Nevada County Grand Jury • 2000-2001

Received JUN 2 7 2001 Nevada County Board of Supervisors Civil Grand Jury*

Published: June 29, 2001 49 pages Consolidated Report

View Original PDF

⚠️ 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 17 findings

The Nevada County Air Park, built in the 1930s, was given to the county in 1957 by Charles Litton's Loma Rica Industrial Park Corporation, subject to certain conditions. The conditions were stated in a signed agreement that specified, among other things, that: "Said property will be maintained in such condition that airplanes and aircraft may use the same with safety on a year round basis." "County agrees to appoint an airport commission to manage and control the operation of the property..."

Studies have found that continued operation of the airport has significant economic and safety value to the county.

The airport has operated under temporary operating permits since 1995 because of unsafe conditions. CalTrans, acting for the FAA, issued a letter of closure of the airport for night operations in 1996 because the county did not solve an obstruction problem. A second letter of closure was issued in 2000 because the county still had not solved the problem. Night landings were restricted in 1996 and then eliminated for a period in 2000, and the airport is still operating under a temporary permit.

In 1997 the county was offered free used light poles to support obstruction warning lights as required by the FAA. Two years later, the poles were sold to another buyer after the county failed to act.

The county now expects the lighting project to cost $245,000, plus the cost of tree trimming and removal.

Boards of Supervisors did not enforce an existing Public Utility Code and a Nevada County Ordinance requiring residents to keep their trees from obstructing the runway. Consequently, the county paid for the purchase and installation of lights in 1997 instead of requiring trees to be trimmed. In 2000, the county required trees on private property to be trimmed or removed but paid the $79,000 cost out of taxpayer funds.

The county established an Airport Commission in the 1980s. The commission's by-laws specify that it is an advisory body only, contrary to the Litton agreement. It has no authority over the airport, and no budgetary input.

Within Nevada County government structure, the airport is an "Enterprise Fund." An enterprise fund is to create its own operating revenue.

The airport's sources of operating revenue are fuel sales, hanger fees, aircraft tie-down fees, paid by the California Department of Forestry, as well as some tax revenue. The airport manager and the Airport Commission have no decision-making authority about airport The county has not clearly defined the decision-making authority for airport revenues. revenues.

F10

The airport has typically operated at a deficit. Nevada County "loans" funds to the airport to cover expenses incurred to comply with FAA and CAlTrans regulations. Debt presently owed to the County is nearly $1 million.

F11

The Grand Jury has not been able to track airport financial actions from BOS authorizations through to airport spending, despite questioning the Auditor-Controller, reviewing BOS records, interviewing the CAO, examining county financial statements, and examining airport financial records.

F12

The airport's sources of funds for capital improvements are FAA grants, CAlTrans grants, and local funds. When the airport underwent a $5,900,000 improvement project in 1995, funding for the project was 90% FAA grant, 4.5% state grant, and 5.5% county funds (by way of a CalTrans-provided loan). The county loaned the funds to the airport, supposedly to be repaid through operating revenue.

F13

The county employs an airport manager. The airport manager has reported to various county staff members, always ultimately reporting to the BOS by way of the CAO. A new manager, with extensive airport management experience, was hired effective February 5, 2001.

F14

The BOS has adopted an Airport Master Plan and an Airport Business Development Plan. There is no operating plan. CONCLUSIONS

F15

Under current county organization, many of the above programs have been fragmented and parceled out to other departments. For example, the Environmental Health Department is responsible for food establishment inspections. Currently such inspections are scheduled to be carried out once a year. As another example, the Behavioral Health Department carries out mental health medical functions under the supervision of a non-medical administrator.

F16

The California Code of Regulations and the California Health and Safety Code specify 10 county duties and responsibilities (Appendix C) and 38 county health officer duties and responsibilities (Appendix D).

F17

Title 17, Chapter 3, California Code of Regulations states that the county health officer should devote "full time to official duties and these duties shall constitute his primary responsibility and no other activities shall interfere with performance of his official duties". CONCLUSIONS

Recommendations 9

R1

Empower a new Airport Commission, responsible to the board, to manage and control the operation of the airport.
R2

Assure that an operating plan is produced that identifies and expedites a path to financial independence.
R3

Assure that the $1 million indebtedness is repaid to the county.
R4

Develop an effective follow-up process to track progress against the plan and require strict financial accountability.
R5

Track what happened to funds authorized by the BOS for the airport.
R6

Consider the option of private construction of future buildings on county owned land for leasing to the county where the occupant is reimbursed the leasing cost by the state.
R7

Coordinate with other government entities (e.g., Nevada City and Grass Valley) to determine the feasibility of building design and location.
R8

Look for an economic use of the leased 2,300 sq. ft. building (referred to in finding 7a.) in Grass Valley. If there is no economic use, negotiate to buy out the lease to save some portion of the $250,000.
R9

Complete the task force recommendation of increased development fees to finance other county building expansion. RESPONSES Board of Supervisors – no later than 90 days County Administrator- no later than 60 days 9.9 . . COURT WORK RELEASE PROGRAM REASON FOR INVESTIGATION The Nevada County Civil Grand Jury has the responsibility to review county departments and processes to determine if they are meeting the needs of the community. The Grand Jury wanted to insure that appropriate procedures and practices are in place to minimize county liability and insure participant safety in the court sponsored work release program, hereafter referred to as "program." PROCEDURE FOLLOWED The Grand Jury interviewed county personnel at several levels of county government, which included the Director of General Services/Purchasing, County Risk Manager, County Chief Probation Officer, and county employees that supervise program participants. The Grand Jury reviewed county documentation pertaining to the program.

Conclusions 41

CL1

Since 1957 Boards of Supervisors have disregarded the three basic requirements of the Litton agreement to keep the airport open, operate it in a safe manner, and to establish an airport commission to manage and control the airport.
CL2

Historically, Boards of Supervisors have authorized many of the actions and funds necessary to accomplish the safety and other needs of the airport, yet failed to follow through to assure completion.
CL3

Boards of Supervisors have spent an enormous amount of time on airport issues without fully resolving the problems of safety and financial viability.
CL4

Under the present system, there is no operating plan, no one with the authority to implement an operating plan, and woefully inadequate financial information and accountability.
CL5

Poor systems and weak oversight of the airport have resulted in emergency expenditure of taxpayer money by the Board of Supervisors to avoid airport closure.
CL6

There are not enough sheriff's deputies to respond immediately to all emergency calls throughout western Nevada County. Likewise, unfilled positions at the jail result in serious safety risks to correctional officers and inmates and increase financial liability for taxpayers. This puts citizens and deputies alike in real peril because they lack the protection they have the right to expect.
CL7

Nevada County deputies' wages and retirement benefits are significantly lower than comparable counties. This has effectively stymied Nevada County's attempts to recruit and retain deputy sheriffs and correctional officers. Without wage hikes and upgrades to the retirement package, the situation will worsen.
CL8

The loss of experienced deputies and correctional officers to other counties is extremely costly and a waste of taxpayers' money. Nevada county residents pay for and deserve better police protection and adequate jail security.
CL9

The county has spent thousands of dollars for professional consultants to prepare reports addressing future county workspace needs and possible solutions. These reports quickly become obsolete as the planning information contained within the reports changes.
CL10

County buildings are widely dispersed throughout Grass Valley, Nevada City, and to a much lesser degree within Truckee. The economic and service benefits from a "campus" setting are being lost as is the availability of suitable land to accommodate this concept.
CL11

The effectiveness of the Capital Facilities Task Force established to address short and long- term county space needs is impossible to evaluate because of the lack of action or formal minutes. Department heads appear to be independently looking to acquire additional workspace for county employees. This uncoordinated independent action can only cause further dispersion of facilities throughout the county.
CL12

Constructing a new building for the sheriff in the Rood Center campus may not be a viable option because of limited parking, drainage problems and possible design objections by Nevada City.
CL13

Even though the program has a good safety record, there is a potential for serious county liability that could be mitigated with properly written guidelines for the worksite supervisors.
CL14

The ability of the Senior Building and Grounds Specialist to meet job assignments requires a continuing availability of program participants. RECOMMENDATONS
CL15

There are no apparent procedures and practices in place to guarantee that the county is receiving agreed-to fees from all franchises operating within the county.
CL16

If the County Code requires an audit of the cable TV franchise, audits of the other franchises should also be required.
CL17

The County Code does not include all utility franchises within the county (i.e. PG&E). It does not guide the method for calculating all franchise fees due to the county.
CL18

Improvements at the substation provide increased protection for inmates.
CL19

The additional computer workstations will allow personnel to better handle emergency situations.
CL20

The Wayne Brown Correctional Facility was understaffed 33% as of December 31,2000. This situation jeopardizes officers and inmates. The risk of financial liability to the county also increases. 1.0 The county continues to lose qualified correctional officers. Reasons cited include low
CL21

salaries, mandatory overtime, high levels of stress and an inadequate retirement plan.
CL22

Recommendations from the previous Grand Juries regarding bringing the number of staff at this facility up to the Board of Corrections requirement have not been met. The number of qualified staff continues to decline. The sheriff's department is having to supplement jail staff with a deputy from Truckee and a bailiff from the courthouse.
CL23

The fragmentation of public health duties and responsibilities across county departments impedes the development and implementation of a coordinated county health plan.
CL24

The Grand Jury believes that the county's responsibilities are not being met. See Appendix C.
CL25

Nevada County has lacked the guidance and professional leadership that would be available from a full-time county health officer.
CL26

The Grand Jury is concerned by information received that political implications would be considered before making public health decisions.
CL27

The Grand Jury is convinced that a part-time county health officer cannot carry out the full range of duties listed by the National Association of County and City Health Officials and by State Regulations. See Appendix D.
CL28

The shootings at the Behavioral Health Services were the catalyst that led to an examination of the operations of that department. In its investigation, the Grand Jury was dismayed to find an organization with severe problems in management, in fiscal planning, and in providing services to its clients. Further, the county has failed to pursue initiatives to acquire sufficient state, federal and private grant funding.
CL29

The department has had a great deal of management turnover, which is always a source of turmoil, and little focus by county senior management. Problems have been allowed to persist. Poor financial planning has led the department to use up its discretionary reserves to meet normal operating costs. This has occurred when the economy was booming and sales tax revenue was at a high level. The department faces empty reserves just as the economy is slowing and tax revenue could decline.
CL30

Despite spending beyond its means, the department has been over-focused on meeting budget to the detriment of the client. For example, to save money the department experimented with processing applicants for mental health services in a group, rather than individually discussing their problems and needs. This was done despite warnings from mental health professionals that this would only discourage people from seeking needed help. There is little medical influence. Expensive psychiatrists are independent contractors working part-time for the county who are used in a limited role and are not involved in department decision-making. Non-medical people cannot oversee psychiatrists, nor can county employees supervise independent contractors. There is no one in charge of the individual client's case.
CL31

The new Behavioral Health Director has taken on the massive job of curing many problems in this organization. He appears to be an experienced and able administrator with a good understanding of what is needed. He should be fully supported in his efforts to make needed changes, beginning with his proposal to hire a full-time medical officer who can provide medical direction.
CL32

The NID Water Rates Committee and Board of Directors do not have a completed Cost of Service Study to use as a guide in recommending and justifying user rate changes.
CL33

The anticipated income from the proposed water rate increase is a minuscule portion of NID's reserves and would have little effect on the total value of NID reserves.
CL34

would be lost, resulting in drastically reduced services. In order to receive consideration, grant applications for construction projects must include
CL35

preliminary plans, specifications and costs.
CL36

Respondents did not always adhere to the time frame given in the California Penal Code in their responses to the Grand Jury.
CL37

Some entities are unfamiliar with the response procedure for a Grand Jury report. A copy of the California Penal Code Section 933.05, Response Format, has been included with all 2000-2001 Grand Jury reports.
CL38

The new Carl F. Bryan, II Juvenile Assessment Center will provide the staff with needed space and security to perform duties and provide wards with expanded educational and rehabilitation programs.
CL39

The Grass Valley water treatment plant is well operated and is a credit to the city.
CL40

The expansion of the Grass Valley wastewater treatment plant is one of the largest public works projects ever done in Nevada County and is the result of commendable forward planning by the city
CL41

The Nevada City water treatment plant is well-operated and maintained and water supply is ample.

* 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.