Sierra County Grand Jury Report 2005- 2006

ii

GRAND JURY

REPORT

Sierra County

2005- 2006

Sierra County Grand Jury Report 2005- 2006

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

GRAND JURY LETTER June 19, 2006 ...................................................... iv

2005- 2006 GRAND JURY ROSTER AND COMMITTEES.............................................. v

GRAND JURY CONTINUITY & HISTORY CHART......................................................... v

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS........................................................................................... 1

COUNTY GOVERNMENT .............................................................................................. 4

AUDIT AND FINANCE .................................................................................................... 6

PUBLIC WORKS............................................................................................................. 9

SPECIAL DISTRICTS ................................................................................................... 13

A. Water Districts and Other Water Systems .............................................................. 14

B. Fire Protection Districts........................................................................................... 15

C. Ambulance Services ................................................................................................. 16

LAW ENFORCEMENT.................................................................................................. 17

HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES .............................................................................. 18

SCHOOLS..................................................................................................................... 20

CITY OF LOYALTON.................................................................................................... 21

APPENDIX.................................................................................................................... 22

A. Notes on County Finances and Employee Benefits

B. Sierra Booster Article, “ Making the City of Loyalton a Destination to Gain Sustain-able

Fiscal Revenues and Infrastructure Health”

C. Sierra Sun Article, “ Sierra Valley ranch lands shielded from development”

Sierra County Grand Jury Report 2005- 2006

iv

GRAND JURY LETTER June 19, 2006

The Honorable William Pangman

Presiding Judge, Superior Court

County of Sierra

Downieville, California 95936

Dear Judge Pangman,

I am pleased to present the 2005- 2006 Sierra County Grand Jury Final Report for your

review and consideration. We do have a few items we are recommending to next year’s

panel for further investigation, such as compensation and benefits of school board

members as well as citizens’ complaints possibly requiring further examination.

I would like to thank you personally for the opportunity to serve as foreperson. It has

been rewarding, extremely educational, even enlightening. I have so enjoyed working

with each and every person on the panel. A wonderful blend of personalities, ideas and

ideals has made our meetings enjoyable as well as very productive.

At this time I would like to thank my fellow grand jurors for all their valuable time and

diligent efforts that have contributed to the completion of this final report. We only had

two members resign ( one moved to Nevada and the other reluctantly because of job

conflict). The two replacements and those who hung in there to the end did a remark-able

job. I’m proud to have served alongside them. We have three members who will

be “ hold- overs” for next year’s panel, and that’s commendable and will contribute

greatly to the continuity and areas needing further study. Next year’s panel, embrace

them! They are hard workers.

Thank you to all the department heads and supervisors and others who took time out of

their very busy schedules to meet with us. We appreciate all their preparedness as well

as their willingness to answer our many questions. A special thank you to Mary Jungi

and her office for letting us participate in and observe the election process twice.

And, finally, my fellow jurors and I would like to thank you Judge Pangman, as well as

Jan Hamilton and County Counsel Jim Curtis for all their support, advice and counsel

and always being there in a timely manner to return calls and answer questions.

It has been a pleasure to serve!

Sincerely,

Vicki Barney, Foreperson

Sierra County Grand Jury, 2005- 2006

Sierra County Grand Jury Report 2005- 2006

v

2005- 2006 GRAND JURY ROSTER AND COMMITTEES

The following Sierra County residents were sworn to serve on this grand jury:

Vicki Barney, Foreperson Loyalton

Lynn McKechnie Sierraville

Louise Bayard de Volo Verdi

Don Harvey Calpine

Carol Iman Sierraville

Richard DeVore Loyalton

James Johnston Downieville

Barbara O’Donnell Downieville

Wendy Church- Bergstrom Loyalton

Mary Johnsen Downieville

Laraine Sei Loyalton

This jury organized itself into committees for the purposes of research, study and prepa-ration

of reports. All reports have been approved by the whole panel. The twelve

committees were as follows:

Audit and Finances

Board of Supervisors

City of Loyalton

Continuity

County Government

Editorial

Health and Human Services

Law Enforcement

Public Relations

Public Works

Schools

Special Districts

GRAND JURY CONTINUITY & HISTORY CHART

Eighteen- Year History of Investigations

Year: 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Area

Investigated

Animal

Control

Assessor X X X X X X

Audit and

Finance

X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Board of

Supervisors

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

City of

Loyalton

X X X X X X X

County Clerk X X X X X X X X X

County Counsel X X X X X X

Courts,

Probation

X X X X X

District

Attorney

X X X X X

Human Services X X X X X X X X X X X X

Law

Enforcement

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Public Works X X X X X X X X X X X X

Schools X X X X X X X X X

Special Districts X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Treasurer X X X X X

Sierra County Grand Jury Report 2005- 2006

1

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

The members of the Sierra County Board of Supervisors were interviewed individually

and several Board meetings were attended. Questions were asked that would describe

the climate, goals and accomplishments. Fiscal responsibility came up several times.

Questions were asked regarding long- and short- range planning and how they were go-ing

to meet future budgets with declining revenues and cutbacks. More questions were

presented dealing with department heads and how they would deal with negative public

comments. The non- elected department heads are appointed or hired by the Board and

are answerable to the Board. The Planning and Building Department came up several

times during the interviews.

Observations

The Board of Supervisors meetings were orderly and used Roberts Rules of Order.

Each member had an opportunity to discuss the issues that came up on the agenda.

The agenda was followed. County counsel was present at all the meetings we attended.

Findings

1. The non- elected department heads are appointed or hired by the Board and are

answerable to them.

2. In some areas, there is not enough long- range planning or code development to

deal with unusual or unforeseen situations. Because detail is lacking some zon-ing

related decisions have been unresolved for years.

3. Two concerns noted in the 2000- 2001 Grand Jury Report are still relevant: a) too

often action items on the agendas for the Board meetings are held over ( contin-ued)

without apparent need; b) the Board does not follow the advice of task force

and advisory committees often enough.

4. At times some members of the Board ask questions about issues that had been

reviewed already and were in their packets, only to delay or postpone the ap-proval

process. The Board’s response to the last grand jury report was delayed

and fragmented with regard to specific jury recommendations.

5. Community members often have an incomplete understanding of the work of the

Board and its decisions and public participation is minimal.

6. County personnel must often miss an entire day of work to attend out of town

Board meetings.

7. In deciding how to set pay increases for themselves, the Board members ap-proved

an ordinance in 2002 that set their salaries at 18% of the county superior

court judge. Due to declining revenue, pay increases for the board members for

the last year or two did not occur. This year the decision was made to amend the

Sierra County Grand Jury Report 2005- 2006

2

ordinance to allow for a $ 241 per month pay increase which set current salary at

approximately $ 2237 per month. Also included in the compensation is a life in-surance

policy of $ 50,000 and a health benefit package that is the same as that

received by the department heads.

8. There is a perception by some community members that planning applications

are not dealt with in a timely and consistent manner.

Recommendations to the Board of Supervisors

Several recommendations that can be implemented without additional funding:

1. The Board of Supervisors ( or, preferably, the administrator recommended in # 10

below) should conduct annual reviews with each department head. This will pro-vide

an opportunity to discuss and resolve problem areas that arise between the

department and the public or between the Board and the department. The Board

can give direction to the department heads to insure the departments are follow-ing

the management directions of the Board.

2. The Board should engage in long- range planning and code development that

would include alternatives that may be pursued. Hopefully this would help to

prevent unforeseen events or situations from resulting in actions taken without

proper thought, planning and consideration of future consequences.

3. The Board needs to review past grand jury recommendations and consider those

recommendations that are still relevant today.

4. Board packets should be studied prior to the board meetings. If items are on the

top priority list, they should be resolved as soon as possible and then removed.

In order to resolve problems as soon as possible, it would behoove the Board to

follow the advice of task forces and advisory committees.

5. The Board should respond to the Grand Jury report completely and in the time

frame required ( 90 days).

6. Board of Supervisors meeting minutes should be posted consistently in public

places in addition to the website. Additionally, in order to keep their constituents

informed, the supervisors should contribute news reports to the local papers.

This would help county members gather necessary information about county af-fairs

in a friendly way as well as allow them to become familiar with all the

supervisors and their many duties.

7. All Board of Supervisors meetings should be held at the county seat unless a

significant number of local concerns indicate the meeting should be held else-where.

8. Part of the job of the grand jury involves looking at the salary or compensation of

the elected officials in the county. Since responsibilities for county boards vary

considerably due to county population and other factors, it is recommended that

Sierra County Grand Jury Report 2005- 2006

3

the role expectations of Board of Supervisors members be decided upon and

written up in a formal document. These expectations should be as specific as

possible and be generated using community input. Community members often

do not have a realistic idea of all that is required to perform this job well. This

would allow for a more accurate assessment and recognition of the many duties

and responsibilities of board members by the county voters and would give a

more defendable rationale to be used in setting appropriate compensation.

9. The Board should meet with the director of planning to determine if there is a

problem with the building application process, and if one does exist, they should

find ways to resolve this issue.

One recommendation that would require additional funds should be considered.

10. The board should consider hiring a central administrator of county government

who could supervise department heads, assist in long- range planning, coordinate

follow- up on Board issues, and many other tasks that would increase efficiency.

Compensation for this position might come indirectly from new grants and re-duced

lawsuits achieved through the efforts of the administrator.

Sierra County Grand Jury Report 2005- 2006

4

COUNTY GOVERNMENT

In this time when the State is taking more money, returning less, and adding more

costly requirements and mandates to county government, a review of county govern-ment

operations was conducted.

Findings

1. Sierra County does not have a central administrative officer carrying out the di-rectives

of the Board of Supervisors and coordinating and assisting department

heads. This leaves staff without central coordination and puts the board in an

awkward supervisory role. With many senior staff being elected, only the direc-tors

of the Planning and Transportation Department and the Human Services

Department and the county counsel are directly answerable to the Board of Su-pervisors.

The board does have the leverage of providing or withholding

operating funds for the various departments, but does not always get the full co-operation

of the various operational managers. With the Board acting as a de

facto county administrator, it is easy for action items to slip through the cracks

and for the board to get bogged down in internal operational issues. Concern

was expressed in interviews and in the newspaper about incomplete communica-tion

and rivalry between departments and about some inefficiencies in county

operations.

2. Because of staff shortages, various duties that are outside their purviews have

been assigned to certain departments. For example, the offices of the district at-torney

and auditor each have a portion of personnel responsibilities plus other

duties; the office of the county clerk provides clerical assistance to the Board of

Supervisors; the Director of Planning and Transportation also has responsibility

for building, roads, emergency services, parks, and solid waste. He also writes

many of the items directed by the Board. An example of how this understaffing

detracts from primary responsibilities is an accounting mistake that escaped dis-covery

for quite some time because there was no cross- checking in an

understaffed office.

3. The “ continuing” Board of Supervisors meeting is held in Loyalton, requiring de-partment

heads to leave their offices and resource materials to attend those

meetings. The lost hours and inability to authoritatively field questions is a frus-trating

and costly situation. Additionally, the Loyalton residents have a city

government handling many of their issues, with the result that few of them attend

the locally held Board of Supervisors meetings.

4. The Government Committee of the Board of Supervisors advised them that pro-posals

should be sought and accepted from other attorneys in addition to the

incumbent during the annual selection process for the public defender.

Sierra County Grand Jury Report 2005- 2006

5

5. The County Counsel was often put in the untenable position of having to provide

advice to different entities on the same issue, and sometimes has insufficient

time available to meet all the needs for his counsel. This is addressed by con-tracting

with an outside law firm to supplement the County Counsel’s work, using

funds designated for this purpose.

Recommendations to the Board of Supervisors

1. A county administrative officer answerable to the Board of Supervisors, should

be hired to coordinate various directives of the board, assist and coordinate de-partment

heads, assure grants are written, and perform some of the duties that

have been farmed out to the departments. This administrator would also coordi-nate

and assist the non- elective senior staff, relieving the Board of Supervisors of

this responsibility. This person could also have grant- writing, risk management,

public relations and other duties.

2. By having an administrative officer to take on some of the various unrelated du-ties

that have been farmed out to other staff, the problem of their diluted services

would be addressed.

3. Board of Supervisors meetings should be held at the county seat. On the occa-sion

that the agenda centers on Loyalton or other areas, individual meetings from

time to time could be held at appropriate other locations.

4. The contract application process for the offices of Public Defender and County

Counsel should be open for attorneys other than the incumbents.

5. The marked inequality of compensation for the two attorneys, the county counsel

and the public defender, could well be examined by a future grand jury.

Sierra County Grand Jury Report 2005- 2006

6

AUDIT AND FINANCE

Information for this report was gathered from countywide and special district independ-ent

audits, budgets and other financial reports; meeting minutes; interviews with county

supervisors and managers; and observations made by county citizens.

The vitality of Sierra County has been sliding in recent years:

• young families are being priced out of the housing market as real estate values

increase, and employment opportunities lag,

• more properties are being used as second homes,

• there is an increasing necessity for residents to commute to larger cities for em-ployment,

and

• an increasing number of students are being transported to Truckee schools.

Some results of these and other factors have been:

• a decrease in community involvement and a shortage of volunteers,

• declining school enrollments,

• closures of the Sierraville and Pliocene Schools, and

• discontinuation of hospital services in the Sierra Valley

The above factors are compounded by the county’s financial downslide which has been

primarily due to the following:

1. Shortfalls resulting from the state’s recent financial crisis; these have the potential

to be repaid:

• temporary diversion of some property and sales taxes and other revenue to the

state for its funding crisis and

• loss of assessable land to government purchases and failure of some govern-ment

land users in the county to pay their share of property taxes.

2. Ongoing threats to the county’s financial health which include:

• increasing federal and state requirements which are costly to implement;

• increasing expenses as costs rise, but with little corresponding increase in reve-nues,

• the unexpected need to fund pension benefits which were expected to be self-funding,

• long- term infrastructure needs that are underfunded, and

• decreased revenues from timber sales.

County supervisors and managers and previous grand juries have all noted and sought

solutions for the strained county finances. Some of the solutions implemented include:

major staff cuts, a cap on the county’s share of employee health insurance premiums,

fees attached to new development, and other increased fees for county services.

There has been some recent improvement in county finances. Revenue budgeted for

2005- 2006 is 8% above the previous year’s revenue; the 2004- 2005 county expenses

did not exceed revenue; there is no longer an outstanding county loan; property tax

Sierra County Grand Jury Report 2005- 2006

7

revenues are increasing as land is sold and re- assessed; and some taxes diverted to

the state are now beginning to be replaced allowing some positions eliminated in the

past three years to be re- staffed. However, there are still many barriers to the county’s

long- term financial health.

Observations ( See Note 1 in Exhibits for more detail on the county’s finances)

For the county as a whole, independent audits for 2003- 2004 and 2004- 2005 found that

the financial statements fairly present the county’s financial position, and that generally

accepted accounting principles were being followed. Looking at a two- year period, Si-erra

county’s net assets remained stable, though they declined last year.

Independent audits were available for the following Special Districts: Cemetery Districts

1,2, 3 and 5, Fire Protection District 1, Sierra City Fire Protection District, the Downie-ville

Public Utility District, the Sierraville Public Utility District, the Alleghany and Calpine

Water Districts, the Sierra Valley Hospital District, and the Sierra Economic Develop-ment

District. The Downieville Fire District and Sierra City Fire District audits were not

received. Districts with budgets under $ 35,000 are required to have audits only every

five years.

Audits of most of the Special Districts reviewed found fair representation of district fi-nances,

with minor deficiencies in the smaller districts. An audit note pointed to the

continuing excess of expenditures over revenue in the Sierraville Public Utility District.

A potential risk was also noted in the high level of overdue loans and doubtful accounts

for the federally funded Community Development Block Grant ( CDBG) micro- enterprise

programs of the Sierra Economic Development District. Long- term potential financial

challenges identified for Special Districts by interviewees were 1) the absence of re-serve

funds for water districts to fund long- term system needs, and 2) the high cost of

complying with ever- growing costly state requirements relating to water, sewer, and

other areas, 3) a large number of failing septic systems and unaffordable replacement

costs under newer government requirements.

The cost of employee health insurance has increased significantly in recent years, but

the county’s share was recently capped at $ 850. The cost for the county’s share of

pension benefits increased by 235% between 2002- 2003 and 2004- 2005 to $ 986,000.

Pension funds are managed through the state PERS system. Until the recent stock

market decline which impacted PERS funds, pensions were not expected to require any

county funds. ( See Note 1 in Exhibits for more detail on benefits.)

In Grand Jury interviews, the large- scale potential solutions mentioned to the county’s

long- term financial challenges involve 1) increased assessments of county residents for

the services and infrastructure, and 2) mixed growth to increase both residential and

business taxes, with an emphasis on growth requiring few county services. Objections

to assessments are well known, and objections to growth come from those concerned

about how growth can change the nature of the community and their way of life. Poten-tial

smaller scale solutions mentioned included the formation of water district coalitions

to share resources such as the required state licensed water quality inspectors, and

some consolidation of special districts to reduce administrative costs such as those for

the audit, and maintaining records and boards.

Sierra County Grand Jury Report 2005- 2006

8

Findings

1. While the county’s financial situation has improved and there is the potential for

repayment of taxes taken or owed by the state, ongoing funding of the full com-plement

of county services needed is becoming increasingly difficult, and long-term

infrastructure needs are not being covered adequately. Though the expec-tation

is that county residents will step up and assess themselves to pay for the

services they need, this is happening only on a limited basis. A tendency of

community members not to get involved and to resist increased assessments, an

overworked staff, and the independence and multiplicity of Community Service

Areas and Special Districts are all barriers to the development of comprehensive

and creative long- term solutions to county funding challenges. The state’s con-trol

of most of the county’s cash flow and the resulting funding uncertainty and

frustration in the county are also barriers to long- term solution.

Recent decisions were made to reduce funding for Community Services Areas

( CSAs) and Special Districts from the general fund and to use their reserves to

fund services include hopes that area residents will step up to fund their own ser-vices.

All CSAs have an excess of expenses over revenue and decreasing fund

balances in the 2005- 2006 budget and lack the reserves to fund another year

( except Sierra Brooks Water and Solid Waste Enterprise Fund, which has future

infrastructure obligations).

2. The 2005- 2006 budget includes $ 344,742 for general fund contingencies and liti-gation

( 2% of the general fund budget), as compared to $ 0 budgeted in 2004-

2005. Some examples of the potential needs for these funds: a) litigation is

pending; b ) a potential $ 250,000 may be required from the general fund in rela-tion

to alleged misspending of a part of state Health and Human Services funds;

c) CSAs have deficit budgets plus unfunded services which may require unbud-geted

general funds.

3. The independent audit of county finances was not issued until late February, and

its financial reports included erroneous budget figures, causing the budgeted fig-ures

to appear vastly different from actual and to prompt a special audit note.

The correct budget figures show a much closer relationship to actual revenue

and expenditure, but in the several weeks following the audit’s distribution, those

receiving the audit did not note the major budget discrepancies or the audit note.

4. Several staff positions were cut because of funding shortages in the past few

years, and some of these are beginning to be refilled as revenue improves. A

lack of adequate staffing has meant that certain internal controls were missing,

such as was noted in the treasurer’s office by the independent auditor. Staff also

reported that time constraints and short- staffing have prevented double checking

of figures and thorough report preparation, and have delayed other tasks such as

the verification of departmental assets noted by the independent auditor.

5. The required independent audit for the City of Loyalton has not been completed

for 2004- 2005 and is expected by June 30 2006.

Sierra County Grand Jury Report 2005- 2006

9

Recommendations to Board of Supervisors (# 1- 4), County Auditor (# 3), City

Council of Loyalton (# 5)

1. Recent financial turnarounds deserve celebration and congratulations. However,

there have been accompanying costs, and long- term problems remain. State

decisions control much of the county’s funding flow, so long- term financial plan-ning

must continue to focus on the areas that are under the county’s control,

including assessments, fees for services, commercial development that requires

little county service, and infrastructure fees attached to new development. More

central leadership and community involvement are needed to develop and im-plement

a specific plan for long- term county financing. Specific responsibility and

high priority should be assigned to this plan, and it needs to include education of

the public and their involvement in owning and solving their service needs, and in

implementing long- term comprehensive solutions.

2. Funding for contingencies and litigation within the general fund is low at 2%. The

Board of Supervisors has acknowledged the need for this contingency fund and

should continue to raise its funding levels to avoid future financial crises.

3. In a county with declining financial indicators, oversight of county finances is an

especially important function of the Board of Supervisors. The yearly independ-ent

audit provides them with a comprehensive overview, evaluation and

recommendations by outside experts. Future audits should be accomplished in a

timely manner, with an early and careful review by the county auditor and Board

of Supervisors.

4. Understaffing weakens important internal controls and puts the county at risk. It

prevents double- checking of data and reports when deadlines must be met, and

can cause late and erroneous reporting. This can result in expensive fines or le-gal

action, in addition to compromising the efficiency of county operations. As

the county replaces some positions, and if it is forced to make future cuts, these

risks should be carefully considered.

5. The City Council of Loyalton should assure that required independent audits are

performed on a timely basis.

PUBLIC WORKS

There were no formal complaints to the grand jury in the public works area. Information

for this report was gathered by interviewing relevant county personnel, attending meet-ings

of the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission, listening to pertinent

comments from the community, and reading related documents and newspaper articles.

The Public Works Department includes building, transportation, planning, roads, parks

and emergency services. Of these components planning has seemed to generate the

most controversy over the years due to the many different views on land use and prop-erty

rights. The general plan for the county has been useful in many respects, and has

been amended since its inception. County decisions on regulating how property can be

Sierra County Grand Jury Report 2005- 2006

10

used and the steps that must be followed before a requested use or zoning change can

be approved have been a bone of contention. This is a problem that is not unique to

Sierra County.

Observations

Although there are many aspects to planning, land use planning seems to be the most

important problem presenting itself at the current time. There is an increasing pressure

for development to take place in the county. Many see it as a way to improve the eco-nomic

conditions of the county. Outside interests and land developers see it as a way

to make money. Others feel that our natural resources such as the Sierra Valley and

our forested and lakes areas are some of our most precious assets and are concerned

that they will be slowly destroyed by development that considers only economic inter-ests.

There could be financial benefits to the county from increases in property taxes and fi-nancial

benefits to personal property owners if more land was developed commercially

and residentially. However, this development would also require more revenue for the

county due to the increased services which would be needed to accommodate the

growth.

There is a push by some developers to direct the city of Loyalton in ways that would in-crease

the development potential of the city. ( See Sierra Booster newspaper article,

“ Making the City of Loyalton a Destination to Gain Sustainable Fiscal Revenues and In-frastructure

Health” in the appendix)

We are losing assessable land to government purchase. This land is taxable but the

money has to be appropriated by the state legislature; to date, this has not happened

and so the county has not received the money.

Various ranchland and habitat conservation groups have helped interested ranchers

protect their lands from development. The SIERRA SUN article in the appendix, “ Si-erra

Valley ranch lands shielded from development” described this, and it also noted, in

regard to Sierra Valley real estate: “ market pressures are coming east from Reno, about

25 minutes from the Sierra Valley, and Truckee, which is about the same distance.”

The Planning and Transportation Department appears to be using its financial re-sources

effectively and to have planned carefully to assure the county uses and does

not lose state or federal money that may be made available. Personnel have worked

cooperatively to create a climate of efficiency in a department which must deal with a

wide variety of demands.

Findings

1. The general plan for Sierra County is coming up for revision in three to four

years. A vision and long range planning goals for the county have not been de-termined.

The general plan is a policy statement, but a policy statement may not

have the legal authority necessary to prevent powerful interests from seeking to

change the guidelines of the plan to suit their own interests. The county devel-

Sierra County Grand Jury Report 2005- 2006

11

opment code is limited. There is no open space ordinance though this is required

by law, and this law has been circumvented in the county by doing single parcel

open space zoning. There are also no ordinances regarding wetlands, sewage,

grading, hillside, etc. This lack of code definition may leave the county vulner-able

to special interests and/ or the appearance of inconsistent decision- making.

This has left landowners in limbo for a significant amount of time. At the time of

this investigation, four developers are currently pushing for development in the

Sierra Valley.

2. Special treatment areas of the county and the Lakes Basin issues have yet to be

resolved.

3. Due to state funding and county budget restraints, lack of staff is a problem in the

Planning and Transportation Department. The county, though small in popula-tion,

has wide variety of property issues that must be addressed when decisions

are made. Some of the legal technicalities of these land use issues are not eas-ily

determined and may involve much research. Possibly because of this,

planning decision rationale is perceived by some to be unfair and biased. Thor-ough

and fair decisions require time and an adequate and knowledgeable staff.

The department lacks the planning staff to fully and carefully meet its obligations.

In a county with a small population and very limited funding, county workers are

expected to wear many hats.

4. The current county counsel part- time position does not provide for adequate legal

service. It is felt that this is not due to the competence of the current county

counsel but to lack of accessibility. Possibly due to time constraints, the county

counsel has not attended many planning commission meetings. There is a per-ception

by some that he does not or cannot spend enough time attending to this

county’s business.

5. The manner in which planning and building related decisions are made is not

fully understood by county residents. There is a perception that there are unnec-essary

delays in processing of permits and that permits are not always

processed in a consistent manner.

Recommendations to the Board of Supervisors (# 1- 6) and Public Works (# 7)

1. The county needs to take the time to provide the resources necessary to create a

development code that is specific and thorough. This needs to be done as soon

as possible.

2. The special treatment areas and the Lakes Basin issues need to be resolved in a

timely manner that respects all parties involved and the long- term vision for the

county. All participants in this decision- making process need to become fully in-formed

of all state, federal and local requirements that must be met when

deciding these issues.

Sierra County Grand Jury Report 2005- 2006

12

3. To complete all of its work in a timely and complete fashion, this department

needs to hire additional staff or farm out more work.

4. Since land use and zoning issues are becoming critical problems facing the

county, it is recommended that the Board of Supervisors puts a high priority on

assuring adequate legal representation. This may require making the county

counsel a full- time position or planning for more contracted legal services in this

area.

5. The Board of Supervisors needs to be proactive and develop a long- range vision

and plan for the county. Community involvement is important and the long- range

vision process needs to begin immediately.

6. The county needs to provide more information to the public on how decisions are

made. This could be in the form of a regular news article in the local papers, a

posting in public places, or possibly a roving community forum.

7. For better service to those seeking building permits, steps should be taken to as-sure

all building permit applicants receive all the information and forms required

by the county as part of their initial request, and that when the forms are submit-ted

they are immediately checked for completeness. A checklist for each type of

application would make the requirements clearer and help avoid delays.

Sierra County Grand Jury Report 2005- 2006

13

SPECIAL DISTRICTS

Special Districts are made up of fire protection districts, water districts, and cemetery

districts. Ambulance/ emergency response services have been subcontracted by the

county in Sierra Valley and are provided by the Downieville Fire Department in the

western end of the county. All of the special districts are required to have an audit

every five years if they receive less than $ 35,000 annual property tax revenue. If the

revenue is greater they are required to have an audit every year. The county auditor can

enforce compliance with the auditing rules only by withholding funds ( property tax reve-nue)

from special districts that do not comply. County law allows for special districts to

hire private accounting firms. All special districts must file budgets. The county auditor

and the county counsel hold workshops for the special districts on subjects such as

budgeting and the open meeting law ( Brown Act).

Water Districts: There are forty- seven water districts or other water systems in Sierra

County, with twenty- nine in Sierra City. The Sierra Brooks water system is the only wa-ter

system directly under the control of Sierra County, through the Public Works

Department. The Sierra County Board of Supervisors is its water board and the Sierra

Brooks Water Commission serves as an advisory board made up local citizens. Loyal-ton

water is under the responsibility of the City of Loyalton.

All water district audit requirements are based on tax revenue received, so some water

districts, mostly those in Sierra City ( 29), never receive enough revenue to warrant an

audit. Other water districts, Calpine, Sierraville, Sierra Brooks, for example, receive

more tax revenue so they must do audits yearly. Most if not all of the water districts

have a water board that holds public meetings monthly or bimonthly. Water boards are

made up of local residents who share the responsibilities of the community in dealing

with state mandated water issues, and antiquated equipment in regard to wells, tanks,

pipes, generators and emergency equipment along with snow removal in the winter

months. Sierra City water districts did not respond to Grand Jury requests for their most

recent audit and budget.

All water districts must do state mandated water monitoring and testing – some more

frequently than others. The State of California requires all water districts to have a li-censed

treatment operator.

Fire Districts: There are three fire protection districts in Sierra County: Downieveille, Si-erra

City, and the Sierra County Fire Protection District # 1. Each fire protection district

is an independent government body. Pliocene Community Service District’s main func-tion

is fire protection. Loyalton’s fire protection is a city service, and Verdi’s fire service

is provided by contract with the Verdi, Nevada, Volunteer Fire Department.

Cemetery Districts: There are three cemetery districts in the County with tax revenue

less than $ 35,000. These districts have small budgets, less then $ 5,000 and require

audits every five years.

Sierra County Grand Jury Report 2005- 2006

14

A. Water Districts and Other Water Systems

Findings for Water Districts

1. The major issues for county water systems are the state mandated water testing

and monitoring, a lack of licensed treatment operators and a need to update

equipment, i. e., tanks, wells, pipes and other infrastructure.

2. The lack of available funding allowances for water distribution, metering and fire

protection for each district as per state mandated requirements is evident.

3. Water quality is not so much a factor considering the equipment being used, but

more so the boom in usage in some districts which will cause moratoriums on

" will serve" letters to be issued. Consequently some landowners in some districts

will not be able to build on lots, or proposed subdivisions will not be served, thus

making some land unbuildable.

4. Most water districts on the east side of the county face water conservation

measures by June 1st of every year despite the kind of winter and spring runoff

they have had. This may be due to leaky pipes and poor infrastructure, etc. At

today’s prices it will be highly costly for all the districts to remedy their situations,

and ultimately the cost will be shifted to the consumers at a substantial rate that

will certainly impact the property values of most if not all the districts.

5. In addition, most of the districts are in the red financially; water boards have not

kept up by increasing rates, so there is no money to spend on infrastructure.

Most of the districts have received money in the past in the form of grants and

they have spent and will spend more than they receive in revenue.

6. The Sierra Brooks water usage has been labeled by some to be excessive for

the area served, and to be wasteful and costly to property owners. Problems

with system design, pipes and other infrastructure could be responsible. Meter

installation for new structures is paid for by developer fees, but meter installation

has been delayed.

7. Finally, what magnifies the problem is that each water district is its own entity,

and no water board or water district will work with the others to mitigate the prob-lems

at hand. Lack of willingness to cooperate with other districts is evident.

Sierra County does not want to be in control of collectively uniting the water dis-tricts

and insisting they go into a coalition of water districts for fear the county

might bear the economic burden of such a venture.

Recommendations for Board of Supervisors and Water Districts

1. The Board of Supervisors should review and present a functional audit of the Si-erra

Brooks water system equipment, usage patterns and how and to whom

payments are made.

Sierra County Grand Jury Report 2005- 2006

15

2. The Board of Supervisors should assure that meters are installed at the time of

construction in the Sierra Brooks area, and that infrastructure and design are

adequate and maintained.

3. The water districts and water companies in the county need to reconcile their dif-ferences

and form two water coalitions, one for the west side of the county and

one for the east side of the county. These water coalitions should then hire a li-censed

treatment operator to monitor and test water quality for each coalition.

This would eliminate county control, and county fiscal responsibility. At an esti-mated

cost of $ 12,000 to $ 40,000 for a licensed treatment operator per each

water district it would behoove them to unite and at the very least hire the appro-priate

full- time treatment operator.

4. Under a proposed coalition of water districts, each coalition could benefit from

obtaining a grant writer to secure funds for renovation projects on their water sys-tems

and would probably be less likely to financially overburden the water users.

This could possibly prevent implementing water conservation so early in the

summer months.

A note of caution:

If the citizens of the various Sierra County water districts continue on their present

trend the State of California will step in and fix their problems as they have in other

areas. This would be costly; in another county where the state intervened, approxi-mately

$ 30,000 was assessed for each property to renovate and initiate a clean and

effective water source.

B. Fire Protection Districts

Each of the many fire protection entities in the county does its own record keeping

and each prepares a budget. Some districts, like Downieville and Sierra City, are do-ing

better than others financially, but Sierraville and Sierra Valley are struggling to

maintain solid revenue resources. Most of the revenue generated is through fund-raising

activities, and this can be effective; however, there is a direct correlation

between fundraising and the districts that are doing well versus the ones that are not.

All of the fire districts appear to have adequate, updated equipment to serve their dis-tricts

with the exception of Sierra Valley. Much of Sierra Valley's equipment is ‘ hand

me down’, but the volunteers work extra hard in maintaining it. Service is provided by

an all- volunteer group of local citizens. This seems to be the most problematic for

those on the east side of the county. Many of the citizen volunteers on the east side

either work in Reno or Truckee, and there are few volunteers who work locally either

in Plumas or Sierra County. Response times are remarkable though, with other dis-tricts

covering not only their own districts, but aiding others as well. The USFS

responds accordingly, but this happens mostly in the spring and summer months

when the USFS has more employees in the county and the need for fire protection is

greater. The CHP and the county sheriffs also respond as needed, and do a remark-able

job considering the land base of Sierra County in regards to square miles

covered.

Sierra County Grand Jury Report 2005- 2006

16

Findings for Fire Districts

There seems to be a hierarchy of district fire chiefs and personnel that has been es-tablished

over the years. Some districts have better sources and a better system for

recruiting local citizen volunteers to fill their ranks than others. Equipment, communi-cation

and interaction with other agencies seem to be adequate although sometimes

challenging due to the number of square miles covered by the county.

Recommendations for Fire Districts

1. The single issue that stands out the most in all the districts is the continued need

for volunteers to be trained and ready to respond to any situation. One way to

generate interest and recruit volunteers would be to hold public forums and/ or

demonstrations of equipment.

2. The districts need to establish a clear system for incorporating the volunteers into

service. A list of guidelines for volunteer recruitment and maintenance needs to

be designed and then implemented consistently.

3. There should be an organization overhaul within the districts that would involve

the chiefs in reorganizing and prioritizing their districts. It is recommended that

the chiefs receive training to help them keep better records of maintenance of

equipment and available personnel.

4. Overall keep up the good work.

C. Ambulance Services

Findings

In both sides of the county emergency response times appear adequate, but there is

concern about a lack of qualified personnel in the eastern county. The number of

emergency medical technicians seems to be adequate, but there is a lack of certified

paramedics on board ambulances. Either Care Flight from Enloe Hospital in Chico

or Care Flight from Washoe Medical Center is usually called in the most severe

cases. County funding for future ambulance services is uncertain.

Sierra County Grand Jury Report 2005- 2006

17

LAW ENFORCEMENT

The sheriff of Sierra County will be replaced in the 2006 elections, following the retire-ment

of the current long- term sheriff. Each grand jury is required to review the county

jail. This was accomplished when we interviewed the sheriff and he led us on a tour of

the facility.

We toured the dispatch center, the holding facilities and the booking area. The sheriff

was quite explicit on the procedures that were to be taken when prisoners were handled

by other deputies and himself. He showed us the vast renovations done to the jail to

comply with state and federal law. Prisoners held in the jail appear to be adequately

taken care of. They prepare their own meals using prepackaged foods and a micro-wave.

A television set and an assortment of books are available. In responding to

questions from the Grand Jury, inmates in the day room stated they were being treated

fairly. The jail appeared to be operating in accordance with state and federal law.

A substation in Loyalton is under construction.

Findings:

An exercise machine that was normally available for use in the jail was in need of repair,

and the supply of books had been recycled by inmates many times.

Recommendations to the Sheriff

1. Repair the existing exercise machine in the jail and consider acquiring another

one.

2. Update the jail collection of books.

3. Continue to keep up the good work.

Sierra County Grand Jury Report 2005- 2006

18

HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

The Department of Human Services, the largest department in Sierra County govern-ment,

has 31 employees and has a new director and assistant director. A broad

spectrum of services is provided by this department.

1. The Public Health Program has funding of over $ 1 million and a 14- person staff.

It includes Public Health Nursing with 17 components, and Environmental Health

Services with 12 services. Over 80% of the caseload is centered in Loyalton,

with 10% in Downieville, followed by Alleghany.

2. The Sierra County Mental Health Division has 5 components with 23 separate

areas of service and the involvement of 16 staff members. Funding of $ 770,859

covers the cost of their 74- client caseload.

3. The Social Services Department has 4 components with 16 staff and funding of

about $ 2,600,000 with over 400 cases per month, with the majority being in the

Loyalton area.

Health and Human Services programs historically have been funding driven and rely

primarily on State funds.

Mental health services provided now must use a new approach to comply with the Men-tal

Health Services Act ( MHSA) passed in November 2004. This involves a decided

shift and broadening in the services of the Department with expanded outreach. In this

first year information is being gathered, especially that which will define community

needs for the unserved, underserved and served. Staff members also are going out to

see what others are doing that works. After this, mental health programs are to be re-designed

and implemented to increase accessibility to mental health services, increase

understanding of mental illness, and reduce the stigma of mental illness.

Findings

1. Concerns were expressed related to the pharmaceutical services provided by the

sole County pharmacy in Loyalton. An alternative pharmaceutical source cur-rently

is being investigated.

2. The shift to the new approach for mental health services has been initiated and

information is being gathered. The target date for the shift to the new approach

is 2011.

Recommendations to Health and Human Services (# 1)

1. Assure that professional pharmaceutical services are available in throughout the

county to all who need them.

Sierra County Grand Jury Report 2005- 2006

19

2. Stand aside and let this new director and her staff get to work. Observe progress

next year.

Sierra County Grand Jury Report 2005- 2006

20

SCHOOLS

Constant funding problems are the main source of the many challenges the school dis-trict

faces. The main issues in the school system during the past year were the unsafe

and deteriorating condition of the Loyalton Middle School and the closure of the Plio-cene

Ridge School in 2006.

Findings

1. A resolution was passed to reduce the number of school board members from

seven to five, which will make more funds available for schools, but has been

delayed when the submission date passed before research could be completed.

2. It is difficult to determine whether school board members are fulfilling their re-sponsibilities.

Only limited feedback was available from school board members

in assessing the district’s status and plans.

3. Dealing with Loyalton’s middle school has included the purchase of portable

classrooms and restrooms placed between Loyalton High School and Loyalton

Elementary School. Other projects to be completed include landscaping, side-walks,

and other items, plus some weatherproofing and updating at the other

schools. With leadership from the interim and current superintendents, progress

has been made, but there is more work to be done.

Recommendations to School Board

1. Assure the change in the number of school board members from seven to five is

submitted at the next change submittal date.

2. Arrange in the next year for school board members to receive the training avail-able

through the California School Boards Association.

3. Continue to use the consulting services of the former interim superintendent as

needed.

Sierra County Grand Jury Report 2005- 2006

21

CITY OF LOYALTON

In preparation for this report, the Grand Jury committee attended City Council meetings,

reviewed minutes of previous meetings, interviewed members of the City Council, and

reviewed related newspaper articles. The Council appeared professional and motivated.

Findings

There are many issues facing the City of Loyalton that have been discussed but not re-solved.

1. There is no general plan or zoning ordinances ( state mandated) to guide plan-ning

decisions in the city, and staff planning expertise is lacking .

2. The city lacks sustainable revenues to maintain its operational budget for current

programs and projects and for future programs, including those mandated by the

State.

3. The swimming pool continues to be an unresolved issue, involving issues of cost,

what needs to be done, and timing restraints of grant funds that will assure funds

are not lost.

4. The present sewer plant has problems. Increased capacity and other ugrades

are needed to make the system workable.

5. The city’s appearance is in need of an upgrade ( old cars and other eyesores).

6. The required independent audits for 2005- 2006 had not been completed as of

this report.

Recommendations to the City Council

1. Develop a general plan that meets all the needs of the city. This will require that

the city council members become more knowledgeable about the many aspect of

city planning, and may require professional planning help. Sustainable funding is

one aspect that should be studied thoroughly.

2. Resolve the swimming pool issues, assuring funds are not lost and the project is

completed in a timely manner.

3. Update the sewer system into a workable disposal system which conforms to the

Northern Regional Water Quality District requirements.

4. Plan a city clean- up project including removal of eyesores and assuring related

ordinances are in place and enforced.

5. Assure independent audits are prepared in a timely manner.

Sierra County Grand Jury Report 2005- 2006

22

APPENDIX

A. Notes on County Finances and Employee Benefits

Financial records for the county are maintained by the county auditor’s office,

and funds are dispersed by the county treasurer. Independent audits of the

county financial records and systems are performed yearly according to law.

Audits are also required of the city of Loyalton and the county’s special districts

though those with budgets under $ 35,000 can be done less than yearly. Both the

county budget and the audit are available at the county website at

www. sierracounty. gov.

The county gets 54% of the property taxes assessed, while schools and special

districts get approximately 35% and 10% respectively. Before the state funding

crisis resulting in redirection of some of these taxes, the county’s percentage was

63%. Property taxes on almost all new residential property bring in less revenue

than it costs the county to serve these areas, while taxes on commercial property

provide more financial benefit to the county if their need for county services is

low.

The sources of county financing in 2004- 2005 were 20% from property tax, 8%

from other taxes, 14% from charges for services, 11% from, “ other,” and 48%

from “ other government.” State and federal grants are major sources of funding,

but quite variable from year to year, and most cannot be counted on to fund op-erating

expenses such as staff. Members of the Board of Supervisors lobby

state and federal representatives to seek a share of these funds for Sierra

County.

The total cash plus investments on hand June 30, 2005, was $ 10,663,513.

County funds not in use or kept as cash are pooled and invested by the county

treasurer according to an investment policy to be reviewed yearly by the Board of

Supervisors, and with investments overseen by the Treasury Oversight Commit-tee.

Community Service Areas ( CSAs) and Special Districts

There are six CSAs, which are overseen by the Board of Supervisors. These en-tities

are each allocated a portion of property taxes, timber tax, interest and state

aid, and their expenses include allocations of county costs for insurance, A87

fees, and property tax administration fee; and may also include costs for lighting,

fire protection, street and road services, parks, library, the Sierra Valley Sports-men’s

Club, ambulance, and waste disposal. The Sierra Brooks CSA is

organized around water service, and the Pliocene Ridge CSA is organized

around fire and water services.

Other areas have formed special districts run by their own boards to provide wa-ter

or solid waste services or fire protection. Audits of these districts noted some

lack of detail in budgeting and reporting, especially for very small districts.

Sierra County Grand Jury Report 2005- 2006

23

County areas are paying varying levels of property tax from the minimum 1% of

assessed valuation up to about 1.06% ( the additions being for hospital bond

payment and a utility district loan), and for some areas there are extra assess-ments

for water or solid waste.

Employee Benefits

The cost of health insurance has increased significantly in recent years. A cap of

$ 850 has been placed on the county’s monthly contribution to the health insur-ance

of employees and the Board of Supervisors, with any excess being paid

out- of- pocket. Additional health insurance options are being sought to minimize

costs to employees

Retirement health benefits are available until age 65 to general staff after 20

years service and to management and Board of Supervisors members after 10

years. For those hired/ elected after October, 1992, these benefits are available

for a maximum of five years ( unless the individual takes a new job with benefits

available), but are not limited for the several individuals employed/ elected earlier.

The cost for post- retirement health benefits in 2004- 2005 was $ 105,111 for

eleven individuals. Staff projections are for an average of thirteen individuals and

a high of eighteen in the next eight years. The expense is funded on a pay- as-you-

go basis.

The county’s defined benefit pensions are managed through the state PERS sys-tem.

Negotiations in the early 1990s resulted in staff agreeing to substitute

raises for a higher level of pension benefits. The current level contributed on be-half

of most employees is 8% of salary yearly, while the rate is 9% for those in

management or Board of Supervisors positions. PERS managers had projected

that these levels could be funded through interest on county funds in the plan,

with no current county funds needed. However, the market crash in the early

2000s caused a major drop in PERS fund equity, with the result that the county

must now fund much of this retirement cost. Their part of the county budget

jumped by 235% between 2002- 03 and 2004- 05, when it began to be funded

primarily from county funds. The total spent for this in 2004- 2005 was $ 986,000.

B. Sierra Booster Article, “ Making the City of Loyalton a Destination to Gain Sus-tainable

Fiscal Revenues and Infrastructure Health” ( see next page)

C. Sierra Sun Article, “ Sierra Valley ranch lands shielded from development” ( see

pages following)

25

26

27

28