Skip to content
Grand Jury Hub

Nevada County Civil Grand Jury

2025-2026: from findings to follow-through

Overview

Explore the jury’s recommendations, read matching agency responses, and join the discussion. Everything in this cycle is connected to its original source.

Recommendations & responses

Every recommendation made by the jury, with matching agency responses alongside it.

Recommendations & responses

Showing 27 of 27 recommendations

Jump to recommendation

Planning for the Future: The Board of Supervisors' Approach to the Growing $220-Million Problem of Unfunded Pension Liabilities

11 recommendations

Recommendation R1

The County should provide a detailed report of why the adopted Pension Management Policy from 2019 failed to address the problem and allowed it to become more pronounced.

1 response · Nevada County Board of Supervisors

View recommendation and responses

Jury report: Planning for the Future: The Board of Supervisors' Approach to the Growing $220-Million Problem of Unfunded Pension Liabilities · PDF page 23

Permanent link
Official response
Nevada County Board of Supervisors
Agency declines implementation

Will not implement; defends the 2019 policy’s balance between pensions and service delivery.

Read official response · PDF page 10

Recommendation R2

The County’s response to this report should include in detail the “numerous proactive measures” that its response to the 2018 Jury report said it had undertaken.

1 response · Nevada County Board of Supervisors

View recommendation and responses

Jury report: Planning for the Future: The Board of Supervisors' Approach to the Growing $220-Million Problem of Unfunded Pension Liabilities · PDF page 23

Permanent link
Official response
Nevada County Board of Supervisors
Agency declines implementation

Will not implement; nevertheless describes trust funding, prepayment and assigned pension reserves.

Read official response · PDF page 11

Recommendation R3

The County’s response to this report should include in detail the amount of money those “numerous proactive measures” generated or saved.

1 response · Nevada County Board of Supervisors

View recommendation and responses

Jury report: Planning for the Future: The Board of Supervisors' Approach to the Growing $220-Million Problem of Unfunded Pension Liabilities · PDF page 23

Permanent link
Official response
Nevada County Board of Supervisors
Agency declines implementation

Will not implement; gives trust and pension-assignment balances plus claimed prepayment savings.

Read official response · PDF page 11

Recommendation R4

“The County’s response to this report should include in detail how much of the money from R2 the County expended each year to reduce its UPL beyond making the minimum amortization payment that CalPERS requires.

1 response · Nevada County Board of Supervisors

View recommendation and responses

Jury report: Planning for the Future: The Board of Supervisors' Approach to the Growing $220-Million Problem of Unfunded Pension Liabilities · PDF page 23

Permanent link
Official response
Nevada County Board of Supervisors
Agency declines implementation

Will not implement; states no contributions above minimum amortization were made.

Read official response · PDF page 11

Recommendation R5

As part of an approach to the mounting debt problem, the County should consider staff reductions.

1 response · Nevada County Board of Supervisors

View recommendation and responses

Jury report: Planning for the Future: The Board of Supervisors' Approach to the Growing $220-Million Problem of Unfunded Pension Liabilities · PDF page 23

Permanent link
Official response
Nevada County Board of Supervisors
Agency says implemented

Claims implementation through vacancy and staffing-change review.

Read official response · PDF page 12

Recommendation R6

As part of an approach to the mounting debt problem, the County should consider limiting salary and pension increases.

1 response · Nevada County Board of Supervisors

View recommendation and responses

Jury report: Planning for the Future: The Board of Supervisors' Approach to the Growing $220-Million Problem of Unfunded Pension Liabilities · PDF page 23

Permanent link
Official response
Nevada County Board of Supervisors
Agency says implemented

Claims implementation through PEPRA pensionable-pay limits and describes workforce and credit-rating context.

Read official response · PDF page 12

Recommendation R7

As part of an approach to the mounting debt problem, the County should consider having caps on County executive salaries.

1 response · Nevada County Board of Supervisors

View recommendation and responses

Jury report: Planning for the Future: The Board of Supervisors' Approach to the Growing $220-Million Problem of Unfunded Pension Liabilities · PDF page 24

Permanent link
Official response
Nevada County Board of Supervisors
Agency says implemented

Claims implementation; cites PEPRA pensionable-pay limits, market studies and executive restructuring.

Read official response · PDF page 13

Recommendation R8

As part of an approach to the mounting debt problem, the County should consider reducing the level or frequency of some County services not directly related to public health and safety.

1 response · Nevada County Board of Supervisors

View recommendation and responses

Jury report: Planning for the Future: The Board of Supervisors' Approach to the Growing $220-Million Problem of Unfunded Pension Liabilities · PDF page 24

Permanent link
Official response
Nevada County Board of Supervisors
Agency says implemented

Claims implementation; describes eliminated or reduced services as COVID-related revenue ends.

Read official response · PDF page 13

Recommendation R9

As part of an approach to the mounting debt problem, the County should consider eliminating County services that duplicate services that the state provides.

1 response · Nevada County Board of Supervisors

View recommendation and responses

Jury report: Planning for the Future: The Board of Supervisors' Approach to the Growing $220-Million Problem of Unfunded Pension Liabilities · PDF page 24

Permanent link
Official response
Nevada County Board of Supervisors
Agency says implemented

Claims implementation; says no duplicate State and County services are known and describes mandated coordination.

Read official response · PDF page 14

Recommendation R10

The County should develop a realistic plan that will fully amortize the UPL by 2037 and will maintain the pension plan fully funded.

1 response · Nevada County Board of Supervisors

View recommendation and responses

Jury report: Planning for the Future: The Board of Supervisors' Approach to the Growing $220-Million Problem of Unfunded Pension Liabilities · PDF page 24

Permanent link
Official response
Nevada County Board of Supervisors
Agency declines implementation

Will not implement the 2037 full-funding target; promises annual plans and a January 2027 compliance report.

Read official response · PDF page 14

Recommendation R11

As part of that plan, the County should annually devote a substantial part of unexpended budgeted funds to reduce its unfunded liability debt.

1 response · Nevada County Board of Supervisors

View recommendation and responses

Jury report: Planning for the Future: The Board of Supervisors' Approach to the Growing $220-Million Problem of Unfunded Pension Liabilities · PDF page 24

Permanent link
Official response
Nevada County Board of Supervisors
Agency plans to implement

Will implement annual review of unexpended-fund allocations while creating the Pension Plan.

Read official response · PDF page 14

Spending Money It Didn't Have: Penn Valley Fire District's Board of Directors Lack of Attention to Their Fiscal Responsibility

7 recommendations

Recommendation R1

PVFD’s Board should have a budget subcommittee that participates fully, with the Chief and the Finance Manager, in producing each year’s budget.

1 response · Penn Valley Fire Protection District

View recommendation and responses

Jury report: Spending Money It Didn't Have: Penn Valley Fire District's Board of Directors Lack of Attention to Their Fiscal Responsibility · PDF page 13

Permanent link
Official response
Penn Valley Fire Protection District
Agency plans to implement

Agrees and promises to appoint a Finance Committee.

Read official response · PDF page 6

Recommendation R2

PVFD’s Board should have mandatory training about the Brown Act’s requirements.

1 response · Penn Valley Fire Protection District

View recommendation and responses

Jury report: Spending Money It Didn't Have: Penn Valley Fire District's Board of Directors Lack of Attention to Their Fiscal Responsibility · PDF page 13

Permanent link
Official response
Penn Valley Fire Protection District
Agency says implemented

Agrees; says mandatory biennial AB1234 training includes Brown Act training and all directors comply.

Read official response · PDF page 6

Recommendation R3

PVFD’s bylaws should be available to the public on PVFD’s website.

1 response · Penn Valley Fire Protection District

View recommendation and responses

Jury report: Spending Money It Didn't Have: Penn Valley Fire District's Board of Directors Lack of Attention to Their Fiscal Responsibility · PDF page 13

Permanent link
Official response
Penn Valley Fire Protection District
Agency says implemented

Agrees; says bylaws have been placed on the District website.

Read official response · PDF page 6

Recommendation R4

PVFD’s bylaws should clearly state the Board’s duties, making clear that each Board member has a fiduciary responsibility to the District and to the stakeholders, including all residents of the District.

1 response · Penn Valley Fire Protection District

View recommendation and responses

Jury report: Spending Money It Didn't Have: Penn Valley Fire District's Board of Directors Lack of Attention to Their Fiscal Responsibility · PDF page 13

Permanent link
Official response
Penn Valley Fire Protection District
Agency position unclear

Agrees and will consider the recommendation at its next regular bylaw review.

Read official response · PDF page 6

Recommendation R5

PVFD should pursue consolidation with NCC/OH in order to take advantage of economies of scale.

1 response · Penn Valley Fire Protection District

View recommendation and responses

Jury report: Spending Money It Didn't Have: Penn Valley Fire District's Board of Directors Lack of Attention to Their Fiscal Responsibility · PDF page 14

Permanent link
Official response
Penn Valley Fire Protection District
Agency declines implementation

Disagrees; says the proposed consolidation lacked economies of scale and its current consolidation improved service.

Read official response · PDF page 6

Recommendation R6

PVFD should consider hiring a new auditor.

1 response · Penn Valley Fire Protection District

View recommendation and responses

Jury report: Spending Money It Didn't Have: Penn Valley Fire District's Board of Directors Lack of Attention to Their Fiscal Responsibility · PDF page 14

Permanent link
Official response
Penn Valley Fire Protection District
Agency plans to implement

Agrees; promises an audit RFP after the current contract through the 2026 audit.

Read official response · PDF page 6

Recommendation R7

PVFD should consider rotating auditors every five to seven years, pursuant to the recommendation of the California State Controller’s Office.

1 response · Penn Valley Fire Protection District

View recommendation and responses

Jury report: Spending Money It Didn't Have: Penn Valley Fire District's Board of Directors Lack of Attention to Their Fiscal Responsibility · PDF page 14

Permanent link
Official response
Penn Valley Fire Protection District
Agency position unclear

Agrees; cites six-year lead-auditor rotation and repeats the future RFP commitment.

Read official response · PDF page 7

Bullying and Harassment at NJUHSD Schools: Going Underground?

9 recommendations

Recommendation R1

The District should modify its LCAP metrics to measure unreported B&H. (F5)

1 response · Nevada Joint Union High School District

View recommendation and responses

Jury report: Bullying and Harassment at NJUHSD Schools: Going Underground? · PDF page 14

Permanent link
Official response
Nevada Joint Union High School District
Agency declines implementation

Will not change LCAP metrics to estimate unreported incidents; disputes the proposed method’s validity.

Read official response · PDF page 33

Recommendation R2

The District should implement safeguards in its LCAP survey to ensure accuracy. (F6)

1 response · Nevada Joint Union High School District

View recommendation and responses

Jury report: Bullying and Harassment at NJUHSD Schools: Going Underground? · PDF page 14

Permanent link
Official response
Nevada Joint Union High School District
Agency position unclear

Defends existing data reliability and plans continued surveys with discretionary annual modifications.

Read official response · PDF page 33

Recommendation R3

The District Board should establish a resolution re-affirming its commitment to reduce B&H within The District. (F8)

1 response · Nevada Joint Union High School District

View recommendation and responses

Jury report: Bullying and Harassment at NJUHSD Schools: Going Underground? · PDF page 14

Permanent link
Official response
Nevada Joint Union High School District
Agency says implemented

Says Resolution 23-25/26, Every Student Belongs, passed March 11, 2026.

Read official response · PDF page 33

Recommendation R4

The District should establish a program like OBPP at NUHS. (F3,4,8)

2 responses · Nevada Joint Union High School District · Nevada Union High School Principal

View recommendation and responses

Jury report: Bullying and Harassment at NJUHSD Schools: Going Underground? · PDF page 15

Permanent link
Official responses
Nevada Joint Union High School District
Agency position unclear

Describes an earlier unsuccessful OBPP initiative and the need for stakeholder buy-in.

Read official response · PDF page 33
Nevada Union High School Principal
Agency says further analysis needed

Labels the recommendation Requires Further Analysis and describes conditional participation in District decision-making.

Read official response · PDF page 29

Recommendation R5

The District should publish B&H policies prominently on each school’s website homepage. (F10)

1 response · Nevada Joint Union High School District

View recommendation and responses

Jury report: Bullying and Harassment at NJUHSD Schools: Going Underground? · PDF page 15

Permanent link
Official response
Nevada Joint Union High School District
Agency position unclear

Reserves discretion over which information receives homepage prominence.

Read official response · PDF page 34

Recommendation R6

The District should ensure each school prominently displays their current student handbook on the school’s website homepage. (F10)

3 responses · Nevada Joint Union High School District · Nevada Union High School Principal · Bear River High School Principal

View recommendation and responses

Jury report: Bullying and Harassment at NJUHSD Schools: Going Underground? · PDF page 15

Permanent link
Official responses
Nevada Joint Union High School District
Agency plans to implement

Accepts the recommendation and is adding handbook links at the top of the Parent Resource tab.

Read official response · PDF page 34
Nevada Union High School Principal
Agency says implemented

Labels the request Already Implemented, while promising direct homepage placement still to come.

Read official response · PDF page 30
Bear River High School Principal
Agency says implemented

Labels the recommendation Already Implemented but says a homepage link is being placed.

Read official response · PDF page 37

Recommendation R7

The District should conduct a study to understand why NUHS LCAP survey participation rates are much lower than that of other schools and take corrective action. (F7)

1 response · Nevada Joint Union High School District

View recommendation and responses

Jury report: Bullying and Harassment at NJUHSD Schools: Going Underground? · PDF page 15

Permanent link
Official response
Nevada Joint Union High School District
Agency says implemented

Says low participation was investigated and corrective action raised 2025–26 participation to 65.5%.

Read official response · PDF page 34

Recommendation R8

The District should align the application of discipline within its schools. (F10)

1 response · Nevada Joint Union High School District

View recommendation and responses

Jury report: Bullying and Harassment at NJUHSD Schools: Going Underground? · PDF page 15

Permanent link
Official response
Nevada Joint Union High School District
Agency position unclear

Will continue striving for consistent and equitable discipline using the referenced matrix.

Read official response · PDF page 34

Recommendation R9

The Jury commends the public stance against B&H by The District superintendent and recommends the NJHUSD Board to take a similar strong stance in its actions. (F11)

1 response · Nevada Joint Union High School District

View recommendation and responses

Jury report: Bullying and Harassment at NJUHSD Schools: Going Underground? · PDF page 15

Permanent link
Official response
Nevada Joint Union High School District
Agency says implemented

Cites the March Every Student Belongs resolution and Board denunciations of bullying.

Read official response · PDF page 34

Findings

The jury’s formal findings, with source citations and any recorded responses.

Findings & responses

Showing 55 of 55 findings

Jump to finding

Washington Ridge Conservation Camp - Shower at your own risk!

Finding

1 finding

Finding Finding

The Jury observed one area where there is a possible health and safety issue for the IPs. The showers need attention as was noted in the 2022-2023 Nevada County Grand Jury report. There are cracked and missing tiles, and the shower facility suffers from age. The plumbing is antiquated with several shower heads appear inoperable. Paint is peeling in multiple areas and mold is visible throughout. There is a remodel project that has funding, but the remodel remains on the Camp Infrastructure Repair Plan. California Department of General Services received the repair assignment in October 2021. WRCC continues to wait for the work to begin. According to the WRCC and CALFIRE administrators, funds are now available. Due to the current building and architectural code updates over the past few years, the cost of repair/replacement has significantly increased. WRCC now awaits final approval from various state agencies before the work can begin. The fact remains that in the last three years nothing has been done. As a result, the IPs are being exposed on a daily basis to potentially hazardous conditions.

No response recorded

View finding and responses

Jury report: Washington Ridge Conservation Camp - Shower at your own risk! · PDF page 5

Permanent link
Official responses
No response recorded
A matching agency response has not been added to Grand Jury Hub. This does not establish whether a response was submitted or is overdue.

Planning for the Future: The Board of Supervisors' Approach to the Growing $220-Million Problem of Unfunded Pension Liabilities

23 findings

Finding F1

At the end of FY2015, the County’s unfunded pension liability was $117,142,264.

1 response · Nevada County Board of Supervisors

View finding and responses

Jury report: Planning for the Future: The Board of Supervisors' Approach to the Growing $220-Million Problem of Unfunded Pension Liabilities · PDF page 21

Permanent link
Official response
Nevada County Board of Supervisors

Disagrees; gives $162,574,446 using four June 30, 2015 CalPERS plan valuations.

Read official response · PDF page 1

Finding F2

At the end of FY2024, the County’s unfunded pension liability had increased to $223,565,943.

1 response · Nevada County Board of Supervisors

View finding and responses

Jury report: Planning for the Future: The Board of Supervisors' Approach to the Growing $220-Million Problem of Unfunded Pension Liabilities · PDF page 21

Permanent link
Official response
Nevada County Board of Supervisors

Disagrees; gives $261,167,320 using June 30, 2024 Miscellaneous and Safety valuations.

Read official response · PDF page 2

Finding F3

The County has followed CalPERS’s amortization plan over the past decade.

1 response · Nevada County Board of Supervisors

View finding and responses

Jury report: Planning for the Future: The Board of Supervisors' Approach to the Growing $220-Million Problem of Unfunded Pension Liabilities · PDF page 21

Permanent link
Official response
Nevada County Board of Supervisors

Agrees and explains CalPERS’s annual point-in-time amortization method.

Read official response · PDF page 2

Finding F4

The County’s financial position with respect to UPL has worsened over the last decade.

1 response · Nevada County Board of Supervisors

View finding and responses

Jury report: Planning for the Future: The Board of Supervisors' Approach to the Growing $220-Million Problem of Unfunded Pension Liabilities · PDF page 21

Permanent link
Official response
Nevada County Board of Supervisors

Partly disagrees: liabilities and assets grew while funded ratios remained approximately 67% versus 68%.

Read official response · PDF page 2

Finding F5

The County’s FY2015 amortization payment to CalPERS was $9,508,354.

1 response · Nevada County Board of Supervisors

View finding and responses

Jury report: Planning for the Future: The Board of Supervisors' Approach to the Growing $220-Million Problem of Unfunded Pension Liabilities · PDF page 21

Permanent link
Official response
Nevada County Board of Supervisors

Disagrees; gives $7,391,504 for Miscellaneous and explains that Safety costs were bundled.

Read official response · PDF page 2

Finding F6

The County’s FY2024 amortization payment to CalPERS was $20,454,679.

1 response · Nevada County Board of Supervisors

View finding and responses

Jury report: Planning for the Future: The Board of Supervisors' Approach to the Growing $220-Million Problem of Unfunded Pension Liabilities · PDF page 21

Permanent link
Official response
Nevada County Board of Supervisors

Disagrees; identifies $17,322,343 for Miscellaneous plus $2,493,196 for Safety, totaling $19,815,539.

Read official response · PDF page 3

Finding F7

From FY2015 through FY2024, the County paid CalPERS $169,688,442.

1 response · Nevada County Board of Supervisors

View finding and responses

Jury report: Planning for the Future: The Board of Supervisors' Approach to the Growing $220-Million Problem of Unfunded Pension Liabilities · PDF page 21

Permanent link
Official response
Nevada County Board of Supervisors

Disagrees; states $141,004,015 was paid toward unfunded accrued liability during the period.

Read official response · PDF page 3

Finding F8

As of FY2019, CalPERS’s projected date of returning the County to fully funded status was 2039.

1 response · Nevada County Board of Supervisors

View finding and responses

Jury report: Planning for the Future: The Board of Supervisors' Approach to the Growing $220-Million Problem of Unfunded Pension Liabilities · PDF page 22

Permanent link
Official response
Nevada County Board of Supervisors

Agrees with the 2039 projection and explains its twenty-year, June 30, 2019 valuation basis.

Read official response · PDF page 3

Finding F9

As of FY2024, CalPERS’s projected date of returning the County to fully funded status was 2044.

1 response · Nevada County Board of Supervisors

View finding and responses

Jury report: Planning for the Future: The Board of Supervisors' Approach to the Growing $220-Million Problem of Unfunded Pension Liabilities · PDF page 22

Permanent link
Official response
Nevada County Board of Supervisors

Agrees with the 2044 projection and explains its twenty-year, June 30, 2024 valuation basis.

Read official response · PDF page 3

Finding F10

The Board of Supervisors believes that California’s 2013 change from classic retirement to PEPRA will help the unfunded-pension-liability problem.

1 response · Nevada County Board of Supervisors

View finding and responses

Jury report: Planning for the Future: The Board of Supervisors' Approach to the Growing $220-Million Problem of Unfunded Pension Liabilities · PDF page 22

Permanent link
Official response
Nevada County Board of Supervisors

Agrees that PEPRA should help and describes employee-tier differences and cost sharing.

Read official response · PDF page 3

Finding F11

The Board of Supervisors has performed no data studies on the impact PEPRA is likely to have.

1 response · Nevada County Board of Supervisors

View finding and responses

Jury report: Planning for the Future: The Board of Supervisors' Approach to the Growing $220-Million Problem of Unfunded Pension Liabilities · PDF page 22

Permanent link
Official response
Nevada County Board of Supervisors

Agrees it has not performed its own PEPRA studies; cites CalPERS tier analysis and promises annual tier data.

Read official response · PDF page 4

Finding F12

The Board of Supervisors has prioritized immediate needs over making additional voluntary payments to reduce the unfunded-liability debt.

1 response · Nevada County Board of Supervisors

View finding and responses

Jury report: Planning for the Future: The Board of Supervisors' Approach to the Growing $220-Million Problem of Unfunded Pension Liabilities · PDF page 22

Permanent link
Official response
Nevada County Board of Supervisors

Disagrees; describes annual priority reviews, trust contributions and balancing pensions with public-safety needs.

Read official response · PDF page 4

Finding F13

In the past 10 years, the County has made no voluntary additional payments to reduce the amount of unfunded pension liability.

1 response · Nevada County Board of Supervisors

View finding and responses

Jury report: Planning for the Future: The Board of Supervisors' Approach to the Growing $220-Million Problem of Unfunded Pension Liabilities · PDF page 22

Permanent link
Official response
Nevada County Board of Supervisors

Agrees no voluntary additional payments were made; explains reserves, the trust and emergency priorities.

Read official response · PDF page 5

Finding F14

As of December 31, 2025, the balance of the 115 Trust was $4,129,940.

1 response · Nevada County Board of Supervisors

View finding and responses

Jury report: Planning for the Future: The Board of Supervisors' Approach to the Growing $220-Million Problem of Unfunded Pension Liabilities · PDF page 22

Permanent link
Official response
Nevada County Board of Supervisors

Agrees with the December 31, 2025 Section 115 Trust balance.

Read official response · PDF page 5

Finding F15

There is no record of the Board of Supervisors ever having discussed the unfunded-pension-liability problem for the past 10 years other than the Board’s responses to earlier GJ reports.

1 response · Nevada County Board of Supervisors

View finding and responses

Jury report: Planning for the Future: The Board of Supervisors' Approach to the Growing $220-Million Problem of Unfunded Pension Liabilities · PDF page 22

Permanent link
Official response
Nevada County Board of Supervisors

Disagrees; identifies at least 27 Board occasions discussing pension liabilities.

Read official response · PDF page 5

Finding F16

From 2015 until to the present, despite rising UPL, rising amortization payments, and repeated extensions of the amortization period, the County did not develop and implement any plan that addressed the mounting debt.

1 response · Nevada County Board of Supervisors

View finding and responses

Jury report: Planning for the Future: The Board of Supervisors' Approach to the Growing $220-Million Problem of Unfunded Pension Liabilities · PDF page 22

Permanent link
Official response
Nevada County Board of Supervisors

Disagrees; cites the 2019 policy, October 2025 policy revision and a forthcoming annual funding plan.

Read official response · PDF page 8

Finding F17

In response to the 2023-2024 Grand Jury report, the County promised to have a plan to address the unfunded-pension-liability problem within a year.

1 response · Nevada County Board of Supervisors

View finding and responses

Jury report: Planning for the Future: The Board of Supervisors' Approach to the Growing $220-Million Problem of Unfunded Pension Liabilities · PDF page 22

Permanent link
Official response
Nevada County Board of Supervisors

Disagrees with the description of its earlier promise; says it committed to a 2025 workshop and policy direction.

Read official response · PDF page 8

Finding F18

At the end of the year, the County had developed no plan.

1 response · Nevada County Board of Supervisors

View finding and responses

Jury report: Planning for the Future: The Board of Supervisors' Approach to the Growing $220-Million Problem of Unfunded Pension Liabilities · PDF page 22

Permanent link
Official response
Nevada County Board of Supervisors

Disagrees; describes consultant work, an October 2025 policy revision and a plan scheduled for May 12, 2026.

Read official response · PDF page 9

Finding F19

At the end of the year, the County had not hired any consultants to help the County address the unfunded-pension-liability problem.

1 response · Nevada County Board of Supervisors

View finding and responses

Jury report: Planning for the Future: The Board of Supervisors' Approach to the Growing $220-Million Problem of Unfunded Pension Liabilities · PDF page 22

Permanent link
Official response
Nevada County Board of Supervisors

Disagrees; names CalMuni Advisors and Wiest Law and states contracts were executed July 1, 2025.

Read official response · PDF page 9

Finding F20

By prepaying the full annual amortization amount at the beginning of the fiscal year, the County has saved hundreds of thousands of dollars in interest over the past decade.

1 response · Nevada County Board of Supervisors

View finding and responses

Jury report: Planning for the Future: The Board of Supervisors' Approach to the Growing $220-Million Problem of Unfunded Pension Liabilities · PDF page 22

Permanent link
Official response
Nevada County Board of Supervisors

Disagrees with the scale of interest savings; claims more than $5.6 million from FY2017–18 through FY2025–26 prepayment.

Read official response · PDF page 9

Finding F21

Since FY 2019, the County general fund at the end of each fiscal year has had from $34.3 million to $47.0 million of unspent funds in the County’s General Fund,

1 response · Nevada County Board of Supervisors

View finding and responses

Jury report: Planning for the Future: The Board of Supervisors' Approach to the Growing $220-Million Problem of Unfunded Pension Liabilities · PDF page 23

Permanent link
Official response
Nevada County Board of Supervisors

Agrees with the unspent-fund range; notes that much is reserved or assigned to specific uses.

Read official response · PDF page 10

Finding F22

Since FY 2019, the County has devoted $0 of that money to making voluntary additional payments to reduce its total UPL.

1 response · Nevada County Board of Supervisors

View finding and responses

Jury report: Planning for the Future: The Board of Supervisors' Approach to the Growing $220-Million Problem of Unfunded Pension Liabilities · PDF page 23

Permanent link
Official response
Nevada County Board of Supervisors

Agrees no additional payments came from those funds; explains objectives of the 2019 pension policy.

Read official response · PDF page 10

Finding F23

Given the County’s UPL position at the end of FY2024, if the County then began to pay an additional $5,000,000 each year, elimination of the 2024 UPL would occur in 2037 rather than 2044. 18 If the County adds personnel or increases salaries, the County should increase the annual additional payments commensurately.

1 response · Nevada County Board of Supervisors

View finding and responses

Jury report: Planning for the Future: The Board of Supervisors' Approach to the Growing $220-Million Problem of Unfunded Pension Liabilities · PDF page 23

Permanent link
Official response
Nevada County Board of Supervisors

Disagrees with certainty about eliminating total liability by 2037, while accepting the static June 2024 calculation.

Read official response · PDF page 10

Spending Money It Didn't Have: Penn Valley Fire District's Board of Directors Lack of Attention to Their Fiscal Responsibility

20 findings

Finding F1

PVFD’s current and anticipated revenue stream will not support the November 2024 promotions and hires for more than a few years.

1 response · Penn Valley Fire Protection District

View finding and responses

Jury report: Spending Money It Didn't Have: Penn Valley Fire District's Board of Directors Lack of Attention to Their Fiscal Responsibility · PDF page 12

Permanent link
Official response
Penn Valley Fire Protection District

Disagrees; says long-term projections support the promotions and hires.

Read official response · PDF page 1

Finding F2

The timing and funding issues with respect to PVFD’s November 2024 promotions and hires caused the collapse of the four-way reorganization discussions.

1 response · Penn Valley Fire Protection District

View finding and responses

Jury report: Spending Money It Didn't Have: Penn Valley Fire District's Board of Directors Lack of Attention to Their Fiscal Responsibility · PDF page 12

Permanent link
Official response
Penn Valley Fire Protection District

Disagrees; attributes collapse to NCC withdrawal and exclusion from planning rather than staffing timing and funding.

Read official response · PDF page 1

Finding F3

The November 2024 personnel changes would have remained effective in the proposed four-way consolidation.

1 response · Penn Valley Fire Protection District

View finding and responses

Jury report: Spending Money It Didn't Have: Penn Valley Fire District's Board of Directors Lack of Attention to Their Fiscal Responsibility · PDF page 12

Permanent link
Official response
Penn Valley Fire Protection District

Agrees that the personnel changes were included in the proposed consolidation organization.

Read official response · PDF page 1

Finding F4

Because Penn Valley made the promotions and hires when it did, personnel at NCC, Rough and Ready, and Ophir Hill lost the opportunity to compete for those positions.

1 response · Penn Valley Fire Protection District

View finding and responses

Jury report: Spending Money It Didn't Have: Penn Valley Fire District's Board of Directors Lack of Attention to Their Fiscal Responsibility · PDF page 12

Permanent link
Official response
Penn Valley Fire Protection District

Agrees; explains operational needs, qualifications and support for the promotions.

Read official response · PDF page 2

Finding F5

In making those personnel changes, Penn Valley’s Board depended on the tax increases that would occur in the four-way consolidation.

1 response · Penn Valley Fire Protection District

View finding and responses

Jury report: Spending Money It Didn't Have: Penn Valley Fire District's Board of Directors Lack of Attention to Their Fiscal Responsibility · PDF page 12

Permanent link
Official response
Penn Valley Fire Protection District

Agrees about planned consolidation-tax funding; says overtime savings, ambulance revenue and Chief-service billing covered promotion expenses.

Read official response · PDF page 2

Finding F6

That assumption by the Penn Valley Board deprived its potential partners of any voice in how to allocate those additional tax revenues.

1 response · Penn Valley Fire Protection District

View finding and responses

Jury report: Spending Money It Didn't Have: Penn Valley Fire District's Board of Directors Lack of Attention to Their Fiscal Responsibility · PDF page 12

Permanent link
Official response
Penn Valley Fire Protection District

Disagrees; says committee and chiefs discussed funding and the service plan documented positions.

Read official response · PDF page 2

Finding F7

The Board has delegated authority for budget construction and decisions to the Chief and the Finance Manager.

1 response · Penn Valley Fire Protection District

View finding and responses

Jury report: Spending Money It Didn't Have: Penn Valley Fire District's Board of Directors Lack of Attention to Their Fiscal Responsibility · PDF page 12

Permanent link
Official response
Penn Valley Fire Protection District

Agrees; cites bylaws, CPA assistance and Board budget-review meetings.

Read official response · PDF page 3

Finding F8

The responsibility for adopting and adhering to an appropriate budget remains with the Board.

1 response · Penn Valley Fire Protection District

View finding and responses

Jury report: Spending Money It Didn't Have: Penn Valley Fire District's Board of Directors Lack of Attention to Their Fiscal Responsibility · PDF page 12

Permanent link
Official response
Penn Valley Fire Protection District

Agrees that adopting and adhering to the budget remains the Board’s responsibility.

Read official response · PDF page 3

Finding F9

In this decade, PVFD’s Board has approved the budgets that the Chief and the Finance Manager created without change.

1 response · Penn Valley Fire Protection District

View finding and responses

Jury report: Spending Money It Didn't Have: Penn Valley Fire District's Board of Directors Lack of Attention to Their Fiscal Responsibility · PDF page 12

Permanent link
Official response
Penn Valley Fire Protection District

Disagrees; describes repeated budget review, requested changes and the limits of meeting minutes.

Read official response · PDF page 3

Finding F10

PVFD’s Board does not maintain appropriate oversight of the district’s financial condition.

1 response · Penn Valley Fire Protection District

View finding and responses

Jury report: Spending Money It Didn't Have: Penn Valley Fire District's Board of Directors Lack of Attention to Their Fiscal Responsibility · PDF page 12

Permanent link
Official response
Penn Valley Fire Protection District

Disagrees; claims average $2.5 million year-opening balances and growing reserves demonstrate oversight.

Read official response · PDF page 3

Finding F11

The Board of Directors and each of its members has a fiduciary responsibility to the district and its residents.

1 response · Penn Valley Fire Protection District

View finding and responses

Jury report: Spending Money It Didn't Have: Penn Valley Fire District's Board of Directors Lack of Attention to Their Fiscal Responsibility · PDF page 12

Permanent link
Official response
Penn Valley Fire Protection District

Agrees with directors’ fiduciary responsibility.

Read official response · PDF page 3

Finding F12

In approving promotions and hires without a sufficient revenue stream to support them for more than a limited period, the Board has not fulfilled its fiduciary responsibility to the district.

1 response · Penn Valley Fire Protection District

View finding and responses

Jury report: Spending Money It Didn't Have: Penn Valley Fire District's Board of Directors Lack of Attention to Their Fiscal Responsibility · PDF page 12

Permanent link
Official response
Penn Valley Fire Protection District

Disagrees; says revenue and financial implications were discussed and both chiefs supported the promotions.

Read official response · PDF page 4

Finding F13

PVFD expended district money for the promotions and hires before its Board had approved the expenditure, the promotions, or the hires.

1 response · Penn Valley Fire Protection District

View finding and responses

Jury report: Spending Money It Didn't Have: Penn Valley Fire District's Board of Directors Lack of Attention to Their Fiscal Responsibility · PDF page 13

Permanent link
Official response
Penn Valley Fire Protection District

Disagrees; treats badges as budgeted clothing under Chief discretion and cites October 1 public direction.

Read official response · PDF page 4

Finding F14

That expenditure violated § 601 of PVFD’s bylaws.

1 response · Penn Valley Fire Protection District

View finding and responses

Jury report: Spending Money It Didn't Have: Penn Valley Fire District's Board of Directors Lack of Attention to Their Fiscal Responsibility · PDF page 13

Permanent link
Official response
Penn Valley Fire Protection District

Disagrees; says bylaw section 601 does not govern the budgeted badge purchase and cites attached SOP 101.

Read official response · PDF page 4

Finding F15

If the Board had already approved the promotions, hires, and expenditures, then the approval was not done in an open Board meeting and therefore violated the Brown Act.

1 response · Penn Valley Fire Protection District

View finding and responses

Jury report: Spending Money It Didn't Have: Penn Valley Fire District's Board of Directors Lack of Attention to Their Fiscal Responsibility · PDF page 13

Permanent link
Official response
Penn Valley Fire Protection District

Disagrees; says public direction occurred October 1 and promotions were approved November 5, 2024.

Read official response · PDF page 4

Finding F16

PVFD is moving forward with consolidation with R&R, but it is not completed.

1 response · Penn Valley Fire Protection District

View finding and responses

Jury report: Spending Money It Didn't Have: Penn Valley Fire District's Board of Directors Lack of Attention to Their Fiscal Responsibility · PDF page 13

Permanent link
Official response
Penn Valley Fire Protection District

Disagrees; says consolidation had been complete for twenty days at publication and cites report page 10.

Read official response · PDF page 4

Finding F17

Increased fire tax revenue from consolidation with R&R may help to offset the anticipated funds shortfall to which F1 refers.

1 response · Penn Valley Fire Protection District

View finding and responses

Jury report: Spending Money It Didn't Have: Penn Valley Fire District's Board of Directors Lack of Attention to Their Fiscal Responsibility · PDF page 13

Permanent link
Official response
Penn Valley Fire Protection District

Labels its answer AGREE but denies the anticipated shortfall and cites sustainable-revenue projections.

Read official response · PDF page 5

Finding F18

The increased fire tax revenue from consolidation with R&R will be close to $1 million per year.

1 response · Penn Valley Fire Protection District

View finding and responses

Jury report: Spending Money It Didn't Have: Penn Valley Fire District's Board of Directors Lack of Attention to Their Fiscal Responsibility · PDF page 13

Permanent link
Official response
Penn Valley Fire Protection District

Agrees and says added tax revenue will exceed $1 million annually.

Read official response · PDF page 5

Finding F19

The increased fire tax revenue from consolidation with R&R is not sufficient to cover the cost of PVFD’s November 2024 personnel changes over the long-term.

1 response · Penn Valley Fire Protection District

View finding and responses

Jury report: Spending Money It Didn't Have: Penn Valley Fire District's Board of Directors Lack of Attention to Their Fiscal Responsibility · PDF page 13

Permanent link
Official response
Penn Valley Fire Protection District

Disagrees; says consolidation revenue is sufficient for the long-term staffing costs.

Read official response · PDF page 5

Finding F20

The public would have been better served by consolidation of PVFD, NCC, R&R, and OH, as originally planned.

1 response · Penn Valley Fire Protection District

View finding and responses

Jury report: Spending Money It Didn't Have: Penn Valley Fire District's Board of Directors Lack of Attention to Their Fiscal Responsibility · PDF page 13

Permanent link
Official response
Penn Valley Fire Protection District

Disagrees; argues Rough and Ready residents gained ALS ambulance service that the four-way arrangement would not provide.

Read official response · PDF page 5

Bullying and Harassment at NJUHSD Schools: Going Underground?

11 findings

Finding F1

The District is complying with all State and Federal laws and codes regarding B&H.

1 response · Nevada Joint Union High School District

View finding and responses

Finding F2

The District has provided anti-B&H training for staff in addition to that required by CEC.

1 response · Nevada Joint Union High School District

View finding and responses

Finding F3

The information in this report indicates Bullying and harassment incidents are not decreasing within The District schools; they are increasing.

1 response · Nevada Joint Union High School District

View finding and responses

Jury report: Bullying and Harassment at NJUHSD Schools: Going Underground? · PDF page 14

Permanent link
Official response
Nevada Joint Union High School District

Disagrees; cites improving student safety perceptions and the report’s interview account.

Read official response · PDF page 31

Finding F4

Students at NUHS feel the least safe amongst all the students within The District’s Schools.

2 responses · Nevada Joint Union High School District · Nevada Union High School Principal

View finding and responses

Jury report: Bullying and Harassment at NJUHSD Schools: Going Underground? · PDF page 14

Permanent link
Official responses
Nevada Joint Union High School District

Agrees NUHS has the lowest perceived safety; explains school size, campus scale and diversity.

Read official response · PDF page 32
Nevada Union High School Principal

Partly disagrees; points to improved CHKS school-safety results.

Read official response · PDF page 26

Finding F5

The District LCAP metrics do not effectively measure B&H within its schools.

1 response · Nevada Joint Union High School District

View finding and responses

Jury report: Bullying and Harassment at NJUHSD Schools: Going Underground? · PDF page 14

Permanent link
Official response
Nevada Joint Union High School District

Disagrees; says LCAP measures broader climate and safety rather than bullying incident counts.

Read official response · PDF page 32

Finding F6

The District LCAP survey lacks the safeguards required to ensure survey integrity.

1 response · Nevada Joint Union High School District

View finding and responses

Jury report: Bullying and Harassment at NJUHSD Schools: Going Underground? · PDF page 14

Permanent link
Official response
Nevada Joint Union High School District

Disagrees; says staff review data, can screen anomalies and duplicates, and trust participants.

Read official response · PDF page 32

Finding F7

The District LCAP student survey participation rate for NUHS is far below that of other schools within The District.

2 responses · Nevada Joint Union High School District · Nevada Union High School Principal

View finding and responses

Jury report: Bullying and Harassment at NJUHSD Schools: Going Underground? · PDF page 14

Permanent link
Official responses
Nevada Joint Union High School District

Agrees participation was low in recent years and reports 65.5% in 2025–26.

Read official response · PDF page 32
Nevada Union High School Principal

Partly disagrees; distinguishes publicly available LCAP data, CHKS participation and survey methodology.

Read official response · PDF page 27

Finding F8

The District’s preventative efforts to reduce B&H have been primarily focused on district and school staff.

1 response · Nevada Joint Union High School District

View finding and responses

Jury report: Bullying and Harassment at NJUHSD Schools: Going Underground? · PDF page 14

Permanent link
Official response
Nevada Joint Union High School District

Agrees prevention primarily focused on staff; also describes beginning-of-year student training and continued efforts.

Read official response · PDF page 32

Finding F9

Schools within The District do not discipline equally for like offensives.

1 response · Nevada Joint Union High School District

View finding and responses

Jury report: Bullying and Harassment at NJUHSD Schools: Going Underground? · PDF page 14

Permanent link
Official response
Nevada Joint Union High School District

Disagrees; cites a Suspension and Expulsion Discipline Matrix and individual circumstances.

Read official response · PDF page 32

Finding F10

Student Handbooks are either not available, out of date, or not easily accessible on school websites within The District.

3 responses · Nevada Joint Union High School District · Nevada Union High School Principal · Bear River High School Principal

View finding and responses

Jury report: Bullying and Harassment at NJUHSD Schools: Going Underground? · PDF page 14

Permanent link
Official responses
Nevada Joint Union High School District

Partly agrees some handbooks are difficult to find; says NUHS and Bear River handbooks are searchable.

Read official response · PDF page 33
Nevada Union High School Principal

Disagrees for NUHS; says its current handbook is searchable and linked in weekly communications.

Read official response · PDF page 28
Bear River High School Principal

Describes existing search and weekly-message access to current and past handbooks without an explicit finding position.

Read official response · PDF page 37

Finding F11

The District’ superintendent has publicly taken a strong stance against B&H within its schools.

1 response · Nevada Joint Union High School District

View finding and responses

Questions

Editorial discussion prompts inspired by the reports. These are separate from the jury’s formal findings and recommendations.

Civic question

What information would help residents understand why a funded camp repair awaits approval and who can move it forward?

The formal finding describes shower deterioration and a funded remodeling project awaiting final approval. The question concerns transparent process, not a conclusion that the county controls State repair decisions.
Why this matters
Clear responsibility and milestones make facility problems easier to follow across agencies.

Supporting report

Washington Ridge Conservation Camp - Shower at your own risk! · Finding and Conclusion

Civic question

How should public reporting describe both conservation-camp training opportunities and community work without overlooking living conditions?

The report describes vocational training and community and firefighting work. This discussion considers how benefits and facility conditions can be reported together, without independently verifying the report’s cost estimates.
Why this matters
Residents can consider rehabilitation and public service alongside basic facility quality.

Supporting report

Washington Ridge Conservation Camp - Shower at your own risk! · Discussion

Civic question

How should pension reporting explain valuation dates and assumptions so residents can compare changing liability and payoff projections?

F1–F9 state liability, payment and payoff figures that the Board partly disputes. The question asks what explanatory detail would make such comparisons understandable rather than choosing a preferred set of figures.
Why this matters
Different dates and calculation methods can change the meaning of financial comparisons.

Supporting report

Planning for the Future: The Board of Supervisors' Approach to the Growing $220-Million Problem of Unfunded Pension Liabilities · Findings F1–F7

Civic question

What criteria should guide the balance between additional pension payments, reserves and current County services?

R5–R9 ask the Board to consider staffing, compensation and service changes as part of debt management. Discussion concerns tradeoff criteria, not an assumption that any particular cut is necessary.
Why this matters
Financial choices affect long-term costs and current service availability.

Supporting report

Planning for the Future: The Board of Supervisors' Approach to the Growing $220-Million Problem of Unfunded Pension Liabilities · Recommendations R5–R6

Civic question

What milestones and annual disclosures would make a pension funding plan’s progress understandable even when actuarial projections change?

R10 proposes full amortization by 2037 and R11 a substantial annual contribution from unexpended funds. The Board declines the target and offers plans and reporting; this question considers how to track the competing approaches.
Why this matters
A response, an adopted plan and actual payments are different stages of follow-through.

Supporting report

Planning for the Future: The Board of Supervisors' Approach to the Growing $220-Million Problem of Unfunded Pension Liabilities · Recommendations R10–R11

Civic question

How should fire-district directors demonstrate substantive involvement in annual budgets without duplicating staff preparation?

R1 calls for a budget subcommittee participating with the Chief and Finance Manager. Discussion considers useful public evidence of that role, not a judgment that staff delegation itself is improper.
Why this matters
Visible oversight can help residents understand the reasons behind personnel and spending choices.

Supporting report

Spending Money It Didn't Have: Penn Valley Fire District's Board of Directors Lack of Attention to Their Fiscal Responsibility · Recommendation R1

Civic question

What shared financial and service information should neighboring fire agencies use before staffing or consolidation decisions?

F1–F6 address sustainability, timing, competition for positions and partner involvement. The District disputes several conclusions; the question seeks a common evidence base rather than endorsing either account.
Why this matters
Shared assumptions can make regional service and cost tradeoffs clearer.

Supporting report

Spending Money It Didn't Have: Penn Valley Fire District's Board of Directors Lack of Attention to Their Fiscal Responsibility · Findings F1–F6

Civic question

How should a small district evaluate audit quality, competitive procurement and auditor rotation as different safeguards?

R6 recommends considering a new auditor and R7 considering rotation every five to seven years. The District describes future procurement and lead-auditor rotation; the question distinguishes those practices rather than assuming they are interchangeable.
Why this matters
Clear explanations help residents understand which oversight safeguard is actually proposed.

Supporting report

Spending Money It Didn't Have: Penn Valley Fire District's Board of Directors Lack of Attention to Their Fiscal Responsibility · Recommendations R6–R7

Civic question

Which measures should schools publish to distinguish reported bullying, student safety perceptions and survey participation?

F3–F7 question trends and survey quality; responding educators dispute interpretations and cite safety and participation data. This discussion concerns useful measurement, not a new estimate of unreported incidents.
Why this matters
Different measures answer different questions about student experience.

Supporting report

Bullying and Harassment at NJUHSD Schools: Going Underground? · Findings F3–F7

Civic question

What evidence and stakeholder input should guide whether schools retain, adapt or add bullying-prevention programs?

R4 proposes a program like OBPP at NUHS. Respondents describe existing initiatives and concerns about adoption; the question invites a comparison without prescribing a specific program.
Why this matters
Implementation choices affect student participation, trust and continuity of prevention work.

Supporting report

Bullying and Harassment at NJUHSD Schools: Going Underground? · Recommendation R4

Civic question

What would make current handbooks and bullying policies easy for students and families to find and use?

R5–R6 request prominent homepage access. Responses describe searchable resources and links being added, making availability, placement and currency distinct questions rather than equivalent completion claims.
Why this matters
Accessible expectations and reporting information can reduce confusion for families.

Supporting report

Bullying and Harassment at NJUHSD Schools: Going Underground? · Recommendations R5–R6

Sources

Original reports and response documents provide the evidence behind this cycle’s findings, recommendations, and discussions.

Report overview: Washington Ridge Conservation Camp - Shower at your own risk!

Official report

Washington Ridge Conservation Camp - Shower at your own risk!

Reviews an April 2026 visit to the conservation camp and describes its community work and training programs. One unnumbered formal finding concerns deteriorated showers and a funded remodeling project awaiting approval. The jury urges repair while stating it lacks authority over State agencies; the conclusion is not converted into a numbered recommendation.
Report overviewOfficial PDF
Report overview: Planning for the Future: The Board of Supervisors' Approach to the Growing $220-Million Problem of Unfunded Pension Liabilities

Response available

Planning for the Future: The Board of Supervisors' Approach to the Growing $220-Million Problem of Unfunded Pension Liabilities

Examines pension-liability projections, additional payments, reserve choices and follow-through on earlier planning commitments. The Board disputes several amounts and the jury’s policy interpretation, citing actuarial valuations, meetings and consultant work. It declines the proposed 2037 full-funding target and promises further plans and reporting. Competing financial claims remain attributed to their sources, not independently reconciled.
Report overviewCounty response & auditOfficial PDF
Report overview: Spending Money It Didn't Have: Penn Valley Fire District's Board of Directors Lack of Attention to Their Fiscal Responsibility

Response available

Spending Money It Didn't Have: Penn Valley Fire District's Board of Directors Lack of Attention to Their Fiscal Responsibility

Examines promotions and hires, consolidation planning, revenue sustainability, budget oversight and purchasing authority. The District disputes many findings and explains staffing and service benefits, while promising a finance committee and future audit procurement. The report’s narrative and F16 conflict on consolidation completion; the source finding is preserved and the contradiction disclosed. Brown Act and bylaw conclusions are not independent hub legal findings.
Report overviewCounty response & auditOfficial PDF
Report overview: Bullying and Harassment at NJUHSD Schools: Going Underground?

Response available

Bullying and Harassment at NJUHSD Schools: Going Underground?

Examines bullying measurement, survey integrity and participation, prevention programs, discipline and handbook access. District and principal responses dispute parts of the analysis, describe existing programs and promise website changes. The supplied compilation contains District, Nevada Union and Bear River responses; separate Silver Springs and Ghidotti principal letters were not supplied. That gap does not establish failure to respond.
Report overviewCounty response & auditOfficial PDF

Response documents

Unfunded Pension Liabilities: Board Response · Nevada County Board of Supervisors · PDFPenn Valley Fire: District Response · Penn Valley Fire Protection District · PDFBullying and Harassment: District and Principal Responses · Nevada Joint Union High School District; Nevada Union High School Principal; Bear River High School Principal · PDF