Nevada County Grand Jury
2023-2024
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The county pension plan currently lacks the funds to meet foreseeable pension- payment obligations, having only about 68% of the necessary funds.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The county should consider offering voters the opportunity to approve a special tax to resolve the unfunded-liabilities problem.
F2:
If unfunded liabilities continue to rise, the county will have to increase revenues by increasing taxes, reduce expenses and the operations they fund (or a combina- tion of the two), or become unable to make pension payments.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
If the county decides not to approach the problem through a special tax, it should, within six months, produce a comprehensive plan to eliminate the unfunded pension lia- bilities.
F3:
Because of economic fluctuations and existing unfunded liabilities, the county has decided that issuing bonds is not a good way to address the problem.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The county should consider withdrawing from CalPERS and employing an insti- tutional investment advisor with a better performance record than CalPERS achieves. Request for Responses Pursuant to California Penal Code § 933.05, the Nevada County Civil Grand Jury re- quires from the Nevada County Board of Supervisors, within 90 days of publication of this report, responses to the following:
F4:
The constant rise in CalPERS’s-required annual amortization payments shows that CalPERS predictions of financial recovery are highly questionable.
F5:
The county does not appear to have any realistic plan to address the steady in- creases in the total amount of unfunded debt the county and its taxpayers will owe its retirees.
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
OHF’s continuing financial challenges and inability to attract and retain enough qualified staff reduces the district’s firefighting effectiveness, leaving the community vul- nerable.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The OHF Board of Directors should reexamine its finances to decide whether the district, can continue independently by increasing the annual tax assessment.
F2:
Current shift scheduling at OHF is inconsistent with staff safety and jeopardizes the Ophir Hill community.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
If the Board decides not to seek increased annual assessments then the Board should begin to consolidate with one or more adjacent districts.
F3:
OHF lacks finances to hire the staff it needs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
If the OHF Board of Directors has not taken either of the actions in Recommenda- tions 1 or 2 within 60 days, the Nevada County Board of Supervisors should immediately conduct an assessment of OHF operations to determine if the community continues to be at risk.
F4:
OHF’s finances as a stand-alone district will not improve without increasing the annual tax assessment.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
If the Board of Supervisors determines that the Ophil Hill community is at risk, it should ask Local Area Formation Commission to initiate consolidation of OHF with other districts.
F5:
Consolidating with other districts is the most realistic way for Ophir Hill to improve fire protection and emergency response for its community.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Responses go to the Presiding Judge of the Nevada County Superior Court in accord with the provisions of California Penal Code § 933.05. Responses must include the infor- mation that § 933.05 requires.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
12 findings
F1:
FSC does not properly account for large amounts of county (and other gov- ernmental) funding. This makes it impossible to follow the money.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
FSC’s Board of Directors needs to reform FSC’s financial prac- tices to ensure greater protection against fraud.
F2:
FSC does not publish all and may not have conducted some annual finan- cial audits. This makes it more difficult to follow the money.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
FSC’s Board of Directors needs to establish consistent account- ing practices.
F3:
FSC’s Board of Directors has allowed other questionable financial prac- tices, such as voting on large non-agenda purchases, voting on audit documents not before the Board, and having pre-signed checks.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
FSC’s Board of Directors needs to adopt accounting practices that allow accurate tracking of county funding through expenditures.
F4:
FSC’s day-to-day financial practices do not adequately protect against risk of fraud.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
FSC’s Board of Directors needs to ensure retention of qualified financial staff.
F5:
FSC does not appear to have appropriate California contractor’s licenses for the work that it performs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
FSC’s Board of Directors needs to ensure that qualified financial staff are allowed appropriately to monitor and enforce consistent, proper accounting prac- tices.
F6:
FSC has reduced transparency, making it difficult for the public and the county to monitor and verify proper use of county funding.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
FSC’s Board of Directors should hire an external consultant to determine the cause(s) of the frequent turnover of financial personnel and make recom- mendations.
F7:
From at least April 2019 through January 2022, FSC, knowing it was sub- ject to the Brown Act, appears to have violated it numerous times.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
FSC’s Board of Directors needs to establish clear policies govern- ing financial management within the corporation.
F8:
FSC has violated its own bylaws.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
FSC’s Board of Directors needs to ensure that all board members receive training on their responsibilities, including overseeing proper financial practices and accountability, and timely receipt of all reports and budgets.
F9:
Fire Safe Council of Nevada County is not a responsible, accountable, or appropriate recipient for county (and other governmental) funding.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
FSC’s Board of Directors needs to ensure greater transparency so that Nevada County and the public are able to confirm proper use of county funding.
F10:
It appears that the county has awarded multiple contracts to FSC, without verifying that FSC had required licenses.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
FSCs needs to obtain appropriate contractor’s licenses for the work it performs for the county.
F11:
The county has not been sufficiently diligent about confirming the validity of contractors’ invoices.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
FSC’s Board of Directors needs to ensure that FSC follows its own bylaws.
F12:
FSC has had frequent, unexplained turnover of key financial personnel.
Related Recommendations (1)
R12:
The county should ensure that contractors have required li- censes before awarding contracts.
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R13:
The county needs to reestablish regular processes for auditing invoices on county contracts.
R14:
The county should require nonprofit corporations that receive county money to agree to operate consistently with the Brown Act.
R15:
FSC’s Board of Directors needs to conduct a thorough investiga- tion into the financial discrepancies this report identifies.