Mendocino County Grand Jury

2021-2022

4 reports

Findings & Recommendations 10 findings
F1: The SELPA cost pools used to defray legal costs effectively hold school districts harmless because unbudgeted legal costs are back-filled from these SELPA carve- offs.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1: the SELPA shall analyze its legal fee cost-pool policy to make sure that it is not inadvertently causing districts to exercise policies and practices not in accordance with state or federal laws, or best academic practices. (F1-F3)
R2: the SELPA shall annually track trends, identify strategies and challenges, and develop a plan to identify school districts with extraordinary legal settlement carve-offs. Those districts shall then receive extra SELPA training, attention, and support to decrease the need for legal actions of any kind related to special education. (F1-F3)
F2: The GJ could find no evidence that the policies and procedures of the SELPA effectively monitor or analyze how well their legal settlement cost pool policies positively or negatively affect the learning outcomes of the students in our county school districts.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1: the SELPA shall analyze its legal fee cost-pool policy to make sure that it is not inadvertently causing districts to exercise policies and practices not in accordance with state or federal laws, or best academic practices. (F1-F3)
R2: the SELPA shall annually track trends, identify strategies and challenges, and develop a plan to identify school districts with extraordinary legal settlement carve-offs. Those districts shall then receive extra SELPA training, attention, and support to decrease the need for legal actions of any kind related to special education. (F1-F3)
F3: The SELPA governing board pays attention to budgets but there are no apparent professional repercussions or consequences for school district superintendents who overuse SELPA legal fee cost-pool set aside funds.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1: the SELPA shall analyze its legal fee cost-pool policy to make sure that it is not inadvertently causing districts to exercise policies and practices not in accordance with state or federal laws, or best academic practices. (F1-F3)
R2: the SELPA shall annually track trends, identify strategies and challenges, and develop a plan to identify school districts with extraordinary legal settlement carve-offs. Those districts shall then receive extra SELPA training, attention, and support to decrease the need for legal actions of any kind related to special education. (F1-F3)
F4: There is no CAC parental representative on the SELPA Governing Board, as required in the SELPA bylaws. The SELPA has failed to fill this vital role for the past two years.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: the SELPA shall immediately offer a per diem, mileage reimbursements and health benefits to an eligible CAC parent to fill the vacant parent position on the SELPA governing board. (F4)
F5: The MUSD parents had to seek and pay for their students’ special education evaluations and accommodations and then sue the district to force compliance with federal special education law. The MUSD paid $55,576 in reimbursement, travel, professional consultant, and legal fees from January 2021 to June 2022 to satisfy settlement agreements. The $55,576 was paid out of the MUSD general fund which reduced the funds available for general education.
Related Recommendations (2)
R4: the MUSD shall present a plan in the first quarter of the 2022-23 school year that uses the $40,000 annual revenues earmarked for professional development for the next five years to reduce the number of parent legal actions to zero and provide training for all staff, administrators and district trustees that improve all practices, including campuswide harassment, related to the delivery of special education services to all applicable students. Administrators and Trustees shall train with a focus on special education legal requirements, budget implications and the importance of early educational interventions. (F5-F8)
R6: the MUSD shall develop a more transparent budget by the 2023-24 school year which clearly outlines special education service costs, legal costs defrayed by SELPA, unbudgeted legal costs that encroach on the district’s general fund, and staff development costs associated with special education training. The Superintendent shall make an annual report to the Board of Trustees on these associated special education budget items. (F5-
F6: The IEP provides early interventions and are key to long term educational success and social-emotional development, and yet MUSD’s IEP practices were indefensible in the Office of Administrative Hearings.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: the MUSD shall present a plan in the first quarter of the 2022-23 school year that uses the $40,000 annual revenues earmarked for professional development for the next five years to reduce the number of parent legal actions to zero and provide training for all staff, administrators and district trustees that improve all practices, including campuswide harassment, related to the delivery of special education services to all applicable students. Administrators and Trustees shall train with a focus on special education legal requirements, budget implications and the importance of early educational interventions. (F5-F8)
F7: The MUSD does not adequately inform parents of the availability of diagnostic methods such as the free North Coast Diagnostic Center clinical service, that are available to all students at the parents’ request.
Related Recommendations (2)
R4: the MUSD shall present a plan in the first quarter of the 2022-23 school year that uses the $40,000 annual revenues earmarked for professional development for the next five years to reduce the number of parent legal actions to zero and provide training for all staff, administrators and district trustees that improve all practices, including campuswide harassment, related to the delivery of special education services to all applicable students. Administrators and Trustees shall train with a focus on special education legal requirements, budget implications and the importance of early educational interventions. (F5-F8)
R5: the MUSD shall make a more concerted effort to help parents understand their parental rights by holding local monthly parent CAC meetings via zoom and in person, on the topics related to special education rights and support systems for families. (F7)
F8: Neither the MUSD Principal nor the Superintendent demonstrated any deep understanding, knowledge, or perceived concern of the ramifications of special education classroom delivery or the legal cost encroachments to the district budget.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: the MUSD shall present a plan in the first quarter of the 2022-23 school year that uses the $40,000 annual revenues earmarked for professional development for the next five years to reduce the number of parent legal actions to zero and provide training for all staff, administrators and district trustees that improve all practices, including campuswide harassment, related to the delivery of special education services to all applicable students. Administrators and Trustees shall train with a focus on special education legal requirements, budget implications and the importance of early educational interventions. (F5-F8)
F9: When there is a settlement for violation of the IEP contract there is no public reporting mechanism so that the residents of the school district could easily discern the level of SpEd compliance at the school district, or the actual associated legal costs to the taxpayers.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6: the MUSD shall develop a more transparent budget by the 2023-24 school year which clearly outlines special education service costs, legal costs defrayed by SELPA, unbudgeted legal costs that encroach on the district’s general fund, and staff development costs associated with special education training. The Superintendent shall make an annual report to the Board of Trustees on these associated special education budget items. (F5-
F10: Confidential settlement agreements contain non-disclosure clauses and make it very difficult to trace legal costs in the school district budget. The MUSD managers state that the reason for obscure budget line items is due to the legal requirement to maintain the family's rights to confidentiality. These line items could be shown in the school district budget with names redacted. Due to use of NDAs the GJ could not ascertain whether or not similar problems existed in other school districts in this county.
Findings & Recommendations 8 findings
F1: The consolidation of local water agencies is the logical first step in not only securing water availability for the RVCWD’s residents and businesses, but for the entirety of the Ukiah basin. The GJ agrees with the 2003, 2008 and 2010 GJ reports and the consolidation
Related Recommendations (2)
R1: the RVCWD immediately pursue all avenues towards consolidation with local water districts to obtain secure access to sufficient water rights to meet the health and safety needs of the RVCWD domestic, commercial, and agricultural customers. (F1-F3, F5)
R6: the BOS establish monthly agendized reporting mechanisms to receive regular MCWA progress reports, with a focus on the RVCWD crisis. (F8) RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, responses are required from the following boards: Mendocino County Board of Supervisors (F1, F4, F6, F8) and (R1, R3, R5, R6) Redwood Valley Water District Board (F1-5, F7) and (R1-4) Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, responses are requested from the following individual: California State Senator, District 2, (All Findings) and (All Recommendations) Reports issued by the Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code § 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Grand Jury.
F2: The RVCWD Boards have failed in efforts to annex Russian River Flood Control. The initial short-sighted decision by Redwood Valley voters in January 1956 to not participate in the Coyote Valley Dam project and gain access to subsequent RRFCD water right contracts has continued to plague residents in the RVCWD, as attempts to secure water rights have never come to fruition.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1: the RVCWD immediately pursue all avenues towards consolidation with local water districts to obtain secure access to sufficient water rights to meet the health and safety needs of the RVCWD domestic, commercial, and agricultural customers. (F1-F3, F5)
R2: the RVCWD shall agendize fiscal and water rights progress at their regular meetings. (F1-
R6: the BOS establish monthly agendized reporting mechanisms to receive regular MCWA progress reports, with a focus on the RVCWD crisis. (F8) RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, responses are required from the following boards: Mendocino County Board of Supervisors (F1, F4, F6, F8) and (R1, R3, R5, R6) Redwood Valley Water District Board (F1-5, F7) and (R1-4) Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, responses are requested from the following individual: California State Senator, District 2, (All Findings) and (All Recommendations) Reports issued by the Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code § 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Grand Jury.
F3: It is in the best interest of Redwood Valley residents for the current RVCWD Board to support all efforts to voluntarily consolidate rather than for the State of California to implement SB 88 proceedings.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1: the RVCWD immediately pursue all avenues towards consolidation with local water districts to obtain secure access to sufficient water rights to meet the health and safety needs of the RVCWD domestic, commercial, and agricultural customers. (F1-F3, F5)
R6: the BOS establish monthly agendized reporting mechanisms to receive regular MCWA progress reports, with a focus on the RVCWD crisis. (F8) RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, responses are required from the following boards: Mendocino County Board of Supervisors (F1, F4, F6, F8) and (R1, R3, R5, R6) Redwood Valley Water District Board (F1-5, F7) and (R1-4) Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, responses are requested from the following individual: California State Senator, District 2, (All Findings) and (All Recommendations) Reports issued by the Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code § 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Grand Jury.
F4: The $6.85 million principal balance in Federal Bureau of Reclamation Small Project Act loans remains a burden to the RVCWD, limiting access to available funding sources for infrastructure, maintenance, and upgrades.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3: within 90 days, the RVCWD engage in negotiations with the United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation to pursue partial or full loan forgiveness and/or develop a repayment plan. (F4)
R6: the BOS establish monthly agendized reporting mechanisms to receive regular MCWA progress reports, with a focus on the RVCWD crisis. (F8) RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, responses are required from the following boards: Mendocino County Board of Supervisors (F1, F4, F6, F8) and (R1, R3, R5, R6) Redwood Valley Water District Board (F1-5, F7) and (R1-4) Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, responses are requested from the following individual: California State Senator, District 2, (All Findings) and (All Recommendations) Reports issued by the Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code § 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Grand Jury.
F5: Lack of water to supply agricultural customers has eliminated 23 percent of the RVCWD’s annual revenue. Having not received agricultural water for almost two years, agricultural customers are asking to have their meters removed, putting an additional $100,000 in meter revenues at risk. Consequently, vineyard production is reduced, district revenues are reduced, and some vineyard viability is put in jeopardy.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1: the RVCWD immediately pursue all avenues towards consolidation with local water districts to obtain secure access to sufficient water rights to meet the health and safety needs of the RVCWD domestic, commercial, and agricultural customers. (F1-F3, F5)
R6: the BOS establish monthly agendized reporting mechanisms to receive regular MCWA progress reports, with a focus on the RVCWD crisis. (F8) RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, responses are required from the following boards: Mendocino County Board of Supervisors (F1, F4, F6, F8) and (R1, R3, R5, R6) Redwood Valley Water District Board (F1-5, F7) and (R1-4) Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, responses are requested from the following individual: California State Senator, District 2, (All Findings) and (All Recommendations) Reports issued by the Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code § 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Grand Jury.
F6: The BOS failed their fiduciary duty to fill the vacant seat on the RVCWD Board when the special district was unable to do so themselves.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6: the BOS establish monthly agendized reporting mechanisms to receive regular MCWA progress reports, with a focus on the RVCWD crisis. (F8) RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, responses are required from the following boards: Mendocino County Board of Supervisors (F1, F4, F6, F8) and (R1, R3, R5, R6) Redwood Valley Water District Board (F1-5, F7) and (R1-4) Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, responses are requested from the following individual: California State Senator, District 2, (All Findings) and (All Recommendations) Reports issued by the Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code § 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Grand Jury.
F7: Stakeholder apathy is not unique to RVCWD. Many special districts within Mendocino County struggle to generate interest in district stability and financial health. The GJ noted a lack of attendance at the RVCWD meetings and an apparent lack of concern over water rate hikes or daily water use limits.
Related Recommendations (2)
R4: the RVCWD shall find ways to engage their stakeholders in water security. (F7)
R6: the BOS establish monthly agendized reporting mechanisms to receive regular MCWA progress reports, with a focus on the RVCWD crisis. (F8) RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, responses are required from the following boards: Mendocino County Board of Supervisors (F1, F4, F6, F8) and (R1, R3, R5, R6) Redwood Valley Water District Board (F1-5, F7) and (R1-4) Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, responses are requested from the following individual: California State Senator, District 2, (All Findings) and (All Recommendations) Reports issued by the Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code § 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Grand Jury.
F8: The Mendocino County Water Agency (MCWA) is being reestablished for oversight of all water issues within the County. The MCWA would be the logical entity to bring forward monthly reports to the BOS to ensure RVCWD water security and the federal loan debt remain visible on the BOS legislative calendar.
Related Recommendations (2)
R5: the District 1 member to the BOS monitor and report on the current negotiations toward consolidation of water districts in the upper Russian River watershed on a quarterly basis. (F8)
R6: the BOS establish monthly agendized reporting mechanisms to receive regular MCWA progress reports, with a focus on the RVCWD crisis. (F8) RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, responses are required from the following boards: Mendocino County Board of Supervisors (F1, F4, F6, F8) and (R1, R3, R5, R6) Redwood Valley Water District Board (F1-5, F7) and (R1-4) Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, responses are requested from the following individual: California State Senator, District 2, (All Findings) and (All Recommendations) Reports issued by the Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code § 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Grand Jury.
Findings & Recommendations 6 findings
F1: The GJ was concerned that no training manual is available regarding conservatorship proceedings. New staff are therefore reliant upon senior staff in SSD for their training.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1: the BHD and SSD establish and regularly update their Policy and Procedure Manuals for these programs. (F1)
R3: the information regarding the three programs and their general fund costs be transparent and available to the public by inclusion in quarterly departmental reports to the BOS. (F4-F6) RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, responses are required from the following board: Board of Supervisors (F3-6) and (R3) Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, responses are requested from the following individuals: Director of Behavioral Health (F1-F3) and (R1, R2) Director of Social Services (F1-F3) and (R1, R2) Reports issued by the Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code § 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Grand Jury.
F2: Due to the lack of a local psychiatric hospital and few nursing homes, patients are often placed far from their families resulting in lack of family support .
Related Recommendations (2)
R2: the BHD and SSD ensure family members are informed of the status of family members in out-of-county facilities on a quarterly basis. (F2, F3)
R3: the information regarding the three programs and their general fund costs be transparent and available to the public by inclusion in quarterly departmental reports to the BOS. (F4-F6) RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, responses are required from the following board: Board of Supervisors (F3-6) and (R3) Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, responses are requested from the following individuals: Director of Behavioral Health (F1-F3) and (R1, R2) Director of Social Services (F1-F3) and (R1, R2) Reports issued by the Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code § 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Grand Jury.
F3: When the status and conditions of all individuals are not shared with family members regularly, families become concerned about patients’ welfare, especially if the patient is placed out-of-the area.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2: the BHD and SSD ensure family members are informed of the status of family members in out-of-county facilities on a quarterly basis. (F2, F3)
R3: the information regarding the three programs and their general fund costs be transparent and available to the public by inclusion in quarterly departmental reports to the BOS. (F4-F6) RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, responses are required from the following board: Board of Supervisors (F3-6) and (R3) Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, responses are requested from the following individuals: Director of Behavioral Health (F1-F3) and (R1, R2) Director of Social Services (F1-F3) and (R1, R2) Reports issued by the Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code § 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Grand Jury.
F4: The County is responsible to cover the costs of settling estates of those citizens that die without wills or relatives. The State assumes the remainder of assets with the County receiving only a small portion of the value of an estate. Most cases have minimal assets and the costs to the County are considerable.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: the information regarding the three programs and their general fund costs be transparent and available to the public by inclusion in quarterly departmental reports to the BOS. (F4-F6) RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, responses are required from the following board: Board of Supervisors (F3-6) and (R3) Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, responses are requested from the following individuals: Director of Behavioral Health (F1-F3) and (R1, R2) Director of Social Services (F1-F3) and (R1, R2) Reports issued by the Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code § 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Grand Jury.
F5: There are County general fund costs in all three programs. These costs appear to be mostly unknown to County taxpayers.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: the information regarding the three programs and their general fund costs be transparent and available to the public by inclusion in quarterly departmental reports to the BOS. (F4-F6) RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, responses are required from the following board: Board of Supervisors (F3-6) and (R3) Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, responses are requested from the following individuals: Director of Behavioral Health (F1-F3) and (R1, R2) Director of Social Services (F1-F3) and (R1, R2) Reports issued by the Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code § 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Grand Jury.
F6: The high costs of hospitalizations for 5150 clients to the County justifies re- establishing a PHF with Measure B funds.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: the information regarding the three programs and their general fund costs be transparent and available to the public by inclusion in quarterly departmental reports to the BOS. (F4-F6) RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, responses are required from the following board: Board of Supervisors (F3-6) and (R3) Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, responses are requested from the following individuals: Director of Behavioral Health (F1-F3) and (R1, R2) Director of Social Services (F1-F3) and (R1, R2) Reports issued by the Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code § 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Grand Jury.
Findings & Recommendations 5 findings
F1: There was no process developed for the distribution of grant funds to individuals prior to applications being received. This has resulted in extended delays at every step from eligibility to application to communication to contract generation. This continues to prevent timely funds distribution to approved LEEP applicants.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1: the BOS initiate a standing committee on cannabis including, but not limited to, consideration of LEEP progress updates, issues and challenges, and encouraging community input. The Grand Jury notes while all businesses are not equity applicants, these issues may be relevant as future grants (e.g., LJAG grants), become available. (F1- F5)
R2: the County promptly identify the issues which may be impeding the distribution of current direct grant funds by the August 2022 deadline and implement a plan for addressing those delays so that the potential loss of current and future grant funds can be avoided. (F1 - F3, F5) 3 Appendix C
R3: the County provide detailed instructions to future applicants for the CEG program regarding potential permit issues and record-keeping requirements (such as an expectation that applicants manage their cash flows and keep appropriate records), to facilitate the presentation of properly submitted applications and to ensure the use of funds are properly tracked. (F1 - F3)
F2: The county did not ask the state for requirements on record keeping for LEEP grant recipients until May 2022 and apparently did so only to establish the county’s risk of having to repay funds if they were not spent for approved purposes. Applications ready for final approval are being held up by County Counsel. The requirements3 do not appear to be onerous as they are quite similar to those previously communicated requirements. However, records which must be provided to the state may still cause even more information requests before final Cobblestone approval and should have been sought much earlier in the process.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1: the BOS initiate a standing committee on cannabis including, but not limited to, consideration of LEEP progress updates, issues and challenges, and encouraging community input. The Grand Jury notes while all businesses are not equity applicants, these issues may be relevant as future grants (e.g., LJAG grants), become available. (F1- F5)
R2: the County promptly identify the issues which may be impeding the distribution of current direct grant funds by the August 2022 deadline and implement a plan for addressing those delays so that the potential loss of current and future grant funds can be avoided. (F1 - F3, F5) 3 Appendix C
R3: the County provide detailed instructions to future applicants for the CEG program regarding potential permit issues and record-keeping requirements (such as an expectation that applicants manage their cash flows and keep appropriate records), to facilitate the presentation of properly submitted applications and to ensure the use of funds are properly tracked. (F1 - F3)
F3: The MCD has not been adequately staffed or resourced to enable the timely processing of LEEP equity grants including communication with applicants. Inadequate MCD staffing continues with 10 vacant positions reported in May 2022 and only 12 current employees.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1: the BOS initiate a standing committee on cannabis including, but not limited to, consideration of LEEP progress updates, issues and challenges, and encouraging community input. The Grand Jury notes while all businesses are not equity applicants, these issues may be relevant as future grants (e.g., LJAG grants), become available. (F1- F5)
R2: the County promptly identify the issues which may be impeding the distribution of current direct grant funds by the August 2022 deadline and implement a plan for addressing those delays so that the potential loss of current and future grant funds can be avoided. (F1 - F3, F5) 3 Appendix C
R3: the County provide detailed instructions to future applicants for the CEG program regarding potential permit issues and record-keeping requirements (such as an expectation that applicants manage their cash flows and keep appropriate records), to facilitate the presentation of properly submitted applications and to ensure the use of funds are properly tracked. (F1 - F3)
F4: The contractor chosen to implement the grants, Elevate Impact, has worked primarily in urban areas and lacks the capital project expertise needed to support and escalate the speed of LEEP grant distributions.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1: the BOS initiate a standing committee on cannabis including, but not limited to, consideration of LEEP progress updates, issues and challenges, and encouraging community input. The Grand Jury notes while all businesses are not equity applicants, these issues may be relevant as future grants (e.g., LJAG grants), become available. (F1- F5)
R4: the County offer a business plan creation and general business training to applicants as part of Direct Technical Assistance prior to application submission. Possible funding sources for such training could be investigated from existing resources, such as the grant funds allocated for Direct Technical Assistance. (F1 -
F5: The LEEP applications are delayed until a qualified planner can review the application. Qualified planners hesitate to work in the cannabis industry.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1: the BOS initiate a standing committee on cannabis including, but not limited to, consideration of LEEP progress updates, issues and challenges, and encouraging community input. The Grand Jury notes while all businesses are not equity applicants, these issues may be relevant as future grants (e.g., LJAG grants), become available. (F1- F5)
R2: the County promptly identify the issues which may be impeding the distribution of current direct grant funds by the August 2022 deadline and implement a plan for addressing those delays so that the potential loss of current and future grant funds can be avoided. (F1 - F3, F5) 3 Appendix C