The board packet
One item, one vote, eleven reforms.
The report named eleven things the Board of Supervisors could change. This is those eleven written out as the paper a board actually votes on — one ordinance, two resolutions, and the words a clerk would put on the agenda.
One item, one meeting, three ordinary majority votes. Then the ordinance comes back once, and it is done.
Eleven recommendations is a wish. A board votes on instruments.
All of this comes out of Complaint Driven, which spent seventy-one pages on how Nevada County opens a code case and ended with eleven things the Board could do about it.
Writing those eleven out as instruments corrected two things the report had wrong, and both are said out loud further down this page. The eleven need one ordinance and two resolutions, not one of each. And the repair money is not a direction to staff — applying for it takes a resolution, and spending it takes four supervisors out of five.
The ask did not change. A complaint alone should never be enough.
The text below says it in the County’s language. This says it in ordinary words.
- The ordinance. Sworn complaints that have to disclose a dispute. A coercion review that can close a case, cancel its fines and bar the person who filed it. A fee waiver for people who live in the house. Fines read as the ceilings state law actually sets rather than the floors the County’s own text calls mandatory. And a two-year window to legalize old work. It changes the code, so it takes two meetings.
- The first resolution. The same coercion rule in the meantime, plus everything that needs no code change: risk before order of arrival, an officer’s own eyes before a notice, mediation where a private dispute is documented, thirty days and a list of real help in the first letter, and records the Board can audit. It takes effect the day it passes.
- The second resolution. The money. Permission to apply for owner-occupied repair funds, permission to spend repair money the County already holds, and priority for homes that have been cited. It appropriates nothing — which is the point, because appropriating takes four votes of five.
- What the Board does at the first meeting. Three votes under one item, every one of them a simple majority. The ordinance comes back for adoption at the next regular meeting.
Written in the County’s own house style, so that nothing about the form is a reason to say no.
The County packs the actions into the item title and keeps the recommendation short, but it does number the actions when one subject needs several votes. This follows that form, so the Clerk can lift it.
Subject
An Ordinance amending Chapters 12.05 and 14.02 of the Nevada County Code to require sworn code-enforcement complaints, establish a coercion review, provide hardship relief from administrative fines, and open a time-limited legalization window; a Resolution establishing interim code enforcement priorities and directing staff; and a Resolution authorizing applications for owner-occupied housing rehabilitation funding.
Recommendation
- Adopt the Resolution establishing interim code enforcement priorities, directing the revision of the Code Compliance policy and procedures manual, and directing staff to return within ninety days; and
- Adopt the Resolution authorizing applications for owner-occupied housing rehabilitation funding and the use of CalHome program income for owner-occupied rehabilitation; and
- Introduce and waive further reading of the Ordinance, and set it for adoption at the next regular meeting.
Funding
No appropriation is made by any of the three actions. The Resolutions authorize applications and direct the use of program income already held in the department’s budget. Appropriation of any award, and of any new position, requires a separate budget amendment at a later meeting.
Vote
Majority on each action. Nothing at the first meeting appropriates money, so nothing at the first meeting needs four-fifths.
Why all three fit under one item
The Board already bundles a resolution and an ordinance introduction together, with the actions numbered in exactly this form: “1) Approve the Resolution … and; 2) Introduce and carry out the first reading of the Ordinance ….” [PUBLISHED] Staff report, Community Choice Aggregation, February 11, 2025
The two titles the Clerk would use
The County gives each step its own staff-report number and marks the step in a parenthetical at the front of the title. Copying that style:
First meeting. (Introduce/Waive further reading) An Ordinance amending Title 12, Chapter 5, Sections 12.05.210 and 12.05.220, and Title 14, Chapter 2, Sections 14.02.030 and 14.02.100, of the Nevada County Code, and adding Section 12.05.221, pertaining to code enforcement complaints, coercion review, hardship relief and legalization of existing construction.
Second meeting. (Waive further reading/Adopt) The same title, with the parenthetical changed.
The ordinance
Chapter 12.05 of the County Code, where the enforcement rules already live, and Chapter 14.02, where the building-permit penalties are. State law forbids amending a codified section by reference, so every subsection the ordinance touches is restated below in full. That is why the text is long: the length is the law’s requirement, not the campaign’s.
Why it reads like this
Three statutory requirements shape the text, and none of them is optional. The enacting clause is fixed word for word by statute. Every change has to be written as an amendment to the adopted code, with the revised subsection set out in full and published — no amendment by reference. And an ordinance cannot be passed within five days of being introduced, which is what makes this a two-meeting item. [CODIFIED] Government Code §§ 25120, 25129, 25131
Ordinance No. ______
An Ordinance amending Sections 12.05.210, 12.05.220, 14.02.030 and 14.02.100 of, and adding Section 12.05.221 to, the Nevada County Code
The Board of Supervisors of the County of Nevada ordains as follows:
Section 1 · Findings
The Board of Supervisors finds and determines:
A. The County’s code enforcement powers exist to protect health, safety and the public welfare, and are funded principally by the General Fund rather than by the penalties they produce.
B. County staff have advised the Board that the Code Compliance Division “is complaint driven as directed by the Nevada County Board of Supervisors.”
C. County staff have recognized that some complaints appear to be “a vehicle to use the Code Compliance Division to retaliate or punish another party,” and that the only response presently described in writing is that, when prioritizing cases, the Director “may consider” that factor. No adopted County rule addresses the practice.
D. Section 12.05.210(A)(1) of this Code already makes it a misdemeanor to knowingly and maliciously make a false complaint to the Code Compliance Division. The County’s complaint form does not state this, is signed but not sworn, and asks nothing about disputes between the person complaining and the owner or occupant of the property.
E. California law may treat a threat to report a person to a public agency, coupled with a demand, as extortion, whether or not the matter threatened to be reported is true. A County code case begun by such a threat presently proceeds to its conclusion regardless.
F. The Nevada County Civil Grand Jury has examined code enforcement repeatedly since 2002. In 2010 this Board undertook to document permit exceptions “in order to provide evidence of equal treatment,” and to track penalty fees in a manner “which can be audited.”
G. State law requires the County to enforce state housing standards, to act upon confirmed substandard housing, to inspect upon the request of a tenant or other occupant of a dwelling, and to afford a reasonable opportunity to correct violations before administrative fines are imposed. Nothing in this ordinance limits those duties, and the exceptions stated in Section 12.05.221(d) and the savings clause in Section 12.05.221(e) exist to preserve them.
H. State law caps fines for infractions of local building and safety codes at amounts “not exceeding” the figures it states, and requires a county that imposes repeat administrative fines to establish a process for granting a hardship waiver.
I. State law provides that a local agency shall not deny a permit for an unpermitted accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit constructed before January 1, 2020 except as necessary to protect health and safety, and shall not penalize an applicant for having the unpermitted unit.
Section 2 · Environmental determination
A. The Board finds that Sections 3 through 8 of this ordinance — which establish complaint verification and disclosure requirements, a coercion review procedure, and hardship relief from administrative fines and fees — are not a “project” within the meaning of Public Resources Code section 21065 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15378, and are excluded from the definition of a project by Guidelines section 15378(b)(2), (b)(4) and (b)(5), as general policy and procedure making, as government fiscal activities involving no commitment to any specific project, and as organizational and administrative activities of government that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. The Board has considered whether these provisions may cause a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and finds, for the reasons stated in the staff report, that they will not.
B. The Board further finds, in the alternative as to Sections 3 through 8, that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that those provisions may have a significant effect on the environment, and that they are therefore not subject to CEQA under Guidelines section 15061(b)(3).
C. As to Section 9 (legalization window), the Board finds that the ordinance is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.17 and Guidelines section 15282(h) to the extent it implements the state accessory dwelling unit statutes, and is in all other respects categorically exempt under Guidelines section 15301 as the permitting and licensing of existing private structures involving negligible or no expansion of existing use. The Board has considered each exception stated in Guidelines section 15300.2, including cumulative impact and unusual circumstances, and finds on the evidence described in the staff report that none applies.
Counsel’s call, flagged
Paragraph C is the exposed one. The accessory-dwelling slice rests on a statutory exemption and is solid. Everything else in the window rests on a categorical exemption, and categorical exemptions — unlike a finding that something is not a project at all — are subject to the cumulative-impact and unusual-circumstances exceptions. In a county that is largely state responsibility area, high fire hazard, and on septic and wells, that is a real argument. Before this finding is made, staff should estimate how many structures the window is expected to reach. Los Angeles supported the same finding for its unapproved-dwelling-unit ordinance by showing the program covered under two-tenths of one percent of the housing stock. Section 10 severs Section 9 for exactly this reason.
Section 3 · Section 12.05.210(A) is amended
A. Citizen Complaints.
1. False Complaint. It shall be a misdemeanor to knowingly and maliciously make a false complaint to the Code Compliance Division.
2. Form of complaint. Every complaint shall be made on a form prescribed by the Director, shall be signed under penalty of perjury, and shall disclose any pending or threatened lawsuit, restraining order, or property, business or family dispute between the complainant and the owner or occupant of the property. The form shall state the substance of subsection (A)(1) of this Section and shall include the following statement, to be affirmed by the complainant: “I am not making this complaint to obtain an advantage in a private dispute.”
3. Tenants and occupants. Subsection (A)(2) does not apply to a tenant, resident or occupant reporting conditions in the dwelling they occupy, who may make a complaint on a short form prescribed by the Director that requires neither the disclosure nor the statement described in subsection (A)(2). No request by a tenant, resident or occupant for inspection of the dwelling they occupy shall be conditioned upon the absence of a legal dispute with the owner.
4. Confidentiality. The identity of a complainant shall remain confidential and shall be disclosed only as required by court order. A subpoena is not a court order for this purpose.
Section 4 · Section 12.05.221 is added
12.05.221 Complaints made to obtain an advantage in a private dispute.
(a) Purpose. The County’s code enforcement powers exist to protect health, safety and the public welfare. They shall not be used to obtain an advantage in a private dispute unrelated to the condition complained of.
(b) Coercion review. The Director shall review a complaint upon evidence, submitted under penalty of perjury, that (1) the complainant threatened to make or pursue the complaint unless the owner or occupant gave money, property, a release, the dismissal of a claim or any other thing of value; (2) the complaint was made within 90 days after the owner or occupant refused such a demand; or (3) the complainant failed to disclose a dispute required to be disclosed by Section 12.05.210(A)(2). The Director shall give written notice to the complainant and the owner, allow each 10 days to respond, and issue written findings within 30 days. No fine or fee shall accrue during the review except for a documented imminent hazard.
(c) Effect of a finding. If the Director finds by a preponderance of the evidence that a complaint was made or threatened to obtain an advantage in an unrelated private dispute: (1) any enforcement action initiated on that complaint shall be closed, all fines, fees and costs assessed in it shall be canceled, and any recorded notice shall be released; (2) the complainant shall not file a complaint concerning the property for a period of not less than 180 days nor more than three years; (3) the Director shall refer the evidence to the District Attorney; and (4) the owner shall receive a copy of the findings.
(d) Exceptions. Paragraph (1) of subsection (c) does not apply to (1) a complaint by a tenant, resident or occupant concerning the dwelling they occupy, or (2) a condition the enforcement officer has documented as an imminent threat to life or safety, which the County shall pursue as a separate County-initiated action beginning with a new notice.
(e) State duties preserved. Nothing in this Section limits the County’s duty to enforce state building and housing standards, to institute appropriate action upon a confirmed substandard building, or to inspect upon the request of a tenant, resident or occupant of a dwelling.
(f) Appeal. A complainant or owner may appeal the Director’s findings to the County Hearing Officer within 10 days of their issuance.
(g) Report. The Director shall report to the Board quarterly the number of reviews opened, findings made, filing bars imposed and referrals to the District Attorney, without identifying any complainant.
What changed from the report’s appendix
Sworn complaints have moved out of this new section and into Section 12.05.210, where the County’s complaint provisions already live. Subsections (e) and (g) are new. The first states on the face of the ordinance that the County’s state duties survive it, which is the first question Counsel will ask. The second gives the Board the numbers it would need to judge whether the section is working or being abused.
Section 5 · Section 12.05.220(N), paragraphs 2 and 5, are amended
2. A request for an administrative hearing shall be made in writing and filed with the Nevada County Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and shall state all grounds for appeal which the appellant wishes the County to consider. The written request shall be accompanied by the County’s appeal fee as may be approved by the Board of Supervisors from time to time, unless the fee is waived or deferred under paragraph 5 of this subsection. A request shall not be rejected as incomplete, and the time requirement of paragraph 1 shall be deemed satisfied, where the request is accompanied by an application for waiver or deferral of the fee.
5. At the time of submitting the request for an administrative hearing, the appellant requesting the administrative hearing shall pay an appeal fee as may be set from time to time by resolution of the Board of Supervisors. The County may waive or defer the appeal fee upon written request for good cause shown. Good cause may include severe economic hardship, significant attempts to comply with a Notice of Violation and/or Abatement Order, and other factors indicating good faith attempts to comply. The County shall waive the appeal fee for an appellant who occupies the property as their principal residence and whose household income does not exceed eighty percent of area median income for Nevada County, as published annually by the California Department of Housing and Community Development. A decision on a request for waiver or deferral shall be made in writing within 10 days of the request, shall state the reasons for the decision, and shall be served upon the appellant with the notice of hearing.
Bold text is what the ordinance would add. Everything else is the subsection as it reads today.
Section 6 · Section 12.05.220(O), paragraph 5, is amended
5. After considering all testimony and evidence submitted at the administrative hearing, the hearing body shall issue a written decision, or take the matter under submission and issue a written decision within ten (10) days of the hearing, and shall affirm, modify or dismiss the notice(s) of violation, Abatement Order(s), and/or administrative citation(s), and shall determine whether or not the County is entitled to reimbursement for administrative costs, including costs of the hearing officer’s services. The decision shall include the hearing body’s findings, as well as information regarding the appellant’s right to seek judicial review of the decision and the time in which to do so. The Clerk of the Board of Supervisors shall serve the appellant and Enforcement Officer with a copy of the hearing body’s written decision (the “notice of decision”). The decision of the hearing body shall be final. If the hearing body determines that the notice(s) of violation, Abatement Order(s), and/or administrative citation(s) should be dismissed, the County will refund the appellant’s appeal fee in full. If the hearing body modifies the notice(s) of violation, Abatement Order(s), and/or administrative citation(s), the County will refund the appellant’s appeal fee in proportion to the reduction in the total penalty imposed.
Why this one is in the packet at all
As the section reads today, the appeal fee comes back only if the citation is dismissed outright. An appellant who proves the County wrong on two of three violations, or gets the penalty halved, pays the full fee for the privilege. That asymmetry is the quietest thing in the chapter and the easiest to fix.
Section 7 · Section 14.02.030(E) is amended
E. Civil and criminal enforcement. Any person who violates any provision of this Chapter shall be guilty of an infraction and, upon conviction thereof, shall be subject to fines not exceeding one hundred thirty dollars ($130) for a first violation; not exceeding seven hundred dollars ($700) for a second violation of the same Section within a twelve-month (12) period; and not exceeding one thousand three hundred dollars ($1,300) for a third or subsequent violation within a twelve-month (12) period, as provided by California Government Code section 25132(c). Every day any violation continues shall constitute a separate offense punishable by a separate fine. For a violation at a dwelling occupied by its owner as their principal residence, the fine shall not exceed one-half of the amounts stated in this subsection, and no fine shall accrue during any period in which the responsible party is participating in an approved repair, legalization or assistance program.
Two things this fixes
The subsection presently states fines of $100, $500 and $1,000 and calls them mandatory. State law states them as ceilings, not floors, and at different figures — $130, $700 and $1,300. The word “mandatory” has no basis in the statute it implements, and the amounts do not match it. [CODIFIED] Nevada County Code § 14.02.030(E); Government Code § 25132(c)
Section 8 · Section 14.02.100 is amended by adding a paragraph
Neither the investigation fee described in the first paragraph of this Section nor the increased permit fees described in the second paragraph shall be charged where (a) the application is made during a legalization window established by the Board of Supervisors; (b) the work was performed by a previous owner and the applicant did not know of it when the property was acquired; or (c) the application was made before the County received a complaint or opened a case concerning the property. This paragraph does not limit the collection of the ordinary permit fee or the cost of inspections actually performed.
Section 9 · Legalization window severable
(a) For a period of twenty-four months beginning on the effective date of this ordinance, an owner may apply to legalize existing construction performed without a required permit, and the County shall process the application under the standards stated in this Section.
(b) The building standards applied shall be those in effect at the time the construction was performed, except for the minimum health and fire-safety requirements of state law. Where the date of construction cannot be established from the evidence, the Board’s adopted standard for establishing date of construction shall govern, and the determination shall be made in writing and may be appealed.
(c) An application under this Section shall not of itself be a basis for enforcement, and no fine or penalty shall accrue on the conditions disclosed in it while it is pending and being pursued in good faith. The County shall conduct a first inspection limited to conditions that constitute an imminent threat to life or safety.
(d) Where the construction is an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit constructed before January 1, 2020, the County shall not deny the permit except as necessary to protect health and safety and shall not penalize the applicant for having the unpermitted unit, as required by state law.
(e) The Director shall report to the Board on applications received, permits issued and conditions corrected under this Section at six months, twelve months and on the window’s expiration.
Counsel’s call, flagged
The window as drafted reaches all unpermitted construction. The accessory-dwelling portion is a state mandate with a statutory environmental exemption. The remainder is the County’s own policy choice and carries the exposure described at Section 2(C). Counsel may wish to narrow this Section to dwellings, or to structures below a stated size, or to split it into a separate ordinance on its own schedule. The packet is built so that it can be cut without touching anything else.
What an owner has to be told before they come forward
Legalising a structure that was never assessed produces an escape assessment: a retroactive property tax bill for the years it went unassessed. The Assessor is required to issue one on discovery, and a permit application is one of the ways discovery happens. The window asks owners to come forward, so the window has to say so — and has to carry the four limits that make the advice responsible rather than a trap. The look-back is four years, not longer, unless the property changed hands unreported. Only the newly constructed portion is newly assessed; the base year value of the rest of the property does not change. Where the additional tax exceeds $500 it may be paid over four years at the owner’s option, on a written request filed in time. And an owner who disagrees has about sixty days from the date on the notice to appeal — confirm the deadline with the Clerk of the Board before relying on it.
Section 10 · Severability
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, that decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions. The Board of Supervisors declares that it would have passed this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase irrespective of the fact that any one or more be declared invalid or unconstitutional. The Board specifically declares that it would have adopted Sections 1 through 8 and Sections 10 through 11 had Section 9 been omitted, and that Section 9 is severable in its entirety.
Section 11 · Effective date and publication
This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days from the date of its final passage. Within fifteen (15) days after passage, the Clerk of the Board shall cause it to be published once, with the names of the members voting for and against it, in a newspaper published in the County, or shall cause it to be published by title and summary as permitted by Government Code section 25124.
Passed and adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Nevada at a regular meeting held on ____________, by the following vote: ayes, noes, absent, abstain. Signed by the Chair; attested by the Clerk of the Board.
Call about the letter on your table, or the rule behind it. The line doesn’t stop at the county line — there’s a Midway out past it, and it’s open.
We’re not the County. Not an emergency line. Nobody here’s a real person.
The resolutions
An ordinance is slow on purpose. It cannot pass within five days of introduction, it takes effect thirty days after final passage, and it has to be published within fifteen. A resolution takes effect the day the Board adopts it.
So the packet carries two. The first puts the coercion rule and the practice reforms in place in the meantime. The second opens the money. Neither one appropriates a dollar, and both pass on a simple majority.
Resolution A · interim priorities and direction
Establishing interim code enforcement priorities and directing staff to prepare reforms
Reforms 2 through 6, the paperwork half of Reform 11, the interim coercion rule, the manual, and the direction that produces Reform 7. Takes effect on adoption. Majority vote.
Recitals
Whereas County staff have advised the Board that the Code Compliance Division “is complaint driven as directed by the Nevada County Board of Supervisors”; and staff have recognized that some complaints are made as “a vehicle to use the Code Compliance Division to retaliate or punish another party,” and no adopted County rule addresses that practice; and
Whereas the Civil Grand Jury has reviewed code enforcement repeatedly since 2002, and in 2010 this Board undertook to document permit exceptions “in order to provide evidence of equal treatment” and to track penalty fees in a manner “which can be audited”; and
Whereas state law requires the County to act upon confirmed substandard housing, to inspect upon the request of a tenant or other occupant, and to provide a reasonable opportunity to correct violations before administrative fines are imposed; and
Whereas the Board has this day introduced an ordinance addressing complaints made to obtain an advantage in a private dispute, which cannot take effect for at least thirty days after its passage; and
Whereas the Board wishes any revision of the Code Compliance policy and procedures manual to reflect the priorities stated here; and
Whereas the actions directed by this resolution are not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(2) and (b)(5), and in the alternative it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility they may have a significant effect on the environment;
Now, therefore, be it hereby resolved by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Nevada as follows:
1 · Coercion, in the interim
Until the ordinance introduced this day takes effect, when the Director receives evidence, submitted under penalty of perjury, that a complaint was made or threatened in order to obtain an advantage in an unrelated private dispute, the Director shall suspend enforcement on that complaint, except for a documented imminent hazard or a complaint by a tenant, resident or occupant about the dwelling they occupy, and shall review the matter and issue written findings.
2 · Priority
The Division shall work cases in order of risk to life, health and safety, regardless of the order in which complaints are received. Confirmed substandard housing shall be placed in the highest priority tier.
3 · Verification
No warning, notice of violation or citation shall issue on the basis of a complaint alone. An enforcement officer shall first observe and document the condition. Aerial or satellite imagery may support an officer’s observation but shall not replace it.
4 · Private disputes
A complaint connected to a documented private dispute shall receive supervisor review, and the parties shall be offered mediation. This paragraph does not apply to a tenant, resident or occupant reporting conditions in the dwelling they occupy.
5 · Confidentiality
The identity of a complainant shall remain confidential and shall be disclosed only as required by court order. A subpoena is not a court order for this purpose.
6 · First notice
Except where an imminent hazard is documented, the first notice to an owner shall be an advisory notice allowing not less than thirty days to correct, and shall be accompanied by a referral sheet listing available repair, financial and permitting assistance. This paragraph states a practice and does not reduce the minimum period required by Section 12.05.220(K)(3) of the County Code.
7 · Records
The Division shall record for each case its source category, priority tier, method of verification, any private-dispute flag, its outcome and the reason for any waiver, and shall log contacts about a case from elected officials and other agencies. The Division shall report totals to the Board quarterly, including the number of complaints received and the number closed as unfounded, without identifying any complainant.
8 · Forms and notices
Within thirty days, staff shall correct the County’s forms and notices to state the five-day period for requesting an administrative hearing, to remove the citation to Government Code section 65908 as authority for recording an administrative notice, to correct the reference to “Nevada County Code section 5.23” on the hardship waiver form, to correct the Public Records Act citation on the complaint form, to state on the complaint form that a knowingly and maliciously false complaint is a misdemeanor under Section 12.05.210(A)(1), and to confirm that notices include the statement on delayed enforcement for accessory dwelling units required by state law.
9 · Direction to staff
Within ninety days, staff shall return to the Board with (a) a written standard for establishing the date of construction and legal nonconforming status; (b) options and costs for a permit navigator and an ombudsperson, including whether either may be funded from grant or program income rather than the General Fund; (c) a plan to direct available repair funds to homes that have received code notices; and (d) an estimate of the number of structures a legalization window would be expected to reach, for the environmental record.
10 · Manual
The revised Code Compliance policy and procedures manual shall conform to this resolution and shall be presented to the Board for adoption rather than issued at staff level.
11 · One-year review
Staff shall return to the Board one year from adoption with the measures listed in the staff report, and the Board shall consider at that time whether to reaffirm, amend or rescind this resolution.
Resolution B · the money, part one
Authorizing applications for owner-occupied housing rehabilitation funding, and the use of program income the County already holds
Reform 9, and the money behind Reforms 10 and 11. Authorizes applications and the use of money already held. Appropriates nothing. Majority vote.
Recitals
Whereas the County’s Housing Element states that the County will apply annually for Community Development Block Grant rehabilitation funds to provide housing rehabilitation services to very-low and low-income owner-occupied and rental households; and
Whereas the County holds CalHome program income in a reuse account, and owner-occupied rehabilitation is an eligible activity for those funds under the Department of Housing and Community Development’s CalHome guidelines; and
Whereas on January 13, 2026 this Board authorized the use of CalHome program income for a first-time homebuyer down payment assistance program, and wishes now to make owner-occupied rehabilitation an authorized use of the same account; and
Whereas the Department of Housing and Community Development requires an authorizing resolution of the applicant’s governing board for its Community Development Block Grant and HOME programs, and requires an authorizing resolution approved by the Department before issuing a CalHome standard agreement;
Now, therefore, be it hereby resolved by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Nevada as follows:
1 · Applications authorized
Staff are authorized and directed to prepare and submit applications for owner-occupied housing rehabilitation funding, including the state Community Development Block Grant program, the HOME Investment Partnerships Program when a notice of funding availability is issued, the CalHome program when a notice of funding availability is issued, and the federal Housing Preservation Grant program.
2 · Separate resolutions on funder forms
Where a funding program requires its authorizing resolution on a form prescribed by the funder, or requires the resolution to state a dollar amount, staff shall return to the Board with that resolution in the form required, in time to meet the application deadline.
3 · Program income
The use of CalHome program income held in the County’s reuse account is authorized for owner-occupied rehabilitation, as an eligible activity under the CalHome guidelines, in an amount not to exceed $__________. Staff shall submit a revised reuse account plan to the Department of Housing and Community Development for approval to the extent the approved plan does not already describe this activity.
Why that figure is blank
The balance of the County’s CalHome reuse account is not in any public record the campaign could reach. In January 2026 the Board authorized up to $692,610 of it for down payment assistance. A records request to Housing and Community Services would produce the current balance, and the figure belongs in the resolution before it is introduced — the County’s own practice is to cap the authorization at a stated amount.
4 · Program income under the Block Grant
In the County’s pending and future Community Development Block Grant applications, staff shall state an amount of program income to be used for housing rehabilitation rather than stating zero.
5 · Priority to cited homes
In administering any owner-occupied rehabilitation assistance, the County shall give priority to applicants who have received a notice of violation, an abatement order or an administrative citation from the Code Compliance Division, consistent with program rules and income eligibility.
6 · Referral at first notice
The Code Compliance Division and the Housing and Community Services Department shall jointly produce the referral sheet described in the companion resolution, and the Division shall include it with every first notice.
7 · No appropriation
This resolution makes no appropriation. Acceptance of any award, and appropriation of any resulting revenue, shall be presented to the Board as a separate budget amendment.
8 · Environmental
The actions authorized by this resolution are not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(4), as the creation of a government funding mechanism and other government fiscal activities that do not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment.
The first meeting is the cheap part. This is the rest of it, including the vote the campaign cannot win with three supervisors.
Nothing in the first meeting appropriates a dollar. These are the actions that follow, in the order they become ripe. Each is an ordinary County action with its own vote threshold.
| When | Action | Instrument | Vote |
|---|---|---|---|
| Second regular meeting | Adopt the ordinance | Waive further reading, adopt | majority |
| Within fifteen days of passage | Publish, with the names voting for and against | Clerk’s certificate | — |
| Thirty days after passage | The ordinance takes effect | — | — |
| Before each application deadline | Authorizing resolution on the funder’s form, stating the dollar amount where one is required | Resolution | majority |
| On each award | Accept the award and appropriate it | Consolidated budget amendment | four-fifths |
| When a position is funded | Amend the authorized personnel staffing resolution, and the salary resolution if the classification is new | Resolution | majority; four-fifths if it needs new money |
| Ninety days | Staff return with the construction-date standard, navigator and ombudsperson options, the repair-money plan, and the legalization estimate | Report, then action | varies |
| Six and twelve months | Legalization window reports | Report | — |
| Twelve months | Reaffirm, amend or rescind the interim resolution; review the measures | Resolution | majority |
The four-fifths problem, stated plainly
Four of the five supervisors must vote yes to appropriate money that is not already in the adopted budget. Every grant award this packet pursues lands in that category. A campaign that wins three votes wins the ordinance and the policy resolution and still cannot spend a dollar. The packet is sequenced so that the parts needing three votes are not held hostage to the parts needing four — but the repair money, which is the part that actually helps someone fix a roof, is on the four-vote side of the line.
A new position follows the same line. Amending the authorized personnel staffing resolution is a majority vote when the money is already in the adopted budget; when it is not, the amendment has to be paired with a budget action, and that one needs four.
The one exception is the CalHome program income. It already sits in the department’s budget, so authorizing a different eligible use of it takes a simple majority. That is the fastest money in the packet, and it is why it has a paragraph of its own.
If the Board wants it faster
An urgency ordinance takes effect immediately and may be passed at the meeting it is introduced, but it requires a declaration of the facts constituting the urgency inside the ordinance itself and a four-fifths vote. The packet does not use that route: the interim resolution does the urgent work at a majority, and an urgency finding on this subject would be a stretch.
Said plainly, so nobody discovers it at the dais.
- The construction-date standard is directed, not drafted. It needs the Building Department’s own evidence list and a decision about the County’s existing cutoff year, neither of which the campaign can write for it. Resolution A asks staff for it within ninety days.
- The navigator and the ombudsperson are options, not positions. Creating either takes a classification, a salary range on a publicly adopted pay schedule, and money. The packet asks for costed options rather than pretending to have done the County’s personnel work.
- Two dollar figures are blank — the CalHome reuse balance and the program income line in the Block Grant application. Both are a records request away.
- The legalization window has no estimate behind it. Section 2(C) makes an environmental finding that needs one. Resolution A asks for it. Until it exists, Section 9 is the weakest part of the packet, and Section 10 severs it for that reason.
- Nothing here has been reviewed by a lawyer. The campaign drafted it from the published code, the state statutes and the County’s own record. Every provision quoted above was read in the codified text rather than from memory. That is not the same as a legal opinion.
And one correction to the report
Table 7 of the report says the Board can adopt every reform “through one ordinance and one resolution,” and lists the repair money as adopted by “Board direction.” That understates it. Directing staff to prioritize cited homes inside an existing program is a motion. Applying for the money is a resolution, because the funders require the governing body itself to authorize the application. Appropriating it when it arrives is a separate resolution and, for revenue not already in the adopted budget, takes four-fifths of the Board. The same correction applies to the amnesty’s budget side and to the navigator and ombudsperson positions. The report’s Table 7 and its timeline should be revised to match this packet.
Send it to the Board in your own words — the page of ready-made letters below opens one in your own email, and you can paste as much of this as you like into it. If you are a lawyer who sees a hole in any of it, the line wants to hear about it: that is what a draft is for. And if you are on staff and it is wrong about how the County does something, the line wants that even more.
The County Code provisions amended above were read in the codified text published by the County’s code publisher, codified through Ordinance 2552 of January 13, 2026. Ordinance 2555, adopted April 14, 2026, amended Section 12.05.060 after that cutoff; it did not touch any section amended here.
Ordinance procedure: Government Code sections 25120, 25121, 25123, 25124, 25129, 25131 and 25132. Budget and personnel: Government Code sections 29125, 29126, 29126.1, 29127 and 29130; the State Controller’s County Budget Guide; California Code of Regulations, title 2, section 570.5. Funding: the state CDBG notice of funding availability, the HOME authorizing resolution instructions, the amended CalHome guidelines, and the federal Housing Preservation Grant regulations. Environmental: Public Resources Code sections 21065 and 21080.17, and CEQA Guidelines sections 15061(b)(3), 15282(h), 15300.2, 15301, 15321 and 15378. State duties and limits: Health and Safety Code sections 17960, 17970.5, 17980 and 17980.12, and Government Code sections 25132, 25845, 53069.4 and 66311.7 (formerly 66332).
County precedent: the Board’s own two-step ordinance practice as stated on its agendas; the Community Choice Aggregation staff report for the numbered multi-action recommendation; Resolution 26-006 for the CalHome program income form; Resolution 26-064 for the Block Grant application form; and the County’s consolidated budget amendment and authorized personnel staffing practice.
No County employee is named in this packet, and it describes no individual case.