📋

Extracted from Consolidated Report

This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.

Nevada County Grand Jury • 1998-1999

Community Development Agency Reason for the Investigation The Nevada County Civil Grand Jury received several formal*

8 pages

View PDF View Full Original

⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.

⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.

Findings 9 findings

The CDA was formally proposed in 1997 by combining three function-related county departments: Planning, Building and Environmental Health. The Grand Jury could not find any written statement of goals and objectives that had been discussed with employees, much less agreed to by the Board of Supervisors (BOS) and County Administrative Officer (CAO).

The proposed agency was to be managed by a director who reported to the CAO. The agency would be responsible for the existing duties of the departments, i.e. permitting, enforcing state and county laws and regulations (ordinances), land use, planning, building inspections and all activities relating to land development and building.

The CDA concept had been discussed by the BOS and county executive management for several years. They had made visits to neighboring counties where a like concept had been implemented.

The Permit Processing Center (PPC) concept, which preceded the CDA, was designed to accomplish ž , permitting with only one stop at the counter. Cross-training in all areas of the permit process was provided for staff with the goal of streamlining the process, thereby saving the customer time. Employees stated that there was inadequate training for the concept, a lack of effective supervision and problems created by non-compatible computer systems between the three departments.

Dr. Tim Chow was hired by the CAO as the director of the CDA. He was instructed to design a plan that defined the agency and to propose an implementation schedule. His written guidelines were limited to CAO staff reports and BOS minutes. a. The new director was to present his plan to the CAO for review by February 11, 1998, only six weeks after being hired. The design of the plan was left up to the new director, as he was the accepted expert. The review of the plan, as it was developed, was delegated to a deputy administrator. b. A steering committee was formed by the BOS to review the proposed plan as developed by the director. It was made up of two members of the BOS, a deputy administrator and the director of personnel. No written input from the CAO could be found. The three deputy department directors, as well as other employees in the agency, were used as resources for the plan development. c. After numerous revisions, the proposed plan was presented to the BOS on May 12, 1998. The BOS, including the two members who had also served on the steering committee, asked for numerous additional changes that resulted in major revisions. The draft was then returned to the director who made these changes. d. The revised plan was brought back to the BOS on August 4, 1998. It was approved as far as concept was concerned, but implementation was not defined, and additional funding was not granted.

Implementation of the plan was begun in August 1998, and the BOS directed the use of funds from Planning, Building and Environmental Health to finance the required work. The CDA staff testified this action reduced its effectiveness. a. The majority of employees interviewed said that the CDA implementation hindered their ability to perform their job assignments adequately because of poor organization. lack of communication and ineffective leadership. b. All employees interviewed expressed extreme frustration with this new concept. One complaint heard frequently was "No one cares anymore." However, it was found that some employees were reluctant to accept changes in their roles necessitated by implementation of the CDA plan. -

Several interviewees testified that some members of the BOS interacted directly with employees after plan approval, making various suggestions for changes to the plan. In doing this, they bypassec- the CAO and department heads and caused considerable confusion. ţ.,

Dr. Chow testified he had been told throughout his tenure that he was performing his assignment well. However, on November 27, 1998, he was asked for his resignation. Dr. Chow complied. The Building Department Deputy Director was appointed Interim CDA Director.

On April 13, 1999, a letter was sent to the BOS from the CAO and Assistant County Administrator recommending the implementation and updating of the revised CDA consolidation plan. The BOS approved the revised plan and set milestones for subsequent reporting CONCLUSIONS

Recommendations 6

R1

The Grand Jury recommends that the BOS agrees to a written set of goals before proceeding with any further implementation of the CDA plan. These goals should explain clearly what is expected of the plan in terms of its providing economy of time, effort, cost savings and other features.
R2

The Grand Jury recommends that the BOS allow the CAO to carry out the review and consolidation plan without interference, thus allowing the plan to proceed as designed without further wasting of county funds. RESPONSES Board of Supervisors Due September 30, 1999 . Respuse COUNTY OF NEVADA STATE OF CALIFORNIA 950 Maidu Avenue • Nevada City, California 95959-8617 Telephone: (530) 265-1480 • FAX (530) 265-1234 E-Mail: www.co.nevada.ca us/ncbos/clerk Peter Van Zant, 1st District Karen Knecht, 2nd District BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Bruce Conklin, 3rd District Elizabeth Martin, 4th District Sam Dardick, 5th District September 28, 1999 Cathy R. Thompson Clerk of the Board The Honorable Carl Bryan Presiding Judge, Nevada County Courts Nevada County Courthouse 201 Church Street Nevada City CA 95959 SUBJECT: Board of Supervisors Responses to the 1998-99 Nevada County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Dear Judge Bryan: The attached responses by the Board of Supervisors to the 1998-99 Nevada County Civil Grand Jury Final Report are submitted as required by California Penal Code 933(b). These responses were reviewed and approved by the Board of Supervisors at their regular meetings on September 14 and 28, 1999, and are believed to provide a full response to the Grand Jury's
R5

a. Partially agree. The CDA Director was granted more time to prepare his plan and it was subsequently presented to the Board on May 12, 1998. b. Partially agree. The Chairman-appointed committee of two supervisors and the County Administrator was formed by direction of the Board Chairman and was not appointed by the Board of Supervisors. The County Administrator and staff worked closely with the CDA Director and provided written input to him on each draft proposal. 09/28/99 c. Agree. d. Partially agree. The CDA proposal was fully funded in the Fiscal Year 1998/99 Budget, but implementation actions were delayed until final budget adoption in late September 1998.
R6

a. Cannot agree or disagree. The Board has no knowledge of what was said to the Grand Jury b. Cannot agree or disagree. The Board has no knowledge of what was said to the Grand Jury. į Refinement of organizational changes implemented with the Permit Processing Center and continuing with the formation and development of the CDA has since overcome the initial resistance to change expressed by some department employees directly to their department/agency head and the County Administrator.
R7

Cannot agree or disagree. The Board has no knowledge of what was said to the Grand Jury.
R9

Partially agree. The revised CDA plan was presented to the Board on April 13, 1999, and accepted. Recommendations:

Conclusions 5

CL1 Page 3

Although the concept of a CDA plan had been contemplated for several years, the BOS and county executive management failed to give the new CDA Director written direction to accomplish his assignment to their satisfaction. The Grand Jury believes there was not consensus on the part of the BOS as to what they expected from and wanted accomplished by the plan. It would have been a difficult enough assignment with a clear set of parameters, but without these, the Director started out at a disadvantage in his effort to please the BOS and the CAO.
CL2 Page 3

The Grand Jury believes there was not enough time allocated to develop the CDA plan and to "fine tune" the introduction of the plan to employees and ensure a well thought-out and managed implementation. It was unrealistic of the BOS to insist on a compressed timeline.
CL3 Page 3

The Grand Jury believes the BOS was not adequately prepared to undertake the formation of the CDA when it did, because: a. It lacked consensus on what the plan was to accomplish b. It had not established clear-cut goals. c. Its success or failure could not be measured. That there was extensive criticism of the submitted plan at the May 12, 1998, BOS meeting by some of the very people who had already suggested and effected a number of changes in committee, illustrates indecision long after there should have been resolution.
CL4 Page 3

Some supervisors bypassed the CAO and department managers in going directly to department employees to discuss constituent problems. Such action is inappropriate and intimidating.
CL5 Page 3

Because of inconsistent direction and lack of clear intent, the BOS was responsible for wasting taxpayer dollars. 24

No Responses Found 1

Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.

Nevada County Board of Supervisors Elected County Office

* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.