Nevada County Grand Jury
2021-2022
From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (6)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
15 findings
F1:
The County has no policy, procedure, or protocol for notifying residents of dates for road repairs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Develop and implement procedures to notify residents affected by road work prior to starting, especially in closed neighborhoods such as cul-de-sacs.
F2:
The County responses to customer complaints resulted in unsatisfactory resolution to the complaints.
F3:
Repairs made in substandard conditions (below 70o F) resulted in substandard repairs.
F4:
Road Maintenance does not document temperatures of material used, roadway surface, and/or outside weather conditions.
F5:
The road crew supervisor is inspecting his own crew's work and therefore may lose objectivity.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Develop and implement a policy and procedure to inspect work done by Road Maintenance in line with what is required of private contractors.
F6:
The repair was not completed as a “mill and pulverize” project as needed according to Engineering, but as a “grind and patch” project by Road Maintenance.
F7:
The County indicates an average PCI of 62 “At Risk” for county roads to be acceptable.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Jury recommends the County revise their stated goal of average PCI 62 in the CIP to an average PCI of 71 or better.
F8:
RPI is not used by the County to decide funding priorities for equipment replacement.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Residential cul-de-sacs have a low daily trip value compared to through streets and therefore have a lower budgetary priority. Recommend the Public Works include in CIP, low daily trip County streets, based on road condition need.
F9:
A full accounting of maintenance and repair costs of equipment is not utilized for present and proposed budget purchases.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Recommend the RPI list, with estimated replacement costs, be presented to the BoS annually, requesting funding for equipment and/or funding for ISF at the same time as the annual budget request.
F10:
There are no records of labor downtime during the “Plan B” transitions due to equipment failures. Adding these costs to the cost of equipment maintenance provides a full accounting of expenses.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Develop and implement a daily inspection report for all Road Maintenance jobs, including downtime caused by equipment failure.
F11:
The Internal Service Funds budget is currently inadequate for equipment replacement.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
Recommend adequately funding the ISF for equipment replacement, and clearly define fund balances in the budget.
F12:
The Road Commissioner is required to submit a road budget request annually to the BoS legislated by state statute SHC, section 2007. The Jury found no evidence of compliance with section 2007 Nevada County Department of Public Works 8
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
Recommend Road Commissioner present to BoS tentative road budget covering all proposed expenditures for the ensuing fiscal year for County Road purposes. Nevada County Department of Public Works 9
F13:
Road Maintenance does not keep the same vital inspection records during road repairs, which are required by County contractors.
F14:
Per SHC, section 2010, members of the BoS are to make reasonable inspection from time to time of the roads within their counties maintained from funds supplied by “Chapter 1. The County Road System” of the SHC. The Jury did not find a public record indicating compliance with section 2010
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
Recommend the BoS, per SHC, section 2010, make reasonable inspection from time to time of the roads within their district and submit a report at a public board meeting outlining their inspection.
F15:
There are no records found of a presentation made to the BoS regarding equipment replacement.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Recommend the RPI list, with estimated replacement costs, be presented to the BoS annually, requesting funding for equipment and/or funding for ISF at the same time as the annual budget request.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
The Jury was unable to find a consolidated, comprehensive, and centralized list of JPAs for Nevada County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Board of Supervisors should identify a Nevada County resource/department responsible for obtaining, maintaining, and tracking an active list of all JPAs associated within Nevada County.
F2:
There is no documented process or procedure to ensure the collection, maintenance, or audit for Nevada County JPA compliance.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The Board of Supervisors should identify a Nevada County resource/department responsible for obtaining, maintaining, and tracking an active list of all JPAs associated within Nevada County.
R2:
The Board of Supervisors should identify a Nevada County resource/department responsible for auditing JPA compliance against Government Code 6500.
F3:
The Jury was not able to identify a government agency that is responsible for analyzing JPA risk.
F4:
The Jury was unable to locate a JPA list with the California Secretary of State.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Board of Supervisors should identify a Nevada County resource/department responsible for obtaining, maintaining, and tracking an active list of all JPAs associated within Nevada County.
F5:
The California State Controller’s Office has not identified all JPAs within their Special District listing.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Board of Supervisors should identify a Nevada County resource/department responsible for obtaining, maintaining, and tracking an active list of all JPAs associated within Nevada County.
F6:
The Jury found not all JPAs are filed with the Nevada County Controller’s Office.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Board of Supervisors should identify a Nevada County resource/department responsible for obtaining, maintaining, and tracking an active list of all JPAs associated within Nevada County.
F7:
The Jury found that not all JPAs in Nevada County are complying with the California State reporting requirements in Government Code Section 6500.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Board of Supervisors should identify a Nevada County resource/department responsible for auditing JPA compliance against Government Code 6500.
F8:
Vertical JPAs have the potential to issue bonds and incur debt without taxpayer approval.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
The overtime noted in the last six years indicates the need for additional staff. (Fact1) (R1)
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Use a portion of the $557k IWF balance to create a IWF coordinator position. The job description will include establishing partnerships with non-profits, programs, and application and management of grants. (F1) (F5) (F9)
F2:
The Sheriff’s Office Policy 1001 reference to the IWF for the ‘general’ inmate population may artificially limit programs beneficial to inmate welfare. Reference to ‘capital improvements’ may lead Nevada County to use the funds in conflict with Penal Code §4025. (Fact2) (R2)
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Update Sheriff’s Office Policy 1001 with the appropriate verbiage found in Penal Code §4025 to avoid a misuse of this fund. (F2)
F3:
The NCSO has not provided an annual report of the itemized IWF expenditures to the BoS for the last six years as per Penal Code §4025. (Fact3) (R3)
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Maintain compliance with Penal Code §4025 by presenting an itemized list of expenditures from the IWF annually to the BoS. (F3)
F4:
The Aramark contract for food and commissary services at WBCF was renewed without issuing a competitive request for proposal (RFP). (Fact4) (R4)
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Initiate a competitive RFP process before the current food and commissary contract expires. Request proposals from qualified vendors. (F4) (Recommendation R5 intentionally omitted)
F5:
The IWF will continue to serve as a financial resource towards improving the welfare of the inmates incarcerated in Nevada County. The decrease in the Telemate funds from $0.21 to $0.07 will not diminish the overall balance. (Fact 5) (R1)
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Use a portion of the $557k IWF balance to create a IWF coordinator position. The job description will include establishing partnerships with non-profits, programs, and application and management of grants. (F1) (F5) (F9)
F6:
The Jury found there was no clear and transparent process or point of contact within NCSO to evaluate potential non-profit or profit partnerships. (Fact6) (R6)
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Create a process to develop and implement partnership opportunities, including sharing grants, free services (AA/NA), and government programs (e.g., 4025.5). (F6)
F7:
The NCSO did not provide inmate programs to the same extent as other comparable counties during the last two years. Other counties (e.g., Humboldt) continued programs, ensuring availability of programs for the inmate’s welfare. (Fact7) (R7)
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
Establish an objective for a fully utilized, low targeted IWF balance and spend the IWF efficiently for programs to benefit inmates. (F7)
F8:
For the last two years, programs listed on the NCSO website were curtailed or suspended. (Fact8) (R8)
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
Maintain the NCSO website to accurately reflect the status of the programs listed. (F8) (Recommendation R9 intentionally omitted)
F9:
The Jury found NCSO did not have adequate staff to apply for grants, develop programs, or establish partnerships for the benefit to the inmates. (Fact9a) (Fact9b) (R1)
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Use a portion of the $557k IWF balance to create a IWF coordinator position. The job description will include establishing partnerships with non-profits, programs, and application and management of grants. (F1) (F5) (F9)
F10:
The Jury found the NCSO lacks programs such as Humboldt’s SWAP or the JBCP to benefit inmates. (Fact10) (R10)
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
Leverage successes from other California counties by developing and implementing programs to enhance inmate welfare (e.g., SWAP, and JBCP). (F10)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
Although the Jury issued five (5) document requests during April, May, and again in June to the Executive Director and a member of the Board, as of June 22, 2022, we have received none of the requested documents.
F2:
The Jury found that financial reporting on multiple levels, monthly Board operational reports and financial statements, and Form 990 filings were incomplete or in arrears.
F3:
The FSC’s revenues, including grant funding, are not segregated under fund accounting rules.
F4:
The FSC lacks operational and financial transparency.
F5:
The FSC lacks segregation of duties, roles, and responsibilities for internal controls.
F6:
The FSC Board has not developed a strategic plan to address the full magnitude of issues.
F7:
The FSC Board is not ensuring applicable laws and regulations are adhered to.
Additional Recommendations
8
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Jury recommends that the County engage an independent forensic accountant to review and report on FSC financial records and processes.
R2:
The Jury recommends FSC management provide timely monthly operational reports and financial statements to the FSC Board.
R3:
The Jury recommends the FSC Board provide requested documents to the Grand Jury.
R4:
The Jury recommends the FSC management provide requested documents to the Grand Jury.
R5:
The Jury requests the FSC Board implement fund accounting for grant revenues.
R6:
The Jury requests the FSC Board improve its level of transparency for the benefit of the community.
R7:
The Jury requests the FSC Board complete the development and implementation of roles and responsibilities as stated in the March 2022 Executive Finance Committee meeting minutes, with attention to segregation of duties and best practices.
R8:
The Jury requests the FSC Board develop and implement a five-year strategic plan for the growth of the organization.
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
All nine school districts in the County are seeing a decline in enrollment which directly affects the ADA, negatively impacting revenue for each district.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Each District develop and implement a strategic plan which addresses the potential continued loss of revenue and devise contingencies based on the projected revenues.
F2:
Nevada City School District and Penn Valley School District have not provided evidence of a waiver approved by the NCSOS for either 2019-20 or 2020-21 school years.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The NCOE consider consolidation, unification plans, and shared services of two or more districts within their term of office.
F3:
The Nevada City School District has not complied with California State Education Code 41372, resulting in a deficit of $389,232 in audit finding #2020-001 and an additional $586,089 in audit finding #2021-001, for a total of $975,321 in the two school years.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Nevada City School District comply with California Education Code Section 41372 (teacher salaries).
F4:
The Penn Valley School District has not complied with California State Education Code 41372, resulting in a deficit of $96,365 in audit finding #2020-002 and an additional $288,501 in audit finding #2021-001, for a total of $384,866 in the two school years.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Penn Valley School District comply with California Education Code Section 41372 (teacher salaries).
F5:
Grass Valley School District and Penn Valley School District (two of the nine districts) were found to be non-compliant in handling ASB funds, documentation, or process/procedures related to ASB funds.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The NCOE validate and assure compliance with California Education Code Sections 41372 and 41374 from Nevada City School District and Penn Valley School District (teacher salaries and class size).
F6:
Unfunded pension liabilities for both STRS and PERS contributions are increasing, straining district budgets.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The NCOE provide a mandatory annual workshop to review all processes and procedures for the handling of ASB funds, requiring attendance of representatives from all nine districts.
F7:
Reduced funding for deferred maintenance projects could have negative impact on buildings and grounds, potentially creating safety issues for students and staff. 4
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The NCOE conduct an analysis of past and current revenue and expenditure trends to be used for evaluating the overall future fiscal health of all County school districts.
F8:
Special governmental funding, such as federal Covid relief funding, is not guaranteed year to year and cannot be depended upon. NJUHSD 2021-22 1st interim report.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The NCOE develop and implement planning contingencies to cover deficits the districts may experience when special governmental funding ends and ADA dollars continue to decline.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R9:
The NCOE develop and implement policy and procedures requiring all school districts to analyze their budgets to address critical maintenance of buildings and grounds.
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
There is a significant disparity between the costs for raw, untreated water sold to Grass Valley and Nevada City compared to the cost to agricultural customers.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
Conduct a comprehensive review and adopt a rate structure to align the cost of water provision to treated water and agricultural customers.
R3:
Develop and implement a policy to differentiate the water rates for non-agricultural and agricultural water customers.
F2:
The NID cannot sustain the current subsidizing of low agricultural rates from internal reserves.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Develop and implement a policy to differentiate the water rates for non-agricultural and agricultural water customers.
F3:
The NID cannot financially continue to provide low-cost agricultural water to customers who do not produce an agricultural product.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Develop and implement a policy to differentiate the water rates for non-agricultural and agricultural water customers.
F4:
The NID has no requirement for a consumer of raw, untreated water to produce an agricultural product.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
Develop, adopt, and implement a procedure to identify raw water users who do not produce agricultural products.
R3:
Develop and implement a policy to differentiate the water rates for non-agricultural and agricultural water customers.
F5:
The failure to adequately increase raw water rates is creating a significant disparity in the costs of operation between the treated and untreated, raw water rates.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
Conduct a comprehensive review and adopt a rate structure to align the cost of water provision to treated water and agricultural customers.
R3:
Develop and implement a policy to differentiate the water rates for non-agricultural and agricultural water customers.
F6:
The NID Board has placed the district at financial risk by failing to raise the rates of raw, untreated water to agricultural users.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Develop and implement a policy to differentiate the water rates for non-agricultural and agricultural water customers.
F7:
The NID failed to follow statutes in the California Elections Code during the reapportionment processes in 2019 and 2022.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Develop and implement a plan and procedures for future reapportionment processes.
F8:
The Board placed NID in legal jeopardy of a lawsuit by failing to heed NID legal counsel’s advice regarding reapportionment.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Develop and implement a plan and procedures for future reapportionment processes.
F9:
The Board has exhibited a disregard for the Brown Act as outlined in the California Government Code and NID policies regarding California’s open meeting laws.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Comply with California’s open meeting laws.
F10:
The NID has failed in the implementation of their Board Policy and has demonstrated organizational dysfunction in the areas of trust and communication.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
Develop and implement team building exercises to address the current dysfunction among Directors and between NID staff, administration, and the Board.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R5:
Develop and implement policies and procedures for the review of District boundaries when NID annexes parcels into the NID.