Grand jury critiques emergency management, redevelopment

The Douglas County grand jury released its findings Thursday, revisiting concerns raised eight years ago about emergency management systems that apparently were never followed.

Jurors took Director Dick Mirgon to task for frequent absences and excessive travel "with little or no documented benefit to Douglas County."

The grand jury also found that former County Manager Dan Holler, fearing a "bidding war" with Carson City, rushed into an agreement with Riverwood LLC in the county's redevelopment district in favor of the developer.

The 17-member jury concluded a year-long study of county government and the school district with a 41-page report.

"The grand jury worked really hard," said District Judge Dave Gamble. "Judge (Michael) Gibbons and I visited with them several times about their work. I can say the final product is a real quality report."

The Communications/911 Department was the subject of two citizens' complaints regarding failure of the department to address "gross inadequacy" of the radio equipment, excessive travel by Mirgon, and ignoring most of the recommendations of the 200-01 grand jury.

"Communication quality has deteriorated to a level that personal cellular telephones are used frequently as a more reliable means of communication in the field when dealing with urgent or emergency situations.

"Lives are on the line and the correction of this problem must be a high priority," the report stated.

In addition, the jury report said communication transmission quality and equipment has not been made a top priority as recommended by a previous grand jury.

Jurors recommended annual inspection of all portable radio equipment, and securing the East Peak repeater site. According to jurors the signal cable is on the ground, exposed to extreme weather, fire and physical damage.

East Peak is the main repeater for the system and handles most of the calls from 911 dispatchers to emergency responders.

They also urged formation of a steering committee of all emergency system users to meet monthly to oversee the emergency communication system.

The grand jury investigated a five-part citizen's complaint about Riverwood LLC in the county's redevelopment district asking that the agreement be voided.

Douglas County Commissioners voted in December 2006 to spend $24.7 million in redeveloment funds for a new commercial project in north Douglas County.

In their investigation, jurors interviewed Holler and interim County Manager T. Michael Brown, commissioners and District Attorney Mark Jackson.

Holler resigned in March after he was hired as city administrator in Grass Valley, Calif.

"It seems that the prior county manager (Holler) established the owner participation agreement in the race to solicit developers. Perhaps, a sense of competition with Carson City and pro-growth stand from some in the county rushed the agreement in favor of the developer," jurors said.

The grand jury concluded that county commissioners were presented with outdated and "overly optimistic" research that did not allow for the current economic slowdown.

"With the downturn in the economy today and a general reduction in tax revenue, the Redevelopment Agency's financial viability could be in jeopardy," the jury said.

The grand jury determined that Holler and the county commissioners acted legally and in good faith.

It recommended that interim Brown continue his overtures to Carson City to work together.

"It would benefit both counties if incentive money were kept for other necessities."

The jury report also suggested workshops to foster better communication between county commissioners, Community Development, planning commissioners and residents.

"The grand jury also recommends that Douglas County not enter into future owner participation or similar agreements with any organization that does not agree to release financial statements to the public for the duration of the agreement," jurors said.

As a private corporation, Riverwood LLC is not required to release financial data, however, jurors pointed out such information could have been required by the county in the redevelopment agreement.