Dennis Buckley Judge of the Superior Court Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report i

Recommendations 5

• R1

  Page 44
  Mr. Fleming should develop a plan for submission to the County Board of Supervisors that will target specific interests. Mr. Fleming should also work with the County Board of Supervisors to increase his funding to help him promote these interests. Required Responses for Findings
• R2

  Page 44
  Yuba County Economic Development Coordinator Required Responses for Recommendations None Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 32 Yuba County Board of Supervisors Reason for Investigation This investigation was initiated on information received by the Grand Jury at a Yuba County Supervisors meeting on September 13, 2004 concerning use of County funds. Focus of Investigation The supervisors were asked a series of questions that included County fund usage outlined in the September 13, 2004 supervisors meeting, Yuba County infrastructure needs, and plans for economic development within the County. Process of Investigation Members of the Yuba County Grand Jury County Committee made two visits to interview members of the Yuba County Board of Supervisors. The first interview included Supervisors Mary Jane Griego and Hal Stocker. The second appointment was with Supervisors Don Schrader and Dan Logue. Dan Logue was unable to attend that interview due to illness. Infrastructure and Increased Traffic Flows The question was asked, "What plans do the County Board of Supervisors have to address the lack of infrastructure and how are they going to address the increased traffic flow brought on by the new growth, specifically in the Plumas Lake and Edgewater developments?" The supervisors all replied that at the present time there are no new roads scheduled to be built and there are no funds available to finance any new additions. They explained that Caltrans owns Highways 70 and 20 and the County has little or no control over them. Due to cuts in the state budget, Caltrans has lost all funding to build the highway 70 bypass around Marysville. In addition, the supervisors stated that any new bridges across the Yuba or Feather Rivers would require federal funding. During the initial hearings concerning the Plumas Lake development, neither the Yuba County supervisor's nor the developers made provisions for law enforcement. At a later date, a special assessment was added to address this specific problem. To date no new officers have been funded from this assessment. Economic Development There is no infrastructure development within the Yuba County Research and Development Park or the Yuba County Rancho Road Industrial and Commercial Park (see Economic Development Report, pages 43 and 45 respectively, Attachments 4 and 5.) When asked if the supervisors were aware of a "retail study" conducted by Chico State University encompassing Linda, Olivehurst and Plumas Lake, they responded they did indeed know about the study but not in detail. The retail study indicates that in 2004, the Linda-Olivehurst areas had a retail leakage (monies spent in other retail areas) of over $36 million (Retail Potential in Linda and Olivehurst, Attachment 6.) This leakage is expected to increase to over $301 million by 2015 due to the 33 Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report increased populations in Linda and Plumas Lake areas. Specifically, the Committee asked about Yuba County Economic Development Coordinator John Fleming's ability to promote Yuba County when his budget has been cut by 22% over his 2003-2004 budget, and the plan to promote increased commerce within Linda, Olivehurst, and Plumas Lake. In the 2003-2004 budgets, the Economic Development office received $30,475 (an additional $1,500 was added at a later date for a total of $31,975), which was reduced to $25,118 in the 2004-2005 budget. Supervisor Hal Stocker indicated that he would support a plan to specifically promote Yuba County by Mr. Fleming's office. The Yuba County Economic Development Office, through contributions from Economic Development program income interest ($1,600) and First American Title ($2,500), published the retail study for public distribution. Supervisors and Sheriff The Grand Jury learned at a Yuba County Board of Supervisors' meeting on September 13, 2004 that a half million dollars ($500,000) was transferred from the Sheriff's Jail bed trust fund on March 10, 2004 (Account Balance Inquiry, Attachment 7.) It was during this same public meeting that Sheriff Virginia Black alleged this transaction was done by the Yuba County Auditor's Office without notifying her and without the consent of the Board of Supervisors. The situation involves $500,000 that the State of California in "The Budget Act of 2001" authorized for special funding (Assembly Bill [AB] 443) to supplement county sheriffs in small and rural counties. In a letter dated August 2, 2004 (Attachment 8), Yuba County Administrative Officer Charles "Kent" McClain advised the Yuba County Board of Supervisors (cc: Sheriff Black, Auditor/Controller Dean Sellers, and County Counsel Dan Montgomery) that, "It is my recommendation that the Final Budget, prepared by the Auditor/Controller, show the AB 443 funds ($500,000) as added revenue to the Sheriff/Jail budget. Further, the General Fund subsidy to the same budget be reduced by an equal amount and $500,000 be returned to the General Fund contingency account." Sheriff Black replied to the Yuba County supervisors by letter dated August 3, 2004 (Attachment 9) that the action recommended by Mr. McClain was in violation of Government Code § 30070(b), which states: "Funds allocated pursuant to this section shall be used to supplement, rather than supplant existing law enforcement resources." In a letter to the board, the Sheriff also alleged that Mr. McClain committed "misconduct- dishonesty" during a Yuba County Board of Supervisors' meeting on May 10, 2004. In this incident, Mr. McClain stated that Sheriff Black had not submitted a budget proposal reflecting a 10% reduction as requested by the Yuba County Board of Supervisors. Sheriff Black alleged that this statement by Mr. McClain was not true, as she did in fact submit the appropriate budget proposal (see letter dated May 13, 2004, Attachment 10.) The Sheriff determined that she needed to have counsel to represent her in connection with the events described above and due to the fact that the County Counsel cannot represent both the Yuba County Board of Supervisors and the Yuba County Sheriff, she had to retain, at County expense, a private attorney. The Sheriff further stated at the September 13, 2004 Yuba County Board of Supervisors' meeting that the "Board" might have exceeded its legal authority. At the root of the allegations is the Intergovernmental Service Agreement for Housing Federal Detainees agreement where Yuba County Jail provides bed space for the U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement (INS) Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 34 inmates. The original INS agreement provided for 62 inmates at $45 a day for 2 to 4 days per week (approximately 12,896 days). The new contract, signed February 2, 2004, provides for $60 a day per inmate for approximately 91,250 days per year ($5,475,000 annually.) This contract should produce revenue of $1.94 million for the Sheriff's Department and an equal amount for the General Fund. On March 31, 1995, the Yuba County Board of Supervisors (Chairperson Joan Saunders) and then Sheriff Gary Tindel entered into an agreement that provides provisions for sharing the revenue generated by the INS jail bed usage. It provides for 17% for housing, food and clothing for INS inmates, 6% for partial repayment of the jail construction bonds, 3% for energy cost, and 3% for Jail Capital Improvement Fund. The remaining 71% is split equally between the Sheriff's Department and the General Fund. Yuba County Supervisors Mary Jane Griego, Hal Stocker and Don Schrader, Auditor/Controller Dean Sellers and Assistant Auditor/Controller Albert Dehr have all expressed concerns about the "sharing provisions" expressed in the INS Jail Bed Revenue Sharing Memorandum of Agreement (MOU). Findings
• R3

  Page 47
  Poor communication has lead to the hiring of outside attorneys at additional cost to Yuba County.
• R4

  Page 47
  Documentation indicates that the Yuba County Board of Supervisors received legally questionable advice on budgetary matters (see letter to BOS, Attachment 11.)
• R5

  Page 47
  At present, the INS Jail Bed Revenue Sharing MOU is out of date. Its dollar values expressed are from the 1995 contract. It shows no review by the Sheriff or the Board of Supervisors. The terms of the MOU are not being followed. Specifically, the division of funds and the use of the Sheriff's share to provide "Allocation for Sheriff's Department for additional personnel, safety equipment and fixed assets...." In addition, the MOU indicates that these revenues are to be used at the end of the fiscal year and are not to replace the Sheriff's annual budget (Attachments 12A and 12B.) Further, there is indication that the Yuba County Board of Supervisors is using the moneys to supplant the Sheriff's current year budget (Attachments 13 and 14.) Recommendations