Sutter County Grand Jury
• 2020-2021
• Agency Response
Response to:
Final Report of 2020-2021 Sutter County Grand Jury Subject - Sutter County Code Enforcement Filed 02-12-2021
Endorsed Filed Aug 0 2 2021 Buterior Court of California Sutter County Grand Jury County of Sutter*
⚠️ 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 and Recommendations 6 findings
F1
Page 5
The Board of Supervisors disagrees with this finding.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
Page 5
The Board of Supervisors disagrees with this finding.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
Page 6
This recommendation has been implemented. Effective immediately, the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors will return to the previous policy, which is to have the Board of Supervisors consider any vacancy where the applications exceed vacancies under Appearance for discussion and appointment as early as the Maddy Act will allow.
F3
Page 5
The Board of Supervisors disagrees with this finding.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
Page 6
This recommendation will be implemented by October 1, 2021. Staff will provide an annual presentation to the Board of Supervisors based upon the Natomas Basin Conservancy annual report and answer any related questions.
F4
Page 5
The Board of Supervisors agrees with this finding.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
Page 6
This recommendation will not be implemented. The Grand Jury did not specify what policies it believes are risky. However, County staff, including the Acting Treasurer-Tax Collector, have reviewed the Natomas Basin Conservancy's investment policy. Investment priorities are safety, diversification, liquidity and returns. The current policy's diversification, allocation and restriction on investments reduces the risk of any single asset class or investment category.
F5
Page 5
The Board of Supervisors disagrees with this finding.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
Page 6
This recommendation will not be implemented. The County does not believe renegotiating the Plan is in the County's best interest because it could jeopardize benefits the County enjoys under the current Plan approval. If the Plan is renegotiated it would likely require a new biological opinion be prepared, which is a lengthy and expensive process, subject to legal challenge. The current plan has been successfully defended in Federal Court twice. Renegotiation of the Plan would likely result in a mitigation requirement greater than the 0.5:1 ratio in effect today. This could result in an increased cost burden for development in South Sutter County making development non- competitive in the region due to the high cost of developing urban infrastructure in an Sutter County Board of Supervisors Response to 2020-21 Grand Jury Individual Report area where little exists today. If determined necessary, the County, in coordination with the City of Sacramento, may pursue activating "Area B" where the Plan contemplates up to 20 percent of mitigation land may be obtained. This recommendation will not be implemented. Mitigation for the City of
F6
Page 5
The Board of Supervisors disagrees with this finding in part. There is not currently adequate information available on the mitigation measures Sacramento County plans to take. Sutter County will evaluate the environmental documents and mitigation measures once it is published.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6
Page 7
Sacramento's development outside of their permit area is a resolved matter. It is Sutter County's understanding the mitigation plan/strategy is a stand-alone approval by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the US Fish and Wildlife Service for this development. It is Sutter County's understanding the Greenbriar project developers pursued mitigation for their development independent of the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan. Sutter County is monitoring the processing of the "Grand Park" project by the County of Sacramento. At the time the project and its draft environmental impact report is released for public review, Sutter County will review and provide appropriate responses. The County has not reviewed a complete project plan, nor a proposed mitigation strategy for this development, so it is premature to comment on this project at this time. . . . • . Attachment to BOS Response to R1 ( ) Steven M. Smith From: Steven M. Smith Sent: Friday, August 16, 2019 6:33 PM Cc: Donna Johnston; Jean Jordan Subject: FW: Resignation Attachments: NBC190816letterresignationhelm.pdf; Leaving Office - Form 700 - Jeff Helm.pdf; NBC190816letterresignationleal.pdf Supervisors, It is confirmed that Jeff Helm and Jill Leal have resigned from the Natomas Basin Conservancy Board. Please see the email below from John Roberts and the attached documents from Mr. Helm and Ms. Leal. Donna Johnston is being copied on this email and staff will begin the process required so the Board can appoint new representatives. Steven M. Smith Interim County Administrator Sutter County 1160 Civic Center Blvd., Suite A Yuba City, CA 95993 BUS: (530) 822-7100 CELL: (530) 635-0137 FAX: (530) 822-7103 Sign up for emergency alerts in Sutter County at www.bepreparedsutter.org From: Kimberli Burns <kburns@natomasbasin.org> Sent: Friday, August 16, 2019 10:29 AM To: Steven M. Smith <SMSmith@co.sutter.ca.us> Cc: John Roberts < jroberts@natomasbasin.org> Subject: Resignation × Steve, Following up on our conversation this morning regarding Conservancy Board resignations: 1) Attached is Jeff Helm's letter of resignation via email to John Shirey, Conservancy Board Chair. Attached is Jeff Helm's signed leaving office Form 700. 3) Attached is an unsigned letter of resignation from Jill Leal that was read at the August 7 meeting to the Conservancy's Board by Board member Mike Johnston. We emailed Jill regarding a leaving office Form 700. She acknowledged receiving the Form 700 and indicated she would return it as soon as she is able. Please let us know if you need anything further. Kim 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *************************************** ....... NAT MAS c y u ser y a u c y Kimberli Burns | Chief Financial Officer The Natomas Basin Conservancy kburns@natomasbasin.org Office: 916.649.3331 Fax: 916.649.3322 see in v . . . _ 2 . . . . . . . . . Steven M. Smith From: Steven M. Smith Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2019 4:58 PM Cc: Donna Johnston Subject: Natomas Basin Conservancy Board of Directors - Van Ruiten Attachments: doc20190919161834150307.pdf . Supervisors, FYI, Anthony Van Ruiten has submitted his resignation from the Natomas Basin Conservancy Board of Directors. There are currently three vacant positions with the recent resignations of Ms. Leal and Mr. Helm. Steven M. Smith <b>County Administrator</b> <b>Sutter County</b> 1160 Civic Center Blvd., Suite A Yuba City, CA 95993 BUS: (530) 822-7100 CELL: (530) 635-0137 FAX: (530) 822-7103 Sign up for emergency alerts in Sutter County at www.bepreparedsutter.org 1 . . . . Steven M. Smith From: Steven M. Smith Sent: Wednesday, October 2, 2019 9:35 PM Cc: Donna Johnston Subject: Fwd: Norton-TNBC Resignation Ltr Signed.pdf Attachments: Norton-TNBC Resignation Ltr Signed.pdf Supervisors, Please see the attached letter from Jeff Norton resigning from the Natomas Basin Conservancy Board. Sutter now has vacancies in four of five seats. I will schedule a meeting with the NBC board chair to discuss, as suggested below. Steve Get Outlook for iOS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . From: Donna Johnston < DJohnston@co.sutter.ca.us> Sent: Wednesday, October 2, 2019 8:48 PM To: Steven M. Smith Subject: Norton-TNBC Resignation Ltr Signed.pdf Hi Steve, Mike just returned from a Natomas Conservancy meeting and informed me that Jeff Norton has now resigned. His letter to Mat is attached. Mike and the Chair of the Board would like to set up a meeting with you, Mat, and Ron to discuss. Mike's email is We have not received any applications for the 3 previously known vacancies, and now we are at 4. Donna 1
* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.