Nevada County CCP approves most status‑quo budget items, backs $100,000 Grass Valley pilot and sets $40,000 innovation placeholder

Nevada County’s Community Corrections Partnership (CCP) on Monday approved most of the budget’s status‑quo items and took separate votes on three remaining requests, including a $100,000 pilot for a Grass Valley diversion program.

The committee voted to approve recurring allocations for probation, jail treatment and training, and a public‑defender personal services coordinator position while excluding several newly proposed items for separate consideration. "I'm moving that we approve the status quo items," said Unidentified Speaker 6, who initiated the motion; the chair (Unidentified Speaker 1) later announced the motion passed with a recorded tally of six yes and one no.

Why it matters: CCP dollars originate from state realignment and are intended to support local programs aimed at reducing recidivism and improving alternatives to incarceration. Members debated whether to present agency budgets as aggregated packages or as line‑item approvals, with some arguing targeted line‑item review would reduce the risk of blanket rejections when a single item is contested.

Discussion and the Grass Valley pilot: Committee members spent significant time debating a proposed LEADS‑style pre‑arrest diversion and case management pilot centered on Grass Valley. Unidentified Speaker 2 described the program as "an attempt to take street law enforcement way upstream," proposing a reduced CCP contribution of $100,000 to start the pilot while seeking city or other matching funds later. Proponents pointed to local referral data and service concentrations in Grass Valley; critics raised concerns about supplanting existing positions, data‑sharing obstacles under HIPAA and CJIS, and whether the pilot should be county‑wide or city‑specific.

The committee approved the $100,000 Grass Valley request on a 5‑2 vote. The motion to fund that flat amount was moved by Unidentified Speaker 3 and seconded by Unidentified Speaker 1.

Veterans and HHSA proposals: Health and Human Services Agency (HHSA) members had proposed adding a veterans program and other new items. Unidentified Speaker 6 suggested removing the veterans line from the current CCP budget and resubmitting it through a future innovation process so it can be evaluated against other new program proposals. Members requested additional data on how many justice‑involved veterans the program would serve; participants offered informal counts ("3 to 5 veterans served a month" cited) but agreed more precise metrics are needed.

Innovation fund placeholder and next steps: Members debated the size and purpose of an "innovation" pot for pilot projects. Historically the innovation placeholder has been $40,000; after discussion Unidentified Speaker 4 moved to keep the placeholder at $40,000 for this budget cycle and the motion passed unanimously. Several members urged a near‑term policy workshop to define application and evaluation criteria for future innovation awards, including sustainability expectations and RFP processes for new programs.

Numbers and fiscal context: During debate, members referenced local fund balance levels (one speaker cited "400, almost $500,000" of fund balance and another referenced an additional $600,000 in budgeted amounts) and cautioned against relying on optimistic state revenue estimates. A state deficit estimate mismatch was noted in passing (LIO estimated an $18 billion shortfall versus a $3 billion figure cited for the governor's budget), which members used to argue for conservative planning.

What was decided: - Status‑quo items for probation, treatment, training and specified public‑defender services were approved (motion passed, recorded as 6‑1). - A Grass Valley diversion pilot was approved at $100,000 (motion passed 5‑2). - An innovation placeholder of $40,000 was set for the budget and a follow‑up policy workshop was requested to set evaluation and application rules.

What’s next: Committee members asked staff to return with clearer metrics, cost‑benefit projections and funding sustainability options for proposed pilots, and agreed to schedule follow‑up discussions to finalize an innovation review process and any substantive changes to the budget.