Nevada County Grand Jury
• 2021-2022
Nevada County Department of Public Works County Roads: Take Me Home
⚠️ Aviso de traducción: Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and 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.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
Repairs made in substandard conditions (below 70o F) resulted in substandard repairs.
No recommendations for this finding
F4
Road Maintenance does not document temperatures of material used, roadway surface, and/or outside weather conditions.
No recommendations for this finding
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.
No recommendations for this finding
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.
No recommendations for this finding
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.
Conclusions 2
-
CL1 Page 8The Jury, first, focused on quality standards, inspection records, road crew training, equipment usage, etc. of Road Maintenance. The question remained as to why the Engineering assessment of work, which the cul-de-sac needed, was not postponed, and included in the next budget cycle. The County made the decision to repair the road with an asphalt patch instead of the Engineering assessment of the road needing more substantial work as defined by “mill and pulverize.” The County has a dedicated road inspector who inspects incremental progress of contract work. Each Road Crew Supervisor serves as inspector for their own crew. This may lead to less than objective and varying quality acceptances. Engineering provides assessment and decisions to either use contractors or the Road Maintenance Division for repairs. The decision to use Road Maintenance was a temporary fix. The work was scheduled late in the season, risking the effect of cold weather on the quality of the sealing process. Since the work was done in sub-optimal temperatures, this area of road will require additional work with additional cost. Engineering is the appropriate department to analyze and evaluate the short and long-term costs. Fleet maintains all equipment used by Road Maintenance. Fleet utilizes the Replacement Priority Index (RPI) for all vehicles and equipment owned by Road Maintenance. This data is used to prioritize the replacement of equipment. Currently, 80% of Road Maintenance equipment and vehicles should be replaced based on this Replacement Priority Index value. Public Works has not prioritized and provided the BoS with equipment replacement cost estimates for budget allocation. 12 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=2010.&lawCode=SHC Nevada County Department of Public Works 7
-
CL2 Page 9The Road Maintenance Division is designed as reactive and not necessarily proactive. This division is the go-to division when something is needed immediately. Safety issues such as missing stop signs, downed trees, or “axle buster” potholes are examples of immediate needs. This division has six crews. Each crew is assigned a specific zone or area within the County. Crews may from time-to-time work outside their assigned zone or area to cover all 560 miles of Nevada County roads. The Road Maintenance crews do not have the type of equipment which may be available to an independent contractor.
Agency Responses 1
Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.
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