Regular Meeting of
Nevada City Council
City Hall – Beryl P. Robinson, Jr. Conference Room
317 Broad Street, Nevada City, CA 95959
WEDNESDAY August 24, 2022 6:30 P.M.
MISSION STATEMENT
The City of Nevada City is dedicated to preserving and enhancing its small town character and historical architecture while providing quality public services for our current and future residents, businesses and visitors.
Doug Fleming, Mayor
Daniela Fernández, Vice Mayor Gary Petersen, Council Member Adam Kline, Council Member Lou Ceci, Council Member
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC: Please be advised that the Council Chambers are currently open to the public. This meeting is accessible to the public in person, via Zoom video conference, via YouTube, or on the local government cable channel 17. Individual City Council members may participate remotely in accordance with applicable open meeting law requirements. In-person meetings will be conducted in accordance with local and State Department of Public Health orders and guidance and requirements of the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (CalOSHA).
The public is encouraged to participate or observe this meeting by:
1. Attending this meeting in person at the City of Nevada City Council Chambers located at 317 Broad Street Nevada City, California.
2. Attending this meeting via Zoom video conference by linking to the following site:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89009138474 or,
by telephone: Dial 1-669-900-9128 Webinar ID: 890 0913 8474
3. Observing this meeting live from the City of Nevada City YouTube channel at:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSQwrXtey12YIl3IbyGMYQ
4. Observe this meeting live from the local government cable channel 17 Public comments may be made:
1. In person: Live at the meeting. Members of the public desiring to speak on a matter appearing on the agenda should ask the Mayor for the opportunity to be heard when the item comes up for Council consideration. Comments for all agenda items are limited to a speaking time of three minutes.
2. Via Zoom: If you choose to join the City Council Meeting via Zoom video conference you will be able to utilize the “Raise Hand”. If joining by telephone: Dial 1-669-900-9128 Webinar ID: 890 0913 8474, dial *9 to “Raise Hand”. The Mayor will call on those who wish to speak at the appropriate time, not to exceed three minutes.
3. In writing: Email your comments to [email protected] Comments will be accepted until 7pm on the Monday prior to the meeting date. Comments will not be read during the City Council meeting (due to virtual participation option above), but will be forwarded to all Council Members prior to the City Council Meeting, so they have time to read them before to the meeting time. When sending an email it is extremely helpful to include the following:
• Full Name
• Address (specific or general, ie: resident in unincorporated Nevada City) • The item number that you are commenting on
Any writing that is a public record that relates to an agenda item for open session distributed less than 72 hours prior to the meeting will be available for public inspection at City Hall, 317 Broad Street, Nevada City, California during normal business hours. Government Code § 54957.5(b)(1). Copies will also be provided at the appropriate meeting.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Deputy City Clerk at 530-265-0187 Extension 133. Notification at least 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II].
CALL TO ORDER
NISENAN TRIBE RECOGNITION: This City Council Meeting Convenes On the Ancestral Territories of the Nevada City Rancheria Nisenan Tribe
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL _____ Mayor Fleming
_____ Vice-Mayor Fernández
_____ Councilmember Petersen
_____ Councilmember Kline
_____ Councilmember Ceci
MEETING PROCEDURES: All items on agenda will be open for public comments before final action is taken. Citizens wishing to introduce written material into the record at the public meeting on any item are requested to provide a copy of the written material to the Deputy City Clerk prior to the meeting date so that the material may be distributed to the City Council prior to the meeting.
Speakers must restrict comments to the item as it appears on the agenda and stay within a three minutes time limit (or lesser time if the Mayor determines it necessary due to the number of persons who may wish to speak on an item). The Mayor similarly has the discretion of limiting the total discussion time for an item as may be necessary.
ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA (This is the time for agenda modifications) ANNOUNCEMENT OF ACTION FROM CLOSED SESSION (if needed)
PRESENTATIONS (none)
PUBLIC COMMENT: Government Code Section 54954.3 provides that any member of the public may address the City Council on any matter NOT ON THE AGENDA that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the city. The Brown Act, with limited exceptions, does not allow the Council or staff to discuss issues brought forth under Public Comment. The Council cannot take action on non-agenda items. Concerns may be referred to staff or placed on a future agenda. Please note that comments from the public will also be taken on each agenda item. At the time it is heard. Speakers must restrict comments to the item as it appears on the agenda and stay within a three minutes time limit (or lesser time if the Mayor determines it necessary due to the number of persons who may wish to speak on an item). The Mayor similarly has the discretion of limiting the total discussion time for an item as may be necessary.
CONSENT AGENDA: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine in nature and will be approved by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the Council or staff has requested a change under Adoption of the Agenda, in which case the item will be removed for separate consideration. Any item so removed will be taken up following the motion to approve the Consent Agenda
1. Action Minutes August 10, 2022 Regular Meeting
Recommended Action: Review and approve
2. Fire Activity Report – June 2022
Recommended Action: Receive and file
3. Consideration of Authorization of Procurement for a Tank System for Sodium Bisulfate storage from Misco Water in the Amount of $32,154 for Nevada City Wastewater Treatment Plant and Authorize the City Manager to Execute the Purchase Order
Recommended Action: Authorize the procurement and authorize the City Manager to execute the purchase order
4. Consideration of Adoption of Resolution No. 2021-44: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Nevada City Making the Legally Required Findings to Continue to Authorize the Conduct of Remote “Telephonic” Meetings During the State of Emergency
Recommended Action: Reconfirm resolution
5. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2022-09: An Ordinance of the City of Nevada City, California Adding Chapter 12.32 (“Filming Activities”) to Title 12 (“Streets, Sidewalks and Public Places”) Regarding the Regulation of Filming Activities on or Using Public Property of the City
Recommended Action: Hold second reading and adopt ordinance CONSENT ITEMS FORWARD (if needed): Items pulled from the Consent Agenda will be discussed individually with action taken by separate motion.
BUSINESS
6. Consideration of an Extension of Time Request for Filing of a Final Map for the Project Known as Gracie Commons at 400 Gracie Road, Nevada City, California Recommended Action: Approve the Extension of Time for the Gracie Commons Tentative Final Map, the Use Permit accommodating the Planned Unit Development proposal, and the Architectural Review approval, subject to the Conditions of Approval as previously approved
7. Consideration to Accept, Receive, and File the Audit, Financial Statements, and Management Report for Year End June 30, 2021
Recommended Action: Receive a report from the City’s independent audit firm and staff and then accept, receive and file the audit and related documents
8. Consideration of Award of a Professional Services Contract with TJKM Transportation Consultants for a Parking Demand Study in an Amount Not-toExceed $75,000 and Authorize the City Manager to Sign the Contract Recommended Action: Award of Professional Services Contract for Parking Demand Study and authorize the City Manager to sign the contract
CITY MANAGER, COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting will adjourn at 9:30 P.M. unless a decision is made by motion of a Councilmember to extend the time.
Certification of Posting of Agenda
I, Gabrielle Christakes, Administrative Services Manager/Deputy City Clerk for the City of Nevada City, declares that the foregoing agenda for the August 24, 2022 Regular Meeting of the Nevada City City Council was posted August 19, 2022 at the entrance of City Hall. The agenda, along with staff reports, is also posted on the City’s website.
Signed August 19, 2022 at Nevada City, California
____________________________________________________________ Gabrielle Christakes, Administrative Services Manager/Deputy City Clerk Regular Meeting of
Nevada City Council
City Hall – Beryl P. Robinson, Jr. Conference Room
317 Broad Street, Nevada City, CA 95959
WEDNESDAY August 24, 2022 6:30 P.M.
MISSION STATEMENT
The City of Nevada City is dedicated to preserving and enhancing its small town character and historical architecture while providing quality public services for our current and future residents, businesses and visitors.
Doug Fleming, Mayor
Daniela Fernández, Vice Mayor Gary Petersen, Council Member Adam Kline, Council Member Lou Ceci, Council Member
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC: Please be advised that the Council Chambers are currently open to the public. This meeting is accessible to the public in person, via Zoom video conference, via YouTube, or on the local government cable channel 17. Individual City Council members may participate remotely in accordance with applicable open meeting law requirements. In-person meetings will be conducted in accordance with local and State Department of Public Health orders and guidance and requirements of the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (CalOSHA).
The public is encouraged to participate or observe this meeting by:
1. Attending this meeting in person at the City of Nevada City Council Chambers located at 317 Broad Street Nevada City, California.
2. Attending this meeting via Zoom video conference by linking to the following site:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89009138474 or,
by telephone: Dial 1-669-900-9128 Webinar ID: 890 0913 8474
3. Observing this meeting live from the City of Nevada City YouTube channel at:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSQwrXtey12YIl3IbyGMYQ
4. Observe this meeting live from the local government cable channel 17 Public comments may be made:
1. In person: Live at the meeting. Members of the public desiring to speak on a matter appearing on the agenda should ask the Mayor for the opportunity to be heard when the item comes up for Council consideration. Comments for all agenda items are limited to a speaking time of three minutes.
2. Via Zoom: If you choose to join the City Council Meeting via Zoom video conference you will be able to utilize the “Raise Hand”. If joining by telephone: Dial 1-669-900-9128 Webinar ID: 890 0913 8474, dial *9 to “Raise Hand”. The Mayor will call on those who wish to speak at the appropriate time, not to exceed three minutes.
3. In writing: Email your comments to [email protected] Comments will be accepted until 7pm on the Monday prior to the meeting date. Comments will not be read during the City Council meeting (due to virtual participation option above), but will be forwarded to all Council Members prior to the City Council Meeting, so they have time to read them before to the meeting time. When sending an email it is extremely helpful to include the following:
• Full Name
• Address (specific or general, ie: resident in unincorporated Nevada City) • The item number that you are commenting on
Any writing that is a public record that relates to an agenda item for open session distributed less than 72 hours prior to the meeting will be available for public inspection at City Hall, 317 Broad Street, Nevada City, California during normal business hours. Government Code § 54957.5(b)(1). Copies will also be provided at the appropriate meeting.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Deputy City Clerk at 530-265-0187 Extension 133. Notification at least 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II].
CALL TO ORDER
NISENAN TRIBE RECOGNITION: This City Council Meeting Convenes On the Ancestral Territories of the Nevada City Rancheria Nisenan Tribe
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL _____ Mayor Fleming
_____ Vice-Mayor Fernández
_____ Councilmember Petersen
_____ Councilmember Kline
_____ Councilmember Ceci
MEETING PROCEDURES: All items on agenda will be open for public comments before final action is taken. Citizens wishing to introduce written material into the record at the public meeting on any item are requested to provide a copy of the written material to the Deputy City Clerk prior to the meeting date so that the material may be distributed to the City Council prior to the meeting.
Speakers must restrict comments to the item as it appears on the agenda and stay within a three minutes time limit (or lesser time if the Mayor determines it necessary due to the number of persons who may wish to speak on an item). The Mayor similarly has the discretion of limiting the total discussion time for an item as may be necessary.
ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA (This is the time for agenda modifications) ANNOUNCEMENT OF ACTION FROM CLOSED SESSION (if needed)
PRESENTATIONS (none)
PUBLIC COMMENT: Government Code Section 54954.3 provides that any member of the public may address the City Council on any matter NOT ON THE AGENDA that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the city. The Brown Act, with limited exceptions, does not allow the Council or staff to discuss issues brought forth under Public Comment. The Council cannot take action on non-agenda items. Concerns may be referred to staff or placed on a future agenda. Please note that comments from the public will also be taken on each agenda item. At the time it is heard. Speakers must restrict comments to the item as it appears on the agenda and stay within a three minutes time limit (or lesser time if the Mayor determines it necessary due to the number of persons who may wish to speak on an item). The Mayor similarly has the discretion of limiting the total discussion time for an item as may be necessary.
CONSENT AGENDA: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine in nature and will be approved by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the Council or staff has requested a change under Adoption of the Agenda, in which case the item will be removed for separate consideration. Any item so removed will be taken up following the motion to approve the Consent Agenda
1. Action Minutes August 10, 2022 Regular Meeting
Recommended Action: Review and approve
2. Fire Activity Report – June 2022
Recommended Action: Receive and file
3. Consideration of Authorization of Procurement for a Tank System for Sodium Bisulfate storage from Misco Water in the Amount of $32,154 for Nevada City Wastewater Treatment Plant and Authorize the City Manager to Execute the Purchase Order
Recommended Action: Authorize the procurement and authorize the City Manager to execute the purchase order
4. Consideration of Adoption of Resolution No. 2021-44: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Nevada City Making the Legally Required Findings to Continue to Authorize the Conduct of Remote “Telephonic” Meetings During the State of Emergency
Recommended Action: Reconfirm resolution
5. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2022-09: An Ordinance of the City of Nevada City, California Adding Chapter 12.32 (“Filming Activities”) to Title 12 (“Streets, Sidewalks and Public Places”) Regarding the Regulation of Filming Activities on or Using Public Property of the City
Recommended Action: Hold second reading and adopt ordinance CONSENT ITEMS FORWARD (if needed): Items pulled from the Consent Agenda will be discussed individually with action taken by separate motion.
BUSINESS
6. Consideration of an Extension of Time Request for Filing of a Final Map for the Project Known as Gracie Commons at 400 Gracie Road, Nevada City, California Recommended Action: Approve the Extension of Time for the Gracie Commons Tentative Final Map, the Use Permit accommodating the Planned Unit Development proposal, and the Architectural Review approval, subject to the Conditions of Approval as previously approved
7. Consideration to Accept, Receive, and File the Audit, Financial Statements, and Management Report for Year End June 30, 2021
Recommended Action: Receive a report from the City’s independent audit firm and staff and then accept, receive and file the audit and related documents
8. Consideration of Award of a Professional Services Contract with TJKM Transportation Consultants for a Parking Demand Study in an Amount Not-toExceed $75,000 and Authorize the City Manager to Sign the Contract Recommended Action: Award of Professional Services Contract for Parking Demand Study and authorize the City Manager to sign the contract
CITY MANAGER, COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting will adjourn at 9:30 P.M. unless a decision is made by motion of a Councilmember to extend the time.
Certification of Posting of Agenda
I, Gabrielle Christakes, Administrative Services Manager/Deputy City Clerk for the City of Nevada City, declares that the foregoing agenda for the August 24, 2022 Regular Meeting of the Nevada City City Council was posted August 19, 2022 at the entrance of City Hall. The agenda, along with staff reports, is also posted on the City’s website.
Signed August 19, 2022 at Nevada City, California
____________________________________________________________ Gabrielle Christakes, Administrative Services Manager/Deputy City Clerk 1 CITY OF NEVADA CITY
ACTION MINUTES
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUG 10, 2022
NOTE: This meeting is available to view on the City’s website www.nevadacityca.gov – Go to Quick Links and Click on Agendas & Minutes and find the Archived Videos in the middle of the screen. Select the meeting date and Click on Video to watch the meeting. For website assistance, please contact Gabrielle Christakes, Deputy City Clerk at (530) 265-2496, ext 133. - City Council Meetings are available on DVD. To order, contact City Hall - cost is $15.00 per DVD. - Closed Session Meetings are not recorded.
CLOSED SESSION – 5:31 Call to Order
Nothing to report out
REGULAR MEETING – 6:30 PM - Call to Order
NISENAN TRIBE RECOGNITION
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Roll Call: Present: Mayor Fleming, Vice Mayor Fernàndez, Council Members Petersen, Kline and Ceci
ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA:
Action: Motion by Ceci, seconded by Kline to adopt the agenda as presented. (Approved 5-0)
PRESENTATIONS:
Employee Introduction: Nick Kendrick, police Officer
PUBLIC COMMENT (Per Government Code Section 54954.3)
Please refer to the meeting video on the City’s website at www.nevadacityca.gov.
CONSENT ITEMS:
1. Action Minutes July 28, 2022 Regular Meeting
Recommended Action: Review and approve
2. Accounts Payable – July 2022
Recommended Action: Receive and file
3. Police Activity Report July 2022
Recommended Action: Receive and file
4. Building Activity Report July 2022
Recommended Action: Receive and file
2 5. Consideration of Adoption of Resolution No. 2021-44: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Nevada City Making the Legally Required Findings to Continue to Authorize the Conduct of Remote “Telephonic” Meetings During the State of Emergency Recommended Action: Reconfirm resolution
Action: Motion by Fernàndez, seconded by Kline to approve Consent Items 1-5.
Approved 5-0, - Roll call votes ayes; Fleming, Fernàndez, Petersen, Kline and Ceci
PUBLIC HEARING
6. Conduct a Public Hearing in Consideration of Ordinance No. 2022-09: An Ordinance of the City of Nevada City, California Adding Chapter 12.32 (“Filming Activities”) to Title 12 (“Streets, Sidewalks and Public Places”) Regarding the Regulation of Filming Activities on or Using Public Property of the City
Recommended Action: Hold first reading, waive reading of Ordinance in its entirety, read by title only, and schedule for second reading and adoption for August 24, 2022 Action: Motion by Ceci, seconded by Petersen to hold first reading, waive reading of Ordinance in its entirety, read by title only, and schedule for second reading and adoption for August 24, 2022 Approved 5-0, - Roll call votes ayes; Fleming, Fernàndez, Petersen, Kline and Ceci
BUSINESS
7. Consideration of a Request to Authorize the Placement of a Dedication Plaque at the Pioneer Park Bandshell in Honor of Rusty Schuetz and the Donation of Services to Repaint the Bandshell Ceiling
Recommended Action: Approve the request pending concurrence of the applicant and City Manager as to final placement location and accept the donation of services to be coordinated with and approved by the City Manager
Action: Motion by Ceci, seconded by Petersen to Authorize the Placement of a Dedication Plaque at the Pioneer Park Bandshell in Honor of Rusty Schuetz and the Donation of Services to Repaint the Bandshell Ceiling
Approved 5-0, - Roll call votes ayes; Fleming, Fernàndez, Petersen, Kline and Ceci
8. Consideration of 1) Receive a Presentation from Pioneer Community Energy on Community Choice Aggregation (CCA); and 2) Authorize the City Manager to Initiate an Implementation Study for the Purposes of Evaluating Nevada City joining Pioneer Community Energy’s Joint Powers Authority (JPA) in an Amount Not-To-Exceed $15,000 Recommended Action: Receive the presentation, authorize the implementation study and the related expense
Action: Motion by Petersen, seconded by Fernàndez to Authorize the City Manager to Initiate an Implementation Study for the Purposes of Evaluating Nevada City joining Pioneer Community Energy’s Joint Powers Authority (JPA) in an Amount Not-To-Exceed $15,000 Approved 5-0, - Roll call votes ayes; Fleming, Fernàndez, Petersen, Kline and Ceci
9. Receive, File, and Accept the Certificate of Sufficiency of Initiative Petition for the Nevada City Historic Neighborhoods District Initiative and Take Action on the Petition Recommended Action: Receive, file, and accept the Certificate of Sufficiency and take action to:
1. Conduct the first reading of the proposed ordinance; or 3 2. Adopt a resolution that calls a regular election on the proposed ordinance for June 4, 2024; or
3. Adopt a resolution that calls a special election on the proposed ordinance for November 8, 2022; or
4. Direct staff to prepare a report on the impact of the proposed ordinance.
Action: Motion by Petersen, seconded by Ceci to Adopt a resolution that calls a regular election on the proposed ordinance for June 4, 2024
Approved 4-1, - Roll call votes ayes; Fleming, Fernàndez, Petersen and Ceci Noes: Kline CITY MANAGER AND COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS: Verbal report provided ADJOURNMENT: 9:07 PM
AYES: FLEMING, FERNÁNDEZ, PETERSEN, KLINE, CECI
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
____________________________
Doug Fleming, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Niel Locke, City Clerk
CITY OF NEVADA CITY
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
MEETING OF: August 24, 2022 Agenda Item No. 02
Subject:
Fire Activity Report – July 2022
From:
Sam Goodspeed, Division Chief
Date:
August 17,2022
Reviewed & Approved: STG
Recommended Action:
Receive and File
ISSUE STATEMENT AND DISCUSSION:
The attached Fire Activity Report reviews the monthly responses for Nevada City Fire Station 5.
FINANCIAL AND/OR POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
Not applicable.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS:
Not applicable.
LEGAL REVIEW:
City Attorney Pucci has reviewed this item and finds that the recommended action complies with the law.
ATTACHMENTS:
Outside Unit Responses to Nevada City
Station 5 Incident Type Summary Report
Station 5 Response by District
City of Nevada City Incident Type Report
Elite grsnev Outside Unit Responses to Nevada City
Total Responses Total Call Time in Minutes Average Time Spent on Call Apparatus Resource ID (FD18.1): AA 230
1 19 19
Total: 1 Total: 19
Avg: 19.00
Apparatus Resource ID (FD18.1): B5111
1 89 89
Total: 1 Total: 89
Avg: 89.00
Apparatus Resource ID (FD18.1): B5112
3 33 11
Total: 3 Total: 33
Avg: 11.00
Apparatus Resource ID (FD18.1): B5113
2 24 12
Total: 2 Total: 24
Avg: 12.00
Apparatus Resource ID (FD18.1): Batt 2309
1 87 87
Total: 1 Total: 87
Avg: 87.00
Apparatus Resource ID (FD18.1): Batt 2312
1 82 82
Total: 1 Total: 82
Avg: 82.00
Apparatus Resource ID (FD18.1): Batt 2314
2 33 17
Total: 2 Total: 33
Avg: 16.50
Apparatus Resource ID (FD18.1): Chief 5401
2 1,213 607
Total: 2 Total: 1,213
Avg: 606.50
Apparatus Resource ID (FD18.1): CNA23
2 27 14
Total: 2 Total: 27
Avg: 13.50
Apparatus Resource ID (FD18.1): Dozer 2342
2 28 14
Total: 2 Total: 28
Avg: 14.00
Apparatus Resource ID (FD18.1): Engine 521
1 273 273
Total: 1 Total: 273
Avg: 273.00
Apparatus Resource ID (FD18.1): Engine 57
1 140 140
Total: 1 Total: 140
Avg: 140.00
Apparatus Resource ID (FD18.1): Engine 84
12 435 36
Total: 12 Total: 435
Avg: 36.25
Apparatus Resource ID (FD18.1): Engine 86
5 487 97
Total: 5 Total: 487
1 of 2 Printed On: 08/14/2022 08:13:20 AM
Total Responses Total Call Time in Minutes Average Time Spent on Call Basic Incident Date Time:
Basic Incident Zone/District Number (Fd1.32):
Apparatus Resource Id (Fd18.1):
Avg: 97.40
Apparatus Resource ID (FD18.1): Engine2354
1 22 22
Total: 1 Total: 22
Avg: 22.00
Apparatus Resource ID (FD18.1): Engine2362
2 109 55
Total: 2 Total: 109
Avg: 54.50
Apparatus Resource ID (FD18.1): Engine2371
1 7 7
Total: 1 Total: 7
Avg: 7.00
Apparatus Resource ID (FD18.1): Engine2390
2 268 134
Total: 2 Total: 268
Avg: 134.00
Apparatus Resource ID (FD18.1): Rescue 84
15 295 20
Total: 15 Total: 295
Avg: 19.67
Apparatus Resource ID (FD18.1): Tender 88
3 54 18
Total: 3 Total: 54
Avg: 18.00
Total: 60 Total: 3,725
Avg: 87.62
Report Criteria
Is Equal To Last Month
Is In 5 - Nevada City Stn 5, 5 - Station 5 - City, Nevada City Stn 5 Is Not In Batt 1, Batt 2, Batt 3, Brush 5, CPT11, Chief 1, Engine 1, Engine 2, Engine 201, Engine 202, Engine 205, Engine 5, OESE4104, OESE4609, P 2, P 3, P1, Squad 2, Truck 2, Utility 1, Utility 2, Utility 5, Utility 54 2 of 2 Printed On: 08/14/2022 08:13:20 AM
Elite grsnev Station 5 Incident Type Report (Summary)
Basic Incident Type Code And
Description (FD1.21)
Total
Incidents
Total Incidents Percent of
Incidents
Total Property
Loss
Total Content
Loss
Total
Loss
Total Loss Percent
of Total
Incident Type Category (FD1.21): 1 - Fire
111 - Building fire 4 2.96%
141 - Forest, woods or wildland fire 1 0.74%
142 - Brush or brush-and-grass mixture
fire
3 2.22% 0.00 0.00 0.00
143 - Grass fire 2 1.48%
Total: 10 Total: 7.41% Total: 0.00 Total: 0.00 Total:
0.00 Total: 0.00%
Incident Type Category (FD1.21): 3 - Rescue & Emergency Medical Service Incident 321 - EMS call, excluding vehicle accident
with injury
55 40.74%
322 - Motor vehicle accident with injuries 4 2.96%
324 - Motor vehicle accident with no
injuries.
3 2.22%
381 - Rescue or EMS standby 1 0.74%
Total: 63 Total: 46.67% Total: 0.00 Total: 0.00 Total:
0.00 Total: 0.00%
Incident Type Category (FD1.21): 4 - Hazardous Condition (No Fire) 412 - Gas leak (natural gas or LPG) 4 2.96%
421 - Chemical hazard (no spill or leak) 1 0.74%
440 - Electrical wiring/equipment problem,
other
2 1.48%
442 - Overheated motor 1 0.74%
445 - Arcing, shorted electrical equipment 1 0.74%
463 - Vehicle accident, general cleanup 2 1.48%
Total: 11 Total: 8.15% Total: 0.00 Total: 0.00 Total:
0.00 Total: 0.00%
Incident Type Category (FD1.21): 5 - Service Call
553 - Public service 1 0.74%
554 - Assist invalid 2 1.48%
Total: 3 Total: 2.22% Total: 0.00 Total: 0.00 Total:
0.00 Total: 0.00%
Incident Type Category (FD1.21): 6 - Good Intent Call
611 - Dispatched and cancelled en route 25 18.52%
6111 - Monitoring of call only 2 1.48%
622 - No incident found on arrival at
dispatch address
3 2.22%
651 - Smoke scare, odor of smoke 1 0.74%
652 - Steam, vapor, fog or dust thought to
be smoke
1 0.74%
671 - HazMat release investigation w/no
HazMat
2 1.48%
Total: 34 Total: 25.19% Total: 0.00 Total: 0.00 Total:
0.00 Total: 0.00%
Incident Type Category (FD1.21): 7 - False Alarm & False Call 733 - Smoke detector activation due to
malfunction
3 2.22%
743 - Smoke detector activation, no fire -
unintentional
2 1.48%
744 - Detector activation, no fire -
unintentional
4 2.96%
745 - Alarm system activation, no fire -
unintentional
3 2.22%
746 - Carbon monoxide detector
activation, no CO
1 0.74%
Total: 13 Total: 9.63% Total: 0.00 Total: 0.00 Total:
0.00 Total: 0.00%
Incident Type Category (FD1.21): 9 - Special Incident Type 9001 - Strike Team or Overhead 1 0.74%
1 of 2 Printed On: 08/14/2022 08:02:57 AM
Basic Incident Type Code And
Description (FD1.21)
Total
Incidents
Total Incidents Percent of
Incidents
Total Property
Loss
Total Content
Loss
Total
Loss
Total Loss Percent
of Total
Basic Incident Type (Fd1.21):
Apparatus Resource Id (Fd18.1):
Basic Incident Date - Derived (Fd1.3):
Deployment
Total: 1 Total: 0.74% Total: 0.00 Total: 0.00 Total:
0.00 Total: 0.00%
Total: 135 Total: 100.00% Total: 0.00 Total: 0.00 Total:
0.00 Total: 0.00%
Report Criteria
Is Not Blank
Is In Brush 5, Chief 5400, Engine 5, Utility 5
Is Equal To Last Month
2 of 2 Printed On: 08/14/2022 08:02:57 AM
Apparatus Resource Id (Fd18.1):
Basic Incident Date - Derived (Fd1.3):
Elite grsnev Station 5 Response by District
Basic Incident Zone/District Number (FD1.32) Number of Incidents 3 1 - Station 1 - City 2
2 - Station 2 - City 46
5 - Station 5 - City 49
NCC 54 6
NCC 84 21
NCC 86 6
NCC 87 3
Ophir Hill 1
Other 1
Report Criteria
Is In Brush 5, Chief 5400, Engine 5, Utility 5
Is Equal To Last Month
1 of 1 Printed On: 08/14/2022 08:02:55 AM
Basic Incident Zone/District Number (Fd1.32):
Basic Incident Postal Code (Fd1.19):
Basic Incident Date - Derived (Fd1.3):
Elite grsnev City of Nevada City Incident Type Report (Summary) Basic Incident Type Code And
Description (FD1.21)
Total
Incidents
Total Incidents Percent of
Incidents
Total Property
Loss
Total Content
Loss
Total
Loss
Total Loss Percent
of Total
Incident Type Category (FD1.21): 1 - Fire
111 - Building fire 1 2.17%
142 - Brush or brush-and-grass mixture
fire
1 2.17% 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total: 2 Total: 4.35% Total: 0.00 Total: 0.00 Total:
0.00 Total: 0.00%
Incident Type Category (FD1.21): 3 - Rescue & Emergency Medical Service Incident 321 - EMS call, excluding vehicle accident
with injury
25 54.35%
Total: 25 Total: 54.35% Total: 0.00 Total: 0.00 Total:
0.00 Total: 0.00%
Incident Type Category (FD1.21): 4 - Hazardous Condition (No Fire) 412 - Gas leak (natural gas or LPG) 3 6.52%
440 - Electrical wiring/equipment problem,
other
1 2.17%
442 - Overheated motor 1 2.17%
445 - Arcing, shorted electrical equipment 1 2.17%
Total: 6 Total: 13.04% Total: 0.00 Total: 0.00 Total:
0.00 Total: 0.00%
Incident Type Category (FD1.21): 5 - Service Call
553 - Public service 1 2.17%
Total: 1 Total: 2.17% Total: 0.00 Total: 0.00 Total:
0.00 Total: 0.00%
Incident Type Category (FD1.21): 6 - Good Intent Call
611 - Dispatched and cancelled en route 6 13.04%
622 - No incident found on arrival at
dispatch address
1 2.17%
671 - HazMat release investigation w/no
HazMat
1 2.17%
Total: 8 Total: 17.39% Total: 0.00 Total: 0.00 Total:
0.00 Total: 0.00%
Incident Type Category (FD1.21): 7 - False Alarm & False Call 733 - Smoke detector activation due to
malfunction
1 2.17%
743 - Smoke detector activation, no fire -
unintentional
2 4.35%
744 - Detector activation, no fire -
unintentional
1 2.17%
Total: 4 Total: 8.70% Total: 0.00 Total: 0.00 Total:
0.00 Total: 0.00%
Total: 46 Total: 100.00% Total: 0.00 Total: 0.00 Total:
0.00 Total: 0.00%
Report Criteria
Is In 5 - Station 5 - City, Nevada City Stn 5
Is Equal To 95959
Is Equal To Last Month
1 of 1 Printed On: 08/14/2022 08:02:45 AM
CITY OF NEVADA CITY
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
MEETING OF: August 24, 2022 Agenda Item No. 03
Subject: Consideration of Authorization of Procurement
for a Tank System for Sodium Bisulfate storage from
Misco Water in the amount of $32,154 for Nevada City
Wastewater Treatment Plant and Authorize the City
Manager to Execute the Purchase Order.
From: Bryan McAlister, City Engineer
Michael Faudoa, Chief Plant Operator,WWTP
Date: April 21, 2022
Reviewed & Approved:
City Manager: STG
City Attorney:
Recommended Action: Authorize the procurement and authorize the City Manager to execute the purchase order.
ISSUE STATEMENT AND DISCUSSION:
The Nevada City Wastewater Treatment Plant operates in compliance with the California Regional Water Quality Control Board permit which includes waste discharge effluent limitations and self-monitoring provisions. The treatment process involves activated sludge processing, filtration and chlorination. The final effluent is dechlorinated prior to discharge to Deer Creek. For the last ten years or more, the City has been using Sulphur Dioxide (SO2) gas for dichlorination, however the City was recently notified by our supplier, Thatcher Chemical, that SO2 will no longer be available due to expense and EPA regulations.
After further research and discussion with Water Board staff and staff from other jurisdictions, it was determined that Sodium Bisulfite would be the best alternative for the City’s de-chlorination method. Sodium Bisulfate is available from suppliers in our region and is a non-hazardous solution that is much safer to use than the gaseous SO2. The solution can be delivered in bulk to save costs. City staff is recommending that we purchase a 2,500 gallon tank for the Sodium Bisulfite so that we can take larger deliveries at a reduced price. The purchase price of the tank will be offset by savings in delivery costs and bulk delivery. Another advantage to owning the tank is that we can switch to another product or vendor as needed in response to industry changes or product availability.
City staff solicited a quote for a 2,500 gallon tank from a vendor that specializes in this product.
The tank includes a primary tank with a secondary containment tank (double walled nested tanks), venting, pump feed and leak detection sensor. The attached quote of $29,635.00 includes shipping but not taxes. The total price including shipping and taxes is $32,154. This quote is for the tank only, City staff will provide installation of pumps, piping and electrical once delivered and a concrete pad is already on site where the tank will be placed.
FINANCIAL AND/OR POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The project will be funded as authorized in the fiscal year 2022/2023 capital outlay appropriations for the wastewater treatment plant. This is sole source because of availability, special requirements for secondary containment and CA regulations. A sole source justification has been submitted to the Chief Finance Officer consistent with Chapter 10 part E of the City of Nevada City Purchasing Policy.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS:
None
ATTACHMENTS:
Quote from Misco Water for a 2500 gallon tank System for Sodium Bisulfite 5976 W. LAS POSITAS BLVD., #226
PLEASANTON, CA 94588
PH:(925) 225-1900 / FAX: (925) 225-9200
www.miscowater.com
August 10th , 2022
Mr. Michael Fauda
City of Nevada City
650 Jordan Street
Nevada City, CA 95959
Subj: MISCOwater Quote Q-000369
Ref: Poly Processing 2500 Tank
Michael,
It is our pleasure to submit the following quotation for Poly Processing 2500 Tank for your review.
TANK SYSTEM: 2500 TANK SYSTEM
For storing: Sodium Bisulfite
Diameter: 8'-0" | Height: 9'-11" | Dome Manway Size: 17" Primary Tank (Quantity: 1)
2500 SAFE-Tank✦ Inside Primary Tank
1.90 specific gravity wall thickness
Crosslinked Polyethylene (XLPE)✦
Color: Natural (yellowish white)
Containment Tank (Quantity: 1)
2500 SAFE-Tank✦ Nested Containment Outside Tank
Crosslinked Polyethylene (XLPE)✦
Color: Natural (yellowish white)
Lid/Manway (Quantity: 1)
Cover Assembly 19" Safe-Surge system
Fill Line (Quantity: 1)
Drop Pipe 2" External PVC
Level Measurement (Quantity: 1)
Reverse Float Level Gauge✦ PVC (with o internal piping) Inner Tank Fitting (Quantity: 1)
B.O.S.S. Fitting 2"
Pump Feed (Quantity: 1)
Transition Fitting with Containment and Flex✦Outlet Endplate: 2" Vent (Quantity: 1)
U-vent 6" PVC
Insulation (Quantity: 1)
Insulation Polyfoam 300 2" Thick with mastic Coating
5976 W. LAS POSITAS BLVD., #226
PLEASANTON, CA 94588
PH:(925) 225-1900 / FAX: (925) 225-9200
www.miscowater.com
Temperature Maintenance (Quantity: 1)
Heat Maintenance & Digital Control System
Leak Detection (Quantity: 1)
PPC Leak Detection Kit/Sensor
Restraint System (Quantity: 1)
Seismic Restraint System, Galvanized
WARRANTY:5 Years, Full Replacement, Non-Prorated
______________________________
System Subtotal: $28,585.00
Freight/Shipping Estimate: $1,050.00
Total: $29,635.00
Quote pricing guaranteed 30 days, subject to change after 09-09-2022 Freight quoted is an estimate at time of quote. Actual freight charged will be passed through from carrier at time of shipment.
Notes:
• Payment terms: Net 30 days, upon credit approval
• F.O.B.: French Camp, CA
• Freight: Prepay and add
• Freight price is billed at actual.
• Estimated $1050 cost is dependent on being in stock at French Camp, CA. Must be confirmed before ordering.
• If the tank is not in stock in French Camp, CA the tanks will ship FOB Monroe, LA. Freight will be higher.
• Delivery: 10 weeks from drawing approval
• MISCOwater Terms and Conditions are attached
• Pricing does not include sales tax
Purchase order to be addressed as follows:
MISCOwater
5976 W. Las Positas Blvd., #226
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you,
Sean Coholan
LOWER SIDEWALL CONNECTIONS ALL MUST USE FLEXIBLE FITTINGS NOTE: Central Region POLYPROCESSING Central Region POLYPROCESSING
Central Region LOWER SIDEWALL CONNECTIONS ALL MUST USE FLEXIBLE FITTINGS NOTE: POLYPROCESSING Bellows Transition Fitting
Maintains Secondary
Containment
Bellows Transition Fitting with
Double Wall Piping
Rev. 06/07/2016
MISCOWATER – TW ASSOCIATES
TERMS & CONDITIONS OF SALE
1. ACCEPTANCE
When the Buyer signifies acceptance of this quotation by submission of a Purchase Order or signed MISCOWATER Quotation, it shall become a binding contract when accepted and signed by an authorized signer of the Seller (MISCOWATER). Any changes or amendments to this proposal made by the Buyer must have MISCOWATER’s approval in writing to become a part of this contract.
2. DELIVERY
Any shipment or delivery date recited represents our best estimate, but no liability, direct or indirect, is assumed by MISCOWATER for failure to ship or deliver on such dates. Unless otherwise directed, MISCOWATER shall have the right to make early or partial shipments and invoices covering the same to Buyer shall be due and payable in accordance with payment terms hereof. FOB shall be origin.
3. APPROVAL DRAWINGS
Any preliminary drawings or literature attached to our quotation are for illustration purposes only to show approximate arrangements. Specific drawings and submittal data will be furnished for approval as required after receipt and acceptance of the Buyer’s order. Fabrication of products or equipment ordered will not begin until approval and direction to proceed is received in writing.
4. PAYMENT
Payment terms, upon credit approval, are Net 30 Days from the date of each invoice issued for each partial or final shipment. Flowdown provisions are not accepted. Retention is not allowed. In the event any payment becomes past due, a charge of 1.5% will be assessed monthly.
5. TAXES AND BONDS
Taxes and bonds are NOT included in our pricing. Any applicable taxes or bonds will be added to the price and shown separately on each invoice.
6. CLAIMS AND BACKCHARGES
Buyer agrees to examine all materials immediately upon delivery and report to Seller (MISCOWATER) in writing any defects or shortages noted no later than 10 days following the date of receipt. The parties agree that if no such claim is made within said time, it shall be considered acceptable and in good order with respect to any defect or shortage which would have been revealed by such an inspection. In no event will MISCOWATER be responsible for any charge for modification, servicing, adjustment or for any other expense without written authorization from MISCOWATER prior to the performance of any such work.
7. SECURITY INTEREST & TITLE
Until all amounts due MISCOWATER have been paid in full, Seller shall retain a security interest in the product and have all rights of a secured party under the California Uniform Commercial Code, including the right to repossess the product or equipment without legal process.
8. WARRANTY
MISCOWATER warrants that the product furnished will be free from defects in material and workmanship when installed, operated and maintained under design conditions and in accordance with the manufacturer’s written instructions. Warranties will expire (18) months after shipment or twelve (12) months after start-up, whichever occurs first. Expandable items such as filter or scrubber media are excluded from this warranty.
THIS WARRANTY, INCLUDING THE STATED REMEDIES, IS EXPRESSLY MADE BY SELLER AND ACCEPTED BY PURCHASER IN LIEU OF ALL OTHER WARRANTIES. SELLER MAKES NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS OR OTHERWISE, WHICH EXTEND BEYOND THE DESCRIPTION OF THE PRODUCT HEREIN. SELLER WILL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY CONSEQUENTIAL, INCIDENTAL OR LIQUIDATED
DAMAGES, AND IN NO EVENT SHALL BE LIABLE FOR ANY AMOUNT IN EXCESS OF THE PURCHASE PRICE OF THE PRODUCT PURCHASED ON THIS ORDER.
The foregoing is Seller’s only obligation and Buyer’s exclusive remedy for breach of warranty, and, except for gross negligence and willful misconduct, the foregoing is Buyer’s exclusive remedy against Seller for all claims arising hereunder or relating hereto. Buyer’s failure to submit a timely claim as provided shall specifically waive all claims for damages or other relief.
9. CANCELLATION
Should this order be cancelled, Buyer shall be obligated to pay for the level of work performed and products shipped. Work performed includes any engineering, calculations, preparation of submittals, drawings, and/or travel to job site in relation to this order.
10. FIELD WORK
Unless specifically stated on our quotation, installation, start-up service, supervision, operation and training are not included in our pricing of product.
11. COMPLETE AGREEMENT
These terms are intended by the parties as a final expression of their agreement and are intended also as a complete and exclusive statement of the terms of their agreement. No course or prior dealings between the parties and no usages of the trade shall be relevant to supplement or explain any term used in this agreement. This agreement supersedes all prior representations and agreements with respect to the matters set forth herein and may be modified only by a written agreement to and signed by each of the parties.
MISCOWATER: By:
Title: Title:
Date: Date:
CITY OF NEVADA CITY
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
MEETING OF: August 24, 2022 Agenda Item No. 04
Subject: Consideration of Reaffirming Resolution No. 2021- 44: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Nevada City Making the Legally Required Findings to Continue to Authorize the Conduct of Remote “Telephonic” Meetings
During the State of Emergency
From: Sean Grayson, City Manager
Date: August 16, 2022
Reviewed & Approved:
City Manager:
City Attorney:
Recommended Action: Reconfirm resolution
ISSUE STATEMENT AND DISCUSSION:
This is the resolution previously adopted by council authorizing the continued use of remote “telephonic” council meetings. As advised by the City Attorney, this resolution must be reaffirmed at each council meeting until such time as the requirement is rescinded.
FINANCIAL AND/OR POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
None.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS:
None
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution No. 2021-44
CITY OF NEVADA CITY
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
MEETING OF: August 24, 2022 Agenda Item No. 05
Subject: Conduct a Public Hearing in Consideration of
Ordinance No. 2022-09: An Ordinance of the City of Nevada City, California Adding Chapter 12.32 (“Filming Activities”) to Title 12 (“Streets, Sidewalks and Public Places”) Regarding the Regulation of Filming Activities on or Using Public Property of the City
From: Sean Grayson, City Manager
Date: August 12, 2022
Reviewed & Approved:
City Manager:
City Attorney:
Recommended Action: Hold second reading and adopt ordinance.
ISSUE STATEMENT AND DISCUSSION:
At the August 10, 2022 meeting the City Council introduced Ordinance 2022-09 in regarding to the regulation of filming activities. Nevada City has famously been the filming site of several commercials, television series episodes, television movies, and theatrical release movies. The City is also a hub of filming related activities in relation to it being the home of the Nevada City Film Festival. Recently the City has received inquiries on future proposed filming projects and has worked with the Chamber of Commerce to support future filming activities.
While filming activities may have a positive impact on the economy and perception of the community, it may disturb the quality of life of residents and impact businesses and visitors. In order to ensure a balance of impacts an ordinance regulating filming activities is proposed. The ordinance creates a permitting process for filming activities on or using public property in the City. The ordinance allows exceptions to permitting for:
• Filming activities conducted for breaking news purposes; • Filming activities conducted for use in a criminal investigation or civil or criminal court proceeding;
• Noncommercial filming activities conducted solely for private or family use; • Commercial still photography or staging thereof, when conducted to the exclusion of any other filming activity under certain specific conditions;
• Filming activities conducted by or for the city or for any public access or governmental programming channel;
• Student filming activities conducted to fulfill a course requirement by a student enrolled at a public or private school.
The permitting process involves an application and vetting of the project against its impacts on the community. The ordinance allows for fees as determined by resolution of the City Council for the application and related activities and specifies that the applicants be required to pay for the cost of required use of City staff or resources for filming.
California Government Code § 14999.21 requires that the city submit a draft of the proposed ordinance to the California Film Commission (Commission); that the Commission respond with findings to the submission; and that the City Council consider the Commission’s findings prior to the final adoption of the ordinance. The proposed ordinance was transmitted to the Commission and their findings were received on August 3, 2022. The findings have been included in the proposed ordinance.
FINANCIAL AND/OR POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The ordinance allows for the application of a fee for film permitting as established in the Citywide Master Fee Schedule, depending upon use. The ordinance also allows for cost recovery for filming use of the City personnel or resources.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS:
None
LEGAL REVIEW:
City Attorney Pucci has reviewed this item and finds that the recommended action complies with the law.
ATTACHMENTS:
Ordinance 2022-09
ORDINANCE 2022-09
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEVADA CITY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ADDING CHAPTER 12.32 (“FILMING ACTIVITIES”) OF TITLE 12 (“STREETS, SIDEWALKS AND PUBLIC PLACES”) OF THE CITY OF NEVADA CITY
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE REGULATION OF FILIMING ACTIVITIES ON OR
USING PUBLIC PROPERTY OF THE CITY
WHEREAS, Article XI, Section 7 of the California constitution authorizes the City Council to enact laws that promote the public health, safety and welfare; and WHEREAS, the City of Nevada City has been used as a site for commercial filming activities and continues to receive interest from commercial filming vendors; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the unregulated filming in public places within the City has the potential to interfere with vehicular traffic, pedestrian access, and other negative impacts; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that filming regulations are necessary to preserve the public health, safety and welfare from disruptive and potentially dangerous filming activity in the City; and
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEVADA CITY DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The above recitals are true and correct and incorporated into this ordinance.
SECTION 2. Chapter 12.32 ("Filming Activities") of Title 12 ("Streets, Sidewalks and Public Places") is hereby added to the City of Nevada City Municipal Code as follows:
CHAPTER 12.32 – FILMING ACTIVITIES
12.32.010 Purpose.
It is the purpose of this chapter to provide rules governing the issuance of permits for filming activities on or using public property of the city. The intent of this chapter is to ensure that still photographers and motion picture, television, commercial and non-theatrical filming companies will be encouraged to use locations within the city for filming activities so long as those activities are consistent with public safety and the protection of property.
12.32.020 Definitions.
As used in this chapter:
A. "Applicant" means the person, organization, corporation, association or other entity applying for a permit to film in the city.
B. "Filming activity" means the staging, shooting, filming, videotaping, photographing, or other similar process conducted for the making of still photographs, motion pictures, television programs, commercial and nontheatrical film productions.
C. "Film permit coordinator" means the person designated by the city manager to issue film permits in the city.
D. "Film permit" means written authorization from the film permit coordinator to conduct the filming activity described in the permit.
E. "Fee schedule" means those fees and reimbursements for costs as adopted by resolution of the city council.
F. "Breaking News" means a filming activity conducted for the purpose of reporting on persons, events or scenes which are in the news for newspapers, television news, and other news media.
G. "Permittee" means the person, organization, corporation, association or other entity issued a film permit under this chapter.
H. "Public property" means any street, right-of-way, public trail or bikeway owned and maintained by the city, or any public park, building or other real property owned or leased by the city.
I. "Still photography" means and includes all activity attendant to staging or shooting commercial still photographs.
J. "Student filming activity" means filming activity conducted to fulfill a course requirement by a student enrolled at a public or private school.
12.32.030 Private property.
An applicant shall obtain the private property owner's permission, consent, and/or lease for use of property not owned or controlled by the city and shall comply with and be subject to all other provisions of state law and this code, including but not limited to any regulations or restrictions governing the use of the private property as may be applicable to the filming activity. Filming conducted on private property that utilizes city streets, sidewalks, parking or other city property in any manner requires a permit as defined in 12.32.040.
12.32.040 Permit required.
A. It is unlawful to conduct a filming activity on public property within the city without first obtaining a film permit from the film permit coordinator.
B. The film permit must be in the possession of the permittee at all times while on location in the city.
12.32.050 Permit exceptions.
The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to any of the following activities, provided that the activity will not require the closure of a city street or substantially impede pedestrian or vehicular traffic thereon:
A. Filming activities conducted for breaking news purposes; B. Filming activities conducted for use in a criminal investigation or civil or criminal court proceeding;
C. Noncommercial filming activities conducted solely for private or family use; D. Commercial still photography or staging thereof, when conducted to the exclusion of any other filming activity when the following conditions apply:
1. The still photography, or staging thereof, will not require the parking of more than two motor vehicles on any public street within the city; E. Filming activities conducted by or for the city or for any public access or governmental programming channel;
F. Student filming activities conducted to fulfill a course requirement by a student enrolled at a public or private school.
12.32.060 Application.
A. Applications for a film permit shall be submitted to the film permit coordinator in accordance with the following minimum time frames:
1. A minimum of two business days in advance of the day the film activity is to begin; or
2. A minimum of four business days in advance of the day any traffic controls exceeding three minutes are proposed in association with the film activity; or
3. A minimum of ten business days in advance of any of the following activities proposed in association with the film activity: street closures, stunts, pyrotechnics, and/or special effects.
B. Applicants shall submit applications at the earliest advance date possible in order to facilitate coordination between city departments.
C. Upon showing of good cause, the film permit coordinator shall consider applications which are filed after the filing deadline if there is sufficient time for city staff to process and review the application and to prepare for the filming activity.
12.32.070 Application form.
The permit application shall be on a form furnished by the city and signed by the applicant or agent thereof. Such application shall include, but not be limited to, the following information:
A. Name, address and telephone number of applicant;
B. Name, address and twenty-four hour telephone number(s) of person in charge of filming on location;
C. Filming location(s), dates and approximate daily call times of the filming activity; D. Description of scenes to be filmed and/or diagrams of the site of filming, including details of any hazardous filming activity employing firearms, explosives, the use of open flame, other pyrotechnical effects, animals, use of amplified noise, stunts, filming of moving motor vehicles, watercraft and aircraft;
E. Description of the types and number of motor vehicles which will be parked on public streets, and description of any equipment to be placed on public property; F. Evidence of adequate insurance certification as required by the city pursuant to Section 12.32.120;
G. Such other information, descriptions, diagrams and technical information as the film permit coordinator may require. The film permit coordinator may impose reasonable restrictions as may be necessary to ensure the filming activity does not adversely affect the public health, safety and welfare.
12.32.080 Permit review.
The application shall be promptly reviewed by the film permit coordinator. The film permit shall be denied if the film permit coordinator finds that any of the following will occur:
A. The filming activity will substantially disrupt the use of a public right-of-way or street at a time when it is usually subject to traffic congestion, or interfere with the operation of emergency vehicles.
B. The location of the filming activity will substantially interfere with a right-of-way or street maintenance work, or a previously authorized excavation permit.
C. The filming activity will substantially interfere with other previously authorized activities or contracts, or the safety of the public or employees on public property.
D. The filming activity will substantially interfere with ordinary municipal functions, or the scheduled maintenance of city buildings or grounds.
E. The filming activity will create a substantial risk of injury to persons or damage to property.
F. The filming activity will substantially disrupt the privacy and/or disturb the peace of individuals residing in the vicinity.
G. The applicant has failed to complete the application after being requested to do so, or the information contained in the application is found to be false in any material detail.
H. The particular filming activity would violate federal or state law, or other applicable city ordinances, including licensing or permit requirements.
12.32.090 Permit conditions.
The film permit coordinator may impose reasonable conditions on the issuance of a film permit relating to the time, place, manner and duration of filming activities. The conditions shall be attached to the film permit and may include, but are not limited to, any of the following conditions:
A. Requirements for the presence of employees of the city or use of city property at the applicant's expense, when required for the particular filming activity; B. Requirements concerning posting of no parking signs, placement of traffic control devices, and employment of traffic and crowd control monitors at the applicant's expense;
C. Requirements concerning posting of the outer boundaries of the filming activity, and providing advance notice to affected and/or adjacent property owners, residents and businesses;
D. Requirements concerning the cleanup and restoration of the public property used in the filming activity;
E. Restrictions concerning the use of city or other public agency employee services, vehicles and other equipment in the filming activity;
F. Requirements that the applicant pay all fees, and obtain all permits and licenses required for the filming activity under local, state and federal laws, including an encroachment permit, if necessary;
G. Restrictions on the use of firearms, explosions and noise-creating or hazardous devices;
H. Restrictions on the use of stunts involving pyrotechnics, open flame, vehicle crashes or other hazardous materials;
I. Requirements concerning cover-up of police, fire and other official uniforms worn by actors, when the actors are not on camera;
J. Restrictions concerning the use of city and other public agency logos, insignias, badges or decals for filming purposes;
K. Restrictions on the locations and/or daily hours the filming activity may be conducted within the city;
L. Requirements concerning the city's or other public agency's receipt of proper acknowledgment for any assistance provided in making feature, television or commercial productions;
M. Any other condition which the film permit coordinator deems necessary for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare, or which may be necessary to protect public and/or private property.
12.32.100 Fees.
A. The applicant shall pay all applicable city permit fees including a film permit fee in the amount set by resolution of the council.
B. In addition to the above the applicant shall pay actual costs incurred by the city for providing employees (including overtime pay if applicable); equipment rental; facilities rental, utilities, and any similar type costs including but not limited to the following:
1. The cost of providing, erecting and moving barricades and/or signs;
2. The cost of providing and moving garbage or waste receptacles;
3. The cost of providing street sweeping and related cleanup activities;
4. The cost of providing personnel/equipment for security purposes;
5. Reimbursement to the city for facilities and/or utility charges shall be at rates established by the respective agency.
C. The city may require that a sum be deposited with the city to meet any or all of the above costs prior to the commencement of filming activities.
12.32.110 Change of filming activity.
Upon reasonable written notice by the permittee in advance of the filming activity, the film permit coordinator is authorized to make changes, such as change the date for which the film permit has been issued and similar types of changes, without requiring a new application.
12.32.120 Insurance required.
The applicant for a film permit shall procure and maintain for the duration of the filming activity such insurance in the forms, types and amount as may be prescribed by the city. The applicant shall request from the film permit coordinator limits of liability and all required forms prior to submitting the application, and shall submit all required and completed forms concurrent with the application.
12.32.130 Indemnification.
The applicant shall agree in writing to comply with the terms and conditions of the film permit, which shall include an agreement to indemnify the city in a form approved by the city attorney.
12.32.140 Street closures.
If the applicant requests that the city authorize a street closure on the application, an encroachment permit or street closure permit may be required by the city in addition to the film permit, as determined by the city engineer.
12.32.150 Pyrotechnics.
During the filming of any special effect or stunt requiring the use of pyrotechnics or any material deemed hazardous, including but not limited to fireworks, open flames or explosives, the applicant shall obtain any required permits from the city fire and police departments.
12.32.160 Permit revocation or suspension.
A. Permit Revocation. The film coordinator may revoke the film permit if the permittee, or any agents, employees or contractors of the permittee fail to comply with the terms and conditions of the film permit, or any information contained in the permit application was false in any material detail.
1. Notice of the grounds for revocation of the film permit shall be provided in writing to the applicant or person in charge at the location of the filming activity.
2. Appeals of the permit revocation shall be conducted in the manner specified in Section 12.32.170.
B. Permit Suspension. A Police Department officer or Fire Department firefighter may suspend the film permit when the filming activity poses an immediate hazard to persons or property and the location manager will not, or cannot, prevent the hazard after being instructed to do so by a city official.
1. The grounds for the permit suspension shall be provided in writing to the permittee within one business day of the suspension.
2. Appeals of the permit suspension shall be conducted in the manner specified in Section 12.32.170.
12.32.170 Appeals.
The permit applicant or permittee may appeal a film permit denial, revocation, suspension, permit condition, insurance/fees requirement or the film permit coordinator's decision not to waive a deadline pursuant to the following:
A. The appeal must be submitted to the city council within ten (10) days of the film permit coordinator’s decision. Such appeal may be a simple statement in writing setting forth in common terms the basis of the appeal.
B. If a hearing is requested, the city council shall set a time for the hearing. The request for hearing shall be accompanied by the appropriate fee in an amount as established by council resolution. At least fifteen (15) days' notice of hearing shall be given.
C. The decision of the city council shall be final.
SECTION 3. Any provision of the Nevada City Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of the Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, are repealed or modified to that extent necessary to affect the provisions of this Ordinance.
SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, clause or phrase or portion of this code is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of all other provisions of this ordinance.
The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed the ordinance codified in this chapter, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more of the sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, or phrases or portions thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 5. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance and shall cause the same to be published and posted pursuant to the provisions of law in that regard. This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after its passage.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regularly scheduled meeting of the Nevada City City Council held on this 10th day of August, 2022 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
___________________________
Doug Fleming, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVE AS TO FORM:
__________________________ __________________________
Niel Locke, City Clerk Dean J. Pucci, City Attorney
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF NEVADA ) ss
CITY OF NEVADA CITY )
I, ______, CITY CLERK of the City of Nevada City, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing urgency ordinance was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of Nevada City, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the ____ day of ___, 2022, by the following vote of the City Council:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the seal of the City of Nevada City, this __ day of ___, 2022.
__________________________
_________________, City Clerk
CITY OF NEVADA CITY
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
MEETING OF: August 24, 2022 Agenda Item No. 06
Subject: Consideration of an Extension of Time Request for Filing of a Final Map for the Project Known as Gracie
Commons at 400 Gracie Road, Nevada City, California
From: Amy Wolfson, City Planner
Date: August 15, 2022
Reviewed & Approved: STG
Recommended Action: Approve the Extension of Time for the Gracie Commons Tentative Final Map, the Use Permit accommodating the Planned Unit Development proposal, and the Architectural Review approval, subject to the Conditions of Approval as previously approved.
ISSUE STATEMENT AND DISCUSSION:
The applicant, Glenn Christ applied for a Tentative Final Map relative to the subdivision known as Gracie Commons in 2008 and received City Council approval in 2009 with an initial expiration date February 24, 2011. The project description is as follows:
• Project Description: Proposed tentative final map to create 16 units housed in 12 buildings, for the purpose of individual sale and ownership, on properties comprising approximately 2.12 acres at 400 Gracie Road and 13237 Gracie Road in Nevada City. The project, known as “Gracie Commons” utilizes a Planned Unit Development concept to provide construction of 16 residential units to range in size from 556 to 2,573 square feet. The unit mix includes four attached units of 556 to 587 square feet, and a duplex unit containing units of 972 square feet. The project includes a common area which would include the street and utility distribution as well as guest parking, and two other common open space areas that will contain a sitting area covered by an arbor and a raised bed vegetable garden. The common areas will either be jointly owned by the unit owners, or by a formal Homeowners Association formed to hold title. The project will be built over a period of time as the market dictates.
The project involved several entitlements including a General Plan Amendment, Zoning Change, and annexation for a portion of the property. The State of California approved legislation from 2009 to 2014 allowing extensions of time for tentative maps for two-year increments in response to the economic recession, and an automatic State extension was also allowed in 2021in response to the COVID pandemic. The City Council authorized one two-year extension in 2019 pursuant to the extension allowed under the City’s Municipal Code. Below is a list of the extensions granted to this project:
• extended 24 months to February 24, 2013 pursuant to SMA §66452.22(a) enacted in 2009 effective January 1, 2010;
• extended 24 months to February 24, 2015 pursuant to SMA §66452.23(a) enacted in 2011 effective July 15, 2011;
• extended 24 months to February 24, 2017 pursuant to SMA §66452.24(a) enacted in 2013 effective July 11, 2013; and
• extended 2 years to February 24, 2019 pursuant to approval by the City Council in January of 2017 pursuant to Municipal Code §16.04.380.
• extended 18 months to August 24, 2022 pursuant to SMA §65914.5 (AB1561 COVID Extension)
EXTENSION REQUEST:
Property owner and applicant, Glen Christ, is requesting a two-year extension of his tentative map entitlement which includes ancillary entitlements including a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development and Architectural Review for sixteen residential units, including a fourplex. Christ has provided a statement which provides some context for the circumstances leading to his request for a time extension which is attached.
FINANCIAL AND/OR POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
All financial responsibility pertaining to map recordation is that of the applicant and there is no financial burden to the City for granting a map extension. The applicant has submitted the $200 fee as required with the extension request application.
A second two-year extension granted by the City Council is permissible at the City Council’s discretion even though it is not expressly permitted under our subdivision standards, based on Section 16.04.910 of the City Municipal Code, allowing Council to conditionally grant requests by subdividers, so long as the request does not violate the Subdivision Map Act. In this case, the Map Act §66452.6(e) states that a legislative body may grant extensions, not exceeding 6 years, while our local code limits extensions to two years. The City Council therefor may consider the request under the provisions of the Municipal Code but is not required to do so.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS:
Pursuant to Resolution 2009-06, the City Council adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for this project. The Extension of Time request would apply to the previously adopted MND as there has been no new information presented that suggests additional impacts related to the subdivision.
ATTACHMENTS:
Extension of Time form and Applicant Statement
2009 Approval with Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measures
Exhibit A 1.1
Exhibit A 1.2
Exhibit A 1.3
Exhibit A 1.4
Exhibit A 1.5
Exhibit A 1.6
Exhibit A 1.7
Exhibit A 1.8
Exhibit A 1.9
Exhibit B
Exhibit A 1.10
CITY OF NEVADA CITY
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
MEETING OF: August 24, 2022 Agenda Item No. 07
Subject: Consideration to Accept, Receive, and File the Audit, Financial Statements, and Management Report for Year End June 30, 2021
From: Victoria Knoll, Chief Financial Officer
Date: August 12, 2022
Reviewed & Approved:
City Manager: STG
City Attorney:
Recommended Action: Receive a report from the City’s independent audit firm and staff and then accept, receive and file the audit and related documents.
ISSUE STATEMENT AND DISCUSSION:
In order to meet the guidelines set forth in Statement No. 1 of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB), following the close of each fiscal year the City’s external auditors conduct an audit of the City’s financial records. The audit is conducted in conformity with the Generally Accepted Auditing Standards (GAAS) which require that the independent auditor firm plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement and examines evidence to support the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. Once complete, an opinion is issued on the fairness of the presentation of the financial position and the results of operations of the financial statements of the City, in conformity with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) as applicable to local governments.
Due to the challenges of COVID-19, the transition of City staff and the late adoption of the fiscal year 2021-2022 budget, the audit for year end June 30, 2021 was delayed. The annual audit for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2021 has now been completed by R. J. Ricciardi, Inc. Certified Public Accountants. The opinion provided is unmodified, or “clean” meaning the auditor found that the City’s financial statements are fairly and appropriately presented in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), and that the financial statements are sound and free from material misstatements.
The auditors have issued a Management Letter to give recommendations for improvement to internal controls or financial processes. The recommendation is on page 4 of the Management Report. There is a recommendation that the City develop written accounting, administrative and fraud prevention procedures. In addition, it is recommended that all cash receipt reports be signed by the preparer and reviewer.
Staff will introduce the process and the auditors will provide a presentation on the draft report and letter.
FINANCIAL AND/OR POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The audit firm was previously engaged with funds for completion of the process budgeted for.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS:
None
LEGAL REVIEW:
City Attorney Pucci has reviewed this item and finds that the recommended action complies with the law.
ATTACHMENTS:
City of Nevada City Audited Financial Statements
The Independent Auditor’s Management Letter
CITY OF NEVADA CITY
CALIFORNIA
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
FOR THE YEAR ENDED
JUNE 30, 2021
DRAFT
8/19/2022
To be used only for management discussion
purposes; engagement is incomplete; this
draft is subject to final review and possible
revision. **Report/Letter date is TENTATIVE-TBD**
Table of Contents
Page
INTRODUCTORY SECTION
List of Officials................................................................................................................................................................i
FINANCIAL SECTION
Independent Auditor’s Report ......................................................................................................................................1-2 Management’s Discussion and Analysis (Unaudited)................................................................................................3-12 Basic Financial Statements:
Government-Wide Financial Statements:
Statement of Net Position...............................................................................................................................13 Statement of Activities.....................................................................................................................................14 Fund Financial Statements:
Governmental Funds:
Balance Sheet.............................................................................................................................................15 Reconciliation of the Governmental Funds Balance Sheet with the Governmental Activities Statement of Net Position..................................................................... 16 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances...........................................17 Reconciliation of the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances of Governmental Funds to the Statement of Activities........................................18 Proprietary Funds:
Statement of Net Position.......................................................................................................................19 Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Fund Net Position...........................................20 Statement of Cash Flows....................................................................................................................... 21 Notes to Basic Financial Statements.....................................................................................................................22-43 Required Supplementary Information (Unaudited):
Notes to Budgetary Comparison Schedules........................................................................................................44 Budgetary Comparison Schedule - General Fund ..............................................................................................45 Budgetary Comparison Schedule - Measure “S”.................................................................................................46 City Pension Plan - Schedule of Proportionate Share of the Net Pension Liability .....................................47 City Pension Plan - Schedule of Contributions...................................................................................................48 Combining Nonmajor Fund Statements:
Nonmajor Special Revenue Funds:
Combining Balance Sheet ..............................................................................................................................49-50 Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances .............................51-52
OTHER REPORT
Independent Auditor’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting and on Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial Statements Performed In Accordance with Government Auditing Standards ......................................................................................... 53-54 DRAFT
INTRODUCTORY SECTION
List of Officials
DRAFT
- i -
City of Nevada City
LIST OF OFFICIALS
June 30, 2021
CITY COUNCIL
Doug Fleming, Mayor
Daniela Fernandez, Vice Mayor
Gary Petersen
Adam Kline
Lou Ceci
CITY STAFF
Sean Grayson, City Manager
Victoria Knoll, Chief Financial Officer
Gabrielle Christakes, Deputy City Clerk
Dawn Zydonis, Parks & Recreation Manager
Bryan McAlister, City Engineer
Amy Wolfson, City Planner
Sam Goodspeed, Division Chief
Dan Foss, Police Chief
Michael Faudoa, Chief Plant Operator
Shane Kinne, Public Works Superintendent
Niel Locke, City Clerk
DRAFT
FINANCIAL SECTION
• Independent Auditor’s Report
• Management’s Discussion and Analysis
• Basic Financial Statements
• Required Supplementary Information
• Combining Nonmajor Fund Statements
DRAFT
- 1 -
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ REPORT
To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Nevada City
Nevada City, California
Report on the Financial Statements
We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of City of Nevada City, as of and for the year ended June 30, 2021, and the related notes to the financial statements, which collectively comprise City of Nevada City’s basic financial statements as listed in the table of contents.
Management’s Responsibility for the Financial Statements Management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of these financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America; this includes the design, implementation, and maintenance of internal control relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error.
Auditor’s Responsibility
Our responsibility is to express opinions on these financial statements based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards for financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free from material misstatement.
An audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. The procedures selected depend on the auditor’s judgment, including the assessment of the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or error. In making those risk assessments, we consider internal control relevant to City of Nevada City’s preparation and fair presentation of the financial statements in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of City of Nevada City’s internal control. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes evaluating the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of significant accounting estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements.
We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our audit opinions.
Opinions
In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the respective financial position of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, each major fund and the aggregate remaining fund information and, where applicable, cash flows of City of Nevada City, as of June 30, 2021, and the respective changes in financial position for the year then ended in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
DRAFT
City of Nevada City
- 2 -
Other Matters
Required Supplementary Information
Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America require the supplementary information, as listed in the table of contents, be presented to supplement the basic financial statements. Such information, although not a part of the basic financial statements, is required by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board, who considers it to be an essential part of financial reporting for placing the basic financial statements in an appropriate operational, economic, or historical context. We have applied certain limited procedures to the required supplementary information in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, which consisted of inquiries of management about the methods of preparing the information and comparing the information for consistency with management’s responses to our inquiries, the basic financial statements, and other knowledge we obtained during our audit of the basic financial statements. We do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on the information because the limited procedures do not provide us with sufficient evidence to express an opinion or provide any assurance.
Other Information
Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming opinions on the financial statements that collectively comprise the City of Nevada City’s basic financial statements. The supplementary information as identified in the table of contents is presented for purposes of additional analysis and is not a required part of the basic financial statements.
The supplementary information is the responsibility of management and was derived from, and relates directly to, the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial statements. Such information has been subjected to the auditing procedures, including comparing and reconciling such information directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial statements or to the basic financial statements themselves, and other additional procedures in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America. In our opinion, the information is fairly stated, in all material respects in relation to the financial statements as a whole.
Other Reporting Required by Government Auditing Standards In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we have also issued our report dated [DATE], on our consideration of City of Nevada City’s internal control over financial reporting and on our tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements and other matters. The purpose of that report is to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over financial reporting and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness of the City of Nevada City’s internal control over financial reporting or on compliance. That report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards and should be considered in assessing the results of our audit.
R.J. Ricciardi, Inc.
R.J. Ricciardi, Inc.
Certified Public Accountants
San Rafael, California
DRAFT
Management’s Discussion and Analysis
(Unaudited)
DRAFT
-3-
CITY OF NEVADA CITY, CALIFORNIA
MANAGEMENT DISCUSSION & ANALYSIS
Fiscal Year 2020/2021
The following discussion provides users of the City of Nevada City’s (the City’s) financial statements, a narrative overview and analysis of the financial activities of the City for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2021. Please read this document in conjunction with the basic financial statements and the accompanying notes to those financial statements.
The City has a diverse local economy based on business and industry, local government employment and tourism. This allows the City to provide a full array of services to all the citizens. The voters approved Measure “L”, a five-year, three-eighths cent general-purpose tax measure that concluded March 2018. This tax measure enabled the City to improve the health of the General fund by setting aside reserves and providing funding to “catch up” on deferred maintenance that the City experienced during the recession.
At the November 2016 election, Measure “C”, a three-eighths cent special safety tax without a sunset was passed. This Measure has enabled the City to continue to provide full Fire Department services and add Police personnel. At the June 2018 election, the Nevada City voters approved a cannabis business excise general-purpose tax, Measure “F”. This measure will provide the funding for the City to support the new incoming cannabis industry. Measure “C” and “F” will continue to provide the ability for the City to continue consistent service levels and build General fund reserves. Most recently, in the November 2021 General Election, the voters approved Measure “M”, a one-half cent sales tax that will never sunset and will be effective January of 2022. This tax measure will replace Measure “S” that was due to sunset in 2023 and added use of funds for Water and Sewer replacement of aged infrastructure.
FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS
The following are some financial highlights for fiscal year 2022:
Entity-wide:
The City’s assets at the end of the year decreased to $34,842,851 down from $34,899,364 the previous fiscal year. Of this total, $21,662,114 is Governmental assets up $639,982 from the previous fiscal year, and $13,180,737 is Business-type assets down $706,500 from the previous fiscal year.
The City’s liabilities at the end of the year decreased to $10,638,956 down $781,980 from the previous fiscal year. Of this total, $6,265,484 is Governmental liabilities down $458,229 from the previous fiscal year, and $4,373,472 is Business-type liabilities down $323,751 from the previous fiscal year.
The net effect of the changes in assets and liabilities left the City’s net position at $25,289,379 up $831,475 from the previous fiscal year. Of this total, $16,454,949 is Governmental up $1,216,684 from the previous fiscal year, and $8,834,430 is Business-type down $385,209 from the previous fiscal year.
Governmental revenues include program revenues of $1,441,328 and general revenues of $6,923,728 for total revenues of $8,365,056. Governmental expenses were $7,148,372. Business type revenues include program revenues of $2,392,450 and general revenues of $9,032 for total revenues of $2,401,482. Business Type expenses were $2,786,691.
Fund level:
Governmental Fund Balances at the end of the fiscal year were $4,969,809, an increase of $1,974,959 from the previous fiscal year.
Governmental Fund revenues were $7,363,186 in 2020 compared to $8,365,056 in 2021, an increase of $1,001,870.
Governmental Fund expenditures were $6,390,095 in 2021 compared to $7,328,113 in 2020, a decrease of $938,018 from the previous fiscal year.
DRAFT
-4-
General Fund:
The General Fund revenues of $5,852,147 represents an increase of $789,899 from the previous fiscal year.
General Fund expenditures of $5,106,944 represents an increase of $258,116 from the previous fiscal year.
General Fund other financing sources for the fiscal year totaled $-0-, a decrease of $214,814 from the previous fiscal year.
At the end of the fiscal year, the General Fund balance was $3,209,606, representing an increase of $745,204 from the previous fiscal year.
OVERVIEW OF THE CITY’S ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT
The discussion and analysis that follows is intended to serve as an introduction to the City’s basic financial statements. These statements include all activities of the City of Nevada City using the integrated approach as prescribed by GASB Statement No. 34. These statements are comprised of three components: (1) Government-Wide Financial Statements, (2) Fund Financial Statements and (3) Notes to the Financial Statements. The Statement of Net position and the Statement of Activities provide information about the activities of the City as a whole and present a longer-term view of the City’s finances. Fund Financial Statements tells us how these services are financed in the short term as well as what remains for future spending. Fund Financial Statements also report the City’s operations in more detail than the GovernmentWide Financial Statements by providing information about the City’s most significant funds. This report also contains required supplementary information in addition to the basic financial statements.
Government – Wide Financial Statements
The government-wide financial statements are designed to provide the readers with a broad overview of the City’s finances. These statements include all assets and liabilities of the City using the accrual basis of accounting, which is like the accounting method used by most private sector businesses. All the current fiscal year’s revenues and expenditures are considered regardless of when the cash is received.
The Statement of Net position presents information on all the City's assets and liabilities with differences between the two reported as net position. Net position increases or decreases each year based on whether government-wide revenues exceeded the related expenditures (increase), or government-wide expenditures exceeded revenues (decrease). The change in net position over time may provide a useful tool in measuring whether the financial position of the City is improving or deteriorating.
The Statement of Activities presents financial information on the material types of revenue and expenditure transactions that occurred during the fiscal year that created the increase (decrease) in net position. All transactions are reported in the year in which they have been consummated, and not when the cash is received or paid. For example, uncollected taxes are accrued as revenue in these financial statements and earned, but unused vacation pay are expensed in the period earned.
Both of these government-wide financial statements distinguish functions of the City that are principally supported by taxes and inter-governmental revenues (government activities) from other functions that are intended to recover all or a significant portion of their costs through user fees’ and charges (business type activities). The governmental activities of the City include public safety (police & fire), public works streets and facilities maintenance, engineering, parks and recreation, land use planning, and general city administration responsibilities. The business-type activities of the City include water and wastewater utility operations.
The government-wide financial statements include the City only (known as the primary government).
There are no component or blended component units that are part of the City’s operations.
DRAFT
-5-
Fund Financial Statements
The fund financial statements provide detailed information about the most significant funds, not the City as a whole. A fund is a grouping of related accounts that is used to maintain control over resources that have been segregated for specific activities or objectives. Some funds are required to be established by State law and by bond covenants. The City also establishes other funds to control and manage money for particular purposes or to show that the City is meeting legal or contractual responsibilities for using certain taxes, grants and other money. All the funds of the City can be classified into the following categories:
Governmental Funds, Proprietary Funds and Fiduciary Funds.
Governmental Funds. Most of the City's basic services are reported in governmental funds. These funds focus on how money flows into and out of these funds and balances left at year end that are available for subsequent expenditure. These funds are reported using an accounting method called “modified accrual” which measures cash and all other financial assets that can be readily converted to cash. The governmental fund statements provide a detailed short-term view of the City's general governmental operations and the basic services it provides.
Because the focus of governmental funds is narrower than that of the government-wide financial statements, it is useful to compare the information presented for governmental funds with similar information presented for governmental activities in the government-wide financial statements. By doing so, readers may better understand the long-term impact of the government's near-term financing decisions. Both the Governmental Fund Balance Sheet and the Governmental Fund Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances provide a reconciliation to facilitate the comparison between governmental funds and governmental activities. These reconciliations explain the relationship between the fund statements and government-wide statements.
Proprietary Funds. Proprietary funds are generally used to account for services for which the City charges customers. Proprietary funds are meant to be financially self-supporting. Proprietary funds provide the same type of information as shown in the government-wide financial statements, only in more detail. The City’s proprietary funds are used to account for the water and wastewater services provided by the City.
Fiduciary Funds. Fiduciary funds are used to account for resources held for the benefit of parties outside the City. The accounting used for fiduciary funds is much like that of the proprietary funds. The fiduciary fund activity is excluded from the City’s other financial statements because the City cannot use these assets to finance its operations. The City is responsible for ensuring that the assets reported in these funds are used for their intended purposes.
Notes to Financial Statements
The notes to the financial statements provide additional information for readers that are essential for a full understanding of the data provided in the government-wide and fund financial statements.
FINANCIAL ACTIVITIES OF THE CITY AS A WHOLE
This analysis focuses on the net position and changes in the net position of the City as a whole. Tables 1 to 3 focus on the City’s Governmental Statement of Net position and Statement of Activities and Tables 3 to 6 focus on the City’s Business-Type Statement of Net position and Statement of Activities.
DRAFT
-6-
Governmental Activities:
Table 1
Governmental Net position at June 30, 2021
2021 2020
Current and other assets $ 5,398,991 $ 4,010,021
Capital assets, net of accum. depreciation 16,263,123 17,002,111 Total assets 21,662,114 21,012,132
Deferred outflows of resources 1,252,638 1,249,312
Current liabilities 529,246 1,167,435
Long term liabilities 5,736,238 5,556,278
Total liabilities 6,265,484 6,723,713
Deferred inflows of resources 194,319 299,466
Net position:
Invested in Capital assets 15,504,786 16,129,520
Unrestricted 950,163 (891,255)
Total Net position $ 16,454,949 $ 15,238,265
The City’s Governmental net position was $16,454,949 as of June 30, 2021, an increase of $1,216,684 from the prior fiscal year. This increase is the change in net position shown in Table 1. The City’s Governmental Net position as of June 30, 2021 was comprised of the net of the following:
Cash of $4,110,889, held in five Certificates of Deposit, State of California’s Local Agency Investment Fund and the City’s money market savings and general checking accounts. Receivables of $1,109,796 comprised of accrued revenues, loans and amounts due from other funds.
Prepaid costs of $160,673.
Capital assets net of depreciation charges of $16,263,123; this includes all the City’s infrastructure as well as other capital assets used in government activities, see Note 4 for additional information on capital assets.
Deferred outflows of resources for pension adjustments of $1,252,638. Current liabilities including accounts payable, accrued expenses, employee leave time earned but not yet used and amounts due to other funds totaling $411,549. Long term debt of $5,736,238 matures in future years and $117,697 is due within one year.
The increase in long term debt of $179,960 is primarily associated with the increased PERS liability.
Deferred inflows of resources for pension adjustments and business loan payments totaled $194,319.
DRAFT
-7-
Table 2
Changes in Governmental Net position June 30, 2021
2021 2020
Expenses
General government $ 745,748 $ 673,431
Public works 1,639,101 2,862,076
Public safety 4,394,135 2,102,367
Recreation 330,677 396,084
Interest 38,711 50,985
Total expenses 7,148,372 6,084,943
Revenues
Program revenues:
Charges for services 436,132 946,555
Capital grants and contributions 742,206 165,384
Operating grants and contributions 262,990 1,302,804
Total program revenues 1,441,328 2,414,743
General revenues:
Taxes 6,543,919 4,807,084
Other revenues 89,616 100,510
Use of money and property 290,193 40,849
Total general revenues 6,923,728 4,948,443
Total revenues 8,365,056 7,363,186
Changes in net position $ 1,216,684 $ 1,278,243
Overall total Governmental revenues increased by 13.6% from the prior fiscal year attributed to higher capital grants and contributions as well as several tax measures C, F and S. The category Property Tax should show $1,573,690 for the 2021 year which is up by 7% over the previous year. The category under “Sales” tax, TOT ($502,040), Sales ($1,575,285) and Measure F ($783,884) tax combined show an increase of 28% over the previous year. The accruals up through August 2021 affected this balance from the previous year, reflecting higher activities in 3
rd and 4th quarters of 2020/21. Included in Sales and Use tax figures are Measure “S” collections of $861,197, Measure “L” collections of $160, and Measure “C” of $561,197.
The 2020/21 assessed property valuations increased approximately 5% over the fiscal year 2019/2020 assessed valuations.
Service charges were significantly reduced due to closures of Park and Rec programs, down from FY 19/20 totals of $91,899 to FY 20/21 totals of $21,782. The summer events and programs in the summer of 2020 were cancelled in response to COVID. Park events, swimming programs and summer camp were all reduced significantly. In addition, with fewer guests in the City, parking meter and parking citation revenue decreased to $63,010 vs. $220,169 in FY 2019/20, a reduction of $157,159.
DRAFT
-8-
Total Governmental expenses increased 17.47% from the previous fiscal year. The increase is not due to the increase of what the City paid for Public Protection programs. However, it was due to the way the Auditors reported the excess depreciation over capital expenses in 2020/21 and 2019/20. The large difference in Public Protection is due to the Capital Asset Transaction adjustment by the auditing firm, which was applied only to Public Safety expenditures. The adjustment resulted in a $872,528 increase in 2020-21 Safety Expense over 2019-20.
The unadjusted increase in expenses in public protection would have been $229,639 or an increase of 6.9% year over year.
Business-Type Activities:
Table 3
Business-Type Net Position at June 30, 2021
2021 2020
Current and other assets $ 2,165,521 $ 2,469,577
Capital assets 11,015,216 11,417,655
Total assets 13,180,737 13,887,232
Deferred outflows of resources 102,936 98,115
Current liabilities 336,225 576,790
Long term liabilities 4,037,247 4,120,433
Total liabilities 4,373,472 4,697,223
Deferred inflows of resources 75,771 68,485
Net Position:
Invested in capital assets 7,865,216 7,831,052
Restricted 404,028 381,212
Unrestricted 565,186 1,007,375
Total Net position $ 8,834,430 $ 9,219,639
The City’s business-type enterprises consist of Water and Wastewater services. Total Net position decreased by $385,209 resulting in 25.69% reduction in losses compared to the previous fiscal year. Fiscal Year 2020-21 had a $160,000 increase in revenues, primarily due to sewer collection fees and a $136,121 reduction in expenses primarily due to decreases in both employee services and supplies and services.
DRAFT
-9-
Table 4
Changes in Business-Type Net Position June 30, 2021
2021 2020
Expenses
Water $ 995,667 $ 945,678
Wastewater 1,791,024 1,866,459
Total expenses 2,786,691 2,812,137
Revenues
Program revenues:
Water 896,732 871,360
Wastewater 1,391,528 1,257,346
Capital grants and contributions 104,190 108,000
Other general revenues and transfers 9,032 57,032
Total program & general revenues 2,401,482 2,293,738
Changes in net position $ (385,209) $ (518,399)
The City’s Business-Type revenue increased 4.7% from the previous fiscal year. Water revenue collections by $25,372 (2.9%). Wastewater revenue collections increased by $134,182 (10.67%) compared to the previous fiscal year. Capital Contributions and Intergovernmental revenues and transfers increased 125% compared to the previous fiscal year.
There was a decrease of .9% in total business-type activity expense from the previous fiscal year. Water operational expenditures increased 5.2% and Wastewater operational expenses decreased 4%. The water service had an increase in outside services purchasing NID water and the Sewer Plant and Collections had a reduction of staff members in 2020/21.
The City implemented GASB 68 as of June 30, 2015 reporting period, accounting and financial reporting for pensions. The inclusion of this financial data improves accounting and financial reporting by state and local governments for pensions. It also improves information provided by state and local governmental employers about financial support for pensions that is provided by other entities.
Table 5
Changes in Business-Type Net Position June 30, 2021
Net (Expense) Revenues from Services
2021 2020
Water Services $ (97,971) $ (54,729)
Wastewater Services (287,238) (463,670)
Totals $ (385,209) $ (518,399)
DRAFT
-10-
There was a decrease of $385,209 to net position for business-type activities from the previous fiscal year.
The change in net position for Water services was ($97,971), due primarily to the increased water purchase from NID. The change in net position for Wastewater services was ($287,238), less than the net loss from fiscal year 19/20 for Wastewater of ($463,670).
CAPITAL ASSET AND DEBT ADMINISTRATION
Capital assets
In fiscal year 2003/2004 the City started recording the cost of its infrastructure assets and expensing them over time (depreciation expense). Infrastructure assets include streets, bridges, storm drains and similar assets used by the general population. Other capital assets include police and fire equipment, buildings, park facilities and water and wastewater facilities. The cost of infrastructure and other capital assets recorded on the City’s financial statements as shown below:
Table 6
Capital Assets at June 30, 2021
(Net of Depreciation)
Government
Activities
Business
Activities
Total
Land $ 1,630,332 $ - $ 1,630,332
Construction in progress 1,000,111 138,786 1,138,897
Structures and improvements 21,345,284 21,688,862 43,034,146 Vehicles and equipment 3,357,330 2,928,766 6,286,096
Less accumulated depreciation (11,069,934) (13,741,198) (24,811,132) Totals $ 16,263,123 $ 11,015,216 $ 27,278,339
The City depreciates capital assets over their estimated useful lives. The purpose of depreciation is to match the expense of capital assets to revenue sources over the asset’s useful life so that the cost is borne by the users of the asset. Note 1 to the financial statements provides additional information on capital assets, depreciation methods and useful lives.
DRAFT
-11-
Debt Administration
Table 7
Outstanding Debt at June 30, 2021
Government
Activities
Business
Activities
Total
Loans Payable $ 758,337 $ 235,159 $ 993,496
Certificates of Participation - 3,224,000 3,224,000
Net Pension Liability 4,988,357 690,866 5,679,223
Compensated absences payable 107,241 21,287 128,528
Total Outstanding Debt $ 5,853,935 $ 4,171,312 $ 10,025,247 At year-end, the City had $10,025,247 in long term debt outstanding compared to $9,984,917 at June 30, 2020. The City had an overall increase in debt of $40,330. The increase in outstanding debt of $40,330 was the increase in pension liability of $498,264 plus a small increase in compensated absences in the Water/Wastewater enterprise funds of $2,187. The increase was $40,330 higher than debt reduction due to principal payments in the amount of $460,121. The $498,264 increase in pension liability for government and business activities is a requirement of the new GASB 68 ruling setting forth changes in accounting principle. Principal payments to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) for Certificates of Participation Series 2005 and 2007 for the Wastewater Treatment Plant upgrade that began fiscal year 2004/2005 and scheduled principal payments on the USDA Wastewater Fund Promissory note obtained in fiscal year 2007/2008.
ECONOMIC FACTORS AND NEXT YEAR’S BUDGET
The budget developed for fiscal year 2021/22 was adopted by the City Council on January 26, 2022. The General Fund budget approved by the City Council anticipates $5.3 million in revenues, $5.3 million with Net (Expense)/Revenue being (29k). The projections were flat compared to the previous year’s budget.
Property tax had a small uptick in 2021-22 over 2020-21 of $22k.
Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) 20//21 Budget was $295K. However, the actual 2020-21 TOT tax totals were $503,000. As retail activity continues to improve following COVID closures, TOT as well as Sales tax continue to increase over 2019-20 FY. The FY 21/22 Budget reflects the 20/21 actuals with TOT budgeted for $463k and Sales tax budgeted at $1.24 million.
Business licenses are projected to be $81K, a figure that equals 2020-21 actual business license revenue.
Business continues to rebound following COVID closures.
Cannabis application and permit fees and the Measure “F” excise tax is budgeted at $740k. The budgeted amount is closer to FY 2020/21 actuals of $807K.
The Parks and Recreation programs budget was $72.5k, an increase over FY 19/20 actuals of $56.2k because the pool and camp programs were closed during summer. Revenue for the programs has historically been collected by YE June, and due to program closures, the revenue in FY 19/20 was significantly impacted. Again, this was a result of COVID closures.
As with the Park and Recreation programs, parking meter and citation revenue is rebounding in the FY 2021/22 budget. The actual visitor traffic to the City was impacted by business closures in FY 20/21. The budget for 21/22 FY for parking meter and citation revenue is $96,460 and $135,000 compared to the 20/21 actuals of $21,409 and $41,601.
DRAFT
-12-
General Fund operating expenditures for the Departments of Finance and Administration, City Council, Planning Commission, City Attorney, City Planner, City Engineer, City Manager, City Clerk and Treasurer, Fire, Police, Public Works, Park and Recreation, and the Veteran’s Building total $5.3 million for the FY 21/22 which is an increase of $179,410 or 3.5% as compared to actual FY 20/21 operating expenditures of $5.1 million. The FY 2020/21 adopted operating expense budget totaled $4.6 million. The increases are primarily due to rebounding from staffing turnover. FY 20/21 experienced considerable expense associated with severance pay. The 21/22 operating expense budget better reflects the full staffing needs of the City.
There is one notable decrease in operating expense for the Fire Department in the FY 21/22 Budget, reflecting the new outsourcing of Fire Projection to Grass Valley. Only the Fire Chief will remain an employee of the City of Nevada City.
Revenue collections for the special taxes, Measure “S” and Measure “C”, significantly assist the City in maintaining streets and roads, as well as provide funding for the Fire Department and Police Department.
Measure “F”, the Nevada City voter approved cannabis excise general-purpose tax will continue to support the operation needs of the City. The approved City budget reflects 740K in revenue, “F” excise tax, as well as cannabis related permit revenue.
The General Fund has maintained a slow but improving economic financial position over the last several fiscal years. Fiscal year 20/21 shows an increase in the General fund balance. The City has maintained a positive unassigned fund balance of $1,527,562 ending fiscal year 2020/2021. It is crucial that City staff monitor incoming revenues and prioritize and review program expenditures to support, preserve and support sustainable and viable financial status and provide quality service levels to serve its constituency.
Contacting the City
This financial report is designed to provide the citizens, taxpayers, customers, investors and creditors with a general overview of the City’s finances and to show the City’s accountability for the money it receives.
If you have questions about this report or need additional information, contact the City at 317 Broad Street, Nevada City, CA 95959, or by phone (530)-265-2496. DRAFT Basic Financial Statements
Government-Wide Financial Statements
DRAFT
Governmental Business-Type
Activities Activities Total
ASSETS
Current assets:
Cash and investments $ 4,110,889 $ 1,688,506 $ 5,799,395 Receivables:
Taxes 1,109,146 - 1,109,146
Accounts 643 477,015 477,658
Accrued interest 7 - 7
Prepaid items 160,673 - 160,673
Total current assets 5,381,358 2,165,521 7,546,879
Noncurrent assets:
Loans receivable 17,633 - 17,633
Capital assets:
Non-depreciable 2,630,443 138,786 2,769,229
Depreciable, net of accumulated depreciation 13,632,680 10,876,430 24,509,110 Total noncurrent assets 16,280,756 11,015,216 27,295,972 Total assets 21,662,114 13,180,737 34,842,851
DEFERRED OUTFLOWS
Deferred outflows related to pensions 1,252,638 102,936 1,355,574 Total deferred outflows 1,252,638 102,936 1,355,574
LIABILITIES
Current liabilities:
Accounts payable and accrued expenses 411,549 202,160 613,709 Debt payable due in one year 117,697 134,065 251,762
Total current liabilities 529,246 336,225 865,471
Noncurrent liabilities due in more than one year:
Compensated absences 107,241 21,287 128,528
Loans payable 640,640 175,094 815,734
Certificates of participation - 3,150,000 3,150,000
Net pension liability 4,988,357 690,866 5,679,223
Total noncurrent liabilities 5,736,238 4,037,247 9,773,485 Total liabilities 6,265,484 4,373,472 10,638,956
DEFERRED INFLOWS
Deferred Inflows related to pensions 194,319 75,771 270,090
NET POSITION
Invested in capital assets, net of related debt 15,504,786 7,865,216 23,370,002 Restricted - 404,028 404,028
Unrestricted 950,163 565,186 1,515,349
Total net position $ 16,454,949 $ 8,834,430 $ 25,289,379 City of Nevada City
STATEMENT OF NET POSITION
June 30, 2021
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. - 13 -
DRAFT
Operating Capital
Charges for Grants and Grants and Governmental Business-Type Functions/Programs Expenses Services Contributions Contributions Activities Activities Totals City Government
Governmental activities:
General government $ 745,748 $ - $ - $ - $ (745,748) $ - $ (745,748) Public safety 4,394,135 65,902 - - (4,328,233) - (4,328,233) Public works 1,639,101 114,845 262,990 742,206 (519,060) - (519,060) Recreation and culture 330,677 255,385 - - (75,292) - (75,292) Interest on long-term debt 38,711 - - - (38,711) - (38,711) Total governmental activities 7,148,372 436,132 262,990 742,206 (5,707,044) - (5,707,044) Business-type activities
Water services 995,667 896,732 - - - (98,935) (98,935)
Sewer services 1,791,024 1,391,528 - 104,190 - (295,306) (295,306) Total business-type activities 2,786,691 2,288,260 - 104,190 - (394,241) (394,241) Total City Government $ 9,935,063 $ 2,724,392 $ 262,990 $ 846,396 (5,707,044) (394,241) (6,101,285) General revenues:
Taxes:
Property taxes 2,148,256 - 2,148,256
Sales taxes 2,436,582 - 2,436,582
Franchise taxes 136,204 - 136,204
Other taxes 1,822,877 - 1,822,877
Use of money and property 89,616 9,032 98,648
Other revenues 290,193 - 290,193
Total general revenues and special items 6,923,728 9,032 6,932,760 Change in net position 1,216,684 (385,209) 831,475
Net position beginning of period 15,238,265 9,219,639 24,457,904 Net position ending of period $ 16,454,949 $ 8,834,430 $ 25,289,379 Program Revenues
City of Nevada City
Net (Expense) Revenue and Changes in Net
Position
STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES
For the Year Ended June 30, 2021
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. - 14 -
DRAFT
Other Total
General Measure S Governmental Governmental
Fund Projects Fund Funds Funds
ASSETS
Cash and investments $ 2,684,566 $ 293,646 $ 1,132,677 $ 4,110,889 Taxes receivable 780,190 181,975 146,981 1,109,146
Accounts receivable 643 - - 643
Accrued interest receivable 7 - - 7
Prepaid items 135,186 5,558 19,929 160,673
Loans receivable - - 17,633 17,633
Total assets $ 3,600,592 $ 481,179 $ 1,317,220 $ 5,398,991
LIABILITIES
Accounts payable $ 277,462 $ 2,244 $ 18,172 $ 297,878
Accrued expenditures 113,524 147 - 113,671
Total liabilities 390,986 2,391 18,172 411,549
DEFERRED INFLOWS OF RESOURCES
Deferred business loan payments - - 17,633 17,633
Total deferred inflows of resources - - 17,633 17,633
FUND BALANCES
Nonspendable 135,186 5,558 19,929 160,673
Restricted 1,278,000 473,230 1,481,620 3,232,850
Committed 247,452 - - 247,452
Assigned 21,406 - - 21,406
Unassigned 1,527,562 - (220,134) 1,307,428
Total fund balances 3,209,606 478,788 1,281,415 4,969,809 Total liabilities and fund balances $ 3,600,592 $ 481,179 $ 1,317,220 $ 5,398,991 City of Nevada City
GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS
BALANCE SHEET
June 30, 2021
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. - 15 -
DRAFT
Total fund balances - governmental funds $ 4,969,809
Total net position reported for governmental activities in the statement of net position is different because:
Capital assets used in governmental activities are not financial resources and therefore are not reported in the funds. 16,263,123 Other long term assets are not available to pay for current period expenditures therefore, are reported as unavailable revenues in the governmental funds. 17,633 Deferred outflows of resources related to pensions are not reported in the governmental funds. 1,252,638
Deferred inflows of resources related to pensions are not reported in the governmental funds. (194,319)
Long-term liabilities applicable to the City's governmental activities are due and payable in the current period and accordingly are not reported as fund liabilities. All liabilities, both current and long-term, are reported in the statement of net position.
Debt payable (758,337)
Compensated absences (107,241)
Net pension liability (4,988,357)
Total long-term liabilities (5,853,935)
Total net position - governmental activities $ 16,454,949 City of Nevada City
RECONCILIATION OF THE GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS BALANCE SHEET
WITH THE GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES
For the year ended June 30, 2020
STATEMENT OF NET POSITION
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. - 16 -
DRAFT
Other Total
General Measure S Governmental Governmental
Fund Projects Fund Funds Funds
REVENUES
Property taxes $ 1,805,296 $ - $ 342,960 $ 2,148,256
Sales taxes 1,575,385 861,197 - 2,436,582
Franchise taxes 136,204 - - 136,204
Other taxes 1,289,227 - 533,650 1,822,877
Licenses and permits 114,845 - - 114,845
Fines and forfeits 65,902 - - 65,902
Intergovernmental 262,990 - 742,206 1,005,196
Use of money and property 86,127 - 3,489 89,616
Charges for services 255,385 - - 255,385
Other revenues 260,786 - 29,407 290,193
Total revenues 5,852,147 861,197 1,651,712 8,365,056
EXPENDITURES
Current:
General government 745,748 - - 745,748
Public safety 3,100,560 421,047 3,521,607
Public works 854,434 348,621 436,046 1,639,101
Recreation and culture 330,677 - - 330,677
Debt service:
Principal 55,641 34,760 23,850 114,251
Interest 19,884 14,886 3,941 38,711
Total expenditures 5,106,944 398,267 884,884 6,390,095
Excess (deficiency) of
revenues over expenditures 745,203 462,930 766,828 1,974,961
OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES)
Debt proceeds - - - -
Transfers in - - - -
Transfers out - - - -
Total other financing sources (uses) - - - -
Net change in fund balances 745,203 462,930 766,828 1,974,961 Fund balances, beginning of period 2,464,403 15,858 514,587 2,994,848 Fund balances, end of period $ 3,209,606 $ 478,788 $ 1,281,415 $ 4,969,809 City of Nevada City
STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND
CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES
For the Year Ended June 30, 2021
GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. - 17 -
DRAFT
Net Change in Fund Balances - Total Governmental Funds $ 1,974,961 Amounts reported for governmental activities in the statement of activities are different because:
CAPITAL ASSET TRANSACTIONS
(738,988)
LONG-TERM DEBT PROCEEDS AND PAYMENTS
Long-term debt proceeds provide current financial resources to governmental funds, but issuing debt increases long-term liabilities in the statement of net position. -
Repayment of debt principal is an expenditure in the governmental funds, but the repayment reduces long-term liabilities in the statement of net position. 114,251
ACCRUAL OF NON-CURRENT ITEMS
Compensated absences 207,558
Pension expense (341,098)
Net difference (758,277)
Change in Net Position of Governmental Activities $ 1,216,684 The amounts below included in the statement of activities do not require the use of or provide current financial resources and are therefore not reported as expenditures or revenues in the governmental funds.
City of Nevada City
RECONCILIATION OF THE STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES
AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES OF
GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS TO THE STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES
For the Year Ended June 30, 2021
Governmental funds report capital outlays as expenditures. However, in the statement of activities, the cost of those assets is allocated over their estimated useful lives as depreciation expense. This is the amount by which depreciation ($924,779) exceeds capital outlays $185,791 in the current period.
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. - 18 -
DRAFT
Sewer Water
Fund Fund Totals
Assets
Cash and investments $ 1,524,793 $ 163,713 $ 1,688,506
Accounts receivable 296,968 180,047 477,015
Total current assets 1,821,761 343,760 2,165,521
Noncurrent assets:
Non-depreciable 101,749 37,037 138,786
Depreciable, net 8,199,369 2,677,061 10,876,430
Total noncurrent assets 8,301,118 2,714,098 11,015,216
Total assets 10,122,879 3,057,858 13,180,737
Deferred outflows of resources
Current pension contributions 67,574 35,362 102,936
Liabilities
Accounts payable 155,286 13,471 168,757
Compensated absences 9,984 11,303 21,287
Accrued liabilities 19,935 13,468 33,403
Loan payable 56,371 3,694 60,065
Certificates of participation 74,000 - 74,000
Total current liabilities 315,576 41,936 357,512
Noncurrent liabilities
Net pension liability 428,552 262,314 690,866
Loan payable 171,617 3,477 175,094
Certificates of participation 3,150,000 - 3,150,000
Total noncurrent liabilities 3,750,169 265,791 4,015,960 Total liabilities 4,065,745 307,727 4,373,472
Deferred inflows of resources
Deferral of pension expenses 48,257 27,514 75,771
Net position
Invested in capital assets,
Net of related debt 5,151,118 2,714,098 7,865,216
Restricted 41,828 66,013 107,841
Restricted for debt service 296,187 - 296,187
Unrestricted 587,318 (22,132) 565,186
Total net position $ 6,076,451 $ 2,757,979 $ 8,834,430
Enterprise Funds
Business-Type Activities
City of Nevada City
PROPRIETARY FUNDS
STATEMENT OF NET POSITION
June 30, 2021
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. - 19 -
DRAFT
Sewer Water
Fund Fund Total
Operating revenues
Service charges $ 1,383,178 $ 882,591 $ 2,265,769
Miscellaneous revenues 8,350 14,141 22,491
Total operating revenues 1,391,528 896,732 2,288,260
Operating expenses
Employee services 421,443 175,152 596,595
Supplies and services 670,516 622,318 1,292,834
Depreciation 488,539 198,197 686,736
Total operating expenses 1,580,498 995,667 2,576,165
Total operating income (loss) (188,970) (98,935) (287,905) Nonoperating revenues (expenses)
Investment earnings 8,068 964 9,032
Intergovernmental revenues 104,190 - 104,190
Interest expense (210,526) - (210,526)
Total nonoperating revenues (expenses) (98,268) 964 (97,304) Income before transfers (287,238) (97,971) (385,209)
Operating transfer in - - -
Operating transfer out - - -
Total other financing sources (uses) - - -
Change in net position (287,238) (97,971) (385,209)
Total net position - beginning 6,363,689 2,855,950 9,219,639 Total net position - ending $ 6,076,451 $ 2,757,979 $ 8,834,430 For the Year Ended June 30, 2021
Business-Type Activities-Enterprise Funds
City of Nevada City
PROPRIETARY FUNDS
STATEMENT OF REVENUES,
EXPENSES, AND CHANGES IN FUND NET POSITION
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. - 20 -
DRAFT
Sewer Water
Fund Fund Total
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES
Receipts from customers and users $ 1,490,993 $ 892,122 $ 2,383,115 Payments to suppliers (580,557) (673,835) (1,254,392)
Payments to employees (461,875) (141,862) (603,737)
Net cash provided by operating activities 448,561 76,425 524,986
CASH FLOWS FROM NONCAPITAL FINANCING ACTIVITIES
Transfer ins - - -
Transfer out - - -
Net cash provided (used) by capital and related financing activities - - -
CASH FLOWS FROM CAPITAL AND RELATED FINANCING ACTIVITIES Intergovernmental revenues 104,673 - 104,673
Acquisition of capital assets (150,880) (133,414) (284,294) Principal paid on capital debt (134,615) (3,694) (138,309) Interest paid on capital debt (210,526) - (210,526)
Net cash provided (used) by capital
and related financing activities (391,348) (137,108) (528,456)
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES
Interest received 26,473 4,818 31,291
Net cash provided by investing activities 26,473 4,818 31,291 Net increase in cash and cash equivalents 83,686 (55,865) 27,821 Cash and equivalents, July 1 1,441,107 219,578 1,660,685 Cash and equivalents, June 30 $ 1,524,793 $ 163,713 $ 1,688,506 RECONCILIATION OF OPERATING INCOME TO Sewer Water
NET CASH PROVIDED (USED) BY OPERATING ACTIVITIES Fund Fund Total Operating income $ (188,970) $ (98,935) $ (287,905)
Adjustments to reconcile operating income
To net cash provided (used) by operating activities
Depreciation expense 488,539 198,197 686,736
(Increase) decrease in deferred outflows of resources (7,607) 2,786 (4,821) Accounts receivable 99,465 (4,610) 94,855
Due from other funds - - -
Increase (decrease) in accounts payable 89,959 (51,517) 38,442 Compensated absences (380) 2,567 2,187
Deferred inflows of resources 4,553 2,733 7,286
Accrued liabilities (67,318) 6,831 (60,487)
Net pension liability 30,320 18,373 48,693
Net cash provided (used) by operating activities $ 448,561 $ 76,425 $ 524,986 Business-Type Activities-Enterprise Funds
City of Nevada City
PROPRIETARY FUNDS
STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS
For the Year Ended June 30, 2021
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. - 21 -
DRAFT
City of Nevada City
NOTES TO BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
June 30, 2021
- 22 -
NOTE 1: SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
A. Reporting Entity
The City of Nevada City (the City) was incorporated April 19, 1856, under the provisions of the statutes of the State of California. The City operates under a Council form of government and provides the following services: public safety, highways and streets, culture and recreation, public improvements, planning and zoning, general administrative services, and water and sewer.
Generally accepted accounting principles require government financial statements to include the primary government and its component units. Component units of a governmental entity are legally separate entities for which the primary government is considered to be financially accountable and for which the nature and significance of their relationship with the primary government are such that exclusion would cause the combined financial statements to be misleading. The primary government is considered to be financially accountable if it appoints a majority of an organization’s governing body and is able to impose its will on that organization or there is a potential for the organization to provide specific financial benefits to or impose specific financial burdens on the primary government.
Component Units
Based on the application of the criteria set forth by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board, management has determined that there are no component units of the City.
Joint Agencies
The City is a participant in Public Agency Risk Sharing Authority of California (PARSAC), which is a joint powers authority organized for the purpose of pooled joint-protection coverage to member entities.
PARSAC operates public entity pools for auto and general liability coverage, plus workers’ compensation and errors and omissions coverage and the pool purchases excess insurance for members. PARSAC is under the control and direction of a 9 member executive committee consisting of representatives of the 37 member cities and one fire district. Complete audited financial statements of PARSAC can be obtained at 1525 Response Road, Suite One, Sacramento, California 95815-4805. The City is not financially accountable for this organization and therefore it is not a component unit under Statement Nos. 14, 39 and 61 of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board.
The City is a participant in Northern California Cities Self-Insurance Fund (NCCSIF), the purpose of which is for member cities to share in the administrative costs of providing liability and workers’ compensation insurance. The NCCSIF is governed by a board of directors appointed by the member cities. Complete financial information can be obtained from the Program Administrator, 2180 Harvard Street, Suite 460, Sacramento, CA 95815. The City is not financially accountable for this organization and therefore it is not a component unit under Statement Nos. 14, 39 and 61 of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board.
The City is a participant in the Nevada County Service Authority for the Abatement of Abandoned Vehicles program, which was created pursuant to California Vehicle Code Section 22710 in order for the County of Nevada, City of Nevada City, and City of Grass Valley to join together and establish a service authority for the abatement of abandoned vehicles. The County or City abatement ordinances that are realized by the County or City less the respective administrative costs are deposited in the Authority trust account.
Complete financial activity of this trust account can be obtained at County of Nevada, Auditor-Controller, 950 Maidu Avenue, Nevada City, California 95959-8617. The City is not financially accountable for this organization and therefore it is not a component unit under Statement Nos. 14, 39 and 61 of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board.
DRAFT
City of Nevada City
NOTES TO BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
June 30, 2021
- 23 -
NOTE 1: SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (continued) A. Reporting Entity (concluded)
The City is a participant in Western Nevada Public Transportation Authority, the purpose of which is to provide transportation services to the citizens of Nevada County including Nevada City. Complete financial activity can be obtained at County of Nevada, Auditor-Controller, 950 Maidu Avenue, Nevada City, California 95959-8617. The City is not financially accountable for this organization and therefore it is not a component unit under Statement Nos. 14, 39 and 61 of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board.
The City is a participant in Nevada County Fire and Emergency Services Joint Powers Agency, the purpose of which is to provide emergency dispatch and other services. The City participates in the Air Filling Station Services offered. Complete financial information can be obtained from the JPA’s office at P.O. Box 3043, Grass Valley, CA 95945. The City is not financially accountable for this organization and therefore it is not a component unit under Statement Nos. 14, 39 and 61 of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board.
B. Basis of Presentation
Government-Wide Financial Statements
The statement of net position and statement of activities display information on all of the nonfiduciary activities of the City. These statements include the financial activities of the overall government.
Eliminations have been made to minimize the double counting of internal activities. These statements distinguish between the governmental and business-type activities of the City. Governmental activities, which are normally supported by taxes and intergovernmental revenues, are reported separately from business-type activities, which rely to a significant extent on fees charged to external parties.
The statement of activities presents a comparison between direct expenses and program revenues for each different identifiable activity of the City’s business-type activities and for each function of the City’s governmental activities. Direct expenses are those that are specifically associated with a program or function and; therefore, are clearly identifiable to a particular function. Program revenues include 1) charges paid by the recipients of goods and services offered by the program, 2) operating grants and contributions, and 3) capital grants and contributions. Taxes and other items not properly included among program revenues are presented instead as general revenues.
Fund Financial Statements
The underlying accounting system of the City is organized and operated on the basis of separate funds, each of which is considered to be a separate accounting entity. The operations of each fund are accounted for with a separate set of self-balancing accounts that comprise its assets, liabilities, fund equity, revenues and expenditures or expenses, as appropriate. Governmental resources are allocated to and accounted for in individual funds based upon the purposes for which they are to be spent and the means by which spending activities are controlled.
The fund financial statements provide information about the City’s funds. Funds are organized into three major categories: governmental, proprietary and fiduciary. An emphasis is placed on major funds within the governmental and proprietary categories; each is displayed in a separate column. All remaining governmental and proprietary funds are separately aggregated and reported as nonmajor funds. The City has no fiduciary funds.
DRAFT
City of Nevada City
NOTES TO BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
June 30, 2021
- 24 -
NOTE 1: SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (continued) B. Basis of Presentation (concluded)
The City reports the following major governmental funds:
• The General fund is used to account for all revenues and expenditures necessary to carry out basic governmental activities of the City that are not accounted for through other funds. For the City, the General fund includes such activities as public protection, public ways and facilities, community development, and recreation and culture services. • The Measure “S” fund is a special revenue fund used to account for revenue and expenditures related to Measure “S”. Funding comes primarily from Measure “S” tax revenues.
The City reports the following major proprietary funds:
• The Water fund is an enterprise fund used to account for activity related to providing customers with water service and billing for service provided by the City. • The Sewer fund is an enterprise fund used to account for activity related to providing customers with sewer service and billing for service provided by the City.
C. Basis of Accounting and Measurement Focus
The government-wide and proprietary fund financial statements are reported using the economic resources measurement focus and the accrual basis of accounting. Revenues are recorded when earned and expenses are recorded at the time liabilities are incurred, regardless of when the related cash flows take place.
Nonexchange transactions, in which the City gives (or receives) value without directly receiving (or giving) equal value in exchange, include property and sales tax, grants, entitlements, and donations. Under the accrual basis, revenue from property taxes is recognized in the fiscal year for which the taxes are levied.
Revenues from sales tax are recognized when the underlying transactions take place. Revenues from grants, entitlements, and donations are recognized in the fiscal year in which all eligibility requirements have been satisfied.
Governmental funds are reported using the current financial resources measurement focus and the modified accrual basis of accounting. Under this method, revenues are recognized when measurable and available.
Property and sales taxes, interest, certain state and federal grants, and charges for services are considered susceptible to accrual and are accrued when their receipt occurs within sixty days after the end of the fiscal year. Expenditures are generally recorded when a liability is incurred, as under accrual accounting. However, debt service expenditures as well as expenditures related to claims and judgments are recorded only when payment is due. General capital asset acquisitions are reported as expenditures in the various functions of the governmental funds. Proceeds of governmental long-term debt and acquisitions under capital leases are reported as other financing sources.
Because of their spending measurement focus, expenditure recognition for governmental fund types excludes amounts represented by non-current liabilities. Since they do not affect net current assets, such long-term amounts are not recognized as governmental fund type expenditures or fund liabilities.
Amounts expended to acquire capital assets are recorded as expenditures in the year resources were expended, rather than as fund assets. The proceeds of long-term debt are recorded as other financing source rather than as a fund liability. Amounts paid to reduce long-term indebtedness are reported as fund expenditures.
DRAFT
City of Nevada City
NOTES TO BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
June 30, 2021
- 25 -
NOTE 1: SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (continued) C. Basis of Accounting and Measurement Focus (concluded) Amounts reported as program revenues include 1) charges to customers or applicants for goods, services, or privileges provided, 2) operating grants and contributions, and 3) capital grants and contributions. Internally dedicated resources are reported as general revenues rather than as program revenues. Likewise, general revenues include all taxes.
Proprietary funds distinguish operating revenues and expenses from nonoperating items. Operating revenues and expenses generally result from providing services and producing and delivering goods in connection with a proprietary fund’s principal ongoing operations. The principal operating revenues of the enterprise funds are charges to customers for sales and services. Operating expenses for enterprise funds include the cost of sales and services, administrative expenses and depreciation of capital assets. All revenues and expenses not meeting this definition are reported as nonoperating revenues and expenses.
D. Non-Current Governmental Assets/Liabilities
Non-current governmental assets and liabilities, such as capital assets and long-term liabilities, are reported in the governmental activities column in the government-wide statement of net position.
E. Cash and Cash Equivalents
For purposes of the accompanying statement of cash flows, the City considers all highly liquid investments with an original maturity of three months or less and amounts held in the City’s investment pool, to be cash and cash equivalents.
F. Investments
The City pools cash and investments of all funds. Each fund’s share in this pool is displayed in the accompanying financial statements as cash and investments.
Investment transactions are recorded on the trade date. The fair value of investments is determined annually.
Investments in nonparticipating interest-earning investment contracts are reported at cost; short term investments are reported at amortized cost, investments in the State of California Local Agency Investment Fund, an external pool, are reported at amortized cost which approximates fair value, and the fair value of all other investments are obtained by using quotations obtained from independent published sources or by the safekeeping institution. The fair value represents the amount the City could reasonably expect to receive for an investment in a current sale between a willing buyer and seller.
Income from pooled investments is allocated to the individual funds based on the fund or participant’s average daily cash balance at quarter end in relation to the total pool investments. Income from non-pooled investments is recorded based on the specific investments held by the fund.
G. Receivables
Receivables for governmental activities consist mainly of accounts, interest, taxes and intergovernmental.
Management believes its receivables are fully collectible and, accordingly, no allowance for doubtful accounts is required. Receivables for enterprise funds consist mainly of user fees and interest. Management believes its receivables are fully collectible and, accordingly, no allowance for doubtful accounts is required.
DRAFT
City of Nevada City
NOTES TO BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
June 30, 2021
- 26 -
NOTE 1: SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (continued) H. Other Assets
Inventory
Governmental fund inventories and proprietary fund inventories are recorded as expenditures/expenses at the time the inventory is purchased rather than when consumed. Records are not maintained of inventory and supplies on hand, although these amounts are not considered material.
Prepaid Items
Payments made for services that will benefit periods beyond June 30, 2021, are recorded as prepaid items under both the accrual and modified accrual basis of accounting. The cost of prepaid items is recorded as expenditures/expenses when consumed rather than when purchased. The City records both prepaid costs for expenditures/expenses paid for services that will benefit future periods and prepaid insurance for the net investment in a joint powers self-insurance agency.
I. Business Loans Receivable
A total of $17,633 was recorded as loans receivable at June 30, 2021. These represent low interest notes and related accrued interest to finance business start-up costs. Loan terms are 15 years with interest rates at 3.25 percent. The primary source of funding for these loans comes from grants from the Federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. The CDBG grants contain monitoring requirements to ensure grant compliance. These requirements are reflected in the loan agreements. Due to the terms of the loans, an offsetting deferred inflows of resources of $17,633 has been established in the governmental funds balance sheet for the business loan principal and interest payments.
J. Capital Assets
Capital assets, including public domain (infrastructure such as roads, bridges, sidewalks, sewer and similar items) are defined by the City as assets with a cost greater than $5,000 for equipment and structures and improvements, and $20,000 for infrastructure and an estimated useful life of more than one year. Capital assets are recorded at historical cost or estimated historical cost if actual historical cost is unavailable.
Contributed capital assets are recorded at their acquisition value at the date of donation.
Capital assets used in operations are depreciated or amortized using the straight-line method over the assets’ estimated useful lives in the government-wide financial statements. The range of estimated useful lives by type of asset is as follows:
Depreciable Asset Estimated Lives
Equipment 3-10 years
Structures and improvements 20-40 years
Infrastructure 20-40 years
Maintenance and repairs are charged to operations when incurred. Betterments and major improvements which significantly increase values, change capacities or extend useful lives are capitalized. Upon sale or retirement of capital assets, the cost and related accumulated depreciation are removed from the respective accounts and any resulting gain or loss is included in the results of operations.
DRAFT
City of Nevada City
NOTES TO BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
June 30, 2021
- 27 -
NOTE 1: SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (continued) K. Property Tax
Nevada County assesses properties, bills, collects, and distributes property taxes to the City. The County remits the entire amount levied and handles all delinquencies, retaining interest and penalties.
Property taxes are levied on a fiscal year (July 1 - June 30). The secured property tax assessments are due on November 1 and February 1 and become delinquent after December 10 and April 10, respectively. The unsecured property tax assessments are due on August 1, and become delinquent after August 31. Property taxes become a lien on the property effective January 1 of the preceding year.
The City recognizes property taxes when the individual installments are due, provided they are collected within 30 days after year-end.
L. Interfund Transactions
Interfund transactions are reflected as either loans, services provided or used, reimbursements or transfers.
Loans reported as receivables and payables are referred to as either “due to/from other funds” (i.e. the current portion of interfund loans) or “advances to/from other funds” (i.e., the noncurrent portion of interfund loans) as appropriate and are subject to elimination upon consolidation. Any residual balances outstanding between the governmental activities and the business-type activities, are reported in the government-wide financial statements as “internal balances”. Advances between funds, as reported in the fund financial statements, are offset by a nonspendable fund balance account in applicable governmental funds to indicate that they are not in spendable form.
Services provided or used, deemed to be at market or near market rates, are treated as revenues and expenditures or expenses. These services provide information on the net cost of each government function and therefore are not eliminated in the process of preparing the government-wide statement of activities.
Reimbursements occur when the funds responsible for particular expenditures or expenses repay the funds that initially paid for them. Such reimbursements are reflected as expenditures or expenses in the reimbursing fund and reductions to expenditures or expenses in the reimbursed fund.
All other interfund transactions are treated as transfers. Transfers between funds are netted as part of the reconciliation to the government-wide presentation.
M. Compensated Absences and Other Post-employment Benefits It is the City’s policy to permit employees to accumulate a limited amount of earned but unused vacation, which will be paid to employees upon separation from City service. Employees accumulate sick leave during employment with the City, however, this benefit does not vest with the employee. The compensated absences liability is typically liquidated by the General fund for all non-proprietary fund compensated absences. In the government-wide and proprietary fund financial statements, the accrued compensated absences is reported as an expense and related liability. In the governmental fund financial statements, the expenditures and liabilities related to those obligations are recognized only when they mature.
The City does not currently provide other post-employment healthcare or other non-pension benefits.
DRAFT
City of Nevada City
NOTES TO BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
June 30, 2021
- 28 -
NOTE 1: SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (concluded) N. Long-term Obligations
In the government-wide financial statements, and proprietary fund types in the fund financial statements, long-term debt and other long-term obligations are reported as liabilities in the applicable governmental activities, business-type activities, or proprietary fund type statement of net position.
O. Pensions
For purposes of measuring the net pension liability and deferred outflows/inflows of resources related to pensions, and pension expense, information about the fiduciary net position of the City’s California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) plan (Plan) and additions to/deductions from the Plans’ fiduciary net position have been determined on the same basis as they are reported by CalPERS. For this purpose, benefit payments (including refunds of employee contributions) are recognized when due and payable in accordance with the benefit terms. Investments are reported at fair value.
P. Deferred Outflows/Inflows of Resources
In addition to assets, the statement of financial position will sometimes report a separate section for deferred outflows of resources. This separate financial statement element, deferred outflows of resources, represents a consumption of net position that applies to a future period and so will not be recognized as an outflow of resources (expense) until then. The City has one item that qualifies for reporting in this category. This item relates to the outflows from changes in the net pension liability and is reportable on the statement of net position.
In addition to liabilities, the statement of financial position will sometimes report a separate section for deferred inflows of resources. This separate financial statement element, deferred inflows of resources, represents an acquisition of net position that applies to a future period and so will not be recognized as an inflow of resources (revenue) until that time. The City has three types of items which qualify for reporting in this category. One item, unavailable revenue, is reported only in the governmental funds balance sheet.
The governmental funds report unavailable revenues for receivables that have not been received within the modified accrual period. These amounts are deferred and recognized as an inflow of resources in the period that the amounts become available. The second item relates to the inflows from changes in the net pension liability and is reportable on the statement of net position. The third item relates to the total business loan principal and interest receivable amount and is reportable on the statement of net position as well as on the governmental funds balance sheet.
Q. Estimates
The preparation of basic financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect certain reported amounts and disclosures. Accordingly, actual results could differ from those estimates.
DRAFT
City of Nevada City
NOTES TO BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
June 30, 2021
- 29 -
NOTE 2: STEWARDSHIP, COMPLIANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY
A. Deficit Fund Balance/Net Position
The following nonmajor governmental funds had deficit fund balances:
The Nevada Main Project fund had a fund balance deficit of $138,076, which is expected to be eliminated in the future through increased revenues.
FEMA Fund had a fund balance deficit of $15,962.
Little Creek Fund had a fund balance deficit of $6,107. CDBG Enterprise Fund had a fund balance deficit of $15,279. CMAQ Streets and Roads had a fund balance deficit of $44,385. Browns field 10 had a fund balance deficit of $325.
NOTE 3: CASH AND INVESTMENTS
A. Financial Statement Presentation
As of June 30, 2021, the City’s cash and investments are reported in the financial statements as follows:
Maturity 12
Months or less
Cash and investments, Governmental activities $ 4,110,889 Cash and investments, Business-type activities 1,688,506 Total cash and investments $ 5,799,395
As of June 30, 2021, the City’s cash and investments consisted of the following:
Cash and investments:
Demand deposits $ 4,045,213
Local Agency Investment Fund 521,182
Certificates of Deposit 1,233,000
Total cash and investments $ 5,799,395
B. Cash
Custodial Credit Risk for Deposits - Custodial credit risk for deposits is the risk that, in the event of the failure of a depository financial institution, the City will not be able to recover its deposits or collateral securities that are in the possession of an outside party. The City’s investment policy requires that deposits in banks must meet the requirements of the California Government Code. Under this code, deposits of more than $250,000 must be collateralized at 105 percent to 150 percent of the value of the deposit to guarantee the safety of the public funds. The first $250,000 of the City’s deposits are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). Deposits of more than the $250,000 insured amount are collateralized.
DRAFT
City of Nevada City
NOTES TO BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
June 30, 2021
- 30 -
NOTE 3: CASH AND INVESTMENTS (continued)
C. Investments
Pursuant to Section 53646 of the Government Code, the City prepares an investment policy annually and presents it to the City Council for review and approval. The investment policy provides the basis for the management of a prudent, conservative investment program. Funds are invested to provide the maximum security of principal with secondary emphasis on achieving the highest return, while meeting daily cash flow needs. All investments are made in accordance with the Government Code and, in general, the investment policy is more restrictive than state law.
Under the provisions of the City’s investment policy the City may invest or deposit in the following:
United States Treasury Bills, Bonds and Notes
Securities of the U.S. Government or its Agencies
Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF)
Certificates of Deposit
Fair Value of Investments - The City measures and records its investments using fair value measurement guidelines established by generally accepted accounting principles. These guidelines recognize a three-tiered fair value hierarchy as follows:
Level 1: Quoted prices for identical investments in active markets; Level 2: Observable inputs other than quoted market prices; and, Level 3: Unobservable inputs.
The City’s position in external investment pools is in its self-regarded as a type of investment and looking through to the underlying investments of the pool is not appropriate. Therefore, the City’s investment in external investment pools is not recognized in the three-tiered fair value hierarchy described above.
At June 30, 2021, the City had the following recurring fair value measurements:
Investment Type Level 1 Exempt Total
Certificates of Deposit $ - $ 1,233,000 $ 1,233,000
California Local Agency Investment Fund - 521,182 521,182 Total investments $ - $ 1,754,182 1,754,182
Cash in banks and on hand 4,045,213
Total cash and investments $ 5,799,395
Investment Type
Total
Investment
Not rated:
Certificates of Deposit $ 1,233,000
California Local Agency Investment Fund 521,182
Cash in banks and on hand 4,045,213
Total cash and investments $ 5,799,395
DRAFT
City of Nevada City
NOTES TO BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
June 30, 2021
- 31 -
NOTE 3: CASH AND INVESTMENTS (concluded)
C. Investments (concluded)
Interest Rate Risk - Interest rate risk is the risk of loss due to the fair value of an investment falling due to interest rates rising. Generally, the longer the maturity of an investment, the greater the sensitivity of its fair value to changes in market interest rates. To limit the exposure to fair value losses resulting from increases in interest rates, the City’s investment policy limits investment maturities to a term appropriate to the need for funds so as to permit the City to meet all projected obligations. Any investments that mature more than five years from the date of purchase cannot occur without prior approval of the City Council.
Credit Risk - Credit risk is the risk that an issuer of an investment will not fulfill its obligation to the holder of the investment. This is measured by the assignment of a rating by a nationally recognized statistical rating organization. The City’s investment policy sets specific parameters by type of investment to be met at the time of purchase. Presented below is the minimum rating required (where applicable) by California Government Code or City investment policy, and the actual rating as of year-end for each investment type.
Custodial Credit Risk - Custodial credit risk for investments is the risk that, in the event of the failure of a depository financial institution, the City will not be able to recover its deposits or collateral securities that are in the possession of an outside party. To mitigate the custodial credit risk, the City’s investment policy requires that all of its managed investments be held in the name of the City in safekeeping by a third party bank trust department.
Concentration of Credit Risk - Concentration of credit risk is the risk of loss attributed to the magnitude of the City’s investment in a single issuer of securities. When investments are concentrated in one issuer, this concentration presents a heightened risk of potential loss. The City’s investment policy contains limitations on the amount that can be invested in any one issuer. Investments in any one issuer (other than U.S.
Treasury Securities, mutual funds, and external investment pools) at June 30, 2021, that represent 5 percent or more of total City investments are as follows:
% of
Investment Type Amount Invested Investments
Certificates of Deposit and fixed income $ 1,233,000 21% D. Investment in External Investment Pool
The City of Nevada City maintains an investment in the State of California Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF), managed by the State Treasurer. This fund is not registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission as an investment company, but is required to invest according to California State Code. The Local Investment Advisory Board (Board) has oversight responsibility for LAIF. The Board consists of five members as designated by State Statute. At June 30, 2021, the City’s investment in LAIF valued at amortized cost was the same as the value of the pool shares. There are no restrictions on withdrawal of funds. The total amount invested by all public agencies in LAIF on that day was $193 billion. Of that amount, 95.38 percent is invested in non-derivative financial products and 4.62 percent in structured notes and asset-backed securities.
DRAFT
City of Nevada City
NOTES TO BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
June 30, 2021
- 32 -
NOTE 4: CAPITAL ASSETS
Capital assets activity for the year ended June 30, 2021, was as follows:
Depreciation
Depreciation expense was charged to governmental functions as follows:
Public safety $ 924,779
Depreciation expense was charged to the business-type functions as follows:
Water $ 198,197
Wastewater 488,539
Total depreciation expense - business-type functions $ 686,736 Governmental Activities
Balance
July 1, 2020 Additions
Retirements &
Adjustments
Balance
June 30, 2021
Land $ 1,630,332 $ - $ - $ 1,630,332
Construction in progress 956,762 43,349 - 1,000,111
Total 2,587,094 43,349 - 2,630,443
Buildings 5,245,127 - - 5,245,127
Machinery & Equipment 3,286,563 70,767 - 3,357,330
Infrastructure 16,028,482 71,675 - 16,100,157
Total 24,560,172 142,442 - 24,702,614
Less accumulated depreciation for:
Buildings (2,121,287) (139,359) - (2,260,646)
Machinery & Equipment (2,130,405) (188,300) - (2,318,705) Infrastructure (5,893,463) (597,120) - (6,490,583)
Total (10,145,155) (924,779) - (11,069,934)
Fixed asset totals $ 17,002,111 $ (738,988) $ - $ 16,263,123 Business-type Activities
Balance
July 1, 2020 Additions
Retirements &
Adjustments
Balance
June 30, 2021
Land $ - $ - $ - $ -
Construction in progress 138,786 - - 138,786
Total 138,786 - - 138,786
Buildings 21,240,988 284,297 - 21,525,285
Machinery & Equipment 2,928,766 - - 2,928,766
Infrastructure 163,577 - - 163,577
Total 24,333,331 284,297 - 24,617,628
Less accumulated depreciation for:
Buildings (11,115,948) (588,693) - (11,704,641)
Machinery & Equipment (1,822,917) (87,219) - (1,910,136) Vehicles (115,597) (10,824) - (126,421)
Total (13,054,462) (686,736) - (13,741,198)
Fixed asset totals $ 11,417,655 $ (402,439) $ - $ 11,015,216 DRAFT
City of Nevada City
NOTES TO BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
June 30, 2021
- 33 -
NOTE 4: CAPITAL ASSETS (concluded)
Construction in Progress
Construction in progress for governmental activities relates primarily to work performed on street and sidewalk reconstruction.
Construction in progress for business-type activities relates to the sewer mixer project.
NOTE 5: LONG-TERM LIABILITIES
The following is a summary of changes in long-term liabilities for the year ended June 30, 2021:
Type of Indebtedness
Balance
July 1, 2020 Additions Reductions
Balance
June 30, 2021
Due Within
One Year
Governmental activities
Tri Counties loans $ 428,777 $ - $ 55,644 $ 373,133 $ 56,436 GM Financial 75,357 - 23,850 51,507 25,097
Mobile equipment loans 368,457 - 34,760 333,697 36,164
Net pension liability 4,538,786 449,571 - 4,988,357
Compensated absences 314,799 - 207,558 107,241 53,621
Total governmental activities $ 5,726,176 $ 449,571 $ 321,812 $ 5,853,935 $ 171,318 Business-type activities
Certificates of Participation $ 3,294,000 $ - $ 70,000 $ 3,224,000 $ 74,000 Citizens loan 281,738 - 60,920 220,818 52,677
Tri Counties loans 21,730 - 7,389 14,341 7,389
Net pension liability 642,173 48,693 - 690,866
Compensated absences 19,100 2,187 - 21,287 8,515
Total business-type activities $ 4,258,741 $ 50,880 $ 138,309 $ 4,171,312 $ 142,581 Compensated absences are generally liquidated by the fund where the accrued liability occurred. The capital lease liability is liquidated by lease payments made by the department leasing the equipment.
Individual issues of debt payable outstanding at June 30, 2021, are as follows:
Governmental Activities Loans:
Tri Counties Bank loan, dated December 19, 2017, payable in monthly installments of $2,274 to $121,588 with an interest rate of 5.33% and maturity of December 19, 2027. This loan was used to finance the purchase of real property.The remaining amortization schedule is as follows:
425 Nimrod Purchase
Year ending June 30, Principal Interest Total
2022 $ 15,078 $ 12,210 $ 27,289
2023 15,914 11,375 27,289
2024 16,766 10,522 27,289
2025 17,724 9,565 27,289
2026-2030 167,290 268,030 435,320
Total $ 232,772 $ 311,703 $ 544,475
DRAFT
City of Nevada City
NOTES TO BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
June 30, 2021
- 34 -
NOTE 5: LONG-TERM LIABILITIES (continued)
Fire Pumper loan, dated October 19, 2018, payable in Annual installments of $49,645 to with an interest rate of 4.04% and maturity of October 19, 2028. This loan was used to finance the purchase of real property. The remaining amortization schedule is as follows:
Fire Pumper Purchase
Year ending June 30, Principal Interest Total
2022 $ 36,164 $ 13,481 $ 49,645
2023 37,625 12,020 49,645
2024 39,145 10,500 49,645
2025 40,726 8,919 49,645
2026-2030 180,037 18,544 198,581
Total $ 333,697 $ 63,465 $ 397,162
Tri Counties Bank loan, dated November 20, 2019, payable in semiannual installments in the months of December and June of $18,832 to $170,852 with an interest rate of 4.00% and maturity of June 20, 2025.
This loan was used to finance the purchase of Machinery & Equipment. The remaining amortization schedule is as follows:
DPW Elgin Badger Sweeper Purchase
Year ending June 30, Principal Interest Total
2022 $ 37,663 $ 5,021 $ 42,684
2023 37,663 3,493 41,156
2024 37,663 1,970 39,633
2025 20,200 438 20,638
Total $ 133,189 $ 10,923 $ 144,112
Tri Counties Bank loan dated May 29, 2020, payable in annual installments with an interest rate of 7% and maturity of June 15, 2023. This loan was used to finance the purchase of a Chevy vehicle. The remaining amortization schedule is as follows:
Vehicle Lease/Purchase
Year ending June 30, Principal Interest Total
2022 $ 25,097 $ 2,694 $ 27,791
2023 26,410 1,381 27,791
Total $ 51,507 $ 4,075 $ 55,583
Governmental Activities and Business-Type Activities Loans:
Tri Counties Bank loan, dated November 1, 2019, payable in semiannual installments in the months of December and June of $1,847 to $10,866 with an interest rate of 3.24% and maturity of June 15, 2023. This loan was used to finance the purchase of a vehicle. This loan is split between business-type activities (Sewer and Water) and government-type activities (General). The remaining amortization schedule is as follows:
Year ending Sewer Water General Total
June 30, Principal Interest Principal Interest Principal Interest Principal Interest 2022 $ 3,694 $ 212 $ 3,694 $ 212 $ 3,694 $ 212 $ 11,082 $ 636 2023 3,476 76 3,476 76 3,476 76 10,428 228
Total $ 7,170 $ 288 $ 7,170 $ 288 $ 7,171 $ 288 $ 21,510 $ 864 DRAFT
City of Nevada City
NOTES TO BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
June 30, 2021
- 35 -
NOTE 5: LONG-TERM LIABILITIES (continued)
Business-Type Activities Loans:
Citizens Bank USDA Refunding Loan, dated June 1, 2008, payable in semiannual installments of $2,369 to $77,556 with an interest rate of 4.1% and maturity of August 1, 2025. This loan was used to refund prior loans used to finance the City’s wastewater treatment and disposal system. The remaining amortization schedule is as follows:
Wastewater System Improvements (292-59)
Year ending June 30, Principal Interest Total
2022 $ 52,677 $ 8,021 $ 60,698
2023 52,440 5,864 58,304
2024 49,215 3,778 52,993
2025 47,016 1,363 48,379
2026 19,470 758 20,228
Total $ 220,818 $ 19,783 $ 240,602
Certificates of Participation:
2005 Wastewater Certificates of Participation, dated October 1, 2005, payable in annual principal installments of $16,000 to $48,000, with an interest rate of 4.25% and maturity of July 15, 2045. These Certificates of Participation were used to finance improvements to the City’s wastewater collection, treatment and disposal system. The remaining amortization schedule is as follows:
Wastewater System Improvements (92-12)
Year ending June 30, Principal Interest Total
2022 $ 41,000 $ 73,461 $ 114,461
2023 42,000 71,698 113,698
2024 44,000 69,870 113,870
2025 46,000 67,958 113,958
2026-2030 261,000 308,104 569,104
2031-2035 322,000 246,373 568,373
2036-2040 396,000 170,298 566,298
2041-2045 487,000 76,819 563,819
2046-2050 110,000 2,338 112,338
Total $ 1,749,000 $ 1,086,917 $ 2,835,917
2007 Certificates of Participation, dated March 1, 2007, payable in annual principal installments of $19,000 to $90,000, with an interest rate of 4.125%, and maturity of July 15, 2046. These Certificates of Participation were used finance improvements to the City’s wastewater collection, treatment and disposal facilities.
DRAFT
City of Nevada City
NOTES TO BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
June 30, 2021
- 36 -
NOTE 5: LONG-TERM LIABILITIES (concluded)
Wastewater System Improvements (92-14)
Year ending June 30, Principal Interest Total
2022 $ 33,000 $ 60,163 $ 93,163
2023 34,000 60,163 94,163
2024 35,000 57,358 92,358
2025 37,000 55,873 92,873
2026-2030 209,000 254,616 463,616
2031-2035 255,000 206,972 461,972
2036-2040 313,000 148,603 461,603
2041-2045 383,000 77,076 460,076
2046-2050 176,000 7,342 183,342
Total $ 1,475,000 $ 928,166 $ 2,403,166
NOTE 6: NET POSITION
The government-wide and proprietary fund financial statements utilize a net position presentation. Net position is categorized as net investment in capital assets, restricted and unrestricted. • Net investment in capital assets - consists of capital assets including restricted capital assets, net of accumulated depreciation and reduced by the outstanding balances of any bonds, mortgages, notes or other borrowings that are attributable to the acquisition, construction or improvement of those assets.
• Restricted net position - consists of net position with constraints placed on the use either by (1) external groups such as creditors, grantors, contributors or laws or regulations of other governments; or (2) law through constitutional provisions or enabling legislation. These principally include restrictions for capital projects, debt service requirements and other special revenue fund purposes.
• Unrestricted net position - all other net position that does not meet the definition of “restricted” or “net investment in capital assets”.
Net Position Restricted by Enabling Legislation
The government-wide Statement of Net Position reports restricted net position.
Net Position Flow Assumption
When a government funds outlays for a particular purpose from both restricted and unrestricted resources, a flow assumption must be made about the order in which the resources are considered to be applied. When both restricted and unrestricted net position are available, it is considered that restricted resources are used first, followed by the unrestricted resources.
NOTE 7: FUND BALANCES
As prescribed by GASB Statement No. 54, governmental funds report fund balance in classifications based primarily on the extent to which the City is bound to honor constraints on the specific purposes for which amounts in the funds can be spent. As of June 30, 2021, fund balances for governmental funds are made up of the following:
DRAFT
City of Nevada City
NOTES TO BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
June 30, 2021
- 37 -
NOTE 7: FUND BALANCES (concluded)
• Nonspendable fund balance - amounts that cannot be spent because they are either (a) not in spendable form, or (b) legally or contractually required to be maintained intact. The “not in spendable form” criterion includes items that are not expected to be converted to cash, for example: inventories and prepaid amounts.
• Restricted fund balance - amounts with constraints placed on their use that are either (a) externally imposed by creditors, grantors, contributors, or laws or regulations of other governments; or (b) imposed by law through constitutional provisions or enabling legislation. Restrictions may effectively be changed or lifted only with the consent of resource providers. • Committed fund balance - amounts that can only be used for the specific purposes determined by formal action of the City’s highest level of decision making authority. The City Council is the highest level of decision making authority for the City that can, by adoption of an ordinance commit fund balance. Once adopted, the limitation imposed remains in place until a similar action is taken to remove or revise the limitation. The underlying action that imposed the limitation needs to occur no later than the close of the reporting period. • Assigned fund balance - amounts that are constrained by the City’s intent to be used for specific purposes. The intent can be established at either the highest level of decision-making, or by a body or an official designated for that purpose.
• Unassigned fund balance - the residual classification for the City’s General fund that includes all amounts not contained in the other classifications. In other funds, the unassigned classification is used only if expenditures incurred for specific purposes exceed the amounts restricted, committed, or assigned to those purposes.
Fund Balance Flow Assumption
When a government funds outlays for a particular purpose from both restricted and unrestricted resources (the total of committed, assigned, and unassigned fund balance), a flow assumption must be made about the order in which the resources are considered to be applied. When both restricted and unrestricted fund balance are available, it is considered that restricted fund balance is depleted before using any of the components of unrestricted fund balance. Further, when the components of unrestricted fund balance can be used for the same purpose, committed fund balance is depleted first, followed by assigned fund balance.
Unassigned fund balance is applied last.
Fund Balance Policy
The City Council adopted the City of Nevada City Fund Balance Policy in 2013. The policy establishes procedures for reporting fund balance classifications, establishes prudent reserve requirements and establishes a hierarchy of fund balance expenditures. The policy also provides for a measure of financial protection for the City against unforeseen circumstances and to comply with GASB Statement No. 54.
NOTE 8: PENSION PLAN
A. General Information About the Pension Plan
Plan Description
All qualified permanent and probationary employees are eligible to participate in the City’s Safety police, Safety fire, and Miscellaneous (all other) Employee Pension Plan, a cost-sharing multiple employer defined benefit pension plan administered by the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS).
Benefit provisions under the Plan are established by State statute and City resolution.
DRAFT
City of Nevada City
NOTES TO BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
June 30, 2021
- 38 -
NOTE 8: PENSION PLAN (continued)
A. General Information About the Pension Plan (continued) CalPERS issues publicly available reports that include a full description of the pension plan regarding benefit provisions, assumptions and membership information that can be found on the CalPERS website.
Effective January 1, 2013, the City added retirement tiers for both the Miscellaneous and Safety Rate Tiers for new employees as required under the Public Employee Pension Reform Act (PEPRA). New employees hired on or after January 1, 2013 will be subject to new, lower pension formulas, caps on pensionable income levels and new definitions of pensionable income. In addition, new employees will be required to contribute half of the total normal cost of the pension benefit unless impaired by an existing Memorandum of Understanding. The cumulative effect of these PEPRA changes will ultimately reduce the City’s retirement costs.
Summary of Rate Tiers and Eligible Participants
Open for New Enrollment
Miscellaneous PEPRA Miscellaneous members hired on or after January 1, 2013 Safety PEPRA Safety employees hired on or after January 1, 2013 Closed to New Enrollment
Miscellaneous First Tier Miscellaneous members hired before July 1, 2008 Miscellaneous Second Tier Miscellaneous members hired after July 1, 2008 and before January 1, 2013 Safety First Tier Safety employees hired before January 1, 2013 Benefits Provided
CalPERS provides service retirement and disability benefits, annual cost of living adjustments and death benefits to plan members, who must be public employees and beneficiaries. Benefits are based on years of credited service, equal to one year of full-time employment. Members with five years of total service are eligible to retire at age 50 with statutorily reduced benefits. Retirement benefits are paid monthly for life. All members are eligible for non-duty disability benefits after 10 years of service. The death benefit is one of the following: the Basic Death Benefit, the 1957 Survivor Benefit, or the Optional Settlement 2W Death Benefit.
The cost of living adjustments for the plan are applied as specified by the Public Employees’ Retirement Law.
Each Rate Tier’s specific provisions and benefits in effect at June 30, 2018, are summarized as follows:
Benefit
Formula
Retirement
Age
Monthly Benefits as a % of
Eligible Compensation
Miscellaneous First Tier 2.5% @ 55 50-55 2.000% to 2.500% Miscellaneous Second Tier 2.0% @ 60 50-63 1.462% to 2.418% Miscellaneous PEPRA 2.0% @ 62 50-62 1.000% to 2.500%
Safety First Tier 3.0% @ 50 50 3.000%
Safety Second Tier 2.0% @ 50 50 2.700%
Safety PEPRA 2.0% @ 57 50-57 1.426% to 2.000%
Section 20814(c) of the California Public Employees’ Retirement Law requires that the employer contribution rates for all public employers be determined on an annual basis by the actuary and shall be effective on the July 1 following notice of a change in the rate. Funding contributions for all Rate Plans are determined annually on an actuarial basis as of June 30 by CalPERS.
DRAFT
City of Nevada City
NOTES TO BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
June 30, 2021
- 39 -
NOTE 8: PENSION PLAN (continued)
A. General Information About the Pension Plan (concluded) The actuarially determined rate is the estimated amount necessary to finance the costs of benefits earned by employees during the year, with an additional amount to finance any unfunded accrued liability. The City is required to contribute the difference between the actuarially determined rate and the contribution rate of employees.
Employer
Contribution Rates
Employee
Contribution
Rates
Employer Paid
Member Contribution
Rates
Miscellaneous First Tier 10.110% 8.000% 4.000%
Miscellaneous Second Tier 7.653% 7.000% 4.000%
Miscellaneous PEPRA 6.533% 6.250% 40000%
Safety First Tier 19.723% 9.000% 2.500%
Safety Second Tier 13.012% 7.000% 0.000%
Safety PEPRA 9.513% 9.500% 0.000%
B. Pension Liabilities, Pension Expenses and Deferred Outflows/Inflows of Resources Related to Pension For the year ended June 30, 2021, the contributions recognized as part of pension expense were as follows:
Employer Contributions
Miscellaneous $ 221,437
Safety $ 419,614
As of June 30, 2021, the City reported net pension liabilities for its proportionate share of the net pension liability as follows:
Proportionate
Share of Net
Pension Liability
Miscellaneous $ 2,513,573
Safety 3,165,650
Total Net Pension Liability $ 5,679,223
The City’s net pension liability for the Plan is measured as the proportionate share of the net pension liability. The net pension liability is measured as of June 30, 2020, and the total pension liability for the Plan used to calculate the net pension liability was determined by an actuarial valuation as of June 30, 2018 rolled forward to June 30, 2019 using standard update procedures. The City’s proportion of the net pension liability was based on a projection of the City’s long-term share of contributions to the pension plan relative to the projected contributions of all participating employers, actuarially determined. The City’s proportionate share of the net pension liability for the Plan as of June 30, 2019 and 2020 was as follows:
Miscellaneous Safety
Proportion – June 30, 2019 0.0584% 0.0455%
Proportion – June 30, 2020 0.0596% 0.0475%
Change – Increase/(Decrease) 0.0012% 0.0020%
DRAFT
City of Nevada City
NOTES TO BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
June 30, 2021
- 40 -
NOTE 8: PENSION PLAN (continued)
B. Pension Liabilities, Pension Expenses and Deferred Outflows/Inflows of Resources Related to Pension (continued)
For the year ended June 30, 2021, the City recognized pension expense of $1,033,306. At June 30, 2021, the City reported deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources related to pensions from the following sources:
Deferred
Outflows of
Resources
Deferred
Inflows of
Resources
Pension contributions subsequent to measurement date $ 641,051 $ - Differences between expected and actual experience 375,009 - Changes of assumptions - 28,472
Net differences between projected and actual earnings on plan investments 143,478 - Change in proportions and differences between actual contributions and proportionate share of contributions 196,036 241,618
Total $ 1,355,574 $ 270,090
$641,051 reported as deferred outflows of resources related to contributions subsequent to the measurement date will be recognized as a reduction of the net pension liability in the year ended June 30, 2022. Other amounts reported as deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources related to pensions will be recognized as pension expense as follows:
Year Ended June 30
2022 $ 83,554
2023 164,596
2024 125,993
2025 70,290
Total $ 444,433
Actuarial Assumptions
The actuarial methods and assumptions used to set the actuarially determined contributions for Fiscal Year 2020-21 were derived from the June 30, 2019 funding valuation reports:
Valuation Date June 30, 2019
Measurement Date June 30, 2020
Actuarial Cost Method Entry-Age Normal Cost Method
Actuarial Assumptions:
Discount Rate 7.15%
Inflation 2.50%
Salary Increases Varies by entry age and service
Payroll Growth 2.75%
Mortality Rate Table Derived using CalPERS’ membership data for all funds Post Retirement Benefit Increase Contract COLA up to 2.75% until Purchasing Power Protection Allowance Floor on Purchasing Power applies, 2.75% thereafter The underlying mortality assumptions and all other actuarial assumptions used in the June 30, 2016 valuation were based on the results of an actuarial experience study for the period 1997 to 2011. Further details of the Experience Study can be found on the CalPERS website.
DRAFT
City of Nevada City
NOTES TO BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
June 30, 2021
- 41 -
NOTE 8: PENSION PLAN (continued)
B. Pension Liabilities, Pension Expenses and Deferred Outflows/Inflows of Resources Related to Pension (continued)
Discount Rate
The discount rate used to measure the total pension liability was 7.15 percent for the Plan. To determine whether the municipal bond rate should be used in the calculation of a discount rate for the plan, CalPERS stress tested plans that would most likely result in a discount rate that would be different from the actuarially assumed discount rate. Based on the testing, none of the tested plans run out of assets. Therefore, the current 7.15 percent discount rate is adequate and the use of the municipal bond rate calculation is not necessary. The long term expected discount rate of 7.15 percent is applied to all plans in the Public Employees Retirement Fund (PERF). The stress test results are presented in a detailed report called “GASB Crossover Testing Report” that can be obtained at the CalPERS website under the GASB 68 section.
The long-term expected rate of return on pension plan investments was determined using a building-block method in which best-estimate ranges of expected future real rates of return (expected returns, net of pension plan investment expense and inflation) are developed for each major asset class.
In determining the long-term expected rate of return, CalPERS took into account both short-term and longterm market return expectations as well as the expected pension fund cash flows. Using historical returns of all the funds’ asset classes, expected compound returns were calculated over the short-term (first 10 years) and the long-term (11-60 years) using a building-block approach. Using the expected nominal returns for both short-term and long-term, the present value of benefits was calculated for each fund. The expected rate of return was set by calculating the single equivalent expected return that arrived at the same present value of benefits for cash flows as the one calculated using both short-term and long-term returns. The expected rate of return was then set equivalent to the single equivalent rate calculated above and rounded down to the nearest one quarter of one percent.
The following table reflects the long-term expected real rate of return by asset class. The rate of return was calculated using the capital market assumptions applied to determine the discount rate and asset allocation.
These rates of return are net of administrative expenses.
New
Asset Class Strategic Allocation
Public Equity 49.0%
Private Equity 8.0%
Global Fixed Income 22.0%
Liquidity 3.0%
Real Assets 12.0%
Inflation Sensitive Assets 6.0%
Total 100.0%
Sensitivity of the Proportionate Share of the Net Pension Liability to Changes in the Discount Rate The following presents the City’s proportionate share of the net pension liability for the Plan as of the measurement date, calculated using the discount rate for the Plan, as well as what the City’s proportionate share of the net pension liability would be if it were calculated using a discount rate that is 1-percentage point lower or 1-percentage point higher than the current rate:
DRAFT
City of Nevada City
NOTES TO BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
June 30, 2021
- 42 -
NOTE 8: PENSION PLAN (concluded)
B. Pension Liabilities, Pension Expenses and Deferred Outflows/Inflows of Resources Related to Pension (concluded)
Miscellaneous Safety
1% Decrease 6.15% 6.15%
Net Pension Liability $ 3,652,396 $ 4,887,467
Current Discount rate 7.15% 7.15%
Net Pension Liability $ 2,513,573 $ 3,165,650
1% Increase 8.15% 8.15%
Net Pension Liability $ 1,572,599 $ 1,752,735
Pension Plan Fiduciary Net Position
Detailed information about the pension plan’s fiduciary net position is available in the separately issued CalPERS financial reports.
NOTE 9: RISK MANAGEMENT
The City is exposed to various risks of loss related to torts; theft of, damage to and destruction of assets; errors and omissions; injuries to employees; and natural disasters. The City has joined together with other municipalities to participate in the Public Agency Risk Sharing Authority of California (PARSAC) for general liability, vehicle liability, and errors and omissions purposes. PARSAC is a public entity risk pool which serves as a common risk management and insurance program for 37 member cities and one fire district. The City pays an annual premium to PARSAC for its insurance coverage. The agreements with PARSAC provide that they will be self-sustaining through member premiums and will reinsure through commercial companies for excess coverage.
There are no significant reductions in insurance coverage from prior years and there have been no settlements exceeding the insurance coverages for each of the past three fiscal years.
The City is a member of Northern California Cities Self Insurance Fund (NCCSIF), a joint powers agency which provides the City with a shared risk layer of coverage above the self-insured $100,000 retention for workers’ compensation. The NCCSIF is composed of 22 member cities and is governed by a board of directors appointed by the member cities. The governing board has authority over budgeting and financing.
NCCSIF is a joint powers agency (the Authority) organized in accordance with Article 1, Chapter 5, Division 7, Title 1 of the California Government Fund Programs. The purpose is to create a common pool of funds to be used to meet obligations of the parties to provide workers’ compensation benefits for their employees and to provide excess liability insurance. The Authority provides claims processing administrative services, risk management services, and actuarial studies. It is governed by a member from each city. The City of Nevada City council members do not have significant oversight responsibility, since they evenly share all factors of responsibility with the other cities. However, ultimate liability for payment of claims and insurance premiums resides with member cities.
The Authority is empowered to make supplemental assessments as needed to eliminate deficit positions of member cities. If the JPA becomes insolvent, the City is responsible only to the extent of any deficiency in its equity balance. Upon termination of the JPA agreement, all property of the Authority will vest in the respective parties which theretofore transferred, conveyed or leased said property to the Authority. Any surplus of funds will be returned to the parties in proportion to actual balances of each equity.
DRAFT
City of Nevada City
NOTES TO BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
June 30, 2021
- 43 -
NOTE 9: RISK MANAGEMENT (concluded)
The Authority establishes claims liabilities based on estimates of the ultimate cost of claims (including future claims settlement expenses) that have been reported but not settled, plus estimates of claims that have been incurred but not reported. Because actual claims costs depend on various factors, the claims liabilities are recomputed periodically using a variety of actuarial and statistical techniques to produce current estimates that reflect recent settlements, claim frequency, and other economic and social factors. A provision of inflation is implicit in the calculation of estimated future claims costs. Adjustments to claims liabilities are charged or credited to expense in the periods in which they are made.
The participants as of June 30, 2018 were as follows:
• Anderson • Lincoln
• Auburn • Marysville
• Colusa • Nevada City
• Corning • Oroville
• Dixon • Paradise
• Elk Grove • Placerville
• Folsom • Red Bluff
• Galt • Rio Vista
• Gridley • Rocklin
• Ione • Willows
• Jackson • Yuba City
NOTE 10: OTHER INFORMATION
A. Commitments and Contingencies
Amounts received or receivable from grant agencies are subject to audit and adjustment by grantor agencies. Any disallowed claims, including amounts already collected, may constitute a liability of the appreciable funds. The amount, if any, of expenditures which may be disallowed by the grantor cannot be determined at this time although the government expects such amounts, if any, to be immaterial.
In December 2019, an outbreak of a novel strain of coronavirus (COVID-19) began to spread among various countries, including the United States. On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization characterized COVID-19 as a pandemic. In addition, multiple jurisdictions in the U.S., including California, declared a state of emergency and issued shelter-in-place orders in response to the outbreak. The immediate impact to the City’s operations included restrictions on employees’ and volunteers’ ability to work, and it is anticipated that the impacts from this pandemic will continue for some time. As of the report date, the financial impact of the coronavirus outbreak cannot be measured.
DRAFT
Required Supplementary Information
(Unaudited)
DRAFT
City of Nevada City
Required Supplementary Information
NOTES TO BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULES
For the Year Ended June 30, 2021
- 44 -
NOTE 1: BUDGETARY BASIS OF ACCOUNTING
Formal budgetary integration is employed as a management control device during the year. The City of Nevada City (the City) presents a comparison of annual budgets to actual results for the General fund and major special revenue funds. The amounts reported on the budgetary basis are generally on a basis consistent with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (GAAP) with the exception of short-term debt proceeds and payments which were budgeted as other financing sources and debt service expenditures.
The following procedures are performed by the City in establishing the budgetary data reflected in the financial statements:
(1) The City Manager submits to the City Council a recommended draft budget for the fiscal year commencing the following July 1. The budget includes recommended expenditures and the means of financing them.
(2) The City Council reviews the recommended budget at regularly scheduled meetings, which are open to the public. The Council also conducts a public hearing on the recommended budget to obtain comments from interested persons.
(3) Prior to July 1, the budget is adopted through the passage of a resolution. (4) From the effective date of the budget, which is adopted and controlled at the department level, the amounts stated therein, as recommended expenditures become appropriations to the various City departments. The City Council may amend the budget by motion during the fiscal year. The City Manager may authorize transfers from one object or purpose to another within the same department.
The City does not use encumbrance accounting under which purchase orders, contracts, and other commitments for the expenditure of monies are recorded in order to reserve that portion of the applicable appropriation.
NOTE 2: EXPENDITURES IN EXCESS OF APPROPRIATIONS
For the fiscal year ended June 30, 2021, the City incurred expenditures in excess of appropriations as follows:
Appropriations Expenditures
Excess of Expenditures
over Appropriations
General Fund $ 4,610,223 $ 5,106,944 $ (496,721)
DRAFT
Variance
With Final
General Budget
Original Final Fund Over (Under)
REVENUES
Property taxes $ 1,679,717 $ 1,679,717 $ 1,805,296 $ 125,579 Sales taxes 1,109,400 1,109,400 1,575,385 465,985
Franchise taxes 165,000 165,000 136,204 (28,796)
Other taxes 661,600 661,600 1,289,227 627,627
Licenses and permits 104,060 104,060 114,845 10,785
Fines and forfeits 65,000 65,000 65,902 902
Intergovernmental 17,500 17,500 262,990 245,490
Use of money and property 226,500 226,500 86,127 (140,373) Charges for services 167,180 167,180 255,385 88,205
Other revenues 337,650 337,650 260,786 (76,864)
Total revenues 4,533,607 4,533,607 5,852,147 1,318,540
EXPENDITURES
Current:
General government 752,557 752,557 745,748 6,809
Public safety 2,594,596 2,594,596 3,100,560 (505,964)
Public works 642,465 642,465 854,434 (211,969)
Recreation and culture 620,605 620,605 330,677 289,928
Debt service:
Principal - - 55,641 (55,641)
Interest - - 19,884 (19,884)
Total expenditures 4,610,223 4,610,223 5,106,944 (496,721) Excess (deficiency) of
revenues over expenditures (76,616) (76,616) 745,203 821,819
OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES)
Debt proceeds - - - -
Transfers in - - - -
Transfers out - - - -
Total other financing sources (uses) - - - -
Net change in fund balances $ (76,616) $ (76,616) 745,203 $ 821,819 Fund balances, beginning of period 2,464,403
Fund balances, end of period $ 3,209,606
CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES - BUDGET AND ACTUAL
GENERAL FUND
For the Year Ended June 30, 2021
(Unaudited)
Budgeted Amounts
City of Nevada City
STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND
- 45 -
DRAFT
Variance
With Final
Measure S Budget
Original Final Projects Fund Over (Under)
REVENUES
Sales taxes $ 577,250 $ 577,250 $ 861,197 $ 283,947
Intergovernmental 300,000 300,000 - (300,000)
Use of money and property 750 750 - (750)
Total revenues 878,000 878,000 861,197 (16,803)
EXPENDITURES
Current:
Public works 699,790 699,790 348,621 351,169
Debt service:
Principal - - 34,760 (34,760)
Interest - - 14,886 (14,886)
Total expenditures 699,790 699,790 398,267 301,523
Excess (deficiency) of
revenues over expenditures 178,210 178,210 462,930 284,720
OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES)
Debt proceeds - - - -
Transfers in - - - -
Transfers out - - - -
Total other financing sources (uses) - - - -
Net change in fund balances $ 178,210 $ 178,210 462,930 $ 284,720 Fund balances, beginning of period 15,858
Fund balances, end of period $ 478,788
CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES - BUDGET AND ACTUAL
MEASURE S PROJECTS FUND
For the Year Ended June 30, 2021
(Unaudited)
Budgeted Amounts
City of Nevada City
STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND
- 46 -
DRAFT
Measurement Date, June 30 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Proportion of the net pension liability 0.01804% 0.02177% 0.02167% 0.02198% 0.04425% 0.02281% 0.02310% Proportionate share of the net pension liability $ 1,122,916 $ 1,493,988 $ 1,875,107 $ 2,180,065 $ 2,596,496 $ 2,337,753 $ 2,513,573 Covered - employee payroll 862,176$ 862,176$ 995,977$ $ 1,099,996 886,369$ $ 1,100,287 $ 1,157,026 Proportionate share of the net pension liability
as percentage of covered-employee payroll 130.24% 173.28% 188.27% 198.19% 292.94% 212.47% 217.24% Plan fiduciary net position as a percentage of
the total pension liability 83.03% 77.85% 72.83% 72.41% 75.32% 71.75% 70.63% Measurement Date, June 30 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Proportion of the net pension liability 0.02352% 0.02492% 0.02544% 0.002586% 0.02239% 0.04555% 0.04752% Proportionate share of the net pension liability $ 1,463,261 $ 1,710,177 $ 2,201,448 $ 2,564,126 $ 2,157,391 $ 2,843,206 $ 3,165,650 Covered - employee payroll 768,634$ 768,634$ 862,620$ $ 1,093,546 $ 1,028,548 $ 1,052,401 $ 1,130,030 Proportionate share of the net pension liability
as percentage of covered-employee payroll 190.37% 222.50% 255.20% 234.48% 209.75% 270.16% 280.14% Plan fiduciary net position as a percentage of
the total pension liability 81.42% 79.35% 74.23% 73.83% 72.59% 75.96% 75.03% * The City implemented GASB 68 for fiscal year June 30, 2015, therefore only six years are shown.
City of Nevada City
Required Supplementary Information
City Pension Plan
Safety
SCHEDULE OF PROPORTIONATE
SHARE OF THE NET PENSION LIABILITY
June 30, 2021
Last 7 years*
Miscellaneous
- 47 -
DRAFT
Fiscal Year Ending June 30 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Contractually required contribution (actuarially determined) $ 181,437 $ 97,496 $ 90,566 $ 81,318 $ 158,636 $ 188,053 $ 221,437 Contributions in relation to the actuarially determined contributions (181,437) (166,038) (169,811) (179,516) (158,636) (188,053) (221,437) Contribution deficiency (excess) $ - $ (68,542) $ (79,245) $ (98,198) $ - $ - $ - Covered - employee payroll $ 862,176 $ 995,977 $ 1,099,996 $ 1,027,277 $ 854,427 $ 1,157,026 $ 1,077,237 Contributions as a percentage of covered-employee payroll percentage of covered-employee payroll 21.04% 9.79% 8.23% 7.92% 18.57% 16.25% 20.56% Fiscal Year Ending June 30 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Contractually required contribution (actuarially determined) $ 215,552 $ 168,034 $ 178,728 $ 185,339 $ 313,878 $ 435,135 $ 419,614 Contributions in relation to the actuarially determined contributions (215,552) (236,825) (261,455) (292,094) (313,878) (435,135) (419,614) Contribution deficiency (excess) $ - $ (68,791) $ (82,727) $ (106,755) $ - $ - $ - Covered - employee payroll $ 768,634 $ 862,620 $ 1,093,546 $ 1,144,360 $ 1,052,401 $ 1,130,030 $ 1,321,943 Contributions as a percentage of covered-employee payroll percentage of covered-employee payroll 28.04% 19.48% 16.34% 16.20% 29.82% 38.51% 31.74% Notes to Schedule:
* The City implemented GASB 68 for fiscal year June 30, 2015, therefore only six years are shown.
Benefit Changes: There were no changes to benefit terms that applied to all members of the Public Agency Pool.
Changes of Assumptions: There were no changes of assumptions.
Miscellaneous
Safety
City of Nevada City
Required Supplementary Information
City Pension Plan
SCHEDULE OF CONTRIBUTIONS
June 30, 2021
Last 7 Years*
- 48 -
DRAFT
Combining Nonmajor Fund Statements
DRAFT
Subtotal
Regional Nonmajor
P& R Donation Nevada Main Gas Tax Traffic Traffic Indian CABY Little Governmental AB 1600 Quimby Project Project Streets Relief Mitigation FEMA Trails Fund 224 Fund 266 Measure C Creek Funds ASSETS
Cash and investments $ 135,822 $ 3,839 $ 5,911 $ (138,076) $ 330,640 $ 11,039 -$ $ (15,962) $ 46,395 $ 25,020 $ 205,353 $ 329,142 $ (6,107) $ 933,016 Taxes receivable - - - - 8,048 - - - - - - 134,008 - 142,056 Prepaid items - - - - - - - - - - - 19,929 - 19,929
-
Total assets $ 135,822 $ 3,839 $ 5,911 $ (138,076) $ 338,688 $ 11,039 $ - $ (15,962) $ 46,395 $ 25,020 $ 205,353 $ 483,079 $ (6,107) $ 1,095,001
LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCES
Liabilities:
Accounts payable -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $ 7 -$ -$ -$ -$ $ 17,725 -$ $ 17,732 Unearned income - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total liabilities - - - - - - 7 - - - - 17,725 - 17,732 Fund balances:
Nonspendable - - - - - - - - - - - 19,929 - 19,929
Restricted 135,822 3,839 5,911 - 338,688 11,039 (7) - 46,395 25,020 205,353 445,425 - 1,217,485 Unassigned - - - (138,076) - - - (15,962) - - - - (6,107) (160,145) Total fund balances 135,822 3,839 5,911 (138,076) 338,688 11,039 (7) (15,962) 46,395 25,020 205,353 465,354 (6,107) 1,077,269 Total liabilities and fund balances $ 135,822 $ 3,839 $ 5,911 $ (138,076) $ 338,688 $ 11,039 -$ $ (15,962) $ 46,395 $ 25,020 $ 205,353 $ 483,079 $ (6,107) $ 1,095,001 Special Revenue Funds
City of Nevada City
COMBINING BALANCE SHEET
NONMAJOR GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS
June 30, 2021
- 49 -
DRAFT
CMAQ Nonmajor Nonmajor
Brownsfield Streets Tas 2003 CDBG Governmental Governmental 10 and Road Fund 222 Fire Dept. Fire Tax Enterprise Prop 172 MATHIVET SLESF Measure L Bicentennial Becker Funds Funds ASSETS
Cash and investments $ (325) $ (44,385) $ 37,706 $ 33,679 $ 64,812 $ (15,279) $ 13,748 $ 11,854 $ 75,667 $ 684 $ 2,401 $ 19,099 $ 933,016 $ 1,132,677 Taxes receivable - - - 1,684 3,241 - - - - - - - 142,056 146,981 Prepaid items - - - - - - - - - - - - 19,929 19,929
Loans receivable - - - - - 17,633 - - - - - - - 17,633
Total assets $ (325) $ (44,385) $ 37,706 $ 35,363 $ 68,053 $ 2,354 $ 13,748 $ 11,854 $ 75,667 $ 684 $ 2,401 $ 19,099 $ 1,095,001 $ 1,317,220
LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCES
Liabilities:
Accounts payable -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $ 440 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $ 17,732 $ 18,172 Unearned income - - - - - 17,633 - - - - - - - 17,633
-
Total liabilities - - - - - 17,633 440 - - - - - 17,732 35,805 Fund balances:
Nonspendable - - - - - - - - - - - - 19,929 19,929
Restricted - - 37,706 35,363 68,053 - 13,308 11,854 75,667 684 2,401 19,099 1,217,485 1,481,620 Unassigned (325) (44,385) - - - (15,279) - - - - - - (160,145) (220,134) Total fund balances (325) (44,385) 37,706 35,363 68,053 (15,279) 13,308 11,854 75,667 684 2,401 19,099 1,077,269 1,281,415 Total liabilities and fund balances $ (325) $ (44,385) $ 37,706 $ 35,363 $ 68,053 $ 2,354 $ 13,748 $ 11,854 $ 75,667 $ 684 $ 2,401 $ 19,099 $ 1,095,001 $ 1,317,220
COMBINING BALANCE SHEET
NONMAJOR GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS
June 30, 2021
City of Nevada City
- 50 -
DRAFT
Regional
P& R Donation Nevada Main Gas Tax Traffic Traffic Indian Little AB 1600 Quimby Project Project Streets Relief Mitigation FEMA Trails Fund 224 Measure C Creek Revenues:
Taxes and assessments $ 34,173 $ - $ - $ - $ 131,293 $ - $ 23,224 $ - $ - $ - $ 533,650 $ - Intergovernmental - - - 59,422 - - - - - - - -
Other revenues - 3,520 2,663 - - - - - - - - -
Charges for services - - - - - - - - - - - -
Use of money and property 611 9 45 - 1,296 60 1 - 250 - 804 - Total revenues 34,784 3,529 2,708 59,422 132,589 60 23,225 - 250 - 534,454 - Expenditures:
Current:
General government - - - - - - - - - - - -
Public safety - - - - - - - - - - 352,391 -
Public works - - - 75,877 13,034 - 23,332 - - - - -
Recreation and culture - - - - - - - - - - - -
Debt service:
Principal - - - - - - - - - - - -
Interest - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total expenditures - - - 75,877 13,034 - 23,332 - - - 352,391 - Excess (deficiency) of revenues over
expenditures 34,784 3,529 2,708 (16,455) 119,555 60 (107) - 250 - 182,063 - Other financing sources (uses):
Debt proceeds - - - - - - - - - - - -
Transfers in - - - - - - - - - - - -
Transfers out - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total other financing sources (uses) - - - - - - - - - - - - Net change in fund balances 34,784 3,529 2,708 (16,455) 119,555 60 (107) - 250 - 182,063 - Fund balances, July 1 101,038 310 3,203 (121,621) 219,133 10,979 100 (15,962) 46,145 25,020 283,291 (6,107) Fund balances, June 30 $ 135,822 $ 3,839 $ 5,911 $ (138,076) $ 338,688 $ 11,039 $ (7) $ (15,962) $ 46,395 $ 25,020 $ 465,354 $ (6,107) City of Nevada City
COMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND
CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES
NONMAJOR GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2021
Special Revenue Funds
- 51 -
DRAFT
CMAQ Nonmajor Nonmajor
Brownsfield Streets Tas 2003 CABY CDBG Governmental Governmental 10 and Road Fund 222 Fire Dept. Fire Tax Fund 266 Enterprise Prop 172 MATHIVET SLESF Measure L Bicentennial Becker Funds Funds Revenues:
Taxes and assessments $ - $ - $ - $ 33,679 $ 64,812 $ - $ - $ 28,842 $ - $ 50,000 $ 161 $ - $ - $ 722,340 $ 899,834 Intergovernmental 17,520 12,152 - - - 333,112 200,000 - - - - - - 59,422 622,206 Other revenues - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6,183 6,183
Charges for services - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Use of money and property - - - - - - - 103 64 141 2 - 103 3,076 3,489 -
Total revenues 17,520 12,152 - 33,679 64,812 333,112 200,000 28,945 64 50,141 163 - 103 791,021 1,531,712 Expenditures:
Current:
General government - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Public safety - - - - - - - 68,656 - - - - - 352,391 421,047 Public works 27,169 9,882 186,784 - - 127,759 - - - - - - - 112,243 463,837 Recreation and culture - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Debt service:
Principal - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Interest - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total expenditures 27,169 9,882 186,784 - - 127,759 - 68,656 - - - - - 464,634 884,884 Excess (deficiency) of revenues over -
expenditures (9,649) 2,270 (186,784) 33,679 64,812 205,353 200,000 (39,711) 64 50,141 163 - 103 326,387 646,828 Other financing sources (uses):
Debt proceeds - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Transfers in - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Transfers out - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total other financing sources (uses) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Net change in fund balances (9,649) 2,270 (186,784) 33,679 64,812 205,353 200,000 (39,711) 64 50,141 163 - 103 326,387 646,828 Fund balances, July 1 9,324 (46,655) 224,490 1,684 3,241 - (215,279) 53,019 11,790 25,526 521 2,401 18,996 545,529 634,587 Fund balances, June 30 $ (325) $ (44,385) $ 37,706 $ 35,363 $ 68,053 $ 205,353 $ (15,279) $ 13,308 $ 11,854 $ 75,667 $ 684 $ 2,401 $ 19,099 $ 871,916 $ 1,281,415 City of Nevada City
COMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND
CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES
NONMAJOR GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2021
- 52 -
DRAFT
Other Report
DRAFT
- 53 -
REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER
FINANCIAL REPORTING AND ON COMPLIANCE
AND OTHER MATTERS BASED ON AN AUDIT
OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PERFORMED
IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT
AUDITING STANDARDS
To the Honorable Members
of the City Council
City of Nevada City
Nevada City, California
We have audited the basic financial statements of City of Nevada City as of and for the year ended June 30, 2021, and have issued our report thereon dated [DATE]. We conducted our audit in accordance with U.S. generally accepted auditing standards and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the U.S. Comptroller General.
Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
In planning and performing our audit, we considered City of Nevada City’s internal control over financial reporting (internal control) as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances for the purpose of expressing our opinions on City of Nevada City’s financial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of City of Nevada City’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of City of Nevada City’s internal control over financial reporting.
A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct, misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the entity’s financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected on a timely basis. A significant deficiency is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control that is less severe than a material weakness, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance.
Our consideration of internal control was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph of this section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control that might be material weaknesses or significant deficiencies. Given these limitations, during our audit we did not identify any deficiencies in internal control that we consider to be material weaknesses. However, material weaknesses may exist that have not been identified.
Compliance and Other Matters
As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether City of Nevada City’s basic financial statements are free of material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts and grant agreements, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the financial statements.
However, providing an opinion on compliance with those provisions was not an objective of our audit and, accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance that are required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards.
DRAFT
City of Nevada City
- 54 -
Purpose of this Report
The purpose of this report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness of City of Nevada City’s internal control or on compliance. This report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering City of Nevada City’s internal control and compliance. Accordingly, this communication is not suitable for any other purpose.
R.J. Ricciardi, Inc.
R.J. Ricciardi, Inc.
Certified Public Accountants
San Rafael, California
DRAFT
CITY OF NEVADA CITY
CITY COUNCIL
&
MANAGEMENT REPORT
For the Year Ended
JUNE 30, 2021
DRAFT
8/5/2022
To be used only for management discussion
purposes; engagement is incomplete; this
draft is subject to final review and possible
revision. **Report/Letter date is TENTATIVE-TBD**
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
Report on Internal Controls 1
Required Communications
Management Observations
2-3
4 DRAFT
- 1 -
To the Honorable Members
of the City Council
City of Nevada City
Nevada City, CA
In planning and performing our audit of the basic financial statements of City of Nevada City for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2021, in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, we considered its internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on the basic financial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of its internal control. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of City of Nevada City’s internal control.
A control deficiency exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent or detect misstatements on a timely basis. A significant deficiency is a control deficiency, or a combination of control deficiencies, that adversely affects the entity’s ability to initiate, authorize, record, process or report financial data reliably in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles such that there is more than a remote likelihood that a misstatement of the entity’s financial statements that is more than inconsequential will not be prevented or detected by the entity’s internal control.
A material weakness is a significant deficiency, or a combination of significant deficiencies, that results in more than a remote likelihood that a material misstatement of the financial statements will not be prevented or detected by the entity’s internal control.
Our consideration of the internal control was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph and would not necessarily identify all deficiencies in internal control that might be significant deficiencies or material weaknesses, as defined above. We did not identify any deficiencies in internal control that we consider material weaknesses, as defined above.
During our audit, we noted certain matters involving internal controls and other operational matters that are presented for your consideration in this report. We will review the status of these comments during our next audit engagement. Our comments and recommendations, all of which have been discussed with appropriate members of management, are not intended to be all-inclusive, but rather represent those matters that we considered worthy of your consideration. Our comments and recommendations are submitted as constructive suggestions to assist you in strengthening controls and procedures; they are not intended to reflect on the honesty or integrity of any employee.
We will be pleased to discuss these comments in further detail at your convenience, to perform any additional study of these matters, or to assist City of Nevada City in implementing the recommendations.
This report is intended solely for the information and use of management and City Council of City of Nevada City and others within the organization, and is not intended to be, and should not be, used by anyone other than these specified parties.
We thank City of Nevada City’s staff for its cooperation during our audit.
R.J. Ricciardi, Inc.
R.J. Ricciardi, Inc.
Certified Public Accountants
San Rafael, California
DRAFT
- 2 -
To the Honorable Members
of the City Council
City of Nevada City
Nevada City, CA
We have audited the basic financial statements of City of Nevada City for the year ended June 30, 2021. Professional standards require that we provide you with the following information related to our audit.
Our Responsibility under U.S. Generally Accepted Auditing Standards As stated in our engagement letter dated February 28, 2022, our responsibility, as described by professional standards, is to plan and perform our audit to obtain reasonable, but not absolute, assurance that the financial statements are free of material misstatement and are fairly presented in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.
Because an audit is designed to provide reasonable, but not absolute assurance and because we did not perform a detailed examination of all transactions, there is a risk that material misstatements may exist and not be detected by us.
As part of our audit, we considered the internal control of City of Nevada City. Such considerations were solely for the purpose of determining our audit procedures and not to provide any assurance concerning such internal control.
Qualitative Aspects of Accounting Practices
Management is responsible for the selection and use of appropriate accounting policies. In accordance with the terms of our engagement letter, we will advise management about the appropriateness of accounting policies and their application. The significant accounting policies used by City of Nevada City are described in Note 1 to the basic financial statements. No new accounting policies were adopted and the application of existing policies was not changed during the year. We noted no transactions entered into by City of Nevada City during the year for which there is a lack of authoritative guidance or consensus. There are no significant transactions that have been recognized in the financial statements in a different period than when the transaction occurred.
Accounting estimates are an integral part of the basic financial statements prepared by management and are based on management’s knowledge and experience about past and current events and assumptions about future events. Certain accounting estimates are particularly sensitive because of their significance to the basic financial statements and because of the possibility that future events affecting them may differ significantly from those expected. We evaluated the key factors and assumptions used to develop the accounting estimates in determining that they are reasonable in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole. The most sensitive estimate(s) affecting the basic financial statements were:
Accrual and disclosure of compensated absences;
Capital asset lives and depreciation expense;
Actuarial assumptions for pension plan disclosure;
Accrual and disclosure of leases;
Fair value of investments and financial instruments.
Difficulties Encountered in Performing the Audit
We encountered no significant difficulties in dealing with management in performing and completing our audit.
DRAFT
To the Honorable Members
of the City Council
City of Nevada City – Page 2
- 3 -
Corrected and Uncorrected Misstatements
Professional standards require us to accumulate all known and likely misstatements identified during the audit, other than those that are trivial, and communicate them to the appropriate level of management. Management has corrected all such misstatements. Of the 16 audit adjustments detected as a result of audit procedures and corrected by management most were material, either individually or in the aggregate, to the financial statements taken as a whole.
Disagreements with Management
For purposes of this letter, professional standards define a disagreement with management as a financial accounting, reporting, or auditing matter, whether or not resolved to our satisfaction, that could be significant to the financial statements or the auditors’ report. We are pleased to report that no such disagreements arose during the course of our audit.
Management Representations
We have requested certain representations from management that are included in the management representation letter dated XX/XX/XX .
Management Consultations with Other Independent Accountants In some cases, management may decide to consult with other accountants about auditing and accounting matters, similar to obtaining a “second opinion” on certain situations. If a consultation involves application of an accounting principle to City of Nevada City’s financial statements or a determination of the type of auditor’s opinion that may be expressed on those statements, our professional standards require the consulting accountant to check with us to determine that the consultant has all the relevant facts. To our knowledge, there were no such consultations with other accountants.
Other Audit Findings or Issues
We generally discuss a variety of matters, including the application of accounting principles and auditing standards, with management each year prior to retention as City of Nevada City’s auditors. However, these discussions occurred in the normal course of our professional relationship and our responses were not a condition to our retention.
Other Matters
We applied certain limited procedures to the Management’s Discussion and Analysis and the Budgetary Comparison Schedule for the General Fund, and the City Pension Plan Proportionate Share of Net Pension Liability and Schedule of Contributions, which are required supplementary information (RSI) that supplements the basic financial statements. Our procedures consisted of inquiries of management regarding the methods of preparing the information and comparing the information for consistency with management’s responses to our inquiries, the basic financial statements, and other knowledge we obtained during our audit of the basic financial statements. We did not audit the RSI and do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on the RSI.
This report is intended solely for the information and use of management and City Council of City of Nevada City and others within the organization, and is not intended to be, and should not be, used by anyone other than these specified parties.
DRAFT
City of Nevada City
CITY COUNCIL & MANAGEMENT REPORT
For the Year Ended June 30, 2021
- 4 -
Current Year Observations
There were no current year observations that came to our attention.
Prior Year Observations
1) Accounting and Administrative Manual
Observation:
During the course of our audit we noted City of Nevada City (the City) does not have a complete set of written accounting and administrative procedures to follow in the absence of a key employee. In addition, the City has no formal policies for fraud prevention and detection.
Recommendation:
We recommended the City develop written accounting, administrative, and fraud prevention procedures.
Status:
The City is in the process of resolving this observation. 2) Cash Receipts Collection Reports
Observation:
During our audit we noted the City’s cash receipts reports are not signed by the preparer and reviewer.
Recommendation:
We recommended the City’s cash receipt reports be signed by the preparer and reviewer to document their performed duties and the accuracy of the report.
Status:
The City is in the process of resolving this observation.
DRAFT
CITY OF NEVADA CITY
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
MEETING OF: August 24, 2022 Agenda Item No. 08
Subject: Consideration of Award of a Professional
Services Contract with TJKM Transportation Consultants
for a Parking Demand Study in an Amount Not-to-Exceed
$75,000 and Authorize the City Manager to Sign the
Contract
From: Bryan McAlister, City Engineer
Date: August 29, 2022
Reviewed & Approved:
City Manager: STG
City Attorney:
Recommended Action: Award of Professional Services Contract for Parking Demand Study and authorize the City Manager to sign the contract.
ISSUE STATEMENT AND DISCUSSION:
City Engineering staff issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) to retain an experienced and qualified consultant firm to prepare a Parking Demand Study for Nevada City’s Downtown Historic District and the Seven Hills Business District. The purpose of the Study is to determine how much increased parking capacity is needed to serve the study area and to provide implementable strategies that help balance the parking utilization for all uses while maintaining economic vibrancy of the City.
Study Areas include:
• Area A – Downtown Historic District, and
• Area B – Seven Hills Business District
Vehicle parking availability in both study areas is limited, and this lack of parking supply directly impacts accessibility to the businesses and services. This potentially affects the enjoyment of the visitors and the overall economic potential of the City. If there is to be investment in parking related improvements, there is a need to first determine how much increased capacity is needed, and where it is needed. There is also a need to balance the parking utilization for all users, including residents, business employees and visitors and to efficiently use the existing parking supply.
There will be opportunity for public participation throughout the development of this study.
The consultant will assist with public participation process by taking a public survey and hosting a public workshop. The consultant will also attend a City Council meeting to present the findings of the study.
Request for proposals was advertised on July 19, 2022 and proposals were received on August 12, 2022 from qualified consultants, as follows:
Walker Consultants, San Francisco CA
Thompson Parking & Mobility, Peoria AZ
LSC Transportation Consultants, Tahoe City CA
TJKM Transportation Consultants, Pleasanton, CA
Dixon Resources Unlimited, San Diego, CA
City staff evaluated each proposal based on evaluation criteria included in the RFP. The evaluations were independently completed by Bryan McAlister, Sean Grayson, Amy Wolfson and William Falconi. Based on the evaluation rankings, TJKM Transportation Consultants was selected as the top ranked firm and is recommended for consideration of award.
City staff recommends that the contract be awarded to TJKM Transportation Consultants. Upon approval by the City Council, the City Manager will negotiate with the consultant for the final scope of work and cost and will execute a contract in the amount not to exceed $75,000.
FINANCIAL AND/OR POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The Parking Demand Study will be funded using $37,500 from Measure M funds for streets including on-street parking, and the remaining $37,500 will be funded by that portion of parking meter funds which is budgeted for future parking improvements in the fiscal year 2022/2023 budget.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS:
None, for purposes of the study. Environmental review will be conducted for any future parking improvement projects as required by CEQA regulations.
ATTACHMENTS:
Professional Services Contract for Parking Demand Study Proposal for Parking Demand Study from TJKM Transportation Consultants ver 4‐13‐18
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT
CITY OF NEVADA CITY
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this ________day of _______, 201__, by and between the CITY OF NEVADA CITY, hereinafter referred to as "City" and ___________________________________ hereinafter referred to as "Consultant".
RECITALS:
WHEREAS, City desires to retain a Consultant to provide the following services:
See attached Scope of Work (Exhibit “A”) for ______________________________________ WHEREAS, Consultant warrants that it is qualified and agreeable to render the aforesaid services.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the agreement made, and the payments to be made by City,the parties agree to the following:
1. SCOPE OF SERVICES: Consultant agrees to provide all of the services described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof.
A. Consultant agrees to furnish all labor, materials, equipment, services, and other means necessary to perform and complete in a good and workmanlike manner, those certain improvements as called for, and in the manner designated in Exhibit “A”.
2. ADDITIONAL SERVICES: The City may desire services to be performed which are relevant to this contract but have not been included in the scope of the services listed in Paragraph 1 above and Consultant agrees to perform said services upon the written request of City. These additional services could include,but are not limited to,any of the following:
A. Work requested by the City in connection with any other matter or any item of work not specified herein;
B. Work resulting from substantial changes ordered by the City in the nature or extent of the project, and
3. PROJECT RECORDS: Consultant shall maintain project records and data in a format acceptable to City and State, and provide same to the City within thirty (30) days after the completion of the contract and prior to final payment.
4. CITY FURNISHED SERVICES: The City agrees to:
A. Guarantee access to and make provisions for the Consultant to enter upon public and private lands as required to perform their work.
B. Not withhold approval of final deliverables without substantial cause.
C. Make available all pertinent data and records for review. ver 4‐13‐18
D. Provide general bid and contract forms and special provisions format when needed.
5. FEES: Payment for the services provided under this Agreement shall be based on a unit price basis at rates set forth in Exhibit "C" for a Fixed Price, Not to Exceed Amount of $_____________. The City agrees to pay and the Consultant agrees to accept, in full payment for the work above agreed to be done, the payment of unit price for all work described herein subject to additions and deductions as provided in this contract.
6. PAYMENT:
Payment for services under this Contract shall be due each month within thirty (30) calendar days after receipt by City of an invoice covering the service(s) rendered to date.
With respect to any additional services provided under this Contract as specified in paragraph 2 hereof, Consultant shall not be paid unless Consultant has received written authorization from City for the additional services prior to incurring the costs associated therewith.
7. CONTRACT PERFORMANCE TIME: If this bid is accepted, the bidder agrees to execute the Agreement, and furnish to the City all required evidences of insurance, within ten (10) days after receiving written notice of the award of contract, and complete the project within one hundred and twenty (120) calendar days after receiving written notice to proceed.
8. INSURANCE: Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Consultant, its agents, representatives, or employees.
MINIMUM SCOPE AND LIMIT OF INSURANCE
Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
1. Commercial General Liability (CGL): Insurance Services Office Form CG 00 01 covering CGL on an “occurrence” basis, including products and completed operations, property damage, bodily injury and personal & advertising injury with limits no less than $1,000,000 per occurrence. If a general aggregate limit applies, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location (ISO CG 25 03 or 25 04) or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit.
2. Automobile Liability: Insurance Services Office Form Number CA 0001 covering, Code 1 (any auto), or if Consultant has no owned autos, Code 8 (hired) and 9 (non-owned), with limit no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage.
3. Workers’ Compensation insurance as required by the State of California, with Statutory Limits, and Employer’s Liability Insurance with limit of no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease. (Not required if consultant provides written verification it has no employees)
4. Professional Liability (Errors and Omissions) Insurance appropriates to the Consultant’s profession, with limit no less than $1,000,000 per occurrence or claim, $1,000,000 aggregate.
If the Consultant maintains broader coverage and/or higher limits than the minimums shown above, the Entity requires and shall be entitled to the broader coverage and/or higher limits maintained by the Consultant. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits of insurance and coverage shall be available to the Entity.
Other Insurance Provisions
The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:
Additional Insured Status
The Entity, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers are to be covered as additional insureds on the CGL policy with respect to liability arising out of work or operations performed by or on behalf of the Consultant including materials, parts, or equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations.
General liability coverage can be provided in the form of an endorsement to the Consultant’s insurance (at least as broad as ISO Form CG 20 10 11 85 or both CG 20 10, CG 20 26, CG 20 33, or CG 20 38; and CG 20 37 forms if later revisions used).
Primary Coverage
For any claims related to this contract, the Consultant’s insurance coverage shall be primary insurance primary coverage at least as broad as ISO CG 20 01 04 13 as respects the Entity, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the Entity, its officers, officials, employees, or volunteers shall be excess of the Consultant’s insurance and shall not contribute with it. ver 4‐13‐18
Notice of Cancellation
Each insurance policy required above shall state that coverage shall not be canceled, except with notice to the Entity.
Waiver of Subrogation
Consultant hereby grants to Entity a waiver of any right to subrogation which any insurer of said Consultant may acquire against the Entity by virtue of the payment of any loss under such insurance. Consultant agrees to obtain any endorsement that may be necessary to affect this waiver of subrogation, but this provision applies regardless of whether or not the Entity has received a waiver of subrogation endorsement from the insurer.
Self-Insured Retentions
Self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the Entity. The Entity may require the Consultant to provide proof of ability to pay losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses within the retention. The policy language shall provide, or be endorsed to provide, that the selfinsured retention may be satisfied by either the named insured or Entity.
Acceptability of Insurers
Insurance is to be placed with insurers authorized to conduct business in the state with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A:VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the Entity.
Claims Made Policies (for Professional Liability Coverage) If any of the required policies provide coverage on a claims-made basis:
1. The Retroactive Date must be shown and must be before the date of the contract or the beginning of contract work.
2. Insurance must be maintained and evidence of insurance must be provided for at least five (5) years after completion of the contract of work.
3. If coverage is canceled or non-renewed, and not replaced with another claims-made policy form with a Retroactive Date prior to the contract effective date, the Consultant must purchase “extended reporting” coverage for a minimum of five (5) years after completion of contract work.
Verification of Coverage
Consultant shall furnish the Entity with original Certificates of Insurance including all required amendatory endorsements (or copies of the applicable policy language effecting coverage required by this clause) and a copy of the Declarations and Endorsement Page of the CGL policy listing all policy endorsements to Entity before work begins. However, failure to obtain the required documents prior to the work beginning shall not waive the Consultant’s obligation to provide them. The Entity reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements required by these specifications, at any time.
Subcontractors
Consultant shall require and verify that all subcontractors(or Subconsultants) maintain insurance meeting all the requirements stated herein, and Contractor shall ensure that Entity is an additional insured on insurance required from subcontractors.
Special Risks or Circumstances
Entity reserves the right to modify these requirements, including limits, based on the nature of the risk, prior experience, insurer, coverage, or other special circumstances.
9. WORKER'S COMPENSATION: The Consultant acknowledges that it is aware of the provisions of the Labor Code of the State of California which requires every employer to be insured against liability for worker's compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code and it certifies that it will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this Contract. A copy of the certificates evidencing such insurance shall be provided to City prior to commencement of work.
10. PREVAILING WAGE AND APPRENTICES: Consultant acknowledges awareness of the provisions of the Code, in particular Labor Code Sections 1770 to 1780, inclusive, and Title 8 of the California Administrative Code Sections 200 et seq.; and shall comply with such provisions ver 4‐13‐18
before commencing services required by this Contract to be performed by employees subject to these provisions.
Pursuant to SB 854, this project is subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR). The DIR registration number of each subcontractor and subconsultant must be identified and failure to identify this number could categorize your proposal as non-responsive. The City reports all public works contracts to the DIR within 5 days of the contract award date.
11. NONDISCRIMINATORY EMPLOYMENT: In connection with the execution of this Contract, the Consultant shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, age, sex, national origin, political affiliation, ancestry, marital status or disability. This policy does not require the employment of unqualified persons.
12. SUBCONTRACTING: Consultant shall not subcontract nor assign any portion of the work required by this Contract without prior written approval of the City except for any subcontract work identified herein. Consultant shall require any such subcontractor to comply with all of the provisions of this contract except that Consultant may determine the need for subcontractor to carry errors and omissions insurance.
13. ASSIGNMENT: The rights, responsibilities and duties under this Contract are personal to the Consultant and may not be transferred or assigned without the express prior written consent of the City.
14. LICENSING: The Consultant shall maintain the appropriate licenses throughout the life of this Contract.
15. BOOKS OF RECORD AND AUDIT PROVISION: Consultant shall maintain on a current basis complete books and records relating to this contract. Such records shall include, but not be limited to, documents supporting all bids, all income and all expenditures. The books and record shall be original entry books with a general ledger itemizing all debits and credits for the work on this contract.
In addition, Consultant shall maintain detailed payroll records including all subsistence, travel and field expenses, and canceled checks, receipts and invoices for all items. These documents and records shall be retained for at least three (3) years from the date of final payment and all other pending matters are closed for completion of this contract. Consultant will permit City to audit all books, accounts or records relating to this contract or all books, accounts or records of any business entities controlled by Consultant who participated in this contract in any way. Any audit may be conducted on Consultant's premises or, at City's option, Consultant shall provide all books and records within a maximum of fifteen (15) days upon receipt of written notice from City.
Consultant shall refund any moneys erroneously charged. If City ascertains that it has been billed erroneously by Consultant for an amount equaling 5% or more of the original bid, Consultant shall be liable for the costs of the audit in addition to any other penalty to be imposed.
16. TIME OF COMPLETION: The Consultant agrees to complete each phase of the work within the time schedules outlined within this Contract.
17. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES: Time is of the essence in the performance of the services by the Consultant.
In the event that the Consultant's work is not completed in an acceptable fashion by any of the dates established herein, the City may incur damages due to the delay.
18. DISPUTE RESOLUTION: Every effort will be made to resolve, in an equitable manner, any dispute arising between the City and Consultant concerning the terms of this agreement and subsequent Task Orders.
19. TITLE: It is understood that any and all documents, information and reports concerning this project prepared by and/or submitted to the Consultant, shall be the property of the City upon full payment of all ver 4‐13‐18
monies due and owing to the Consultant in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. The Consultant may retain reproducible copies of drawings and copies of other documents. In the event of the termination of this Contract, for any reason whatever, Consultant shall promptly turn over all information, writing and documents to City without exception or reservation for their intended use only. Consultant is not responsible for any use of the documents for anything other than their original intended use.
20. TERMINATION:
A. If the Consultant fails to provide in any manner the services required under this Contract or otherwise fails to comply with the terms of this Contract or violates any ordinance, regulation or other law which applies to its performance herein, the City may terminate this Contract by giving five (5) calendar days written notice to the party involved.
B. The Consultant shall be excused for failure to perform services herein if such services are prevented by acts of God, strikes, labor disputes or other forces over which the Consultant has no control.
C. Either party hereto may terminate this Contract for any reason by giving thirty (30) calendar days written notice to the other parties. Notice of Termination shall be by written notice to the other parties and be sent by registered mail.
D. In the event of termination not the fault of the Consultant, the Consultant shall be paid for services performed to the date of termination in accordance with the terms of this Contract.
21. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PARTIES: It is expressly understood that in the performances of the services herein, the Consultant, and the agents and employees thereof, shall act in an independent capacity and as an independent Consultant and not as officers, employees or agents of the City.
22. AMENDMENT: This Contract may be amended or modified only by written agreement of all parties.
23. ASSIGNMENT OF PERSONNEL: The Consultant shall not substitute any personnel for those specifically named in Exhibit "B" unless personnel with substantially equal or better qualifications and experience are provided, acceptable to City, as evidenced in writing.
24. JURISDICTION AND VENUE: This Contract shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California and the parties hereto agree that venue shall be in Nevada County, California.
25. INDEMNIFICATION:
(a Indemnification for Professional Liability. Where the law establishes a professional standard of care for Consultant’s Services, to the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless City and any and all of its officials, employees and agents (“Indemnified Parties”) from and against any and all losses, liabilities, damages, costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees and costs to the extent same are caused in whole or in part by any negligent or wrongful act, error or omission of Consultant, its officers, agents, employees or sub-consultants (or any entity or individual that Consultant shall bear the legal liability thereof) in the performance of professional services under this Agreement. (b) Indemnification for Other than Professional Liability. Other than in the performance of professional services and to the full extent permitted by law, Consultant shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless City, and any and all of its employees, officials and agents from and against any liability (including liability for claims, suits, actions, arbitration proceedings, administrative proceedings, regulatory proceedings, losses, expenses or costs of any kind, whether actual, alleged or threatened, including attorneys fees and costs, court costs, interest, defense costs, and expert witness fees), where the same arise out of, are a consequence of, or are in any way attributable to, in whole or in part, the performance of this Agreement by Consultant or by any individual or entity for which Consultant is legally liable, including but not limited to officers, agents, employees or sub-contractors of Consultant. ver 4‐13‐18
The provisions of this section do not apply to claims occurring as a result of City’s sole or active negligence.
The provisions of this section shall not release City from liability arising from gross negligence or willful acts or omissions of City or any and all of its officials, employees and agents.
26. COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAWS: The Consultant shall comply with any and all federal, state and local Laws affecting the services covered by this Contract.
27. NOTICES: Notices shall be given to City at the following location:
City of Nevada City
Attention: Bryan McAlister, City Engineer
317 Broad Street
Nevada City,CA 95959
Notices shall be given to Consultant at the following address:
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
28. STANDARD OF PRACTICE: The Consultant warrants that Consultant has the degree of learning and skill ordinarily possessed by reputable professionals practicing in similar localities in the same profession and under similar circumstances. Consultant's duty is to exercise such care skill and diligence as professionals engaged in the same profession ordinarily exercise under like circumstances.
29. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS: If the scope of work of this contract is of such a nature, Consultant will follow the form and requirements of Government Code Sections 87100, et seq. in filing its financial disclosure statement.
30. COST DISCLOSURE: In accordance with Government Code Section 7550, Consultant agrees to state in a separate section of its filed report the dollar amount of this contract and any related contracts and subcontracts relating to the preparation of the report resulting from this contract.
31. FEDERAL AND STATE CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSULTANT AGREEMENT: Attached hereto and made a part of this agreement (for Scope of Services involving State or Federal funding).
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereunto have executed this Contract on the date first above written APPROVED BY:
CITY OF NEVADA CITY:
_____________________________
City Manager
______________________
Deputy City Clerk
CONSULTANT
(Signature)
(Printed Name and Title)
(Federal Tax I.D. #)
Attachments:
1. Exhibit A Scope of Services
2. Exhibit B Assignment of Personnel
3. Exhibit C Scope of Services
ver 4‐13‐18
Exhibit A
CONSULTANTS
SCOPE OF SERVICES
ver 4‐13‐18
Exhibit B
ASSIGNMENT OF PERSONNEL
__________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________
ver 4‐13‐18
Exhibit C
COST PROPOSAL
Note: Hourly Rates shall include all cost components including labor cost, fringe benefit rates, indirect costs (overhead and general/administrative) fee/profit, and subconsultant costs.
Proposal shall include estimated hours and costs itemized by items of work for each type of service to be provided with a total for each item.
Invoice shall actual hours and costs itemized with by items of work performed with a total for each item.
Do not include mark-ups, contingencies or optional services or tasks.
From: Pauli Halstead
To: Sean Grayson; Public Comment
Cc: Douglass Fleming; Adam Kline; Daniela Fernandez; Gary Petersen; Lou Ceci; Amy Wolfson Subject: Public Comment for August 24th
Date: Sunday, August 14, 2022 5:46:30 AM
CAUTION: This email is from an external sender. If you are not expecting this email or don't recognize the sender, consider deleting.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. If you have more questions search for Cybersecurity Awareness on the County InfoNet.
Hi Sean;
I only have one request for the Strategic Workshop.
Have staff create an approved written protocol for a General Plan Amendment. (See examples in the links below). It is imperative, from this moment on, that the entire community is engaged in General Plan amendments from the get go so we don't find ourselves in a sh-storm again.
These would also be good guidelines when the city does a study on the impacts of the Historical Initiative.
For a General Plan amendment to be approved, at least the following standard findings are requirements to be made by the City Council:
1. The proposed amendment is deemed to be in the public interest. The public must be duly notified of the proposed amendment and hearings must ensue.
2. The proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the rest of the General Plan and any implementation programs that may be affected.
3. The potential impacts of the proposed amendment have been assessed and have been determined not to be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. Financial welfare must be a consideration.
4. The General Plan amendment must not violate State Law.
Please add this comment to the agenda packet.
Examples of General Plan Amendment Process
https://www.sunnyvale.ca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/1384/637820675899200000 https://www.ci.banning.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/74/General-Plan-Amendments? bidId=
https://www.ci.larkspur.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/138/General-Plan-Amendment--- Procedure?bidId=
Thank you,
Pauli
--
Pauline Halstead
423 South Pine St.
Nevada City, Ca 95959
home: 530-265-6704
From: Pauli Halstead
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment for August 24th: Requesting Reconsideration of Action Date: Monday, August 15, 2022 2:12:37 PM
Attachments: August 24th Public Comment.doc
Ketcham letter.pdf
Struhar letter.pdf
CAUTION: This email is from an external sender. If you are not expecting this email or don't recognize the sender, consider deleting.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. If you have more questions search for Cybersecurity Awareness on the County InfoNet.
Please agendize this item and add this request and the supporting documents to the Agenda Packet.
Thank you;
Pauli
--
Pauline Halstead
423 South Pine St.
Nevada City, Ca 95959
home: 530-265-6704
From: Stephen Greenberg
To: Public Comment; Sean Grayson
Subject: Re: Request for Reconsideration of action taken at 8/10/2022 NCCC meeting Date: Tuesday, August 16, 2022 2:51:12 PM
CAUTION: This email is from an external sender. If you are not expecting this email or don't recognize the sender, consider deleting.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. If you have more questions search for Cybersecurity Awareness on the County InfoNet.
Hi again -
With apologies for less than up-to-date citations and quotations from your Standards and Procedures (below), I was relying on the “City of Nevada City – City Council Standards and Procedures,” as currently posted on the City’s website
(https://nevadacityca.gov/files/documents/CityCouncilStandardsandProcedures131501111606 3020PM.pdf) and approved 2/26/2020. But City Manager Sean Grayson has advised me of another version, also on the website, with the same title as “Updated March 9, 2022:
(https://nevadacityca.gov/files/documents/NevadaCityCouncilStandardsandProceduresUpdated3-9-221338113805081522AM.pdf). Accordingly, my citations should be revised:
I cited Standard 9.2(a); it should instead be Standard 8.2(a); quotations remain accurate.
I cited Standard 9.7; it should instead be Standard 8.4; quotations remain accurate.
I cited Standard 9.9(a) and (d); it should instead be Standard 8.6(a) and (d); quotations remain accurate.
I cited Standard 9.6(d); it should instead be Standard 8.3(d); quotations remain accurate.
Finally, I cited Standard 9.8 as authority for a member of the public requesting reconsideration of a Council decision; that same provision is now designated as Standard 8.5.
Sorry for the confusion. But the text of the Council Standards — and my concerns — remain the same.
- SG
On Aug 12, 2022, at 10:56 PM, Stephen Greenberg <[email protected]> wrote:
(Follow-up message to City Council and City Manager Grayson) Just one quick point I meant to add…. My earlier message (below) focused on NC’s City Council Standards and Procedures; but in light of those concerns, I suggest you also consult your own agenda for the August 10 meeting: Re “Public Hearings,” it tells us, “The City Council, when considering the matter scheduled for hearing, will take the following actions:
“a) Open the Public Hearing
“b) Presentation by Staff
“c) [n/a]
“d) Accept Public Testimony
“e) [n/a]
“f) Close the Public Hearing
“g) Council Comments and questions
“h) Council Action.”
I’d say (a), (b), (d), (f), and (h) all took place, in order, without a hitch. But (g)? Certainly not in any meaningful way. We’re still waiting…. - SG
On Aug 12, 2022, at 4:02 PM, Stephen Greenberg
<[email protected]> wrote:
Date: August 12, 2022
To: Mayor Fleming, Vice-Mayor Fernandez, Councilmembers Petersen, Kline, and Ceci
From: Stephen Greenberg, Turpentine Drive, Nevada City
Re: Request for Reconsideration (City Council Standards and Procedures, § 9.8)
Dear NC City Council -
I’m writing to follow up on your August 10 meeting’s agenda item 9, “Receive, File, and Accept the Certificate of Sufficiency of Initiative Petition for the Nevada City Historic Neighborhoods District Initiative and Take Action on the Petition.” As you know, I was among the members of the public who spoke against the action you chose; i.e., option 4, calling for a November 2022 special election on the proposed ordinance. But to be very clear — both to you and to myself — that’s not why I’m writing to you and requesting reconsideration. My current concern is less with the result you reached than it is with how you got there.
As a bit of background, I’ve lived in Nevada City for 30 years, attending City Council meetings here and there throughout that period, often involving at least somewhat controversial issues. With one notable exception in 1997, I can’t recall a single instance where — following significant input reflecting split public opinion — the Council went ahead and took action with no relevant discussion whatsoever. Fyi, the 1997 exception: Inviting public comment about the then-proposed Public Conduct ordinance, the Mayor began by announcing that whatever the large numbers of lined-up speakers might have to say, it didn’t matter to him; he’d vote yes. That’s a pretty extreme example of anti-democracy in action, but I’m sad to say Wednesday's treatment of item 9 comes uncomfortably close.
I’ll explain in some detail — with citations to your own City Council Standards and Procedures
(https://nevadacityca.gov/files/documents/CityCouncilStandardsandP rocedures1315011116063020PM.pdf) — but the bottom line is this:
As a member of the public who attended the meeting via Zoom and then rewatched it on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=DKBnJONu53k&t=5603s), I have no idea why any of you voted as you did. Not one councilmember expressed their thoughts about the four available options, let alone their decision about which option to choose. Not one word was uttered in acknowledgement of any point raised in the many public comments; nor, for that matter, was there any actual discussion of the issue — at all. Again, I’ve never seen anything quite like this; and I’m certain it’s the wrong way to do the People’s business.
The 8/10/2022 meeting: If you haven’t yet, I urge you to watch the relevant meeting video — really, just a couple minutes. Item 9 on the agenda begins at 1:32:25, with public comment running from 1:40:15 to 2:33:30. But my concern is with what happened right after that: At 2:34:03, Mayor Fleming says, “So at this point, I’m gonna bring it back to the table here”; and by 2:35:50 — less than 2 minutes later — the Council had already voted (4-1) to place the initiative on the November ballot. Immediately after that, at the Mayor's suggestion, the Council also directed staff to come up with a report. The entire item concluded at 2:37:37.
So, my concerns…. No sooner had the Mayor said “… table here,” than Councilmember Petersen reached for his mic; the Mayor acknowledged him; and Mr. Petersen announced, “I’m prepared to make a motion already.” The Mayor asked if there were any comments; “otherwise, I think we’re ready for a motion.” ViceMayor Fernandez made the only actual “comment,” but it wasn’t at all substantive — just a disclaimer, reminding the public that this vote wasn’t about taking a stand on the wisdom of the underlying initiative. The Mayor then thanked her and turned back to Councilmember Petersen, who made his November-ballot motion.
Councilmember Ceci immediately seconded it; then the Mayor asked the clerk for the roll call vote. (4 yes, 1 no.) Wow.
My overall concern and objection: On a clearly controversial issue, how did we move from public comment to finished vote without hearing a single word from any Councilmember as to what they actually thought about the agenda item — let alone any discussion at all, or even an explanation for anyone’s vote. Of course I understand the Vice-Mayor’s disclaimer: this wasn’t a vote on the wisdom (or not) of the initiative itself. But it was a vote on something — indeed, a choice between four different somethings — and no one said a word about that choice. Might Councilmember Kline's apparently dissenting thoughts have made a difference to other members? We’ll never know. As is clear on the video, the Vice-Mayor appeared to (internally) wrestle with her vote; why? Councilmembers Petersen and Ceci both seemed rarin’ to go with the November-ballot motion; what was that about? And the Mayor’s yes vote was as inscrutable as all the others.
Apparent violations of NC's City Council Standards and
Procedures (“Council Standards”): There’s violating the letter of a law or standard, and there’s violating its spirit. In a number of ways, I’m concerned that your treatment of item 9 did both:
1. No pre-motion discussion. Council Standard 9.2(a): "A motion is not required prior to a general discussion on an agenda item. A premotion discussion allows the members to share their thoughts on the agendized item so that a motion can more easily be made that takes into account what appears to be the majority position.” (Italics added.) That’s a powerful open-democracy standard, but it was entirely ignored here. E.g., was Councilmember Petersen confident that his motion was “tak[ing] into account what appears to be the majority position” on the Council? If so, it suggests the Brown Act was violated. If not, then this standard was simply ignored, with no explanation for ignoring it.
2. No pre- or post-motion discussion. Council Standard 9.7: "It will be the practice of the City Council for the Mayor to provide Council Members an opportunity to ask questions of staff, comment on, and discuss any agendized item in order to help form a consensus before a motion is offered. After such discussion, the Mayor or any Council Member may make a motion. Before the motion can be considered or discussed, it must be seconded. Once a motion has been properly made and seconded, the Mayor shall open the matter to full discussion ….” I realize the Mayor did literally and momentarily invite discussion just before Councilmember Petersen spelled out his motion; otoh, after the Vice-Mayor’s disclaimer, the Mayor simply turned back to Mr. Petersen, who announced his motion; there was no additional call for discussion before or after that.
3. Discussion serves important purposes, ignored here. Turning to Council Standards 9.9(a) and 9.9(d): "The discussion and deliberations at meetings of the City Council are to secure the mature judgment of Council Members on proposals submitted for decision.
This purpose is best served by the exchange of thought through discussion and debate." And "It is the responsibility of each Council Member to maintain an open mind on all issues during discussion and deliberation.” If there was ever any “exchange of thought” between Councilmembers, it certainly didn’t take place at the meeting. With neither discussion, nor debate, nor deliberation — at all — should the public just assume all Councilmembers exercised their mature judgment with an open mind?
4. No acknowledgment of public comment. Council Standard
9.6(e): "All Council Members shall listen to all public discussion as part of the Council’s community responsibility. Individual Council Members should remain open-minded to informational comments made by the public.” I hope you can see the problem with ignoring the standards cited above: Did each Council Member remain openminded during public comments? Or did one or more members come to the meeting fully confident of how they’d vote and stay that way (but without making the 1997 Mayor’s mistake of announcing it at the meeting)? How could we ever answer these questions, when every Councilmember remains silent except for uttering “yes” or “no” as their vote?
Request for Reconsideration. Under Council Standard 9.8, a member of the public can request reconsideration of a Council decision. That’s what I’m doing here. And I sincerely hope it’s not an exercise in futility, or just an annoying formality; that is, I strongly believe in the very point of your own Standards and Procedures: Only through open-minded and open-to-the-public discussion — which hasn’t happened yet on this agenda item — will you reach a proper decision. That’s how things are supposed to work; and now it’s up to you to make them work. Please agendize this item for your next meeting. Yes, that will mean additional public comment (and I’ll have more to say about the substantive item then), but at least this time it’ll be followed by a genuine Council discussion, and then… who knows? Please let democracy have its day.
Thanks,
Stephen Greenberg
From: Pauli Halstead
To: Stephen Greenberg
Cc: Public Comment; Sean Grayson
Subject: Re: Request for Reconsideration of action taken at 8/10/2022 NCCC meeting Date: Tuesday, August 16, 2022 3:05:18 PM
Attachments: August 24th Public Comment.doc
CAUTION: This email is from an external sender. If you are not expecting this email or don't recognize the sender, consider deleting.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. If you have more questions search for Cybersecurity Awareness on the County InfoNet.
Thank you Stephen;
I am submitting my Public Comment and request for Reconsideration of Action with the correct numbers. (See attached). You already have the supporting documents.
Please use the corrected version in the agenda packet.
Pauli
On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 2:51 PM Stephen Greenberg <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi again -
With apologies for less than up-to-date citations and quotations from your Standards and Procedures (below), I was relying on the “City of Nevada City – City Council Standards and Procedures,” as currently posted on the City’s website (https://nevadacityca.gov/files/documents/CityCouncilStandardsandProcedures13150111160 63020PM.pdf) and approved 2/26/2020. But City Manager Sean Grayson has advised me of another version, also on the website, with the same title as “Updated March 9, 2022:
(https://nevadacityca.gov/files/documents/NevadaCityCouncilStandardsandProceduresUpdated3-9-221338113805081522AM.pdf). Accordingly, my citations should be revised:
I cited Standard 9.2(a); it should instead be Standard 8.2(a); quotations remain accurate.
I cited Standard 9.7; it should instead be Standard 8.4; quotations remain accurate.
I cited Standard 9.9(a) and (d); it should instead be Standard 8.6(a) and (d); quotations remain accurate.
I cited Standard 9.6(d); it should instead be Standard 8.3(d); quotations remain accurate.
Finally, I cited Standard 9.8 as authority for a member of the public requesting reconsideration of a Council decision; that same provision is now designated as Standard
8.5. Sorry for the confusion. But the text of the Council Standards — and my concerns — remain the same.
- SG
On Aug 12, 2022, at 10:56 PM, Stephen Greenberg <[email protected]> wrote:
(Follow-up message to City Council and City Manager Grayson) Just one quick point I meant to add…. My earlier message (below) focused on NC’s City Council Standards and Procedures; but in light of those concerns, I suggest you also consult your own agenda for the August 10 meeting: Re “Public Hearings,” it tells us, “The City Council, when considering the matter scheduled for hearing, will take the following actions:
“a) Open the Public Hearing
“b) Presentation by Staff
“c) [n/a]
“d) Accept Public Testimony
“e) [n/a]
“f) Close the Public Hearing
“g) Council Comments and questions
“h) Council Action.”
I’d say (a), (b), (d), (f), and (h) all took place, in order, without a hitch. But (g)? Certainly not in any meaningful way. We’re still waiting…. - SG
On Aug 12, 2022, at 4:02 PM, Stephen Greenberg
<[email protected]> wrote:
Date: August 12, 2022
To: Mayor Fleming, Vice-Mayor Fernandez, Councilmembers Petersen, Kline, and Ceci
From: Stephen Greenberg, Turpentine Drive, Nevada City
Re: Request for Reconsideration (City Council Standards and Procedures, § 9.8)
Dear NC City Council -
I’m writing to follow up on your August 10 meeting’s agenda item 9, “Receive, File, and Accept the Certificate of Sufficiency of Initiative Petition for the Nevada City Historic Neighborhoods District Initiative and Take Action on the Petition.” As you know, I was among the members of the public who spoke against the action you chose; i.e., option 4, calling for a November 2022 special election on the proposed ordinance. But to be very clear — both to you and to myself — that’s not why I’m writing to you and requesting reconsideration. My current concern is less with the result you reached than it is with how you got there.
As a bit of background, I’ve lived in Nevada City for 30 years, attending City Council meetings here and there throughout that period, often involving at least somewhat controversial issues. With one notable exception in 1997, I can’t recall a single instance where — following significant input reflecting split public opinion — the Council went ahead and took action with no relevant discussion whatsoever. Fyi, the 1997 exception: Inviting public comment about the then-proposed Public Conduct ordinance, the Mayor began by announcing that whatever the large numbers of lined-up speakers might have to say, it didn’t matter to him; he’d vote yes.
That’s a pretty extreme example of anti-democracy in action, but I’m sad to say Wednesday's treatment of item 9 comes
uncomfortably close.
I’ll explain in some detail — with citations to your own City Council Standards and Procedures
(https://nevadacityca.gov/files/documents/CityCouncilStandardsan dProcedures1315011116063020PM.pdf) — but the bottom line is this: As a member of the public who attended the meeting via Zoom and then rewatched it on YouTube
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKBnJONu53k&t=5603s), I have no idea why any of you voted as you did. Not
one councilmember expressed their thoughts about the
four available options, let alone their decision about which option to choose. Not one word was uttered in acknowledgement of any point raised in the many public comments; nor, for that matter, was there any actual discussion of the issue — at all. Again, I’ve never seen anything quite like this; and I’m certain it’s the wrong way to do the People’s business.
The 8/10/2022 meeting: If you haven’t yet, I urge you to watch the relevant meeting video — really, just a couple minutes. Item 9 on the agenda begins at 1:32:25, with public comment running from 1:40:15 to 2:33:30. But my concern is with what happened right after that: At 2:34:03, Mayor Fleming says, “So at this point, I’m gonna bring it back to the table here”; and by 2:35:50 — less than 2 minutes later — the Council had already voted (4-1) to place the initiative on the November ballot. Immediately after that, at the Mayor's suggestion, the Council also directed staff to come up with a report. The entire item concluded at 2:37:37.
So, my concerns…. No sooner had the Mayor said “… table here,” than Councilmember Petersen reached for his mic; the Mayor acknowledged him; and Mr. Petersen announced, “I’m prepared to make a motion already.” The Mayor asked if there were any comments; “otherwise, I think we’re ready for a motion.” ViceMayor Fernandez made the only actual “comment,” but it wasn’t at all substantive — just a disclaimer, reminding the public that this vote wasn’t about taking a stand on the wisdom of the underlying initiative. The Mayor then thanked her and turned back
to Councilmember Petersen, who made his November-ballot motion. Councilmember Ceci immediately seconded it; then the Mayor asked the clerk for the roll call vote. (4 yes, 1 no.) Wow.
My overall concern and objection: On a clearly controversial issue, how did we move from public comment to finished vote without hearing a single word from any Councilmember as to what they actually thought about the agenda item — let alone any discussion at all, or even an explanation for anyone’s vote. Of course I understand the Vice-Mayor’s disclaimer: this wasn’t a vote on the wisdom (or not) of the initiative itself. But it was a vote on something — indeed, a choice between four different
somethings — and no one said a word about that choice. Might Councilmember Kline's apparently dissenting thoughts have made a difference to other members? We’ll never know. As is clear on the video, the Vice-Mayor appeared to (internally) wrestle with her vote; why? Councilmembers Petersen and Ceci both seemed rarin’ to go with the November-ballot motion; what was that about? And the Mayor’s yes vote was as inscrutable as all the others.
Apparent violations of NC's City Council Standards and
Procedures (“Council Standards”): There’s violating the letter of a law or standard, and there’s violating its spirit. In a number of ways, I’m concerned that your treatment of item 9 did both:
1. No pre-motion discussion. Council Standard 9.2(a): "A motion is not required prior to a general discussion on an agenda item. A pre-motion discussion allows the members to share their thoughts on the agendized item so that a motion can more easily be made that takes into account what appears to be the majority position.” (Italics added.) That’s a powerful open-democracy standard, but it was entirely ignored here. E.g., was Councilmember Petersen confident that his motion was “tak[ing] into account what appears to be the majority position” on the Council? If so, it suggests the Brown Act was violated. If not, then this standard was simply ignored, with no explanation for ignoring it.
2. No pre- or post-motion discussion. Council Standard 9.7: "It will be the practice of the City Council for the Mayor to provide Council Members an opportunity to ask questions of staff, comment on, and discuss any agendized item in order to help form a consensus before a motion is offered. After such discussion, the Mayor or any Council Member may make a motion. Before the motion can be considered or discussed, it must be seconded. Once a motion has been properly made and seconded, the Mayor shall open the matter to full discussion ….” I realize the Mayor did literally and momentarily invite discussion just before Councilmember Petersen spelled out his motion; otoh, after the Vice-Mayor’s disclaimer, the Mayor simply turned back to Mr.
Petersen, who announced his motion; there was no additional call for discussion before or after that.
3. Discussion serves important purposes, ignored here. Turning to Council Standards 9.9(a) and 9.9(d): "The discussion and deliberations at meetings of the City Council are to secure the mature judgment of Council Members on proposals submitted for decision. This purpose is best served by the exchange of thought through discussion and debate." And "It is the responsibility of each Council Member to maintain an open mind on all
issues during discussion and deliberation.” If there was ever any “exchange of thought” between Councilmembers, it certainly didn’t take place at the meeting. With neither discussion, nor debate, nor deliberation — at all — should the public just assume all Councilmembers exercised their mature judgment with an open mind?
4. No acknowledgment of public comment. Council Standard
9.6(e): "All Council Members shall listen to all public discussion as part of the Council’s community responsibility. Individual Council Members should remain open-minded to informational comments made by the public.” I hope you can see the problem with ignoring the standards cited above: Did each Council Member remain openminded during public comments? Or did one or more members come to the meeting fully confident of how they’d vote and stay that way (but without making the 1997 Mayor’s mistake of announcing it at the meeting)? How could we ever answer these questions, when every Councilmember remains silent except for uttering “yes” or “no” as their vote?
Request for Reconsideration. Under Council Standard 9.8, a member of the public can request reconsideration of a Council decision. That’s what I’m doing here. And I sincerely hope it’s not an exercise in futility, or just an annoying formality; that is, I strongly believe in the very point of your own Standards and Procedures: Only through open-minded and open-to-the-public discussion — which hasn’t happened yet on this agenda item — will you reach a proper decision. That’s how things are supposed to work; and now it’s up to you to make them work. Please agendize this item for your next meeting. Yes, that will mean additional public comment (and I’ll have more to say about the substantive item then), but at least this time it’ll be followed by a genuine Council discussion, and then… who knows? Please let democracy have its day.
Thanks,
Stephen Greenberg
--
Pauline Halstead
423 South Pine St.
Nevada City, Ca 95959
home: 530-265-6704
1 Public Comment, August 24th: Requesting a Reconsideration of Action Please agendize this item.-Under Council Standard 9.8, a member of the public can request reconsideration of a Council decision.
8.5 Reconsideration.
(a) Request for reconsideration.
1. Request by a member of the public.
Notwithstanding Rosenberg’s Rules of Order, a request for reconsideration may be made by a member of the public to the City Council at the next regular meeting of the City Council or at any intervening special meeting of the City Council.
8.6 Discussion.
(a) The discussion and deliberations at meetings of the City Council are to secure the mature judgment of Council Members on proposals submitted for decision. This purpose is best served by the exchange of thought through discussion and debate.
To the extent possible, Council Members should disclose any ex parte communication prior to discussion on an item. Ex parte communications are those made in private between an interested party and an official in a decision-making process. Discussion and deliberation are regulated by these rules in order to assure every member a reasonable and equal opportunity to be heard.
I am requesting a Reconsideration of Action on the 4-1 vote, to place the Nevada City Historic Neighborhoods District Initiative on the November ballot on the grounds that the council did not publicly evaluate all the options open to them, especially the numerous requests for a 9212 report.
During Public Comment on August 10th there were many requests for a 9212 Report in order for the city and the community to understand the impacts of the very complicated twenty-three page Initiative.
It was apparent to those opposing the Initiative that minds were made up prior to the lockstep vote, so the public comments requesting the Report fell on deaf ears.
For months the drafters of the Initiative were given unfair advantage by the city to move the measure along, out of public knowledge. This has not given the rest of the community fair time to study, respond, and act.
2 An example of the lengths the Historical Society, supporting the Initiative, went to bend the ear of the city is Daniel Ketchum's July 6th email to Sean Grayson, in which he states:
"We assume you are operating under the time frame outlined by State Law that would take us to Wednesday, August 10th City Council meeting in order to either adopt the initiative or send it on the November election.”
“As we understand it, there is no extra time for additional studies/deliberation, etc. in that schedule.”
“Please let me know if that is your understanding also.” “We are not in support of a 9212 report, it would just delay the residents of Nevada City the ability to have a timely up or down on an initiative that has a lot of support and interest.”-Daniel Ketcham
How did Ketchum “understand” that there was no extra time for additional studies/deliberations, etc.? 368 signatures on a petition does not represent a majority of public support when most of the community hasn’t even learned of the measure.
It was obvious the Historic Neighborhoods Committee held sway over certain council members in placing the measure on the ballot, given the lightning speed for motion, a second, and a vote, all taking just minutes.
Daniella mentioned the city council had limited options, but there was no discussion of those options, one of which was the 9212 Report. The city council had no problem in the previous presentation to pony up $15,000 for the energy study but wouldn’t even consider a comprehensive Report regarding the Historical Initiative’s potential impacts of architectural review on homeowners.
It is also obvious that our city attorneys, Dean Pucci and Keith Collins, have not adequately educated or advised the council on their voting choices on the Initiative. An example of this is the fact that they did not contact the State Attorney General’s Office to ask the State’s position on the ballot measure until August 3rd. For all the billing that Jones & Mayer on research and analysis that would have been the first thing for the law firm to check on.
Following the August 8th response from the Attorney General’s office (see emailed response and letter) to Dean Pucci, did he share that information with Sean Grayson and the City Council? There was no apparent caution to the council during the August 10th meeting that the State would fight any attempt to declare most of Nevada City a Historic District in order to circumvent the implementation of SB9. Our city attorneys have not advised the city council appropriately and avoided recommending a 9212 study to review the impacts to the city, one of which was the State’s position. 3 Mayor Fleming’s hasty suggestion, following the vote, that staff do an in-house study to help educate folks was an example of his lack of understanding that it was a 9212 study which was requested by a number of people. Mayor Fleming obviously avoided any discussion on the Initiative.
In fairness to the community as a whole, I am requesting a revote on the decision to immediately place the measure on the November ballot, and, at the same time, ask that the city council request a 9212 Report. At the very least have a discussion on why you refused to consider the Report as an option. We need to hear your thoughts.
The following are additional documents to be included in the agenda packet along with this Public Comment request.
1). E-mail to Sean Grayson from Daniel Ketchum (President, Nevada County Historical Society
2). August 2, email from Dean Pucci to Matthew Struhar, Deputy Attorney General 3). Matthew Struhar's August 8th response email to Dean Pucci 4). Matthew Struhar's letter to Victor Gordo, Mayor of Pasadena Pauli Halstead
423 South Pine St.
From: Gabrielle Christakes
To: Public Comment
Subject: FW: Public Comment Re: Historic Neighborhoods District Initiative Date: Wednesday, August 17, 2022 12:54:46 PM
Attachments: HND_Public Comment Aug 10.pdf
From: Jonathan Collier <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2022 12:42 AM
To: Gabrielle Christakes <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd: Public Comment Re: Historic Neighborhoods District Initiative CAUTION: This email is from an external sender. If you are not expecting this email or don't recognize the sender, consider deleting.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. If you have more questions search for Cybersecurity Awareness on the County InfoNet.
Hi Gabrielle,
I looked at the last City Council packet and noticed that my written comment had not been included into the packet. If you would please add my written comment to the record it would be greatly appreciated.
Best,
Jonathan
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Jonathan Collier <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 5:54 PM
Subject: Public Comment Re: Historic Neighborhoods District Initiative To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, Daniela Fernandez <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
To the honorable City Council and City Manager please find the attached public comment for tonight's City Council meeting regarding the Nevada City Historic Neighborhoods District Initiative and file as public record.
Thank you for your service,
Jonathan Collier
--
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
--
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
From: Gabrielle Christakes
To: Public Comment
Subject: FW: Public Comment Re: Historic Neighborhoods District Initiative Date: Wednesday, August 17, 2022 12:54:46 PM
Attachments: HND_Public Comment Aug 10.pdf
From: Jonathan Collier <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2022 12:42 AM
To: Gabrielle Christakes <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd: Public Comment Re: Historic Neighborhoods District Initiative CAUTION: This email is from an external sender. If you are not expecting this email or don't recognize the sender, consider deleting.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. If you have more questions search for Cybersecurity Awareness on the County InfoNet.
Hi Gabrielle,
I looked at the last City Council packet and noticed that my written comment had not been included into the packet. If you would please add my written comment to the record it would be greatly appreciated.
Best,
Jonathan
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Jonathan Collier <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 5:54 PM
Subject: Public Comment Re: Historic Neighborhoods District Initiative To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, Daniela Fernandez <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
To the honorable City Council and City Manager please find the attached public comment for tonight's City Council meeting regarding the Nevada City Historic Neighborhoods District Initiative and file as public record.
Thank you for your service,
Jonathan Collier
--
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
--
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
Nevada City – City Council
Mayor - Doug Fleming
Vice Mayor - Daniela Fernandez
Council Member - Gary Petersen
Council Member - Adam Kline
Council Member - Lou Ceci
City Manager - Sean Grayson
City ofNevada City
317 W. Broad St
Nevada City, CA 95959
August10, 2022
HonorableNevada City City Council Members,
My name isJonathan Collier and Icurrently reside seven minutes outside ofNevada City, but I have lived on Commercial Street, Long Street and Clay Street,worked on Broad Street and helped consultwith several businessesin the downtown historic district.
I’ve also been a community advocate for the last eight years,sitting on the Board of Directors, Advisory Boards and variouscommitteesfor many local nonprofits, including being a founding member of theNevada County Cannabis Alliance. For the last four yearsI have focused my attention on solutionsfor the housing challenges thatwe face as a community. I thought thatcannabis had been a contentiousissue in ourcommunity, but I’m finding to my surprise that putting people in homesis more problematic It’s been heartbreakingwatching friends and acquaintances, many of them young, progressive cultural creatives, oftenwith college degrees,somewith families, leave ourcommunity because of a lack of housing. I knowof local, young adultsjust out ofschoolwanting to stay in the community being forced to leave because of our lack of housing. Ask any of the businessesinNevada City about the struggle to maintain a strong employee base because of the lack of housing.
Housing is one of the top perennial issuesthatNevada City faces, and instead of finding solutionssome of its citizens are nowseeking to create theworst impediment itcan for future growth. In my effortsto solve the housing issue I’ve reached out to housing developers, urban and environmental planners, nonprofits, housing advocates,contractors and realtors, and the overallconsensusisthatNevada City isthe placewhere “projects come to die”. TheHistoricNeighborhood District initiative is an attempt to codifywhat is already culturally in place by thewill of a small number of very influential people. If there is no other proof, look at the number of projectsthat have been approved and how many of them have been built in the last decade.
This ballot measure highlights a clash of valuesthat needsto be resolved for thosewho love thiscity.
Specifically,which is more important: preserving the past orcaring for the future of its people. As much asI have admiredNevada City for its progressive attitude I’ve found it to be a facadewhen itcomesto housing.
Although manywords are said in support of housing people in need,when itcomesto actions, preservation takes priority.
Cashin’s Field is a single anomaly ofsuccessin an otherwise bleak housing record, a project that I fiercely advocated for andwithout the help of SB35would have failed. Fortunately, itwas not entangled in months of architectural reviewand a slowdeath in planning limbo. Opponents, many ofwhom have backed thisinitiative, see it as a disappointment, a monstrosity in terms ofsize and aesthetics. For thosewho are more concerned with helping the lessfortunate in ourcommunity therewillsoon be approximately 150 people thatwill be able to secure a safe,comfortable and affordable home in the town they love.
The architectural reviewprocessis one of the most effective toolsthat the anti-housing advocates have to kill projects or at the very least maim them so they pass but are not buildable. Asthe initiative clearly states, “This Measurewould add language to the General Plan that requires an architectural reviewpermit for buildings within theHND,” therefore leaving all renovations and even future housing decisionsto be authorized by the Planning Commission. This meansthat the design and construction of every future building project, be it home owner or housing developerwould have to go through an arduous, often time consuming and costly review process and then be decided by thewhim and preferences of the three individuals on the Commission.
Thisisjust one implication of many, that needsfurtherconsideration. As others have stated there needsto be a better understanding ofwhatwould result from this ballot measure, and like them Istrongly urge the City Councilto vote for an impactstudy to be done. Showthe community that as much as you honor and respect the need to preserve the built environment, that people’s health andwelfare takes precedence.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Collier
From: Sheila Hill
To: Public Comment
Subject: Long-Term Effects of Short-Term Rentals
Date: Thursday, August 18, 2022 7:02:01 PM
CAUTION: This email is from an external sender. If you are not expecting this email or don't recognize the sender, consider deleting.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. If you have more questions search for Cybersecurity Awareness on the County InfoNet.
Dear Members of the Council:
As a longtime advocate of sustainability and farm to table endeavors, I've looked forward to finding a place in Northern California to semi-retire and share my passion for growing food with others through a farmstay. I fell in love with Nevada City and with this amazing home at 18394 Lazy Dog Road. I was not able to compete with the out of state investor who bought the property up and promptly put the entire home and barn for rent on airbnb and vrbo for up to $995 a night for large groups and special events. It seems council has considered restrictions of unhosted rentals and hope you will again as out of state investors and corporations are making our states housing crisis worse.
Sincerely,
Sheila Hill
Founder, Sustainable Contra Costa