February 20, 1964 (22 pages)

SMALL TOWN SMALL WORLD EDITORIALS PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SEEMS A SOUND IDEA One of three major recommendations of the report of the 1963 Nevada Gounty Grand Jury released late last week seems worthy of study andaction by the county's supervisors. The Grand Jury recommended, "That the Board of Supervisors establish a County Public Works Department which will include proper registered engineering personnel to provide on a county level inspection service for building plans and specifications, road and bridge design, specifications and inspection and all.other matters of an engineering or structural nature wherein the present or future finances of the County and the public health and welfare are concerned." We do not feel that this recommendation carries with it any general criticism of road department, planning, or other county department heads. The need for engineering services not normally expected to be supplied by any county department head is obvious. Indeed, according tothe Grand Jury report, the county is budgeting and spending $46, 286’annually for outside engineering services. Thereport states, "The rapid growth and development of Nevada County presents many other new problems in road construction, sewage disposal, storm drainage, water distribution, fire protection and building safety. Some of these facilities now under construction are being built without an engineering check or inspection. This could result in inadequate facilities, unsafe structures andin many cases these facilities will be accepted by the county for riaintenance — A Department of Public Works is needed to take care of these current county problems. And many county departments are now in need of day to day engineering advice which is not available to them through the use of outside consulting firms. It is the Grand Jury's contention that the expenses now incurredby the hiring of consulting engineering firms ona piece meal basis are no greater than would be the cost of hiring a county engineer and the formation of a Public Works Department. The Grand Jury report says that the proposed engineer would assume the duty ‘of the county surveyor, currently budgetedat $7,611 for part time work. The road department budget calls for $26,175 inengineering services. Other departments also hire outside engineering which brings the county budget for engineering to $46,286. We suspect that a Department of Public Works might cost the county more than $50.,000; but the Grand Jury is of the opinion that the currently budgeted engineering expenses are sufficient to staff and operate a county engineer's office. Their point is certainly worth an investigation-by supervisors. If the cost of such a department would not be greatly in excess of current expenditures for engineering services, the county would benefit from better engineering services if for no other reason than the availability of such services when they are needed. Andas the Grand Jury report suggests, better engineering can forestall heavy maintenance and repair costs to the taxpayer. CITY MUST INSIST ON FREEWAY RIGHTS Nevada City residents were hopeful when the California Division of Highways promised to try to save the 99year-old sequoia that is the community's Christmas Tree. Residents realized there was always the possibility construction necessary for the Nevada City freeway would make the saving of the tree an impossible feat. But the Division of Highways said it would try to save the tree. And the people were content that construction would proceed with the fate of the tree to be decided in the years following completion of the freeway. That is no longer true. The Division of Highways isn't trying anymore. Assistant State Highway Engineer Alan Hart has decreed that the removal of the tree will be included in the freeway contract ; Hart also promised Nevada City the divisions' utmost cooperation in securing forthe city as many parking spaces as will be possible in the downtown area along freeway rights of way. He indicatedthat the state might even cooperate to the extent of filling and levelling where the city indicated that parking was to be the ultimate use of land that would not be necessary for the freeway's construction. We wonder how much faith the city can place in these promises. Indeed, we wonder if the Division of Highways still intends to place in the construction contract a safeguard which will assure the city and its merchants that Main St. and Broad St. will not both be closed simultaneously during the construction period. Why should we have doubts about Bacrvincstmicidebas race de Ateieerys what seem to be legitimate Division of Highways promises ? Among other reasons, We note the extreme difference between the story of how freeway landscaping would be done = as told to the Nevada City Council in December andthe story of how freeway landscaping is done as explained to the Nevada City Council last week. In December, the council was told that the Division of Highways was working on landscaping for the freeway, and that a plan would be submitted for the city's study as soon as it was finished. It was indicated at that time that the plan wouldbe done early this year, andthat the city would have up to four months to study the plan and indicate approval of it or suggest changes that the city might desire. Last week, Division of Highways landscape architect Dana Bowers told the council he was hoping the city would have some ideas on what it wanted that he could use as a basis fora landscape plan. But the plan would not be prepared in the immediate future, it would await the laying of pavement, ‘the placement of fences. We have great faith in Bowers’ ability and feeling for the Nevada City freeway. He indicateda desire to talk with local groups interested in freeway landscaping for the local freeway should blend into the locale. Landscaping a freeway in this area, he indicated, would be.a pleasure. "Nature is all on your side, " Bowers said. We might add that the Nugget is on his side, too, when he indicates that there is a feeling of the area that needs to be expressed in the landscaping of the freeway. If this faith in Bowers is justified, then why do we have doubts about promises of the Division of Highways? It is this simple. If the Division of Highways doesn't try to save the sequoia tree, if parking promises to the city are not catried out, if traffic circulation into the downtown area is not provided, if unforeseen landscaping problems should arise, if, indeed, the promises built intothe adopted freeway plan to save the National Hotel annex and Ott's Assay Office are not kept--if any or all of these possibilities becomea reality, who must we residents of Nevada City turn to with our appeal? It appears that the Division of Highways, towhichwe turn with our appeal, is the same agency which promised in December what is beginning to look like an Indian gift in February. : We hope the city council will insist onreceiving what the people of Nevada City have been promised. 5 ‘pOBL ‘0G Areniqaz* **1083NN OUL** “OT a8eq OT ased*'

SMALL TOWN SMALL WORLD EDITORIALS PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SEEMS A SOUND IDEA One of three major recommendations of the report of the 1963 Nevada Gounty Grand Jury released late last week seems worthy of study andaction by the county's supervisors. The Grand Jury recommended, "That the Board of Supervisors establish a County Public Works Department which will include proper registered engineering personnel to provide on a county level inspection service for building plans and specifications, road and bridge design, specifications and inspection and all.other matters of an engineering or structural nature wherein the present or future finances of the County and the public health and welfare are concerned." We do not feel that this recommendation carries with it any general criticism of road department, planning, or other county department heads. The need for engineering services not normally expected to be supplied by any county department head is obvious. Indeed, according tothe Grand Jury report, the county is budgeting and spending $46, 286’annually for outside engineering services. Thereport states, "The rapid growth and development of Nevada County presents many other new problems in road construction, sewage disposal, storm drainage, water distribution, fire protection and building safety. Some of these facilities now under construction are being built without an engineering check or inspection. This could result in inadequate facilities, unsafe structures andin many cases these facilities will be accepted by the county for riaintenance — A Department of Public Works is needed to take care of these current county problems. And many county departments are now in need of day to day engineering advice which is not available to them through the use of outside consulting firms. It is the Grand Jury's contention that the expenses now incurredby the hiring of consulting engineering firms ona piece meal basis are no greater than would be the cost of hiring a county engineer and the formation of a Public Works Department. The Grand Jury report says that the proposed engineer would assume the duty ‘of the county surveyor, currently budgetedat $7,611 for part time work. The road department budget calls for $26,175 inengineering services. Other departments also hire outside engineering which brings the county budget for engineering to $46,286. We suspect that a Department of Public Works might cost the county more than $50.,000; but the Grand Jury is of the opinion that the currently budgeted engineering expenses are sufficient to staff and operate a county engineer's office. Their point is certainly worth an investigation-by supervisors. If the cost of such a department would not be greatly in excess of current expenditures for engineering services, the county would benefit from better engineering services if for no other reason than the availability of such services when they are needed. Andas the Grand Jury report suggests, better engineering can forestall heavy maintenance and repair costs to the taxpayer. CITY MUST INSIST ON FREEWAY RIGHTS Nevada City residents were hopeful when the California Division of Highways promised to try to save the 99year-old sequoia that is the community's Christmas Tree. Residents realized there was always the possibility construction necessary for the Nevada City freeway would make the saving of the tree an impossible feat. But the Division of Highways said it would try to save the tree. And the people were content that construction would proceed with the fate of the tree to be decided in the years following completion of the freeway. That is no longer true. The Division

of Highways isn't trying anymore. Assistant State Highway Engineer Alan Hart has decreed that the removal of the tree will be included in the freeway contract ; Hart also promised Nevada City the divisions' utmost cooperation in securing forthe city as many parking spaces as will be possible in the downtown area along freeway rights of way. He indicatedthat the state might even cooperate to the extent of filling and levelling where the city indicated that parking was to be the ultimate use of land that would not be necessary for the freeway's construction. We wonder how much faith the city can place in these promises. Indeed, we wonder if the Division of Highways still intends to place in the construction contract a safeguard which will assure the city and its merchants that Main St. and Broad St. will not both be closed simultaneously during the construction period. Why should we have doubts about Bacrvincstmicidebas race de Ateieerys what seem to be legitimate Division of Highways promises ? Among other reasons, We note the extreme difference between the story of how freeway landscaping would be done = as told to the Nevada City Council in December andthe story of how freeway landscaping is done as explained to the Nevada City Council last week. In December, the council was told that the Division of Highways was working on landscaping for the freeway, and that a plan would be submitted for the city's study as soon as it was finished. It was indicated at that time that the plan wouldbe done early this year, andthat the city would have up to four months to study the plan and indicate approval of it or suggest changes that the city might desire. Last week, Division of Highways landscape architect Dana Bowers told the council he was hoping the city would have some ideas on what it wanted that he could use as a basis fora landscape plan. But the plan would not be prepared in the immediate future, it would await the laying of pavement, ‘the placement of fences. We have great faith in Bowers’ ability and feeling for the Nevada City freeway. He indicateda desire to talk with local groups interested in freeway landscaping for the local freeway should blend into the locale. Landscaping a freeway in this area, he indicated, would be.a pleasure. "Nature is all on your side, " Bowers said. We might add that the Nugget is on his side, too, when he indicates that there is a feeling of the area that needs to be expressed in the landscaping of the freeway. If this faith in Bowers is justified, then why do we have doubts about promises of the Division of Highways? It is this simple. If the Division of Highways doesn't try to save the sequoia tree, if parking promises to the city are not catried out, if traffic circulation into the downtown area is not provided, if unforeseen landscaping problems should arise, if, indeed, the promises built intothe adopted freeway plan to save the National Hotel annex and Ott's Assay Office are not kept--if any or all of these possibilities becomea reality, who must we residents of Nevada City turn to with our appeal? It appears that the Division of Highways, towhichwe turn with our appeal, is the same agency which promised in December what is beginning to look like an Indian gift in February. : We hope the city council will insist onreceiving what the people of Nevada City have been promised. 5 ‘pOBL ‘0G Areniqaz* **1083NN OUL** “OT a8eq OT ased*'