Tehama County Audit Report Audit Committee

Recommendations 12

• R1
  The Grand Jury recommends that the City of Red Bluff engage in a community needs assessment to determine the strengths, challenges and risks the city experiences, from which a strategic and implementation plan should be developed to guide city planning.
• R1A
  The Grand Jury recommends adding a category to the next annual budget that would allow for emergency repairs.
• R1B
  The Grand Jury recommends that jail administrators immediately compile a list of contractors for needed repairs.
• R2
  The Grand Jury recommends that city administrators take an active role in the oversight of the small business loan program.
• R3
  The Grand Jury recommends that the City of Red Bluff Administrator consider working collaboratively with other rural California communities to address rural equitability by advocating with local State Assembly and Senate Representatives. It is further recommended that city administrators work with the Tehama County Board of Supervisors to address these inequities.
• R4
  The Grand Jury recommends that the 2022 Tehama County Grand Jury Continuity Committee and City Government Committee continue to review the use of public funds intended to mitigate the effects of COVID-19, as some projects will continue until 2024.
• R5
  The Grand Jury recommends that by 3-1-2022, TCPWD implement LIDAR surveying technology within Tehama County. 2022 Grand Jury to follow up regarding implementation of this process.
• R6
  Meetings should be rescheduled as soon as they can be done safely per County and Public Health guidance. ALLEGATION 7: “The MOU approved on 9/01/2020 is believed to be in violation of AB 1682. “Employees of the Public Authority shall not be employees of the county for any purpose.” The 9/01/2020 MOU has no end date and instead has the statement: “…shall commence upon July 1, 2020 and remain in full force and effect…” It is asserted that this MOU is flawed as any contractual agreement should have a reasonable end date (Most other Tehama County contracts are one to three years). This MOU also lacks a not to exceed spending amount for the contractual period. It is assumed that since a dollar amount was noted in the previous MOU that one could reasonably be expected here. It is believed that this MOU must be immediately redrawn and written to comply with the law. The MOU asserts “This MO shall not be amended, except in a writing that is executed by authorized representatives of both parties.” Both parties' consideration may not be appropriate.”
• R7
  None ALLEGATION 8: “The IHSS PA board of directors have failed in their obligations and responsibilities as they have not held the Chief Administrator and IHSS PA Executive Director, and now the existing Executive Director accountable to the intent of the mandate. They have approved minutes of the PA with no activity reported and they have not performed their obligation of oversight responsibility for the program.”
• R8
  None ALLEGATION 9: “It is asserted that a particular County employee … and other county employees have been working within the business of the IHSS PA, in spite of the AB 1682 language that intends for the IHSS PA to remain a separate entity.”
• R9
  None ALLEGATION 10: “Finally, a citizen… through multiple Public Record Act requests has identified problems, yet documents have been written to cover up issues.”
• R10
  None ALLEGATION 11: “When the Chief Administrator ceased being the PA Executive Director, it does not appear that his contract was adjusted to remove the additional compensation.”