Consolidated Final Report for Fiscal Year

- Although the Stall' is attempting to remedy some of the identificd sal'Cty and security issues. there arc still ddiciencies in the security camcra syslCm that needs immediate attention b) the AOC. Agree. Fi.3 NCSO could be active in assisting the Statl in their request for camera upgrades because the cameras are a first-line observation of potential harm, Disagree. The COllit \\mild certainly \\elcome any help the NCSO might offer tu enhance the Court's camera system. Ilowc\er. this system is the COlllt's responsibility and rely on the Judicial \\l' COllncil fl.,!' 1i.lI1ding to expand! enhance the system.

Bell Hill Academy property conditions expose students, teachers, staff, parents and visitors attending school facilities to dangerous health and safety issues. Response to Finding 2: The Board strongly disagrees. No credible evidence exists to substantiate this finding. With respect to the Board's concerns regarding the infonnation it received from the Grand Jury in support of this conclusion, please refer to the explanation provided under "Response to

These hazardous conditions are endangering the health and safety of students, teachers, staff, parents and visitors because no one has taken responsibili ty for repair even though administrators and the Board of Trustees have been notified in writing. Response to Finding 3: The Board strongly disagrees. No evidence whatsoever exists to substantiate this finding. First and foremost, the above conclusion presupposes the fact that there are "hazardous conditions ... endangering the health and safety of [all persons]" at Grass Valley Charter School and Bell Hill Academy. As explained more particularly in the Board's responses to the Grand Jury's finding nos. 1, 2 and 4 herein, no evidence exists to support the Grand Jury's underlying determination concerning the existence of"hazardous conditions" at these sites. Second, the Grand Jury's above conclusion assumes the truth of the allegation that "administrators and the Board of Trustees have been notified in writing" regarding the items identified in the Grand Jury report. The Board does not have any evidence, documentary, testimonial, or otherwise, supporting this allegation regarding prior written notice to the Board and District administration. To the contrary, the Board's receipt of the Grand Jury report was the first time that the Board or the District's administration was informed about the allegedly unsafe conditions identified in the 00593700009 12464549. Honorable Thomas M. Anderson Nevada County Superior Court September 23, 2014 Page: 6 anonymous complaint that prompted the Grand Jury's investigation. Had the anonymous complainant, or any other knowledgeable person, brought those items of concern to the attention of the Board or the District's administration sooner, the District would have been able to conduct its investigation and make the recommended minor repairs where applicable far earlier than it has been able to do following its receipt of the Grand Jury report. As the report states in its Fact 18, during the District Superintendent's interview with the Grand JUly , he stated that "he is unaware of any notifications of sub-standard conditions in any classroom or building within the district." There are no facts alleged in the report that controvert the Superintendent's statement, and neither the Grand Jury nor the District have produced any evidence to the Board to substantiate the Grand Jury's contradictory finding concerning prior written notice. The Board therefore disputes this factual assumption. Finally, with respect to the Grand Jury 's conclusion that "no one has taken responsibility for repair," the District Maintenance Supervisor, and District maintenance staff, are responsible for identify ing the need for, and ensuring the completion of, District facilities maintenance and repair projects. (See attached job descriptions for Director of Maintenance and Operations3 and for General Maintenance Person4 ) Please see the attached Work Order Flow Chart and narrative description, which illustrate and explain the District's above-described system for facilities maintenance and repair. The District's Superintendent relics upon the maintenance supervisor and staff to report and promptly address any issues or concerns with respect to facilities. Again, as explained above, had the District's Superintendent been given earlier notice of the items identified in the Grand Jury' s report for which the District's licensed inspectors have recommended minor repairs, either by the District's former Supervisor of Maintenance and Grounds or by the anonymous complainant, the District would have been able to complete work orders for those repairs much sooner. NOTE: there is one limited exception relating to the storage of chemicals in the workshop and the Safety Data Sheets identifying all chemicals on site. As explained in the District Superintendent's May 5, 2014 written response to the Grand Jury's request for information (a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto), the District'S previous Supervisor of Maintenance and Grounds was directed to address these issues during the period of his employment, but he did not do so. As is further explained in the Superintendent' s response, the District has since taken appropriate steps to implement the prior directive regarding the Safety Data Sheets, and the District has already completed the purchase of a special storage container to house the chemicals in the workshop depicted in the Grand Jury's Photographs #7 and 8, and that storage container will be arriving very shortly. However, the Board emphasizes that despite the former District Supervisor of Maintenance and Grounds' failure to complete these tasks as directed, there is no evidence that either of these issues have ever constituted an actual health or safety risk to anyone. ) See, in particular, Essential Functions #12 ("Conduct inspections of buildings and facilities to determine maintenance and repair needs and quality of work performed") and f! I 6: ("Determ ine safety and fire hazards and recommend corrective action"). See, in particular, Duties and Responsibilities #14 ("Advise supervisor of safety hazards or items in need of replacement or maintenance work"). u()5937 0U009 1~464S49 2 Honorable Thomas M. Anderson Nevada County Superior Court September 23,2014 Page: 7 Nevertheless, with respect to those items identified in the Grand Jury report for which the District's licensed inspectors recommended minor repairs, the District has made or is in the process of repai ring all items. Based on all the foregoing, the Board must disagree with the Grand Jury's finding that "no one has taken responsi bility" for facilities repairs despite alleged prior written notice to the Board and administration. There is no evidence to support the conclusion.

Mold not properly removed continues to pose an inherent danger to students, teachers, staff, parents, and visitors. Response to Finding 4: The Board strongly disagrees. The Board does not have credible evidence to substantiate this finding. With respect to the Board's concerns regarding the information provided by the Grand Jury in support of this finding, please refer to the explanation provided under "Response to Finding I" above, as the Board harbors identical concerns with respect to the Grand Jury's support for its

Repairs have been done without benefit of required State oversight placing anyone entering these facilities at risk. Response to Finding 5: The Board strongly disagrees. The Board does not have credible evidence to substantiate this finding. The Grand Jury report, in its Fact 9, indicates that the repairs to which the foregoing finding makes reference were mold remediation and related repair projects which the District completed in or about 20 I 0-20 II. The Board does not have any evidence showing that such projects were subject to approval by the State of California Depal1ment of General Services' Division of the State Architect ("DSA"). To the contrary, the Board is informed and believes that the mold remediation and repair projects referenced by the Grand Jury were specifically exempt from DSA approval based on the type and the extent of the work involved. Moreover, the District engaged the services of licensed, certified mold inspectors to complete the above-referenced mold remediation projects, which resulted in the issuance of a mold clearance certification. Based on the foregoing, the Board disagrees with the Grand Jury's finding that the District's previous mold remediation and related repair projects "placed anyone entering these facilities at risk" based on the absence of State oversight. No credible evidence exists to support the Grand Jury's conclusion.

Inadequate inspections have placed students, teachers, staff, parents and visitors attending school facilities in danger. Lack of detail in observing and accurately reporting sub-standard and dangerous conditions are obvious even to a layperson and should have been reported by experts hired by GVSD. Response to Finding 6: The Board strongly disagrees. No evidence exists to substantiate this finding. 005937.00009 12464549. Honorable Thomas M. Anderson Nevada County Superior Court September 23 , 2014 Page: 9 Once again, the above conclusion presupposes the fact that there are "dangerous conditions" at Grass Valley Charter School and Bell Hill Academy. As explained more particularly in the Board's responses to the Grand Jury's finding nos. 1, 2 and 4 herein, there is no credible evidence to support the Grand Jury's underlying factual determination concerning the existence of "dangerous conditions" at these sites. As such, the Grand Jury's conclusion that the District's facilities inspection experts did inadequate work rests on a factual foundation that has not been and cannot be substantiated. Based on the foregoing, the Board disagrees with the Grand Jury's finding that the District's previous facilities inspections were "inadequate" and therefore placed all persons present at these sites in "danger." The evidence does not support the conclusion.

Because GVSD officials created a MSDS book with unnecessary and inappropriate information, this places first responders at risk during emergencies as well as students, teachers, staff, parents, and visitors attending school facilities if immediate fU'st aid is needed to be applied while awaiting medical care. Response to Finding 7: While the Grand Jury did not direct the Board to respond to Finding 7, it is clear that Finding 7 is directed to the District. The Board has substantively responded to the allegations contained in

Mixed jurisdictions and agency responsibilities can complicate enforcement efforts. Agree.

Very few city and county agencies accurately track incidents or costs associated with PVTs. Agree. The Department of Social Services tracks the number and cost of services for General Assistance and nutritional assistance to individuals, who are homeless. In addition, Behavior-al Health tracks the costs of providing housing and mental health treatment services to its clients, who may be homeless. Numerous cost studies have shown that providing shelter and basic services to the homeless population is significantly less expensive than the inevitable alternative: hospitalization, emergency medical treatment, prison/jail. Although the Grand Jury's definition of "transient and vagrant" does not stipulate an amount of time associated with that definition, the annual Homeless Count includes surveying homeless individuals and tracks the length of time individuals have been in Nevada County. For example, in 2013 of the 141 completed surveys, only ten responden ts indicated they had resided in Nevada County for less than one year and only one individual indicated they were "just passing through." In contrast, 74 individuals 2 indicated they have been in the county their whole lives or more than 5 years up to. Many statistics are maintained on homeless and low income populations; however the term "Panhandlers, Vagrants, and Transients (PVT)" is not a term the County uses and is not a stand-alone tracked category.

Forming a single Nevada County Fire Authority would allow opportunities to staff for promotion opportunities, uniform advanced training, diversity of assignment, cost savings for taxpayers and uniform operations for the residents across western Nevada County. Response The City agrees.

If a JPA is successful, there will be substantial saving in the administrative overhead cost. Response The City partly agrees. The amount of savings realized depends upon the structure of the administrative staff. Saving may be expected; however, care must be taken to avoid overstating likely fiscal benefits. Telephone (530) 274-4310 - Fax (530) 274-4399

The four fire agencies, NCCFD, GVFD, PVFPD and NCFD serving the vast majority of western Nevada County will soon be without fire chiefs, the highest level of management, creating an opportune time to explore reorganization. Response The City agrees. The City of Grass Valley, Nevada County Consolidated Fire District and Penn Valley Fire District are currently managed with Interim Chief Officers; the Fire Chief of Nevada City is a half time position. The four agencies, absent a seated, full time Fire Chief had a unique opportunity for collaboration of a Fire Chief. Although Nevada County Consolidated has apPointed a new Chief and Penn Valley Fire may be preparing to do so, this opportunity may arise again in the future. In any event, the City will continue to pursue cooperation with its neighboring agencies to ensure the highest level of service at the best price for residents and property owners in the City and the surrounding communities we help serve. Telephone (530) 274-4310 - Fax (530) 274-4399

An inter-jurisdictional task force with members from city and county law enforcement and fire, probation, code compliance, environmental health, homeless advocates, the chambers of commerce, and interested citizens should be able to come up with a plan, using existing laws and codes for resolving the situation with the PVTs. Partially Agree. Thus far, no community in the country has found a long term solution to dealing with the issues related to homelessness. However, existing efforts include: 1. The Homeless Resource Council of the Sierras' ongoing workgroup, the Nevada County Coordinating Council, meets monthly in Nevada County. The group consists of homeless advocates, non-profit leaders, mental health professionals, and county staff (HHSA) to address homeless outreach/ intake/assessment, prevention of housing loss, rapid re-housing, emergency shelter, transitional housing, permanent housing, and supportive housing. 2. Coordination between law Enforcement and Social Services exists through Eligibility Worker visits to the Wayne Brown Correctional facility and Probation offices to assist recently released individuals and probationers to apply for Medi-Cal. Life skills and financial planning classes are offered to these groups as well as an evidence based practice to improve self-sufficiency skills and reduce recidivism rates. 3. The Community Development Agency routinely coordinates with the Sheriffs Office and other county departments to enforce existing codes and regulations. 3 ~ B. RESPONSES TO RECOMMENDATIONS