Received JAN 3 0 2007 Nevada County Board of Supervisors Wada Count*

Conclusions 54

• CL1
  Citizens of Nevada County should be aware that in 2005-2006, the County will distribute more than $4 million of Federal, State, and County money to various Outside Service Providers (OSPs) helping to improve the effectiveness of social services provided to citizens.
• CL2
  Funds provided to OSPs are usually targeted for specific services.
• CL3
  The County must use certain types of mental health and child care facilities located outside of the County because there are no known facilities or OSPs available within the County that are capable of serving or have the capacity to serve those specific needs. The use of such facilities outside the County can cause a hardship to citizens and their families.
• CL4
  A computer aided County system to track over $4 million in programs to the various OSPs would enhance responsible fiscal management and be a tool for identifying possible duplication of services.
• CL5
  Homelessness in Nevada County is not an individual city or community issue; it is a regional issue. Regardless of why people are homeless, the fact remains that we have a segment of our population, many of whom are children, who do not have a place to live. Their first recourse is the Nevada County Department of Social Services. Temporary assistance and shelter is available from volunteer organizations, which include the Emergency Assistance Coalition and Hospitality House.
• CL6
  A positive attitude toward the homeless is needed to continue raising funds to provide needed services.
• CL7
  Substance abuse, lack of affordable housing, and low-paying entry-level employment opportunities are barriers to those who are trying to become self-sufficient. Grand Jury 0506 City
• CL8
  Projected annual capital improvement expenditures to upgrade Sanitation District No. 1 (SD#1) wastewater treatment plants (paid by ratepayers, not with County funds) are larger than the total Nevada County budgeted capital improvements for FY 2005/06 and FY 2006/07.
• CL9
  Annual sewage rates in SD#1 have been increasing markedly in recent years, and are projected to continue increasing. From fiscal years 2001/02 to 2005/06 (a four-year interval) rates increased by an average of 168% (were 2.68 times larger) for the 5,587 customers in then existing Zones 1 through 9. From fiscal years 2005/06 to 2008/09 (a three-year interval) rates are forecast to increase by an average of 39% for the 5,689 customers in Zones 1 through 11. The average annual sewer bill across zones will have increased from $299 to $1,133 in the total seven-year interval. The largest increases have been in the three stream-discharge zones, which are upgrading their wastewater treatment plants to meet ever stricter water quality requirements.
• CL10
  SD#1 policy of staffing the Cascade Shores Wastewater Treatment Plant only part time puts a premium on equipment reliability, an emergency holding tank, and automatic accident control systems.
• CL11
  Effective communications between SD#1 staff and the California Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board appear to have broken down during the immediate aftermath of the Cascade Shores landslide.
• CL12
  Although the DOTS Wastewater Operations organization chart, complete with names, titles and phone numbers of each SD#1 staff member, is included in annual reports to the Grand Jury 0506 COUNTY CVB for each of the three stream-discharge WWTPs, there appears to have been considerable doubt on the part of the CVB as to who was the on-site person in charge at various stages of the Cascade Shores landslide and spill.
• CL13
  Large fines (Administrative Civil Liabilities), such as the $574,000 proposed against the Cascade Shores Wastewater Treatment Plant, are a real possibility at Lake Wildwood and Lake of the Pines.
• CL14
  It is unlikely that LWW or LOP would qualify as a low median income area, as is Cascade Shores, in order to apply any fines toward required upgrades of their WWTPs; thus, fines may result in increased LWW and LOP sewage rates.
• CL15
  Because there was no running log of violations until recently, the SD#1 Board of Directors and the County Executive Officer did not have sufficient information to make appropriate management decisions and to address the mounting potential financial impact of the Mandatory Minimum Penalties.
• CL16
  The $350,000 Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board penalty in December 2003 against the Colfax Wastewater Treatment Plant should have provided a warning to the SD#1 Board of Directors that similarly large cumulative penalties could be imposed against the three stream-discharge plants in SD#1.
• CL17
  Little consideration is given for the special circumstances of small, rural communities served by small Wastewater Treatment Plants. For example, fixed Mandatory Minimum Penalties impact rural sewage service ratepayers significantly more than they impact ratepayers in larger districts, resulting in an unfair burden on rural customers. A $3000 fine levied against Cascade Shores would translate to $36.14 for each of its 83 ratepayers, whereas the same fine for the same violation levied against Los Angeles would translate to a small fraction of a penny for each of its more than two million ratepayers.
• CL18
  The complexities of water quality control regulations put a severe burden on small Wastewater Treatment Plant staffs.
• CL19
  Recognizing and reporting incidents of suspected elder abuse is critical to protecting our senior citizens.
• CL20
  Education aids seniors in ascertaining risk of abuse and how to avoid or counter it.
• CL21
  Information is available regarding health and financial questions, investment fraud prevention and scams involving home improvements.
• CL22
  Law enforcement and the courts can aid in preventing elder abuse through effective enforcement when acts of abuse do occur.
• CL23
  Senior services can help deter abuse through education and assistance programs.
• CL24
  The Wayne Brown Correctional Facility is not adequate to accommodate inmates who must be segregated according to classification guidelines.
• CL25
  Officer safety and facility security can be compromised when lone, unmonitored officers perform inmate counts within the inmate housing area.
• CL26
  Inmates who are not thoroughly searched when they return from outside of Wayne Brown Correctional Facility could import contraband and jeopardize the security of the facility.
• CL27
  Holding areas and multi-purpose rooms not routinely searched prior to or after inmate presence could jeopardize the security of the facility and the safety of staff and inmates.
• CL28
  The inmate grievance procedure appears adequate. There is a well-established protocol for the review process by higher-ranking officers.
• CL29
  The public, including young children, is exposed to a potentially dangerous situation when prisoners are walked to and from the holding facility.
• CL30
  The public is exposed to potentially dangerous situations when the inmate worker is left unmonitored.
• CL31
  The high-security fence enclosure would enhance security of the holding facility and safety of the officers and public.
• CL32
  A new regional correctional facility would benefit the Town of Truckee and the counties of Nevada, Placer, Sierra and El Dorado.
• CL33
  Many juveniles entering juvenile hall are determined to be taking several prescription drugs that may be inappropriately prescribed (poly-pharmaceutical drug use).
• CL34
  Poly-pharmaceutical drug use can be a serious problem because many wards are in Juvenile Hall because of illegal drug use.
• CL35
  The use of non-medical Juvenile Hall staff in the absence of contracted health care providers could lead to misdiagnosis.
• CL36
  Lack of eyewash basins in the kitchen and laundry could lead to serious injury to the wards and staff.
• CL37
  Some security procedures need improvement.
• CL38
  compared to libraries throughout the state. The scope of services provided, the public support evidenced by the numbers of patrons visiting the libraries, the large and active circulation of books and materials, are indicative of a highly successful library system and program. The Nevada County Library revenues rank near the bottom when compared to the
• CL39
  operating budgets of other libraries in Group 4.CI The Nevada County Library is under-budgeted, and therefore, must rely on its reserve
• CL40
  funds for normal operations. The Library should be in a financial position to save these funds for unforeseen circumstances and future facility expansions. The decrease in the library allocations from the State of California has had a detrimental
• CL41
  effect on the Nevada County Library. The Nevada County Library has fewer available books per capita, ranking it near the
• CL42
  bottom when compared to other libraries in Group 4. The Nevada County Library staff ratios rank near the bottom when compared to other
• CL43
  libraries in Group 4. In spite of the fact that three locations are significantly space limited and "bursting at the
• CL44
  seams", the annual Nevada County Facilities Master Plan does not include library expansion in the scope of future facility needs. An increase in open hours would improve library services and accessibility to more
• CL45
  citizens of Nevada County. The literacy program, while underutilized, is valuable to the community. It enlists
• CL46
  numerous volunteer instructors, and could be expanded.
• CL47
  Library facilities designated for children and their corresponding programs are exemplary, well staffed and extensively used. The Paws to Read program is an example of a great way to help reluctant reading children want to read. C1 Group 4: Libraries serving populations ranging from 60,000 to 100,000. Grand Jury 0506 Schools and Library
• CL48
  The Nevada County Friends of the Library, The Friends of the Truckee Library, and The Nevada County Library Foundation are unique volunteer organizations that contribute to a variety of Library projects. Their programs are commendable in terms of longevity, consistent substantial fund raising, and broad services support to the Libraries.
• CL49
  The Nevada County Reads project is a valuable service to the community.
• CL50
  NID's $24,000,000 underestimation of revenues over the last six years has had a substantial impact on the rate setting process.
• CL51
  Delays in completing more than 50% of scheduled projects have resulted in increasing the cost of projects.
• CL52
  The current NID practice of under-running the Capital budget due to delays in project schedules has contributed significantly to year end surpluses.
• CL53
  A perceived under-funding of the Operations and Maintenance (O&M) budget has been the basis of much of NID's proposed rate increases.
• CL54
  The recently adopted process of budgeting day-to-day operations separately from construction program requirements appears to be a valid way to manage and control revenues and expenses.