Mariposa County Grand Jury • 2021-2022

2021-2022 Final Grand Jury Report(PDF) June 30th, 2022

Published: June 28, 2022 75 pages Consolidated Report

View Original PDF

⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.

⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.

Findings 16 findings

Mariposa County Elections Staff are dedicatedto following California Election Code and, at times, go beyond State code. Staff shares best practices with State personnel and similarly-sized counties for considered implementation.

Election security is a top priority for all Elections staff and volunteers; Mariposa County elections are secure.

Elections staff and volunteers are dedicated and well-trained.

Elections staff and volunteers are responsive to the needs of all voters. Staff and volunteers are respectful, polite, and helpful.

There are adequate means of voting provided throughout the county, including mailing in ballots via US Postal Service postage-paid envelopes, placing ballots in secure ballot boxes, or voting at designated Vote Centers.

Mariposa County Elections run smoothly and efficiently.

Some information on the LDPCSD website is F7. The LDPCSD BOD disagrees partially with the out-of-date and inaccurate and unfavorably represents finding as the website requires on-going maintenance the present status of the district. and updating.

Prior civil grand juries were inundated with F8. The LDPCSD BOD agrees with the finding. complaints regarding the operation, management, and oversight of the LDPCSD. It has been more than two years since MCCGJ has received a complaint. MCCGJ 2021-2022 Final Report

If built as planned, the SilverTip resort would have F9. The finding implies that the YACSD BOD is increased the number of overnight lodging and responsible for the SilverTip project not proceeding as therefore, the County's Transient Occupancy Tax Mariposa County had hoped. This is perplexing as the revenue. conditional use permit was issued by the BOS in 2003. The SilverTip developer defaulted on a $5.6 million dollar loan in 2010, declared bankruptcy, and the SilverTip property was put up for auction. The auction certainly slowed development. It also called into question the integrity of the developer to negotiate in good faith with the YACSD BOD. How is it remotely conceivable that this multi-million dollar corporation reached the point of insolvency because of a tiny CSD defending its water rights? MCCGJ 2021-2022 Final Report Findings Response

F10

The EIR reports regarding water quality and F10. "The amount of water in the rocks surrounding a quantity found SilverTip wells would be drawing water hard rock well is small. Groundwater levels and the from a source isolated from YACSD wells. Likewise, well's yield can decline dramatically during the according to analysis, treated effluent SilverTip would summers of dry years," (California Department of not contaminate YACSD wells. Water Resources [CDWR], 2011). "Hard rock wells require a source of recharge and a large quantity of water in storage," (CDWR, 2011). Drilling must be done at a very specific point in a major fracture zone containing plenty of water and water must be continually recharged. A neighboring well can interfere with one's well, depending on connections between rock fractures. Interference between neighboring wells is difficult or impossible to predict in advance (CDWR, 2011). On of its response, the Central Valley California Regional Water Quality Control Board notes that the map presented by the developer of effluent spray field areas "is not of the scale to definitively show the individual areas and was not intended to indicate that any of the wells on the property would be within the spray field areas." The responsibility of verification that the YACSD wells not be contaminated by effluent was deferred to a future Title 22 Use Area Management Plan. "Connection of the aquifers is deemed likely" (RWQCB, 2007). Degradation of the aquifer is assumed (RWQCB, 2007). Because of the lack of documentation concerning the construction of the YACSD wells, an adverse impact of treated effluent on those wells was "unlikely" (RWQCB, 2007 , paragraph 4). Groundwater or surface water "should not be unreasonably degraded," (RWQCB 2007, ). In their statement of overriding considerations, the Mariposa BOS found that not all of the project's environmental impacts can be mitigated, but that the project will generate "substantial revenues" (2003 Attachment C). Environmental degradation is apparently acceptable when none of the persons with authority concerning the development plans for the SilverTip project will have to live with the degradation of their own drinking water.

F11

MCCGJ believes there have been Brown Act F11. The YACSD BOD has adhered to the Brown Act. violations by the YACSD BOD. The MCCGJ report has not presented evidence of Brown Act violations.

F12

Comprehensive water testing has not been done F12. This is a misleading statement implying that the since 2002. YACSD is out of compliance. The MCCGJ report itself affirms that the YACSD is in compliance with water testing regulations (2021, , paragraph 3). MCCGJ 2021-2022 Final Report Findings Response

F13

YACSD bylaws state that they do not follow the F13. The YACSD bylaws were thoughtfully composed letter of the law. and reviewed by Counsel. Over the past 20 years at least 8 different persons have served on the BOD. Their lengths of service have varied. Some terms have overlapped and others have not. The notion that this variable group of persons crafted a document to be deceptive with an intent to violate laws is illogical.

F14

YACSD is so small they are unable to staff all F14. The BOD will investigate contracting with a positions as required by state law. manager as part of the 2022-2023 and 2023-2024 budgeting process, which will be completed by June 30, 2022.

F15

The district's bookkeeping and confidential F15. Records have been backed up on a thumb drive. records are kept on a personal computer. The BOD is investigating the purchase of cloud-based software on which to store records. A decision will be made at the regular scheduled BOD meeting on December 4, 2021. The purchase of a designated computer seems infeasible as there is no district office and records must be accessed by more than one person.

F16

The current District 5 Board Supervisor has never F16. All YACSD BOD meetings are legally noticed. been invited to nor attended a YACSD BOD meeting. With the exception of legally noticed closed sessions, they have always been open to all members of the public. While it is not the responsibility of the YACSD BOD to assure that a member of the Mariposa County BOS attends properly noted YACSD BOD meetings, a specific invitation to the current supervisor has been given, including placing him on the YACSD email list so that he receives all communications sent to YACSD customers. MCCGJ 2021-2022 Final Report

Recommendations 10

R1

Respondents should review California Penal Code §933 annually in preparation for responding to Grand Jury final reports.
R2

Respondents should provide a comprehensive and direct response to each finding and recommendation.
R3

Respondents should include timeframes and commitments to implementing agreeable recommendations.
R4

The MCSO should implement a process to continually update all policies and procedures to keep them in compliance with state and federal law of publication of this report. MCCGJ 2021-2022 Final Report Mykleoaks Subdivision - Road Conditions INVESTIGATION The MCCGJ received a formal complaint alleging the conditions and width of roads in the Mykleoaks subdivision were substandard and previous attempts to rectify the situation with the Public Works Department were unsuccessful. The MCCGJ conducted a formal investigation which included interviews, background research, and site inspection (ie, driving the roads in question). ANALYSIS Responses were received on time from the Public Works Department on 8/3/2021. The MCCGJ sent a follow up request for clarification and/or completion of the recommended action on 12/8/2021. The original and updated responses meet the minimum requirements of Penal Code §933.05.
R5

The PWD should establish a policy and procedures R5. The BOS disagrees with R5 stating that there is a manual, specific to the Public Works Department policies and procedures manual in place that they are of the publication of this report. The expected to adhere to. manual should be made available to the public upon request. MCCGJ 2021-2022 Final Report Yosemite Alpine Community Services District INVESTIGATION The 2020-2021 MCCGJ investigation found numerous areas of concern regarding the management of the Yosemite Alpine Community Services District (YACSD). The MCCGJ determined that YACSD needed to make difficult decisions to ensure a viable future for itself. The MCCGJ conducted a formal investigation which included interviews, background research, and a site visit. ANALYSIS Responses were received on time on 9/20/2021. The MCCGJ sent follow up requests to the District Attorney for clarification regarding a property owner vote on rate increases on 10/4/2021. An updated response was provided by the District Attorney on 11/3/2021. The County Auditor provided comments on 4/12/2022 following a follow up letter from the MCCGJ. The responses generally meet the requirements per Penal Code §933.05. Additional timelines for requesting support from the California State Auditor are required.
R6

The MCCGJ recommends that the YACSD BOD R6. The BOD will review and vote on a revision of the review and revise the District's bylaws to improve the YACSD bylaws at its December 4, 2021 meeting to management actions and allow for more property amend the language to state that registered voters of the owners to participate in the District's functions within YACSD may serve on the BOD. 90 days of the publication of this report.
R7

The MCCGJ recommends that the County R7. Government Code §12464(a) also references Controller determine if the State Controller should authority that the State Controller has to appoint a appoint a qualified accountant to make an investigation qualified accountant to make an investigation to obtain and to obtain the information required in accordance district reports not filed in a timely manner. The with Government Code §12464 (a) of County Auditor agrees with the recommendation of the the publication of this report. MCCGJ that the State Controller do this. MCCGJ 2021-2022 Final Report Recommendations Response
R8

The MCCGJ recommends that all YACSD BOD R8. The BOS asserts that it is not financially feasible members obtain a "Certificate in Special District for the YACSD BOD to obtain this certificate. The Governance '' of the publication of this required courses are offered at a conference that would report. cost the YACSD thousands of dollars to attend and pay registration fees. There are no other opportunities to take all of the required courses.
R9

The MCCGJ recommends district records be R9. Records have been backed up on a thumb drive. backed up digitally on an appropriate device, or in the The BOD is investigating the purchase of cloud-based cloud of publication of this report. software on which to store records. A decision will be made at the regular scheduled BOD meeting on December 4, 2021. The purchase of a designated computer seems infeasible as there is no District office and records must be accessed by more than one person.
R10

The MCCGJ recommends that YACSD BOD R10. While it is not the responsibility of the YACSD invite the District 5 Supervisor to their board meetings. BOD to assure that a member of the Mariposa County BOS attends properly noted YACSD BOD meetings, a specific invitation to the current supervisor has been given, including placing him on the YACSD email list so that he receives all communications sent to YACSD customers. MCCGJ 2021-2022 Final Report Investigative Reports Airport Advisory Committee: Board of Supervisors Meeting Discussion SUMMARY The 2021-2022 Mariposa County Civil Grand Jury (MCCGJ) investigated a complaint alleging that an Airport Advisory Committee (AAC) topic was placed on a 2021 Board of Supervisors (BOS) agenda without following proper procedure, including not giving suitable notice to the AAC. Additionally, the complainant was concerned the BOS discussion would address purported inappropriate conduct at past AAC board meetings, leading to unwarranted defamation of character of some AAC board members. The MCCGJ conducted a formal investigation including background research, interviews, and review of emails and meeting minutes. The MCCGJ found BOS staff followed the correct procedure in placing the AAC-related agenda item on the BOS meeting agenda. Additionally, the discussion of the item at the BOS meeting had to do with policy and procedures, not AAC board member conduct. There was no basis for the initial complaint. Through interviews, the MCCGJ did find, however, that the BOS needs to follow County policy in addressing alleged inappropriate conduct complaints.

Conclusions 3

CL1

The MCCGJ’s investigation found a number of items the County needs to address regarding the three cemeteries it manages. These items are listed in the Findings section with suggested solutions listed in the Recommendations section. MCCGJ 2021-2022 Final Report Page 52
CL2

The MCCGJ has found multiple instances of the JCF board not adhering to Brown Act, Health and Safety Code §3200-32499.4, and GC §54956.87 requirements when it comes to wording of closed session agenda items and actions at board meetings. This potentially exposes JCF to liability. The public is not being properly informed regarding operations and decisions made by this special district. At the end of the interviewing process, the MCCGJ concluded the errors were not done maliciously or with intent to harm. Nevertheless, these violations need to be addressed. The MCCGJ believes doing so would be relatively easy and will lead to increased public knowledge about and trust in JCF.
CL3

The complainant claims the Mariposa County BOS incorrectly rescinded the ZOB originally set as a condition for a major subdivision applicant, replacing it with an RMA. The ZOB had ensured the County would maintain the roads for the life of the subdivision. When the BOS 1993 resolution approved the replacement of the ZOB with an RMA, the responsibility for road maintenance moved from the County to the collective body of the subdivision homeowners. Additionally, in the resolutions signifying this change, the County did not give itself any oversight authority in making sure the subdivision applicant met the conditions of the recorded 1993 RMA document. Conditions include setting up an RMA committee, collecting fees from residents for road maintenance, issuing liens for those who do not pay fees, and contracting for road maintenance and repair. The subdivision applicant did not meet the conditions of the RMA.