FPD ensure that all of their BOD members have completed AB 1234 Ethics Training, have current Statements of Economic Interests (Form 700) on file, and have received Brown Act Training.
F12:
Lake of the Pines Rancho CSD did not have a written reimbursement policy.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Byers Lane CSD, Kingsbury Greens CSD, Lake of the Pines Rancho CSD, Bear River Recreation and Park District, Truckee Cemetery District, Washington County Water District, Ophir Hill FPD and Higgins FPD develop and implement written reimbursement policies.
F13:
Lake of the Pines Rancho CSD did not state that it had a written conflict of interest policy.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Byers Lane CSD, Lake of the Pines Ranchos CSD, and Truckee Cemetery District need to confirm that it has a written conflict of interest policy.
F14:
One member of the Mystic Mines CSD had not completed AB 1234 ethics training.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Byers Lane CSD, Kingsbury Greens CSD, Lake of the Pines Rancho CSD, Mystic Mines CSD, San Juan Ridge County Water District, Truckee Cemetery District, Washington County Water District, Nevada County Resource Conservation District and Rough and Ready FPD ensure that all of their BOD members have completed AB 1234 Ethics Training, have current Statements of Economic Interests (Form 700) on file, and have received Brown Act Training.
F15:
Mystic Mines CSD did not have a website.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Byers Lane CSD, Kingsbury Greens CSD, and Mystic Mines CSD establish a website in accordance with California Government Code § 53087.8 or establish an exemption as provided in that code.
F16:
San Juan Ridge does not provide Brown Act Training for its BOD members.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Byers Lane CSD, Kingsbury Greens CSD, Lake of the Pines Rancho CSD, Mystic Mines CSD, San Juan Ridge County Water District, Truckee Cemetery District, Washington County Water District, Nevada County Resource Conservation District and Rough and Ready FPD ensure that all of their BOD members have completed AB 1234 Ethics Training, have current Statements of Economic Interests (Form 700) on file, and have received Brown Act Training.
F17:
Bear River Recreation and Park District did not have a written reimbursement policy.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Byers Lane CSD, Kingsbury Greens CSD, Lake of the Pines Rancho CSD, Bear River Recreation and Park District, Truckee Cemetery District, Washington County Water District, Ophir Hill FPD and Higgins FPD develop and implement written reimbursement policies.
F18:
Truckee Cemetery District did not have a written conflict of interest policy.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Byers Lane CSD, Lake of the Pines Ranchos CSD, and Truckee Cemetery District need to confirm that it has a written conflict of interest policy.
F19:
Truckee Cemetery District did not have a written reimbursement policy.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Byers Lane CSD, Kingsbury Greens CSD, Lake of the Pines Rancho CSD, Bear River Recreation and Park District, Truckee Cemetery District, Washington County Water District, Ophir Hill FPD and Higgins FPD develop and implement written reimbursement policies.
F20:
Truckee Cemetery District did not provide Brown Act training for its BOD members.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Byers Lane CSD, Kingsbury Greens CSD, Lake of the Pines Rancho CSD, Mystic Mines CSD, San Juan Ridge County Water District, Truckee Cemetery District, Washington County Water District, Nevada County Resource Conservation District and Rough and Ready FPD ensure that all of their BOD members have completed AB 1234 Ethics Training, have current Statements of Economic Interests (Form 700) on file, and have received Brown Act Training.
F21:
Truckee Cemetery District did not have a written code of conduct.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Byers Lane CSD and Truckee Cemetery need to provide information as to their code of conduct.
F22:
Some of the Washington County Water District BOD members had not completed AB 1234 ethics training and did not have a Statement of Economic Interests (Form 700) on file.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Byers Lane CSD, Kingsbury Greens CSD, Lake of the Pines Rancho CSD, Mystic Mines CSD, San Juan Ridge County Water District, Truckee Cemetery District, Washington County Water District, Nevada County Resource Conservation District and Rough and Ready FPD ensure that all of their BOD members have completed AB 1234 Ethics Training, have current Statements of Economic Interests (Form 700) on file, and have received Brown Act Training.
F23:
Washington County Water District was delinquent on filing of audits.
Related Recommendations (2)
R6:
Kingsbury Greens CSD, Washington County Water District, Western Gateway Recreation and Park District, and Higgins FPD provide certified audits as required to the Nevada County Auditor-Controller’s Office.
R18-02:
which requested that the Nevada County Board of Supervisors replace the annual audit with (a) an annual financial review for two consecutive years and (b) a financial audit every third year. The Nevada County Auditor-Controller supported this request, which went into effect as of the fiscal year ending June 30, 2017. The most recent filed audit was for FY 2018. The FY 2019 budget is $56,186. The District did not have a written reimbursement policy. The District did not report having a conflict of interest policy. The District did have a code of conduct policy. The District did have a website (sites.google.com/site/loprcsd) with agendas, minutes and financial information posted. It did contain a listing of the BOD members and the code of conduct. Mystic Mines CSD Mystic Mines CSD consists of 97 parcels and was formed in 1981. BOD members are not compensated. The BOD members have term limits. One BOD member has served for more than ten years. At the time data was received, all but one BOD member had completed AB1234 ethics training. All had Statement of Economic Interests (Form 700) on file. The BOD members attend Nevada County ethics and Brown Act training. Customer complaints are discussed and resolved during BOD meetings. The District generates revenue of $19,400 from a parcel tax of $200 per parcel for the FY 2020 budget. The last filed audit was FY 2018. The District did have a written reimbursement policy, a conflict of interest policy, and a documented code of conduct. The District policy and procedures manual is being updated. The District did not have a website. Oak Tree Park and Recreation District The Oak Tree Park and Recreation District was formed in 1997. Oak Tree Park and Recreation District is governed by a five-member BOD. BOD members are not compensated. All BOD members have completed AB 1234 ethics training. All had Statement of Economic Interests (Form 700) on file. The District provides ethics and Brown Act training for the BOD members. Customer complaints are handled by the BOD. The District budget for FY 2019 was $51,427. The most recent financial audit was for FY 2019. The District had a written reimbursement policy, a written check signing policy, a written conflict of interest policy, a written code of conduct, and bylaws. The District has a website (www.oaktreepark.org) that includes meeting minutes, meeting agendas and the audited financial report. The website is the District’s outreach tool. San Juan Ridge County Water District The stated purpose of this District is to supply irrigation water to its customers. A BOD of five members, two of whom receive a stipend not to exceed $180 per month, governs the District. Three of those BOD members have served more than ten years. The District has no term limits for BOD members. All had Statement of Economic Interests (Form 700) on file. The District relies on outside sources for the conduct of ethics and Brown Act training and did not answer as to whether or not BOD members had received training. Complaints are discussed at BOD meetings, then either the complainant will be called or there will be a written follow-up. The current budget for FY 2020 was $27,157. The required audit for FY 2018 is pending. There are bylaws addressing the purpose of the District, BOD members/officers, meetings, water delivery and billing, and emergency reserve. The District indicated it had a written reimbursement policy, and a written code of conduct. The District did not report if it had a written conflict of interest policy. The district did not have a website but stated that it is working to develop one. There was no reported public outreach program Medium Districts. Medium districts are defined as those with budgets from $100,000 up to $200,000. Bear River Recreation and Park District The Bear River Recreation and Park District’s mission is to provide a wide variety of year-round recreation programs, facilities, and park areas which respond to the needs and desires of all residents of the Bear River Recreation and Park district. The district was formed in 1995. The district is governed by a BOD of six uncompensated members. The BOD members do not have term limits. One BOD member has served for more than ten years. All BOD members have completed AB 1234 ethics training. All had Statement of Economic Interests (Form 700) on file. The district provides Brown Act and ethics training. Customer complaints are handled by the general manager. If not resolved they are forwarded to the BOD for resolution. The FY 2019 budget was $188,541. Its last filed audit was FY 2018. The district had a written credit card policy and a written check signing policy. It did not have a written reimbursement policy. The district had a written code of conduct and a conflict of interest policy. The District was working on preparation of bylaws. The district has a website (www.brrpd.org) that includes meeting agendas and minutes and lists the district BOD members. Truckee Cemetery District The District’s mission is to provide interment services and to protect, preserve, and maintain cemetery grounds and burial records through responsible use of public resources. The District maintains both the Sierra Mountain Cemetery and the Old Truckee Cemetery known as the Catholic Cemetery. The District was formed in 1946. BOD members have no term limits and receive compensation of $100 for each BOD meeting attended. BOD members have completed AB 1234 Ethics training, and all had Statement of Economic Interests (Form 700) on file. The District does not provide Brown Act training for its BOD members. Complaints are handled on a case-by-case basis. The FY 2019 budget was $189,798. The most recent audit was FY 2017. The District has no written credit card policy, reimbursement policy, check writing policy, conflict of interest policy, code of conduct, or formal customer complaint policy. The District indicated it does not have current bylaws, but the District does have Standard Operating Policies and Procedures. The District has a website (www.truckeecemeterydistrict.com) on which agendas, meeting minutes, and links to audits are posted. Washington County Water District The Washington County Water District provides water service and fire protection services to the town of Washington. The town has a population of approximately 200 residents. The District is governed by a BOD of five members who do not receive compensation. In December of 2019 the BOD had one vacancy. BOD members are appointed by a vote of the BOD members. BOD members have a term of four years. Not all members of the BOD had completed AB 1234 ethics training or had Statement of Economic Interests (Form 700) on file. Brown Act training is accomplished by the BOD members viewing a YouTube video. The FY 2019 budget on file with the Auditor-Controller Office reported total revenue of $143,305. Most financial questions were not answered as the bookkeeper had recently resigned and a replacement has not been obtained. The District reported that it was current with audit filings 11 with the county, however the most recent audit on file with the Auditor-Controller was for FY 2015. Customer complaints are handled directly by personal contact or by letter or e-mail. The bylaws contained information on BOD member selection and terms; a code of ethics; a conflict of interest policy; and a code of conduct. The District did not have a written reimbursement policy. The District has a website (washingtonwater.specialdistrict.org) that appeared to be under construction. The site did contain important information including: a listing of BOD members and staff; meeting agendas and minutes; policy and procedures; and bylaws. It was reported that the website served as the District’s community outreach vehicle. Western Gateway Recreation and Park District The District was formed in the early 1970s. Western Gateway Recreation & Park District’s revenue is generated through rental activity at the park and a parcel fee of $12.94 approved by District voters. Additional funding is provided through the support of The Western Gateway Park Foundation whose mission is to build a better Western Gateway Recreation & Park District through fundraising and contributions to the Foundation. The District is governed by five uncompensated BOD members who serve four-year terms and have no term limits. All BOD members had completed AB 1234 ethics training. All had Statement of Economic Interests (Form 700) on file and all had completed Brown Act training. The District also has four part-time paid employee positions; two maintenance, one office, and one custodial. Customer complaints are handled by the District secretary and if the complainant is not satisfied, the complaint is moved up to the BOD Chair and then to the BOD. The budget for the District for FY 2019 was $162,925. Approximately $51,000 of that is raised through rental of the picnic areas and other park venues, the selling of downed trees cut into firewood, and rental of the Buttermaker’s Cottage, various picnic areas, and baseball fields. Another $106,000 is paid by District residents in the form of a $12.94 per parcel fee. The District does not have a financial reserve policy. The last audit on file was for FY 2017. The District had a written credit card policy, reimbursement policy, conflict of interest policy, and code of conduct The District has a website (www.westerngatewaypark.com) that includes names of BOD members and District staff, BOD minutes and agendas, and a map of the District. Large Districts. Large districts are defined as those with budgets from $200,000 up to $1 million. Nevada County Resource Conservation District The Nevada County Resource Conservation District’s mission is to promote responsible resource management within its jurisdiction through education, leadership, technical assistance, and project facilitation. The District was formed in 1944 and has two full time employees and a BOD appointed by the Nevada County Board of Supervisors. The BOD members have four-year term limits and members can reapply for additional terms. The BOD members are not compensated. One member has served for more than ten years. All BOD members had completed AB 1234 ethics training. All had Statement of Economic Interests (Form 700) on file. No Brown Act training was reported. If the District receives a complaint, District staff takes a written report of the complaint and gets the contact information of the complainant. The report and contact information are passed on to either the immediate supervisor or to the Personnel Committee (if the complaint is about the supervisor). The complainant is given the Supervisor’s contact information. The District budget for FY 2019 was $243,100. Its most recent audit on file was FY 2018. The District has an employee handbook, a formal complaint process, reimbursement policy, conflict of interest policy, code of conduct and policy and procedures manual. It has no written credit card policy, check signing policy, financial reserve policy, or bylaws. The District offers conservation seminars and workshops throughout the year on conservation issues important to Nevada County and western Sierra County landowners. It sponsors educational and outreach events, spearheaded the Ag in the Classroom Farm Day event, have an Advisory Visit Program and a Manure Exchange Program, participate in 'Ag-Sperience' at the Nevada County Fair, sponsor local students to attend Range Camp, and partner with a wide variety of organizations on natural resource conservation. The District has a website (www.ncrcd.org) on which agendas, minutes, annual reports, financial statements, and audits are posted. Nevada Cemetery District The mission of the District is to provide distinctive places of interment for residents of Nevada County; to expand and preserve the cemeteries in western Nevada County; to maintain the historic significance and character of the cemeteries; and to ensure that a physical connection to the past is available for all citizens to experience, enjoy, and reflect upon. The Nevada Cemetery District was formed in 1942 and operates 27 public cemeteries in western Nevada County. The District is governed by a board of trustees consisting of four members who serve a term of four years with no limit to the number of terms. One member has served for longer than ten years. Each board of trustees member is paid $100.00 per meeting, up to $200.00 per month. All board of trustees members had completed AB 1234 ethics training. All had Statement of Economic Interests (Form 700) on file and all had Brown Act training. Customer complaints are dealt with by the Operations Manager. The budget for FY 2020 was $540,021. The last audit was for FY 2018. The District had bylaws, a reimbursement policy, a code of conduct policy, and a conflict of interest policy. The District has a website (www.nevadacemeterydistrict.com) which contains information on the board of trustees, staff, budget, meeting agenda, and meeting minutes. North San Juan FPD The North San Juan FPD began serving the town of North San Juan in 1862, and was incorporated as a FPD in 1986. The District’s mission statement says in part that its committed volunteers are dedicated to serving and protecting their community through the delivery of professional firefighting and emergency medical services. It is a volunteer fire department. Its firefighters, BOD, auxiliary members and several District residents who help with office tasks all donate their time. The Chief is paid a small stipend and the District managers are paid part-time positions. The District has three stations. The District covers some 87 square miles of the San Juan Ridge, including the historic communities of French Corral, North Columbia, and North San Juan. It includes all territory between the South and Middle Yuba Rivers, from Bridgeport in the west to east of Malakoff Diggins. Emergency protection during summer months is also provided by CAL FIRE from its station above North Columbia. Five directors each serve terms of four years. Three members have served greater than ten years. All members have completed AB 1234 ethics training. All had Statement of Economic Interests (Form 700) on file and all have Brown Act training. Customer complaints are handled by the Chief or District managers. The budget for FY 2018 was $320,910. The last filed audit was FY 2018. The District has employee, operations, and policy procedures manuals, and a code of conduct. The District was in the process of creating a conflict of interest and reimbursement policy. The District’s website (www.nsjfire.org) includes a listing of BOD members and a roster of volunteers. Agendas, minutes and budgets are also included. Ophir Hill FPD The mission of the Ophir Hill FPD is to protect life and property from fire and other hazardous situations in a cost-effective manner as provided by statute, policy, and operational guidelines. This consists of fire suppression, emergency medical service, hazardous materials incident response, and fire prevention information. Ophir Hill FPD has been located in Cedar Ridge since 1956. The District covers a nine square mile area. The District had six full time and one part time employees. It is governed by a five-member uncompensated BOD. The BOD members have no term limits and four members have served for more than ten years. All BOD members had completed AB 1234 ethics training. All had Statement of Economic Interests (Form 700) on file and all had Brown Act training. No answer was provided about customer complaints. The FY 2020 budget was $660,023. The last audit was FY 2018. The District did not have an employee handbook however a policy manual is being updated and is expected to include a conflict of interest policy. The District did have a code of conduct. The District did not respond with regard to a written reimbursement policy. The District has a website (www.ophirhillfire.org) that includes agendas, meeting minutes, and a listing of BOD members and paid staff. Peardale-Chicago Park FPD The mission of the Peardale-Chicago Park FPD is to provide professional and efficient emergency services in the protection of life, property, and environment. The Peardale-Chicago Park FPD was formed in 1964 and had two full-time and eleven part-time employees. A five-member BOD, three of whom have served for more than ten years, governs the District. BOD members are not compensated. All BOD members had completed AB 1234 ethics training and Brown Act Training. All had Statement of Economic Interests (Form 700) on file. Customer complaints are handled by the Fire Chief. The FY 2020 budget is for $510,850 based on parcel taxes of $58 for improved lots and $35 for unimproved lots. The last audit filed was for FY 2018. The District has bylaws, a written check writing policy, a written reimbursement policy, a policy and procedures manual, a code of conduct, and a conflict of interest policy. It did not have an employee handbook or a written financial reserve policy. The District has a website (www.pcpfire.org) which contains meeting agendas, meeting minutes, and BOD information. Rough and Ready FPD The District’s mission is to provide fire protection, rescue and emergency medical services, education in fire safety and emergency standards, and other services to protect lives and property, while maintaining the highest level of safety for firefighter/rescue personnel. Services are provided in a professional manner within the economic and demographic limitations of the community and in recognition of the need for dedicated volunteer involvement, using innovations and flexibility in response to local needs and conditions. The Rough and Ready FPD was formed in 1963. The District reported it had five full-time and two part-time employees. The District is governed by an uncompensated BOD. The District does not provide Brown Act training to its BOD members. All members had completed AB 1234 ethics training. All had Statement of Economic Interests (Form 700) on file. The BOD members have unspecified term limits and two members have served for greater than ten years. Customer complaints are handled through the chain of command. The District had an annual budget for FY 2019 of $643,394. The last filed audit was FY 2018. The District had a written credit card policy, written reimbursement policy, written check signing policy, a conflict of interest policy, spending limits, a financial reserve policy, bylaws, and a code of conduct. The District has a website (www.rrvfd.com) which has a District map, meeting agendas, meeting minutes, and a listing of fire department members. Million Dollar Districts. Million-dollar districts are defined as those with budgets of $1 million or more. Higgins FPD The mission of Higgins FPD is to provide the highest level of service to its community by valuing its members, promoting positive leadership and dedicating itself to excellence. The Higgins FPD was formed in 1978. It reported that it had eight full time, twelve part time, and 1.5 seasonal employees. It is governed by a BOD of five uncompensated members with four-year term limits that can be repeated. Two members of the BOD have served for more than ten years. All BOD members had completed AB 1234 ethics training. All had Statement of Economic Interests (Form 700) on file and all had Brown Act training. Customer complaints are handled by the Fire Chief. The budget for FY 2020 was $1,735,000. The last filed audit was for FY 2015. The District is behind on filings. The District has an employee handbook, a written credit card policy, a financial reserve policy, bylaws, and a code of conduct. The conflict of interest policy is contained in the bylaws. It did not have a written reimbursement policy. It is currently updating its policy and procedures manual. The District had a website (www.higginsfire.org) that is being updated. The website included a district map and lists the members of the BOD, meeting agendas and minutes. Nevada County Consolidated Fire District The Nevada County Consolidated Fire District mission is to provide the highest level of emergency services to its community by valuing our members, promoting positive leadership, and dedicating itself to excellence. The District was formed in July 1991. It reported it had 38 employees, six seasonal and eight part-time firefighters. It is governed by a seven-member BOD with no term limits. Two BOD members have served longer than ten years. Allowed BOD member compensation is $75 per meeting however only four of the seven members accept compensation. All BOD members had completed AB 1234 ethics training and Brown Act training. All had Statement of Economic Interests (Form 700) on file. Customer complaints are handled by staff management. The District’s last budget for FY 2019 was $6,619,430. The last filed audit was for FY 2018. The District had an employee handbook, a written credit card policy, a written spending policy, bylaws, a written reimbursement policy, a financial reserve policy, a conflict of interest policy, and a code of conduct. The District is transitioning to the Lexipol standard policy and procedures manual. The District website (www.nccfire.com) provides meeting agendas, meeting minutes, financial information, and BOD member information. Nevada Irrigation District (NID) NID was formed in 1921. It reported that it had 214 full time employees and one part time employee. The NID mission is to provide a safe, dependable water supply, to strive to be a good steward of the watersheds, and to conserve available resources. NID is governed by a five-member BOD, elected to four-year terms by District voters. Two members have served for more than ten years. The BOD is the District’s policy-making body. Members of the BOD are elected from within and represent five geographical divisions within the District. Directors are compensated per guidelines set in the California Water Code (§ 21165). All BOD members have completed AB 1234 ethics training and Brown Act training. All had Statement of Economic Interests (Form 700) on file. Customer complaints are handled by department managers but can be elevated to the General Manager. The budget for FY 2020 was $82,036,618. The last audit filed was for FY 2018. NID has an employee handbook, a written credit card policy, documented spending limits, a written financial reserve policy, a policy and procedures manual, a written reimbursement policy, a conflict of interest policy, a code of conduct, and bylaws that comply with the California Water Code § 20500. The District has a website (www.nidwater.com) that contains BOD information, meeting agendas, meeting minutes, and financial data. Penn Valley FPD The Penn Valley FPD was officially formed in 1974 succeeding the Penn Valley Volunteer Fire Department. The District serves 92 square miles in Western Nevada County, including the Penn Valley, Lake Wildwood, Kentucky Flat, Mooney Flat, and Big Oak areas. The District is governed by a five-member BOD elected by the citizens of the District. The BOD members have no term limits. One BOD member has served for more than ten years. BOD members are not compensated. The District provides a copy of the Brown Act to each BOD member. All BOD members had completed AB 1234 ethics training. All had Statement of Economic Interests (Form 700) on file. Fire administration consists of a Fire Chief and an office manager. The District employs twelve full-time career fire personnel and relies on part-time firefighters to augment the full-time staff. Penn Valley FPD is the only fire agency in Western Nevada County that provides Advanced Life Support Paramedics and an ambulance service. Each staffed station has one fire engine and one ambulance with the necessary equipment to deliver Advanced Life Service. Customer complaints are handled by a Captain or the Chief. The District budget for FY 2020 was $2,252,200. The last filed audit was for FY 2018. The District has an employee handbook, a written credit card policy, documented spending limits, a financial reserve policy, bylaws, a written reimbursement policy, a written check cashing policy, a conflict of interest policy, a code of conduct, and a policy and procedures manual. The District has a website (www.pennvalleyfire.com) that contains a listing of the BOD, meeting agendas, meeting minutes, the last audited financial report, and a listing of personnel. Truckee-Donner Public Utility District The Truckee-Donner Public Utility District was formed in 1927 and reported it had 69 full time employees. The mission of the District is to provide reliable, high quality water and electrical power services while meeting customer demand, and to manage District resources in a safe, open, responsible, environmentally sound manner at the lowest practical cost. It is governed by a five-member BOD. The BOD members have four-year terms and are compensated $400 per month and have medical, dental and vision coverage included. All BOD members had completed AB 1234 ethics training. All had Statement of Economic Interests (Form 700) on file. The District provides Brown Act training and ethics training to the BOD members. Customer complaints are handled by the procedures contained in the District Code. The District’s budget for FY 2019 was $38,742,000. The last filed audit was FY 2018. Documented policies are contained in the District Code. The District has a written credit card policy, written spending limits, written conflict of interest policy, written reimbursement policy, and a check signing policy. The District has a website (www.tdpud.org) that includes meeting agendas, meeting minutes, audited financial statements for the last two years, budget, and a listing of BOD members. Truckee-Donner Recreation and Park District The Truckee-Donner Recreation and Park District was formed in 1962 and reported it had 34 full-time employees and a large number of part-time employees. Thirteen part time employees have benefits. The mission statement for the Truckee-Donner Recreation and Park District is: “Inspiring Creative, Active Lives for a Healthy Mountain Community.” The District is governed by a five-member BOD. The BOD members do not have term limits and one member has served for more than ten years. BOD members are compensated $100 per meeting up to a maximum of four meetings per month. All BOD members had completed AB 1234 ethics training. All had Statement of Economic Interests (Form 700) on file and had Brown Act training. Customer complaints are responded to with verbal and written responses if necessary and requested. The District had a FY 2019 budget of $9,363,860. Its most recent audit was for FY 2018. The District has an employee handbook, a written credit card policy, a spending limit policy, a written reimbursement policy, a written check signing policy, a conflict of interest policy, a code of conduct, a written financial reserve policy, and a policy and procedures manual. The District has a website (www.tdrpd.org) that includes meeting agenda, meeting minutes, a listing of the BOD, a staff directory, policy manual, and financial information. Truckee FPD The Truckee FPD was formed in 1894 and reported that it had 48 full time and five part time employees. The District’s mission is to provide the highest level of public safety services to the District’s community. The District protects the lives, property and environment of residents and visitors through fire suppression, emergency medical services, rescue, and fire prevention. The District is governed by a five-member BOD that have four-year terms with no limits for successive terms. The BOD members are compensated $100 per BOD meeting up to a maximum of four meetings per month. All BOD members had completed AB 1234 ethics training. All had Statement of Economic Interests (Form 700) on file and had completed Brown Act training. Customer complaints are handled by the administrative or prevention staff as appropriate. The District had a FY 2019 budget of $12,213,268. Its most recent audit was for FY 2018. The District has an employee handbook, a written credit card policy, written check writing policy, written spending limits, written reimbursement policy, a conflict of interest policy, a code of conduct, bylaws, and an operations manual. The District has a website (www.truckeefire.org) that includes meeting agenda, meeting minutes, BOD listing, and financial information. Truckee Sanitary District The Truckee Sanitary District was formed in 1906 and reported that it had 40 full time employees. The District's mission is to protect the public health and the environment while providing its customers the highest level of service consistent with the prudent management of public funds. The District is governed by a five-member BOD. BOD members have no term limits and three have served for more than 10 years. BOD members receive $255 a day for time served which increases $5 each year. They also receive $20 per month paid to a 457(b) deferred compensation plan as well as health insurance premium benefits. All BOD members had completed AB 1234 ethics and Brown Act training. All had Statement of Economic Interests (Form 700) on file. For customer complaints District management is available to support staff regarding customer inquiries. The FY 2020 budget is $9,729,000. The most recent audit was for FY 2017. Rather than bylaws the District uses the Truckee Sanitary District Code which is available on the District website. The District had an employee handbook which includes a District code of conduct, a purchasing and travel policy that covers credit card use, a written financial reserve policy, a written reimbursement policy, a policy that limits check writing to District managers and BOD members, and a code of conduct. The District has a website (www.truckeesan.org) that includes meeting agendas, meeting minutes, a list of BOD members, and financial information. Findings F1 Some of the Byers Lane CSD BOD members had not completed AB 1234 ethics training. F2 Byers Lane CSD provided no information regarding Brown Act training. F3 Byers Lane CSD did not have a written reimbursement policy. F4 Byers Lane CSD did not have a written conflict of interest policy. F5 Byers lane CSD did not have a written code of conduct. F6 The Byers Lane CSD did not have a website. F7 Some of the Kingsbury Greens CSD BOD members had not completed AB 1234 ethics training and no information was provided about Brown Act training. F8 Kingsbury Greens CSD. did not have a written reimbursement policy. F9 Kingsbury Greens CSD was delinquent on filings of audits. F10 Kingsbury Greens CSD did not have a website. F11 Lake of the Pines Rancho CSD BOD members had not all completed AB 1234 ethics training. F12 Lake of the Pines Rancho CSD did not have a written reimbursement policy. F13 Lake of the Pines Rancho CSD did not state that it had a written conflict of interest policy. F14 One member of the Mystic Mines CSD had not completed AB 1234 ethics training. F15 Mystic Mines CSD did not have a website. F16 San Juan Ridge does not provide Brown Act Training for its BOD members. F17 Bear River Recreation and Park District did not have a written reimbursement policy. F18 Truckee Cemetery District did not have a written conflict of interest policy. F19 Truckee Cemetery District did not have a written reimbursement policy. F20 Truckee Cemetery District did not provide Brown Act training for its BOD members. F21 Truckee Cemetery District did not have a written code of conduct. F22 Some of the Washington County Water District BOD members had not completed AB 1234 ethics training and did not have a Statement of Economic Interests (Form 700) on file. F23 Washington County Water District was delinquent on filing of audits. F24 Washington County Water District did not have a written reimbursement policy. F25 Western Gateway Recreation and Park District was delinquent on filing of audits. F26 Nevada County Resource Conservation District did not report on Brown Act training. F27 Rough and Ready FPD did not provide Brown Act training for its BOD members. F28 Ophir Hill FPD did not report on having a written reimbursement policy. F29 Higgins FPD was delinquent on filings of audits. F30 Higgins FPD did not have a written reimbursement policy. Recommendations The Nevada County Grand Jury recommends the following. R1 Byers Lane CSD, Kingsbury Greens CSD, Lake of the Pines Rancho CSD, Mystic Mines CSD, San Juan Ridge County Water District, Truckee Cemetery District, Washington County Water District, Nevada County Resource Conservation District and Rough and Ready FPD ensure that all of their BOD members have completed AB 1234 Ethics Training, have current Statements of Economic Interests (Form 700) on file, and have received Brown Act Training. R2 Byers Lane CSD, Kingsbury Greens CSD, Lake of the Pines Rancho CSD, Bear River Recreation and Park District, Truckee Cemetery District, Washington County Water District, Ophir Hill FPD and Higgins FPD develop and implement written reimbursement policies. R3 Byers Lane CSD, Lake of the Pines Ranchos CSD, and Truckee Cemetery District need to confirm that it has a written conflict of interest policy. R4 Byers Lane CSD and Truckee Cemetery need to provide information as to their code of conduct. R5 Byers Lane CSD, Kingsbury Greens CSD, and Mystic Mines CSD establish a website in accordance with California Government Code § 53087.8 or establish an exemption as provided in that code. R6 Kingsbury Greens CSD, Washington County Water District, Western Gateway Recreation and Park District, and Higgins FPD provide certified audits as required to the Nevada County Auditor-Controller’s Office. Request for Responses Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, the Nevada County Civil Grand Jury requests responses from the following: • Byers Lane CSD for: o Recommendations R1, R2, R3, R4, and R5. o Responses are due by July 21, 2020. • Lake of the Pines Rancho CSD for: o Recommendations R1, R2 and R3. o Responses are due by July 21, 2020. • Mystic Mines CSD for: o Recommendations R1 and R5. 23 o Responses are due by July 21, 2020. • San Juan Ridge County Water District for: o Recommendation R1. o Responses are due by July 21, 2020. • Bear River Recreation and Park District for: o Recommendation R2. o Responses are due by July 21, 2020. • Washington County Water District for: o Recommendations R1, R2 and R6. o Responses are due by July 21, 2020. • Western Gateway Recreation and Park District for: o Recommendation R6. o Responses are due by July 21, 2020. • Nevada County Resource Conservation District for: o Recommendation R1. o Responses are due by July 21, 2020. • Ophir Hill FPD for: o Recommendation R2. o Responses are due by July 21, 2020. • Higgins FPD for: o Recommendations R2 and R6. o Responses are due by July 21, 2020. • Rough and Ready FPD for: o Recommendation R1. o Responses are due by July 21, 2020. • Kingsbury Greens CSD for: o Recommendations R1, R2, R5, and R6. o Responses are due by July 21, 2020. • Truckee Cemetery District for: o Recommendations R1, R2, R3 and R4. o Responses are due by July 21, 2020.
F24:
Washington County Water District did not have a written reimbursement policy.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Byers Lane CSD, Kingsbury Greens CSD, Lake of the Pines Rancho CSD, Bear River Recreation and Park District, Truckee Cemetery District, Washington County Water District, Ophir Hill FPD and Higgins FPD develop and implement written reimbursement policies.
F25:
Western Gateway Recreation and Park District was delinquent on filing of audits.
Related Recommendations (2)
R6:
Kingsbury Greens CSD, Washington County Water District, Western Gateway Recreation and Park District, and Higgins FPD provide certified audits as required to the Nevada County Auditor-Controller’s Office.
R18-02:
which requested that the Nevada County Board of Supervisors replace the annual audit with (a) an annual financial review for two consecutive years and (b) a financial audit every third year. The Nevada County Auditor-Controller supported this request, which went into effect as of the fiscal year ending June 30, 2017. The most recent filed audit was for FY 2018. The FY 2019 budget is $56,186. The District did not have a written reimbursement policy. The District did not report having a conflict of interest policy. The District did have a code of conduct policy. The District did have a website (sites.google.com/site/loprcsd) with agendas, minutes and financial information posted. It did contain a listing of the BOD members and the code of conduct. Mystic Mines CSD Mystic Mines CSD consists of 97 parcels and was formed in 1981. BOD members are not compensated. The BOD members have term limits. One BOD member has served for more than ten years. At the time data was received, all but one BOD member had completed AB1234 ethics training. All had Statement of Economic Interests (Form 700) on file. The BOD members attend Nevada County ethics and Brown Act training. Customer complaints are discussed and resolved during BOD meetings. The District generates revenue of $19,400 from a parcel tax of $200 per parcel for the FY 2020 budget. The last filed audit was FY 2018. The District did have a written reimbursement policy, a conflict of interest policy, and a documented code of conduct. The District policy and procedures manual is being updated. The District did not have a website. Oak Tree Park and Recreation District The Oak Tree Park and Recreation District was formed in 1997. Oak Tree Park and Recreation District is governed by a five-member BOD. BOD members are not compensated. All BOD members have completed AB 1234 ethics training. All had Statement of Economic Interests (Form 700) on file. The District provides ethics and Brown Act training for the BOD members. Customer complaints are handled by the BOD. The District budget for FY 2019 was $51,427. The most recent financial audit was for FY 2019. The District had a written reimbursement policy, a written check signing policy, a written conflict of interest policy, a written code of conduct, and bylaws. The District has a website (www.oaktreepark.org) that includes meeting minutes, meeting agendas and the audited financial report. The website is the District’s outreach tool. San Juan Ridge County Water District The stated purpose of this District is to supply irrigation water to its customers. A BOD of five members, two of whom receive a stipend not to exceed $180 per month, governs the District. Three of those BOD members have served more than ten years. The District has no term limits for BOD members. All had Statement of Economic Interests (Form 700) on file. The District relies on outside sources for the conduct of ethics and Brown Act training and did not answer as to whether or not BOD members had received training. Complaints are discussed at BOD meetings, then either the complainant will be called or there will be a written follow-up. The current budget for FY 2020 was $27,157. The required audit for FY 2018 is pending. There are bylaws addressing the purpose of the District, BOD members/officers, meetings, water delivery and billing, and emergency reserve. The District indicated it had a written reimbursement policy, and a written code of conduct. The District did not report if it had a written conflict of interest policy. The district did not have a website but stated that it is working to develop one. There was no reported public outreach program Medium Districts. Medium districts are defined as those with budgets from $100,000 up to $200,000. Bear River Recreation and Park District The Bear River Recreation and Park District’s mission is to provide a wide variety of year-round recreation programs, facilities, and park areas which respond to the needs and desires of all residents of the Bear River Recreation and Park district. The district was formed in 1995. The district is governed by a BOD of six uncompensated members. The BOD members do not have term limits. One BOD member has served for more than ten years. All BOD members have completed AB 1234 ethics training. All had Statement of Economic Interests (Form 700) on file. The district provides Brown Act and ethics training. Customer complaints are handled by the general manager. If not resolved they are forwarded to the BOD for resolution. The FY 2019 budget was $188,541. Its last filed audit was FY 2018. The district had a written credit card policy and a written check signing policy. It did not have a written reimbursement policy. The district had a written code of conduct and a conflict of interest policy. The District was working on preparation of bylaws. The district has a website (www.brrpd.org) that includes meeting agendas and minutes and lists the district BOD members. Truckee Cemetery District The District’s mission is to provide interment services and to protect, preserve, and maintain cemetery grounds and burial records through responsible use of public resources. The District maintains both the Sierra Mountain Cemetery and the Old Truckee Cemetery known as the Catholic Cemetery. The District was formed in 1946. BOD members have no term limits and receive compensation of $100 for each BOD meeting attended. BOD members have completed AB 1234 Ethics training, and all had Statement of Economic Interests (Form 700) on file. The District does not provide Brown Act training for its BOD members. Complaints are handled on a case-by-case basis. The FY 2019 budget was $189,798. The most recent audit was FY 2017. The District has no written credit card policy, reimbursement policy, check writing policy, conflict of interest policy, code of conduct, or formal customer complaint policy. The District indicated it does not have current bylaws, but the District does have Standard Operating Policies and Procedures. The District has a website (www.truckeecemeterydistrict.com) on which agendas, meeting minutes, and links to audits are posted. Washington County Water District The Washington County Water District provides water service and fire protection services to the town of Washington. The town has a population of approximately 200 residents. The District is governed by a BOD of five members who do not receive compensation. In December of 2019 the BOD had one vacancy. BOD members are appointed by a vote of the BOD members. BOD members have a term of four years. Not all members of the BOD had completed AB 1234 ethics training or had Statement of Economic Interests (Form 700) on file. Brown Act training is accomplished by the BOD members viewing a YouTube video. The FY 2019 budget on file with the Auditor-Controller Office reported total revenue of $143,305. Most financial questions were not answered as the bookkeeper had recently resigned and a replacement has not been obtained. The District reported that it was current with audit filings 11 with the county, however the most recent audit on file with the Auditor-Controller was for FY 2015. Customer complaints are handled directly by personal contact or by letter or e-mail. The bylaws contained information on BOD member selection and terms; a code of ethics; a conflict of interest policy; and a code of conduct. The District did not have a written reimbursement policy. The District has a website (washingtonwater.specialdistrict.org) that appeared to be under construction. The site did contain important information including: a listing of BOD members and staff; meeting agendas and minutes; policy and procedures; and bylaws. It was reported that the website served as the District’s community outreach vehicle. Western Gateway Recreation and Park District The District was formed in the early 1970s. Western Gateway Recreation & Park District’s revenue is generated through rental activity at the park and a parcel fee of $12.94 approved by District voters. Additional funding is provided through the support of The Western Gateway Park Foundation whose mission is to build a better Western Gateway Recreation & Park District through fundraising and contributions to the Foundation. The District is governed by five uncompensated BOD members who serve four-year terms and have no term limits. All BOD members had completed AB 1234 ethics training. All had Statement of Economic Interests (Form 700) on file and all had completed Brown Act training. The District also has four part-time paid employee positions; two maintenance, one office, and one custodial. Customer complaints are handled by the District secretary and if the complainant is not satisfied, the complaint is moved up to the BOD Chair and then to the BOD. The budget for the District for FY 2019 was $162,925. Approximately $51,000 of that is raised through rental of the picnic areas and other park venues, the selling of downed trees cut into firewood, and rental of the Buttermaker’s Cottage, various picnic areas, and baseball fields. Another $106,000 is paid by District residents in the form of a $12.94 per parcel fee. The District does not have a financial reserve policy. The last audit on file was for FY 2017. The District had a written credit card policy, reimbursement policy, conflict of interest policy, and code of conduct The District has a website (www.westerngatewaypark.com) that includes names of BOD members and District staff, BOD minutes and agendas, and a map of the District. Large Districts. Large districts are defined as those with budgets from $200,000 up to $1 million. Nevada County Resource Conservation District The Nevada County Resource Conservation District’s mission is to promote responsible resource management within its jurisdiction through education, leadership, technical assistance, and project facilitation. The District was formed in 1944 and has two full time employees and a BOD appointed by the Nevada County Board of Supervisors. The BOD members have four-year term limits and members can reapply for additional terms. The BOD members are not compensated. One member has served for more than ten years. All BOD members had completed AB 1234 ethics training. All had Statement of Economic Interests (Form 700) on file. No Brown Act training was reported. If the District receives a complaint, District staff takes a written report of the complaint and gets the contact information of the complainant. The report and contact information are passed on to either the immediate supervisor or to the Personnel Committee (if the complaint is about the supervisor). The complainant is given the Supervisor’s contact information. The District budget for FY 2019 was $243,100. Its most recent audit on file was FY 2018. The District has an employee handbook, a formal complaint process, reimbursement policy, conflict of interest policy, code of conduct and policy and procedures manual. It has no written credit card policy, check signing policy, financial reserve policy, or bylaws. The District offers conservation seminars and workshops throughout the year on conservation issues important to Nevada County and western Sierra County landowners. It sponsors educational and outreach events, spearheaded the Ag in the Classroom Farm Day event, have an Advisory Visit Program and a Manure Exchange Program, participate in 'Ag-Sperience' at the Nevada County Fair, sponsor local students to attend Range Camp, and partner with a wide variety of organizations on natural resource conservation. The District has a website (www.ncrcd.org) on which agendas, minutes, annual reports, financial statements, and audits are posted. Nevada Cemetery District The mission of the District is to provide distinctive places of interment for residents of Nevada County; to expand and preserve the cemeteries in western Nevada County; to maintain the historic significance and character of the cemeteries; and to ensure that a physical connection to the past is available for all citizens to experience, enjoy, and reflect upon. The Nevada Cemetery District was formed in 1942 and operates 27 public cemeteries in western Nevada County. The District is governed by a board of trustees consisting of four members who serve a term of four years with no limit to the number of terms. One member has served for longer than ten years. Each board of trustees member is paid $100.00 per meeting, up to $200.00 per month. All board of trustees members had completed AB 1234 ethics training. All had Statement of Economic Interests (Form 700) on file and all had Brown Act training. Customer complaints are dealt with by the Operations Manager. The budget for FY 2020 was $540,021. The last audit was for FY 2018. The District had bylaws, a reimbursement policy, a code of conduct policy, and a conflict of interest policy. The District has a website (www.nevadacemeterydistrict.com) which contains information on the board of trustees, staff, budget, meeting agenda, and meeting minutes. North San Juan FPD The North San Juan FPD began serving the town of North San Juan in 1862, and was incorporated as a FPD in 1986. The District’s mission statement says in part that its committed volunteers are dedicated to serving and protecting their community through the delivery of professional firefighting and emergency medical services. It is a volunteer fire department. Its firefighters, BOD, auxiliary members and several District residents who help with office tasks all donate their time. The Chief is paid a small stipend and the District managers are paid part-time positions. The District has three stations. The District covers some 87 square miles of the San Juan Ridge, including the historic communities of French Corral, North Columbia, and North San Juan. It includes all territory between the South and Middle Yuba Rivers, from Bridgeport in the west to east of Malakoff Diggins. Emergency protection during summer months is also provided by CAL FIRE from its station above North Columbia. Five directors each serve terms of four years. Three members have served greater than ten years. All members have completed AB 1234 ethics training. All had Statement of Economic Interests (Form 700) on file and all have Brown Act training. Customer complaints are handled by the Chief or District managers. The budget for FY 2018 was $320,910. The last filed audit was FY 2018. The District has employee, operations, and policy procedures manuals, and a code of conduct. The District was in the process of creating a conflict of interest and reimbursement policy. The District’s website (www.nsjfire.org) includes a listing of BOD members and a roster of volunteers. Agendas, minutes and budgets are also included. Ophir Hill FPD The mission of the Ophir Hill FPD is to protect life and property from fire and other hazardous situations in a cost-effective manner as provided by statute, policy, and operational guidelines. This consists of fire suppression, emergency medical service, hazardous materials incident response, and fire prevention information. Ophir Hill FPD has been located in Cedar Ridge since 1956. The District covers a nine square mile area. The District had six full time and one part time employees. It is governed by a five-member uncompensated BOD. The BOD members have no term limits and four members have served for more than ten years. All BOD members had completed AB 1234 ethics training. All had Statement of Economic Interests (Form 700) on file and all had Brown Act training. No answer was provided about customer complaints. The FY 2020 budget was $660,023. The last audit was FY 2018. The District did not have an employee handbook however a policy manual is being updated and is expected to include a conflict of interest policy. The District did have a code of conduct. The District did not respond with regard to a written reimbursement policy. The District has a website (www.ophirhillfire.org) that includes agendas, meeting minutes, and a listing of BOD members and paid staff. Peardale-Chicago Park FPD The mission of the Peardale-Chicago Park FPD is to provide professional and efficient emergency services in the protection of life, property, and environment. The Peardale-Chicago Park FPD was formed in 1964 and had two full-time and eleven part-time employees. A five-member BOD, three of whom have served for more than ten years, governs the District. BOD members are not compensated. All BOD members had completed AB 1234 ethics training and Brown Act Training. All had Statement of Economic Interests (Form 700) on file. Customer complaints are handled by the Fire Chief. The FY 2020 budget is for $510,850 based on parcel taxes of $58 for improved lots and $35 for unimproved lots. The last audit filed was for FY 2018. The District has bylaws, a written check writing policy, a written reimbursement policy, a policy and procedures manual, a code of conduct, and a conflict of interest policy. It did not have an employee handbook or a written financial reserve policy. The District has a website (www.pcpfire.org) which contains meeting agendas, meeting minutes, and BOD information. Rough and Ready FPD The District’s mission is to provide fire protection, rescue and emergency medical services, education in fire safety and emergency standards, and other services to protect lives and property, while maintaining the highest level of safety for firefighter/rescue personnel. Services are provided in a professional manner within the economic and demographic limitations of the community and in recognition of the need for dedicated volunteer involvement, using innovations and flexibility in response to local needs and conditions. The Rough and Ready FPD was formed in 1963. The District reported it had five full-time and two part-time employees. The District is governed by an uncompensated BOD. The District does not provide Brown Act training to its BOD members. All members had completed AB 1234 ethics training. All had Statement of Economic Interests (Form 700) on file. The BOD members have unspecified term limits and two members have served for greater than ten years. Customer complaints are handled through the chain of command. The District had an annual budget for FY 2019 of $643,394. The last filed audit was FY 2018. The District had a written credit card policy, written reimbursement policy, written check signing policy, a conflict of interest policy, spending limits, a financial reserve policy, bylaws, and a code of conduct. The District has a website (www.rrvfd.com) which has a District map, meeting agendas, meeting minutes, and a listing of fire department members. Million Dollar Districts. Million-dollar districts are defined as those with budgets of $1 million or more. Higgins FPD The mission of Higgins FPD is to provide the highest level of service to its community by valuing its members, promoting positive leadership and dedicating itself to excellence. The Higgins FPD was formed in 1978. It reported that it had eight full time, twelve part time, and 1.5 seasonal employees. It is governed by a BOD of five uncompensated members with four-year term limits that can be repeated. Two members of the BOD have served for more than ten years. All BOD members had completed AB 1234 ethics training. All had Statement of Economic Interests (Form 700) on file and all had Brown Act training. Customer complaints are handled by the Fire Chief. The budget for FY 2020 was $1,735,000. The last filed audit was for FY 2015. The District is behind on filings. The District has an employee handbook, a written credit card policy, a financial reserve policy, bylaws, and a code of conduct. The conflict of interest policy is contained in the bylaws. It did not have a written reimbursement policy. It is currently updating its policy and procedures manual. The District had a website (www.higginsfire.org) that is being updated. The website included a district map and lists the members of the BOD, meeting agendas and minutes. Nevada County Consolidated Fire District The Nevada County Consolidated Fire District mission is to provide the highest level of emergency services to its community by valuing our members, promoting positive leadership, and dedicating itself to excellence. The District was formed in July 1991. It reported it had 38 employees, six seasonal and eight part-time firefighters. It is governed by a seven-member BOD with no term limits. Two BOD members have served longer than ten years. Allowed BOD member compensation is $75 per meeting however only four of the seven members accept compensation. All BOD members had completed AB 1234 ethics training and Brown Act training. All had Statement of Economic Interests (Form 700) on file. Customer complaints are handled by staff management. The District’s last budget for FY 2019 was $6,619,430. The last filed audit was for FY 2018. The District had an employee handbook, a written credit card policy, a written spending policy, bylaws, a written reimbursement policy, a financial reserve policy, a conflict of interest policy, and a code of conduct. The District is transitioning to the Lexipol standard policy and procedures manual. The District website (www.nccfire.com) provides meeting agendas, meeting minutes, financial information, and BOD member information. Nevada Irrigation District (NID) NID was formed in 1921. It reported that it had 214 full time employees and one part time employee. The NID mission is to provide a safe, dependable water supply, to strive to be a good steward of the watersheds, and to conserve available resources. NID is governed by a five-member BOD, elected to four-year terms by District voters. Two members have served for more than ten years. The BOD is the District’s policy-making body. Members of the BOD are elected from within and represent five geographical divisions within the District. Directors are compensated per guidelines set in the California Water Code (§ 21165). All BOD members have completed AB 1234 ethics training and Brown Act training. All had Statement of Economic Interests (Form 700) on file. Customer complaints are handled by department managers but can be elevated to the General Manager. The budget for FY 2020 was $82,036,618. The last audit filed was for FY 2018. NID has an employee handbook, a written credit card policy, documented spending limits, a written financial reserve policy, a policy and procedures manual, a written reimbursement policy, a conflict of interest policy, a code of conduct, and bylaws that comply with the California Water Code § 20500. The District has a website (www.nidwater.com) that contains BOD information, meeting agendas, meeting minutes, and financial data. Penn Valley FPD The Penn Valley FPD was officially formed in 1974 succeeding the Penn Valley Volunteer Fire Department. The District serves 92 square miles in Western Nevada County, including the Penn Valley, Lake Wildwood, Kentucky Flat, Mooney Flat, and Big Oak areas. The District is governed by a five-member BOD elected by the citizens of the District. The BOD members have no term limits. One BOD member has served for more than ten years. BOD members are not compensated. The District provides a copy of the Brown Act to each BOD member. All BOD members had completed AB 1234 ethics training. All had Statement of Economic Interests (Form 700) on file. Fire administration consists of a Fire Chief and an office manager. The District employs twelve full-time career fire personnel and relies on part-time firefighters to augment the full-time staff. Penn Valley FPD is the only fire agency in Western Nevada County that provides Advanced Life Support Paramedics and an ambulance service. Each staffed station has one fire engine and one ambulance with the necessary equipment to deliver Advanced Life Service. Customer complaints are handled by a Captain or the Chief. The District budget for FY 2020 was $2,252,200. The last filed audit was for FY 2018. The District has an employee handbook, a written credit card policy, documented spending limits, a financial reserve policy, bylaws, a written reimbursement policy, a written check cashing policy, a conflict of interest policy, a code of conduct, and a policy and procedures manual. The District has a website (www.pennvalleyfire.com) that contains a listing of the BOD, meeting agendas, meeting minutes, the last audited financial report, and a listing of personnel. Truckee-Donner Public Utility District The Truckee-Donner Public Utility District was formed in 1927 and reported it had 69 full time employees. The mission of the District is to provide reliable, high quality water and electrical power services while meeting customer demand, and to manage District resources in a safe, open, responsible, environmentally sound manner at the lowest practical cost. It is governed by a five-member BOD. The BOD members have four-year terms and are compensated $400 per month and have medical, dental and vision coverage included. All BOD members had completed AB 1234 ethics training. All had Statement of Economic Interests (Form 700) on file. The District provides Brown Act training and ethics training to the BOD members. Customer complaints are handled by the procedures contained in the District Code. The District’s budget for FY 2019 was $38,742,000. The last filed audit was FY 2018. Documented policies are contained in the District Code. The District has a written credit card policy, written spending limits, written conflict of interest policy, written reimbursement policy, and a check signing policy. The District has a website (www.tdpud.org) that includes meeting agendas, meeting minutes, audited financial statements for the last two years, budget, and a listing of BOD members. Truckee-Donner Recreation and Park District The Truckee-Donner Recreation and Park District was formed in 1962 and reported it had 34 full-time employees and a large number of part-time employees. Thirteen part time employees have benefits. The mission statement for the Truckee-Donner Recreation and Park District is: “Inspiring Creative, Active Lives for a Healthy Mountain Community.” The District is governed by a five-member BOD. The BOD members do not have term limits and one member has served for more than ten years. BOD members are compensated $100 per meeting up to a maximum of four meetings per month. All BOD members had completed AB 1234 ethics training. All had Statement of Economic Interests (Form 700) on file and had Brown Act training. Customer complaints are responded to with verbal and written responses if necessary and requested. The District had a FY 2019 budget of $9,363,860. Its most recent audit was for FY 2018. The District has an employee handbook, a written credit card policy, a spending limit policy, a written reimbursement policy, a written check signing policy, a conflict of interest policy, a code of conduct, a written financial reserve policy, and a policy and procedures manual. The District has a website (www.tdrpd.org) that includes meeting agenda, meeting minutes, a listing of the BOD, a staff directory, policy manual, and financial information. Truckee FPD The Truckee FPD was formed in 1894 and reported that it had 48 full time and five part time employees. The District’s mission is to provide the highest level of public safety services to the District’s community. The District protects the lives, property and environment of residents and visitors through fire suppression, emergency medical services, rescue, and fire prevention. The District is governed by a five-member BOD that have four-year terms with no limits for successive terms. The BOD members are compensated $100 per BOD meeting up to a maximum of four meetings per month. All BOD members had completed AB 1234 ethics training. All had Statement of Economic Interests (Form 700) on file and had completed Brown Act training. Customer complaints are handled by the administrative or prevention staff as appropriate. The District had a FY 2019 budget of $12,213,268. Its most recent audit was for FY 2018. The District has an employee handbook, a written credit card policy, written check writing policy, written spending limits, written reimbursement policy, a conflict of interest policy, a code of conduct, bylaws, and an operations manual. The District has a website (www.truckeefire.org) that includes meeting agenda, meeting minutes, BOD listing, and financial information. Truckee Sanitary District The Truckee Sanitary District was formed in 1906 and reported that it had 40 full time employees. The District's mission is to protect the public health and the environment while providing its customers the highest level of service consistent with the prudent management of public funds. The District is governed by a five-member BOD. BOD members have no term limits and three have served for more than 10 years. BOD members receive $255 a day for time served which increases $5 each year. They also receive $20 per month paid to a 457(b) deferred compensation plan as well as health insurance premium benefits. All BOD members had completed AB 1234 ethics and Brown Act training. All had Statement of Economic Interests (Form 700) on file. For customer complaints District management is available to support staff regarding customer inquiries. The FY 2020 budget is $9,729,000. The most recent audit was for FY 2017. Rather than bylaws the District uses the Truckee Sanitary District Code which is available on the District website. The District had an employee handbook which includes a District code of conduct, a purchasing and travel policy that covers credit card use, a written financial reserve policy, a written reimbursement policy, a policy that limits check writing to District managers and BOD members, and a code of conduct. The District has a website (www.truckeesan.org) that includes meeting agendas, meeting minutes, a list of BOD members, and financial information. Findings F1 Some of the Byers Lane CSD BOD members had not completed AB 1234 ethics training. F2 Byers Lane CSD provided no information regarding Brown Act training. F3 Byers Lane CSD did not have a written reimbursement policy. F4 Byers Lane CSD did not have a written conflict of interest policy. F5 Byers lane CSD did not have a written code of conduct. F6 The Byers Lane CSD did not have a website. F7 Some of the Kingsbury Greens CSD BOD members had not completed AB 1234 ethics training and no information was provided about Brown Act training. F8 Kingsbury Greens CSD. did not have a written reimbursement policy. F9 Kingsbury Greens CSD was delinquent on filings of audits. F10 Kingsbury Greens CSD did not have a website. F11 Lake of the Pines Rancho CSD BOD members had not all completed AB 1234 ethics training. F12 Lake of the Pines Rancho CSD did not have a written reimbursement policy. F13 Lake of the Pines Rancho CSD did not state that it had a written conflict of interest policy. F14 One member of the Mystic Mines CSD had not completed AB 1234 ethics training. F15 Mystic Mines CSD did not have a website. F16 San Juan Ridge does not provide Brown Act Training for its BOD members. F17 Bear River Recreation and Park District did not have a written reimbursement policy. F18 Truckee Cemetery District did not have a written conflict of interest policy. F19 Truckee Cemetery District did not have a written reimbursement policy. F20 Truckee Cemetery District did not provide Brown Act training for its BOD members. F21 Truckee Cemetery District did not have a written code of conduct. F22 Some of the Washington County Water District BOD members had not completed AB 1234 ethics training and did not have a Statement of Economic Interests (Form 700) on file. F23 Washington County Water District was delinquent on filing of audits. F24 Washington County Water District did not have a written reimbursement policy. F25 Western Gateway Recreation and Park District was delinquent on filing of audits. F26 Nevada County Resource Conservation District did not report on Brown Act training. F27 Rough and Ready FPD did not provide Brown Act training for its BOD members. F28 Ophir Hill FPD did not report on having a written reimbursement policy. F29 Higgins FPD was delinquent on filings of audits. F30 Higgins FPD did not have a written reimbursement policy. Recommendations The Nevada County Grand Jury recommends the following. R1 Byers Lane CSD, Kingsbury Greens CSD, Lake of the Pines Rancho CSD, Mystic Mines CSD, San Juan Ridge County Water District, Truckee Cemetery District, Washington County Water District, Nevada County Resource Conservation District and Rough and Ready FPD ensure that all of their BOD members have completed AB 1234 Ethics Training, have current Statements of Economic Interests (Form 700) on file, and have received Brown Act Training. R2 Byers Lane CSD, Kingsbury Greens CSD, Lake of the Pines Rancho CSD, Bear River Recreation and Park District, Truckee Cemetery District, Washington County Water District, Ophir Hill FPD and Higgins FPD develop and implement written reimbursement policies. R3 Byers Lane CSD, Lake of the Pines Ranchos CSD, and Truckee Cemetery District need to confirm that it has a written conflict of interest policy. R4 Byers Lane CSD and Truckee Cemetery need to provide information as to their code of conduct. R5 Byers Lane CSD, Kingsbury Greens CSD, and Mystic Mines CSD establish a website in accordance with California Government Code § 53087.8 or establish an exemption as provided in that code. R6 Kingsbury Greens CSD, Washington County Water District, Western Gateway Recreation and Park District, and Higgins FPD provide certified audits as required to the Nevada County Auditor-Controller’s Office. Request for Responses Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, the Nevada County Civil Grand Jury requests responses from the following: • Byers Lane CSD for: o Recommendations R1, R2, R3, R4, and R5. o Responses are due by July 21, 2020. • Lake of the Pines Rancho CSD for: o Recommendations R1, R2 and R3. o Responses are due by July 21, 2020. • Mystic Mines CSD for: o Recommendations R1 and R5. 23 o Responses are due by July 21, 2020. • San Juan Ridge County Water District for: o Recommendation R1. o Responses are due by July 21, 2020. • Bear River Recreation and Park District for: o Recommendation R2. o Responses are due by July 21, 2020. • Washington County Water District for: o Recommendations R1, R2 and R6. o Responses are due by July 21, 2020. • Western Gateway Recreation and Park District for: o Recommendation R6. o Responses are due by July 21, 2020. • Nevada County Resource Conservation District for: o Recommendation R1. o Responses are due by July 21, 2020. • Ophir Hill FPD for: o Recommendation R2. o Responses are due by July 21, 2020. • Higgins FPD for: o Recommendations R2 and R6. o Responses are due by July 21, 2020. • Rough and Ready FPD for: o Recommendation R1. o Responses are due by July 21, 2020. • Kingsbury Greens CSD for: o Recommendations R1, R2, R5, and R6. o Responses are due by July 21, 2020. • Truckee Cemetery District for: o Recommendations R1, R2, R3 and R4. o Responses are due by July 21, 2020.
F26:
Nevada County Resource Conservation District did not report on Brown Act training.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Byers Lane CSD, Kingsbury Greens CSD, Lake of the Pines Rancho CSD, Mystic Mines CSD, San Juan Ridge County Water District, Truckee Cemetery District, Washington County Water District, Nevada County Resource Conservation District and Rough and Ready FPD ensure that all of their BOD members have completed AB 1234 Ethics Training, have current Statements of Economic Interests (Form 700) on file, and have received Brown Act Training.
F27:
Rough and Ready FPD did not provide Brown Act training for its BOD members.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Byers Lane CSD, Kingsbury Greens CSD, Lake of the Pines Rancho CSD, Mystic Mines CSD, San Juan Ridge County Water District, Truckee Cemetery District, Washington County Water District, Nevada County Resource Conservation District and Rough and Ready FPD ensure that all of their BOD members have completed AB 1234 Ethics Training, have current Statements of Economic Interests (Form 700) on file, and have received Brown Act Training.
F28:
Ophir Hill FPD did not report on having a written reimbursement policy.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Byers Lane CSD, Kingsbury Greens CSD, Lake of the Pines Rancho CSD, Bear River Recreation and Park District, Truckee Cemetery District, Washington County Water District, Ophir Hill FPD and Higgins FPD develop and implement written reimbursement policies.
F29:
Higgins FPD was delinquent on filings of audits.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Kingsbury Greens CSD, Washington County Water District, Western Gateway Recreation and Park District, and Higgins FPD provide certified audits as required to the Nevada County Auditor-Controller’s Office.
F30:
Higgins FPD did not have a written reimbursement policy. 22
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Byers Lane CSD, Kingsbury Greens CSD, Lake of the Pines Rancho CSD, Bear River Recreation and Park District, Truckee Cemetery District, Washington County Water District, Ophir Hill FPD and Higgins FPD develop and implement written reimbursement policies.
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.