Miscellaneious THE UNION Articles of interest

By Dave Moller, davem@theunion.com
July 4, 2005

Sherry Raffanti and John Lussman live on a beautiful, sloped piece of land near Cedar Ridge that has one major flaw: it is a perfect set up for illegal dumpers.

The couple has dealt with hit-and-run trash heaps for years, but a recent one was too much.

"It looks like they cleaned up after building a house and just dumped it," Raffanti said.

Normally, people unload their trash from pickup trucks, "but this time, it looks like a dump truck," Lussman said.

This time, the dumpers left solvent and paint, which qualifies the pile as a toxic site, according to Grant Eisen, an environmental specialist with the Nevada County Department of Environmental Health.

"This is one of the worst examples I've seen," Eisen said. "It's a blatant disregard of someone's property."

It is also an expensive proposition for Lussman and Raffanti, who are required to clean the dump at their expense by county law.

Eisen is sympathetic.

"I've been trying to find some state agencies to deal with this midnight run," he said. If the couple hires a consultant who finds hazardous waste in the dump, the state might pick up the tab.

"We don't want to make them the villains," Eisen said about Lussman and Raffanti. "I think it was an illegal hauler.

"There's only one franchised hauler in western Nevada County, and that's Waste Management. This dumping is rampant throughout the county."

Pig sty

Three years ago, an illegal dump near Dead Man's Flat Road just off Highway 20 between Grass Valley and Penn Valley cost $18,000 to clean up, Eisen said.

That area is a long-standing illegal dumping ground, according to Larry Badger, who lives on Rex Reservoir Road.

"It's not as bad as it once was, but it's an ongoing problem," he said. "We got a dead hog the other night at the intersection of Rex and Flying T (roads.)"

When dumpers do come, "we try to get it cleaned up immediately because if we didn't, someone else sees it and thinks there's already trash there, and so they dump there," said Terry Spink, who is a neighbor of Badger's. "In a day or two, it's spread all over" because of wind and animals.

Spink said there has been one way to stop the dumping, He identifies the guilty by sifting through what they leave behind.

"One woman, we put her name and number on the trash," Spink said. "She got about 50 calls and finally cleaned it up, that worked the best."

It can also be dangerous.

"One guy we called threatened us," Spink said.

For the Cedar Ridge couple, "the dumping has been going on since 1989," Raffanti said. "John has to go around and pick up every week."

Through the years, they have picked up "couches, refrigerators, TVs and hundreds of tires," Raffanti said. "We spend $500 to $1,000 every year cleaning up our own property from other people."

County law classifies illegal dumping as a misdemeanor. Fines levied depend on the severity and the load size. Guilty parties also have to pay the dump fee and fix the property.

The problem is so bad, the county each week sends out two workers who spend five to seven hours cleaning up illegal dumps, according to Steve Porter, the county's solid waste manager.

Porter said he hopes the new schedule for the county's McCourtney Road landfill, which includes being open on Mondays, will help. The landfill is now open from 8 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., seven days a week.

There are also two transfer stations on the San Juan Ridge and in Washington where people can leave their solid waste, both open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. The San Juan Ridge station is open Friday through Tuesday and the Washington station is open Friday through Sunday.

ooo

By Brittany Retherford
July 12, 2005

Twelve business owners in downtown Nevada City were appointed to the downtown area's newly formed Business Improvement District's advisory board Monday night.

At its meeting, the Nevada City City Council supported the 12 nominees, all of whom have worked diligently on pushing the controversial district into being.

Four slots still remain open on the board and are available to anybody who owns a business within the district boundaries, said former Nevada County Supervisor Peter Van Zant, who is also a nonvoting member of the board.

Councilman Steve Cottrell had hoped to instead open up the election to eight new members on the 16-seat board to help alleviate some of the animosity that has accrued over the past months, serving as a bridge to bring the sides together. The district proposal had faced strong opposition - almost 40 percent of downtown businesses.

His suggestion was rejected by the other council members, who felt that the appointed 12 had already paid their dues.

Advisory board voting members:
Len Berardi, Mountain House Books
Pat Dyer, Utopian Stone
Lee Good, Good & Company Realty
Kathy Killis, Mountain Pastimes
Kim James, Nevada theatre Commission
Eileen Jorgensen, The Magic Carpet
Martha Meredith, J.J. Jackson's
Gregg Olsen, MFT
Robert Perez, Citronee
Wyn Spiller, Nevada City Winery
Janet Windus, Summerwood
Stu Wolfson, Maiden Lane

• Four members will be elected from district’s membership

Nonvoting:
LeeAnn Brook, Brook Design Group
Gary Tintle, Tintle, Inc.
Peter Van Zant, Peter Van Zant Associates

• There will also be one nonvoting representative from the City Council and one from the city’s Chamber of Commerce.

"There has been a tremendous amount of work done by those already involved," said Councilwoman Sally Harris, adding that these people are those most vested in achieving success - a necessary quality in a first-year project.

Besides, if the improvement district is approved for the following year, these board members will face re-election.

Ballots will be mailed out as soon as possible to district members, Van Zant said, and volunteers are urged to come forward. The amount of work involved in being a board member is uncertain, with the numbers of meetings per month still under consideration. Members will be responsible for guiding the actions of the district for the next year, including setting priorities for projects and for the spending of the anticipated $40,000 to be raised from the annual tax.

Also at Monday night's meeting:

• The City Council discussed upcoming plans to celebrate the city's 150th anniversary of being an incorporated town. The date is still nine months away - April 19, 2006 - but Mayor Conley Weaver wanted to ensure that planning begins for a massive celebration.

• Councilman Cottrell's idea to pass a resolution promising the city's residents that eminent domain would never be used to take private properties for commercial development was met with absolute silence from the rest of the City Council.

Councilman Kerry Arnett said that protection could be better found at the county or state level; a city ordinance could be too easily overturned.

• City Manager Mark Miller said that he hopes a deal is struck soon with cable franchise giant Comcast. A meeting is planned for Thursday and "hopefully we will come up with some kind of resolution. There seems to be some movement on the part of Comcast."

Nevada City, Grass Valley and Nevada County have been battling with Comcast for months over how much the cable company should have to pay for the county's primary public access television station, NCTV. Some payment is required as part of Comcast's franchise agreements with the cities and the county.

Due to lack of funds, NCTV has been showing reruns since the beginning of July.

To contact staff writer Brittany Retherford, e-mail brittanyr@theunion.com or call 477-4247.

By The Union Editorial Board
July 14, 2005

The Nevada City City Council may have missed an opportunity to mend some wounds when it chose only to select supporters of the Business Improvement District for its advisory board.

The creation of a Business Improvement District, or BID, has been a contentious issue since it was proposed. Some downtown merchants felt it was unnecessary to create another layer of government that would require them to pay an assessment tax, especially since it appears that business remains robust in the historic mining town.

Nonetheless, the council approved on a 4-1 vote a BID, which holds the promise of sprucing up the downtown and attracting more business.

On Monday night, the city council appointed 12 members to the BID's first advisory board. All of those people were strong supporters of this hotly debated proposal. Four more members will be elected to the board, as will all future members.

One of the unfortunate consequences of the BID debate is that it either revealed or created some bitter divisions in the Nevada City business community. By appointing only the supporters of the BID, the council could further exacerbate the wounds and that might make it more difficult for the BID to succeed in the future.

On the other hand, the city council could have taken a step toward healing those wounds by putting BID opponents on the advisory board. After all, these merchants will be paying to support the BID and its initiatives. It only seems fair that their voices have the same weight as the proponents who will now play a prominent role in determining the how the money will be spent.

Councilman Steve Cottrell offered a viable alternative when he sought to have eight of the original 16 advisory board members elected, which might have made the implementation of the BID more complicated but would have given the board a greater diversity of viewpoints. Now, the four elected board members won't have much of a voice since the dozen appointed members constitute an overwhelming majority.

We hope that the BID realizes all the potential its supporters claim it can reach. It takes courage and will power to implement a vision. However, the proponents' victory could be bittersweet in the long run unless the city council sends a message that even the opponents of the BID are welcome to help shape a new future for Nevada City's downtown business district.

By Charles Heinkel
July 20, 2005

A recent article in The Union contained a critical review of the Board of Supervisors as reported by the Nevada County Grand jury.

Since the Board of Supervisors and the Grand Jury are both new, it is evident that the critique is aimed at a previous board.

However, a questions arise as to the compiling of the information in the Grand Jury's report.

What are the qualifications required to be a member of the Nevada County Grand Jury? Who determines the necessary qualifications? Who reviews and confirms the qualifications? Who determines the agenda of the Grand Jury?

When a subject is selected, who determines who the witnesses will be? How are the witnesses summoned? Are they called by a subpoena? Are the witnesses sworn-in? Who questions the witnesses?

Who transcribes the questions and answers? Who writes the reports? Are the reports approved unanimously?

Charles Heinkel, Nevada City

By Diane O. Masini
July 23, 2005

As a former juror of the Nevada County Grand Jury (three terms) and a board member of the Nevada County Chapter of the California Grand Jurors Association and also The California Grand Jurors' Association, I was pleased to see the recent letter to The Union asking grand jury questions as it lends an opportunity to educate the public about the substantial oversight and reporting powers grand juries have.

The California State Constitution requires that each county impanel a "regular" grand jury every year. Such grand juries have broad powers to, among other things, investigate and report upon the conduct of local government.

Regular grand juries are governed by the Penal Code ¤ 888 through 939.91. The penal code, for the most part, provides for the creation and activities of the grand jury. Selected portions of the government, evidence, revenue and tax and other codes impact the grand jury's functioning as well. These codes are available at the law library in your county courthouse, and may be available in your local public library or a college library located in your community or the statutes can be researched on line at: www.leginfo.ca.gov.

The Nevada County Grand Jury is composed of 19 citizens fully independent of administrators, politicians and legislators. With its investigatory powers, it makes recommendations which improve city and county services and save taxpayer dollars. The grand jury speaks out when government does not perform effectively.

Here in Nevada County, citizens are asked to volunteer to serve as members of the grand jury. From this pool, applicants are selected by random drawing by the Superior Court to make up a grand jury to act as an arm of the court. Jurors serve for a period of one year.

The selection process is governed by Penal Code ¤ 893(a) ..."A person is competent to act as a grand juror only if he or she possesses each of the following qualifications:

Be a citizen of the United States and a resident of Nevada County for at least one year.

Be at least eighteen years of age.

Possess ordinary intelligence, sound judgment and fair character.

Possess sufficient knowledge of the English language.

Never have been convicted of a felony, malfeasance or other high crime.

Who reviews and confirms the qualifications? Penal Code ¤ 896 states: ... "the court shall select the grand jurors required by personal interview for the purpose of ascertaining whether they possess the qualifications prescribed by subdivision (a) of Section 893. If a person so interviewed, in the opinion of the court, possesses the necessary qualifications ..."

Who determines the agenda of the grand gury? While it is a part of the judicial system, a grand jury is an entirely independent body. Judges of the Superior Court, the district attorney, the county counsel and the state attorney general may act as its advisors, but cannot control the actions of the grand jury.

Penal Code ¤ 916 is the source of the grand jury's authority to decide for themselves what of the things it is empowered to do, they want to investigate, how to proceed in the investigation and how much energy to invest in doing it right.

When a subject is selected, who determines who the witnesses will be? Who questions the witnesses? The full jury will decide what it wishes to investigate. The actual investigation is turned over to one of the several investigative committees that will do the investigative research and conduct interviews accordingly.

How are the witnesses summoned? Are they called by a subpoena? Are the witnesses sworn-in? The jury obtains valuable information by informally meeting with county and city officials and visiting county facilities. Interviewees are asked to sign a confidentiality agreement. The grand jury may retain a subpoena for reluctant witnesses. Witnesses are sworn by grand jury discretion.

Who transcribes the questions and answers? Who writes the reports? Are the reports approved unanimously? The investigative committee will review all appropriate information gathered from which they prepare written summaries of their investigation findings, conclusions and also recommendations for improvements in procedures and processes. The committee will authenticate their findings with the various sources, then submit the report to the full jury for review. The full jury has three options: It can return the report to the investigative committee to re-work, revise or reconsider, approve as written or approve as amended with minor changes. No less than 12 jurors must agree to approve the report for release.

Since the Board of Supervisors and the grand jury are both new, it is evident that the critique is aimed at a previous board. A new jury's investigations of government entities and study of citizen's complaints pertain only to the year they are actively serving as a juror.

In keeping with their most frequently exercised function known as the "watchdog" function, the jury will follow-up on the status of recommendations made in prior years reports to ascertain if the agreed to recommendations have been implemented and are working. If their research indicates that government has not met the implementation schedule originally agreed to, the new jury might decide to write a new report on the same subject.

The grand jury maintains a web site where full reports and their responses from 1997-2005 are stored for public viewing. I strongly urge that interested citizens visit the grand jury's web site, www.civilgrandjury.com

ooo

Diane O. Masini lives in Grass Valley. She is an advocate of promoting government accountability by improving the training and resources available to California's 58 regular grand juries and educating the public about the substantial local government oversight and reporting powers these grand juries have.