Riverside County Grand Jury
2025-2026
From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (5)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
The Banning Electric Utility (BEU) went from a $31 million surplus in 2018, to a $9 million deficit in 2022.
F2:
Multiple sources have stated that the City of Banning may have transferred revenue from the BEU to the General Fund. These transfers would be in violation of Propositions 26 and 218 after Measure P was rejected by the voters in November 2018.
F3:
The Cost Allocation Plan utilized from 2018 to present contains serious errors and lack internal controls.
F4:
Per Standard & Poor’s Global Rating Report, the electric system revenue bond rating has been downgraded from A- in 2007 to B (junk status) in 2026.
F5:
The City of Banning is currently experiencing a monumental billing crisis due to an antiquated billing system and failed software rollout.
F6:
The City of Banning has experienced a substantial turnover of essential personnel.
F7:
Human resources policies and procedures are outdated and not enforced, leaving the City vulnerable to litigation.
F8:
The City of Banning is currently operating without a strategic plan. RECOMMENDATIONS
Additional Recommendations
10
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Conduct a transparent audit of all BEU finances and ledger activity to determine if any fund transfers violated the terms of Propositions 26 and 218 after Measure P was defeated. Based on Findings: F-1, F-2, F-4 Implementation: January 1, 2027 Financial Impact: Low/Moderate
R2:
Distinctly separate the BEU financial data from other City departments by reviewing best practices of other cities that operate their own municipal electric utilities. Based on Findings: F-1, F-2, F-4 Implementation: December 31, 2026 Financial Impact: Low/Moderate
R3:
Manage Cost Allocation Plans to ensure current, accurate, and transparent documentation. Based on Finding: F-3 Implementation: January 1, 2027 Financial Impact: Low/Moderate
R4:
Improve the financial management practices beginning with immediately balancing the budget and bolstering internal control processes. Complete all annual financial reports on time. Based on Finding: F-1, F-3, F-4, F-5, F-8 Implementation: July 1, 2027 Financial Impact: Moderate
R5:
Review, compare, and implement a newer software application including Cloud solutions to update the current billing system. Based on Finding: F-5 Implementation: Immediately Financial Impact: Moderate/High
R6:
Initiate a comprehensive onboarding and offboarding program to include appropriate training, transfer of knowledge, and clarity for job responsibilities. Take all necessary steps to improve the culture through transparency, training and collaboration. Based on Finding: F-6 Implementation: Immediately Financial Impact: Low 15
R7:
Create a central policy location on SharePoint or similar program, organized by department, that is accessible and easy to locate. Update all policies and procedures to reflect current city, state, and federal guidelines and review and revise annually as needed. Enforce policies through staff training and accountability mechanisms. Based on Finding: F-6 and F-7 Implementation: January 1, 2027 Financial Impact: Low/Moderate
R8:
Promptly establish an impartial, thorough, and efficient investigation process for all harassment complaints utilizing qualified and trained personnel to ensure due process for every employee including elected officials. Based on Finding: F-6 and F-7 Implementation: Immediately Financial Impact: Low/Moderate
R9:
Draft and implement a strategic plan to address all issues related to financial and personnel matters existing within the City of Banning. Based on Finding: F-4 and F-8 Implementation: Immediately Financial Impact: Low/Moderate. REQUIRED RESPONSES Governing bodies have ninety days to respond to Grand Jury report findings and recommendations. Elected officials have sixty days to respond to Grand Jury reports. Both governing bodies and elected officials must submit their written responses to the Grand Jury report findings and recommendations to their county’s Presiding Judge. California Penal Code §933(c) and §933.05 outlines the parameters within which governing bodies are permitted to respond and how responses are structured. Required Respondents: 60-90 day Respondents Findings Recommendations Mayor Richard Royce F1 – F8 R1 – R9 Council Member Cindy Barrington Council Member Sheri Flynn Council Member Leroy Miller Council Member Colleen Wallace City Treasurer Sue Savage F1-F4 R1–R4 Invited Respondents: 60-90 day Respondents Findings Recommendations City Manager, City of Banning F1 – F8 R1 – R9 99 East Ramsey Banning, CA 92220 Riverside County Board of Supervisors F1 – F8 R1 – R9 Member, District 5 Courtesy copy: Courtesy Findings Recommendations Respondent California Attorney General F1 – F8 R1 – R9 17 Reports issued by the Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code section 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. Report Issued Date: 6-17-2026 Report Public Date: 6-24-2026 Report Due Date: 9-24-2026 18
R60-90:
day Respondents Findings Recommendations Mayor Richard Royce F1 – F8 R1 – R9 Council Member Cindy Barrington Council Member Sheri Flynn Council Member Leroy Miller Council Member Colleen Wallace City Treasurer Sue Savage F1-F4 R1–R4 Invited Respondents:
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
Evidence suggests that there is a perception that the culture between employees and management in Code Enforcement has resulted in abusive and retaliatory practices by management. These practices have been allowed to go unchecked by TLMA and HR as a result of downplaying internal complaints about upper management.
F2:
The Code Enforcement Policy Manual has not been updated to reflect information on how the employee complaint process functions. The current version of the Policy and Procedures manual falls short of including critical Board of Supervisor policies C-25, C-27, and C-35 information.
F3:
Possible violations of FMLA occurred when an employee was removed from a supervisory position in the field, had their work schedule substantially changed, and was reassigned to an undesirable location while they were out on FMLA leave.
F4:
There exists a biased promotional process within Code Enforcement that has been driven by a select few individuals. This process has been given silent approval because of outside relationships that influence the prepping of candidates, selecting the interviewing panel, and guiding the grading processes involved in departmental promotions. Additionally, there have been external communication with HR to manipulate certified hiring lists.
F5:
There are many instances of selective enforcement standards that may reflect outside influence from governing bodies within Riverside County. This creates an unequal playing field for most constituents of Riverside County by giving specific entities a different set of guidelines or allowances contrary to county ordinances.
F6:
Although the guidelines and standards from BOS policies for filing complaints are made available to all employees, many of these complaints (C-25, C-27, etc.) are not heard or taken seriously. The concerns of the employees have not been recognized or addressed by management due to an incomplete understanding of the HR process.
F7:
Undefined management-employee dynamics have created an uncertain hierarchy of leadership. Overlapping control, rather than a clearly defined chain of command, has created an environment of micromanagement.
F8:
The turnover at the director position in Code Enforcement has resulted in a culture of confusion and inconsistent direction. Strong, consistent leadership with a clear mission has been missing in the department for the past several years.
F9:
Clear, concise, and thorough communication has been lacking in Code Enforcement. Providing consistent written direction will avoid confusion and promote an aligned mission. RECOMMENDATIONS
Additional Recommendations
8
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Code Enforcement must take steps to comply with all directives and provisions of Board Policies C-25 and C-27 by taking initial complaints seriously and ensuring that all managers and supervisors take action. Based on Finding: F-1 Implementation: Immediately Fiscal Impact: None
R2:
The management team must update the Code Enforcement Policies and Procedures manual in accordance with R-1. Based on Finding: F-2 Implementation: January 31, 2027 Fiscal Impact: None
R3:
All managers must complete FMLA compliance training and certification to promote awareness of employment law. Based on Finding: F-3 Implementation: December 31, 2026 Fiscal Impact: Minimal
R4:
In order to promote an unbiased and neutral interview panel, it is recommended that interview panel members are chosen from a rotating pool of supervisory personnel by the director of the department. These personnel should reflect a blend of TLMA supervisors. Based on Finding: F-4 Implementation: Immediately Fiscal Impact: None
R5:
Consistent code enforcement standards must be applied to all constituents in Riverside County, regardless of political or monetary influences, to ensure equal treatment of all residents. Document all communications from other departments or elected officials which may affect the outcome of Code Enforcement duties involving ordinance compliance. Based on Finding: F-5 Implementation: Immediately Fiscal Impact: Minimal
R6:
Create an annual anonymous internal survey (Ex: Pulse Survey) to measure the employee experience and engagement within the Code Enforcement department. Actionable data can be shared at all levels to promote departmental growth, culture, and opportunities. Based on Finding: F-6 Implementation: June 30, 2027 Fiscal Impact: Moderate 17
R7:
The director of Code Enforcement must establish a consistent schedule to visit district offices and meet with supervisors and employees to promote leadership, collaboration, and to reinforce the chain of command. Based on Findings: F-7 and F-8 Implementation: Immediately Fiscal Impact: None
R8:
In order to promote clear and consistent communication, any and all directives should be communicated, in writing, via e-mail or printed memo, and shared with employees at all levels, and in all district offices. In addition, all employees should be made aware of management schedules and availability. Based on Finding: F-9 Implementation: Immediately Fiscal Impact: None REQUIRED RESPONSES The governmental bodies are required to respond to the finding and recommendations listed below. According to California Penal Code §933, governing bodies have 90 days to respond, and agency heads have 60 days to respond. California Penal Code §933.05 specifies how responses should be structured. Governing Bodies Findings Recommendations County of Riverside Board of F-1––F-9 R-1––R-8 Supervisors INVITED RESPONSES The agency heads are invited, but not legally required, to respond to the findings and recommendations listed below. Agency Heads Findings Recommendations County of Riverside TLMA F-1––F-9 R-1––R-8 County of Riverside Code F-1––F-9 R-1––R-8 Enforcement 18 County of Riverside Human F-4, F-6 R-4, R-6 Resources Reports issued by the Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code section 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. Report Issued Date: 6-17-2026 Report Public Date: 6-24-2026 Response Due Date: 9-24-2026 19
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
The County of Riverside has not established an independent civilian oversight entity, as authorized under California Government Code § 25303 and AB 1185 (2020), with clearly defined authority, investigative powers, reporting requirements, and structural independence from the sheriff’s chain of command.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
(Finding 1) The Riverside County Board of Supervisors shall, within eighteen months from July 1, 2026, establish an independent civilian oversight body pursuant to AB 1185 with: Subpoena authority or equivalent investigatory access Independent budget and staffing Authority to review critical incidents and in-custody deaths Public reporting requirements Defined appointment and vetting procedures Protection from removal without cause Fiscal Impact: Based on comparable AB 1185 oversight bodies, annual operating costs are estimated between $2.5 million and $6.5 million, with initial startup costs of $500K to $1.2 million.23 Larger jurisdictions such as Los Angeles County maintain dedicated oversight commissions and inspector general functions with dozens of staff positions supporting investigative and auditing capacity.24
F2:
Based on Grand Jury visits to five jails, the frequency and circumstances of in-custody deaths in Riverside County reflect systemic deficiencies in intake screening, staffing, medical and mental health care access, supervision protocols, documentation practices, and emergency response procedures. The absence of independent review mechanisms prevents full identification of root causes and corrective action. 16
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
(Finding 2) Within eighteen months of July 1, 2026, the Riverside County Sheriff’s Office shall retain an independent correctional health and custodial operations expert to conduct a comprehensive audit of intake screening, medical and mental health services, supervision protocols, and emergency response procedures related to in-custody deaths. The audit findings and corrective action plan shall be publicly reported within ninety days of completion. Fiscal Impact: Independent correctional audits are estimated to cost $250K to $750K, with optional follow-up monitoring costs of $100K to $300K annually depending on scope and duration.
F3:
Internal investigations into in-custody deaths and critical incidents in Riverside County jails lack structural independence, and standardized documentation protocols, limiting accountability and systemic risk identification.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
(Finding 3) Within eighteen months of the creation of independent oversight per AB 1185, all in-custody deaths and critical incidents shall be reviewed by an independent entity separate from the Riverside County Sheriff’s Office, with written findings issued and publicly released in compliance with applicable privacy laws. Fiscal Impact: If incorporated into the oversight body, estimated annual costs range from $500K to $1.5 million. Jurisdictions utilizing independent investigative models incur higher costs due to staffing of attorneys, investigators, and forensic experts. County of Los Angeles, Recommended Budget 2025–2026, including staffing allocations for the Civilian Oversight Commission and Office of Inspector General. Assembly Bill 1185 Implementation Report (Alameda County), citing NACOLE survey data indicating most oversight bodies operate at or below 0.5% of agency budgets. 18
F4:
The Riverside County Sheriff’s Office does not maintain consistent, comprehensive public reporting on jail operations, in-custody deaths, use-of-force incidents, or compliance with mandated standards, limiting transparency and public trust.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
(Finding 4) Within eighteen months as of July 1, 2026, the Riverside County Sheriff’s Office shall implement a publicly accessible quarterly reporting dashboard that includes: In-custody deaths (with classification) Use-of-force incidents Suicide attempts and medical emergencies Grievance volume and disposition Staffing levels Compliance status with Title 15 and Title 24 standards Fiscal Impact: Estimated one-time development costs of $150K to $400K, with ongoing maintenance costs of $75K to $200K annually, consistent with transparency systems implemented in comparable counties.
F5:
Operational improvements undertaken by the Riverside County Sheriff’s Office are reactive, fragmented, and not part of a coordinated long-term strategy for jail oversight, data transparency, or interagency collaboration.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
(Finding 5) Within eighteen months as of July 1, 2026, the Riverside County Sheriff’s Office shall publish a five-year strategic plan for jail operations that includes measurable performance benchmarks, data transparency goals, compliance auditing procedures, and interagency coordination protocols. Fiscal Impact: Estimated one-time cost of $100K to $300K, primarily for consulting and staff time.
F6:
The County of Riverside has not established a unified, strategic plan to address persistent deficiencies in jail operations, oversight, and accountability, despite repeated findings from prior Grand Jury reports and external investigations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
(Finding 6) Within eighteen months as of July 1, 2026 the Riverside County Board of Supervisors shall develop and adopt a countywide RCSO oversight and accountability framework defining: Oversight authority boundaries Reporting obligations Data transparency requirements Budgetary review standards Interdepartmental coordination roles Fiscal Impact: Estimated one-time cost of $75K to $250K, with minimal ongoing costs absorbed within existing administrative functions.
F7:
The Sheriff’s Advisory Committee has not demonstrated measurable advisory output. The committee failed to produce meeting minutes, written findings, formal recommendations, or documentation of deliberative processes, and members were unable to articulate specific, significant policy impacts resulting from its work.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
(Finding 7) The RCSO shall dissolve the Sheriff’s Advisory Committee and replace it with a formally authorized civilian oversight body meeting the National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement’s best-practice standards within twelve months as of July 1, 2026. Fiscal Impact: No significant independent cost. Fiscal impact is incorporated within Recommendation 1.
F8:
The National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement has published widely recognized guidelines describing the essential elements of effective civilian oversight of law enforcement agencies. Riverside County and the Riverside County Sheriff’s Office have not incorporated these guidelines or comparable best-practice standards into the structure or function of jail oversight mechanisms.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
(Finding 8) The County of Riverside shall formally review and adopt the National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement’s best-practice standards as the operational framework for civilian oversight, incorporating independence, authority, transparency, community engagement, and investigatory capacity principles within eighteen months as of July 1, 2026. Fiscal Impact: Estimated cost of $25K to $75K for training, policy alignment, and implementation support.
F9:
Public statements by the leadership of the Riverside County Sheriff’s Office characterizing civilian oversight authorized under AB 1185 as political rather than operational may influence Riverside County’s implementation approach and have contributed to delayed or limited development of independent oversight structures. 17
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
(Finding 9) The Board of Supervisors shall exercise its statutory authority under AB 1185 to implement independent oversight of all RCSO operations, irrespective of policy disagreements, and shall publicly affirm its governance responsibility for accountability of said operations within eighteen months as of July 1, 2026. Fiscal Impact: No direct fiscal impact beyond those identified above. TABLE 4 FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS OF RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendation One-Time Cost Annual Cost Notes Rec. 1 $500K–$1.2M $2.5–$6.5M Full oversight body Rec. 2 $250K–$750K $100K–$300K Audit Rec. 3 $500K–$1.5M Independent review Rec. 4 $150K–$400K $75K–$200K Dashboard Rec. 5 $100K–$300K Minimal Strategic plan Rec. 6 $75K–$250K Minimal Framework Rec. Negligible Included Replacement Rec. 8 $25K–$75K Minimal NACOLE Rec. None None Policy only 20
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The Board proposed and adopted Ordinance 963 which significantly increases their campaign contribution limit from the $3,000 (set by AB 571) to $20,000 (set by Ordinance 963) adjusted by 3% per person every odd-numbered year per campaign.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board amend Ordinance 963 to eliminate the exception in section 4(f) that allows unlimited campaign contributions from single contributors. Based on Findings: F1-F3 Financial Impact: Minimal
F2:
The Board created an exemption to the limit set in Ordinance 963 by adding section 4(f), which states “the beneficiary of an independent expenditure of more than twenty thousand dollars ($20,000)” will allow “all other candidates running in the election for that same county elective office to be exempted from the campaign contribution limits of this section 4(f) for that election as well.” This nullifies the limit outlined in sections 4(a) and (b), which set the limits for campaign contributions. 13
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board either impose reasonable, mandatory limits on campaign contributions by single contributors or accept the default limits proscribed by the PRA and FPPC regulations. Based on Findings: F1-F3 Financial Impact: Minimal
F3:
The exception created in section 4(f) of Ordinance 963 undermines the stated purposes of AB 571 and Ordinance 963 by allowing unlimited contributions which this report tries to resolve.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board amend their policy A-2(7) from the statement “Robert’s Rule of Order may be used as a general guide for the conduct of the Board’s meetings” to “Robert’s Rule of Order shall be used for the conduct of the meeting.” This holds supervisors to account for actions during the general meeting and promotes 14 consistency for motions proposed and passed. Based on Findings: F4-F5 Financial Impact: Minimal
F4:
The chairperson moved an agenda item to the end of the agenda without a motion. This is contrary to Board policy and procedure A-2(10). Afterward twenty-two people, who wanted to speak on the item, did not do so.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board adopt a policy that makes the Board’s general meeting a priority for scheduling and requires supervisors to defer any foreseeable conflicts. Based on Findings: F5 Financial Impact: Minimal
F5:
The participation by one of the supervisors in a conflicting, external meeting during the Board’s general meeting removed the possibility of that supervisor to make, second, or vote on a motion.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Grand Jury recommends that to the extent the Board believes it is reasonable to eliminate the exception in section 4(f) but maintain the $20,000 limit in section 4(a) of Ordinance 963 rather than the state’s limit, which is currently $5,900, the Board should explain its rationale to the voters.
F6:
Given evidence of direct funding from a single contributor, who had a direct interest in the results of a controversial item, there was an appearance of influence on the Board when the item was addressed.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The Grand Jury recommends that in the event the Board does not remove section (4f) from Ordinance 963, that they adopt a policy requiring supervisors to disclose the contributor and the precise amount at the time of a vote on an item, where that supervisor has received more than $20,000 in cumulative campaign contributions from that person (as defined in the ordinance) since their last campaign cycle, and where the contributor (person) may have a vested interest in the item. Based on Findings: F1-F3, F6 Financial Impact: Minimal
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R7:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board add a section to Ordinance 963 requiring a vote of the people regarding any campaign limit changes and campaign contribution changes for any elected county official. This shall be administered on the same ballot for any primary or general election as the vote that is held for the elected officials. Based on Findings: F6 Financial Impact: Minimal 15
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.