Sacramento County 2021-2022 - California Grand Jury Reports

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 (21)

📋June 30, 2022 — Public Health Office Abandoned by County Board of Supervisors in Covid-19 Crisis An extensive investigation into the

13 pages 176 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Additional Recommendations 176

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

R2: Sacramento County Sheriff's Office Sacramento County Grand Jury Status Review: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors Non-Responsive to Covid-19 Investigation When required to respond to a Sacramento County Grand Jury report showing a less than robust record of leadership at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Grand Jury found that, Board of Supervisors has opted to dodge and deflect. But the Grand Jury’s deep concern, plainly stated in that February 2022 report, continues. The Full Report can be found HERE 2021-2022 Grand Jury Investigative Reports PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICE ABANDONED BY COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS IN COVID-19 CRISIS An extensive investigation into the handling of the COVID-19 crisis by the Sacramento County Office of Public Health (OPH) has led the Grand Jury to find that the County Board of Supervisors ignored its Public Health Officer for five months before finally engaging in any sort of dialogue regarding the County’s COVID-19 activities and its impact on County residents. The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R3: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

R4: Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office Return to Table of Contents REQUIREMENT FOR COVID-19 VACCINATION FOR ELIGIBLE SACRAMENTO COUNTY PUBLIC K-12 SCHOOL DISTRICTS The Sacramento County Grand Jury recommended that all eligible persons in Sacramento County’s Public K-12 school districts be required to have the COVID-19 vaccine. The report calls upon the 13 school districts, representing more than 260,000 children and thousands of personnel within the County, to mandate vaccinations for all eligible public-school students and staff as a prerequisite for in-person attendance of classes or school activities. The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R5: Sacramento City Unified School District

R6: Sacramento County Office of Education 2021-2022 Grand Jury Investigative Reports DEL PASO MANOR WATER DISTRICT FLOODED WITH PUBLIC SAFETY DANGERS A seven-month investigation into a formal complaint against the Del Paso Manor Water District has led to a scathing report by the Sacramento County Grand Jury identifying a literal flood of concerns ranging from water contamination to aging infrastructure to non-compliance with State of California water monitoring requirements. The report cites an on-going significant lack of public transparency by the District’s Board of Directors to act on numerous recommended improvements made by its own consultants and other entities. A failure to complete an estimated $35 million in repairs and upgrades could have disastrous results, including the potential failure of the entire water complex. The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R7: Del Paso Manor Water District President

R8: Del Paso Manor Water District

R9: Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District

R10: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

R11: State Water Resources Control Board

R12: Sacramento County District Attorney

R13: Sacramento LAFCo - Initial

R14: Sacramento LAFCo - Additional Sacramento County Grand Jury Status Review: Del Paso Manor Water District There are more than 100 special districts in Sacramento County, with a staggering 3,400 spread across the state. From local water and sanitation services to lesser known entities like cemetery districts, each operates under individualized budgets and authorities. While some work well and have a large revenue support base, many others struggle to provide essential resources. The Full Status Review Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R15: Supervisor Rich Desmond

R16: Del Paso Manor Water District President 2021-2022 Grand Jury Investigative Reports ISLETON CITY COUNCIL VIOLATES STATE ELECTION LAWS A Sacramento County Grand Jury investigation has found that the Isleton City Council violated state law, and ignored voter concerns by failing to properly fill a council seat following the death of one of its members in April 2021. The position continues to remain empty some nine months later and could potentially go unfilled throughout 2022, diluting the public’s representation in government. The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R17: City of Isleton - Initial

R18: City of Isleton - Update PUBLIC CONFINEMENT REVIEW The Sacramento County Grand Jury is mandated each year by California Penal Code 919 (b) to inquire into the conditions and management of public confinement facilities in Sacramento County. In fulfillment of this obligation, the 2020-2021 Sacramento Grand Jury toured all six confinement facilities within its jurisdiction, as well as the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Work Release Division. The Full Report can be found HERE RESPONSES TO THE 2019-2020 GRAND JURY REPORTS ELK GROVE PARKS: WHERE HAVE ALL THE FLOWERS GONE The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R19: Cosumnes Community Services District

R20: City of Elk Grove Return to Table of Contents IMPACT OF GENTRIFICATION AND NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION ON THE DISPLACEMENT OF RESIDENTS The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R21: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

R22: Downtown Sacramento Partnership

R23: Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency

R24: City of Sacramento Return to Table of Contents HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUTS: HOW ARE DISTRICTS IN SACRAMENTO COUNTY DOING AND WHAT ARE THE BEST PRACTICES FOR IMPROVEMENT? The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R25: Sacramento County Office of Education Responses to the 2019-2020 Grand Jury Reports 911 – THE SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT STAFFING CRISIS The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R26: Sacramento Police Department

R27: City of Sacramento Return to Table of Contents ELECTION SECURITY IN SACRAMENTO COUNTY The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R28: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors Return to Table of Contents CALIFORNIA SENATE BILL 1022: A GIFT TOO GOOD TO IGNORE The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R29: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

R30: Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office 2021-2022 SACRAMENTO COUNTY GRAND JURY Pictured (Left to Right) Front Row: Rachel Kaldor, Deanna Hanson (Foreperson), Jeannine English Second Row: Fran Bremson, Olivia Washington, Tina Bonilla, Steve Holland, Barbara Marquez Third Row: Norv Wellsfry, Gregg Magaziner, Ken Smith, Jill Sherrill, Jim Parvis, Chris Budwine, Endy Tapia-Bouthillier (Grand Jury Coordinator) Back Row: Greg Williams, Scott McDonald, Marc Remis, Brian McElroy, Patty Murray-Turner

R31: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

R32: Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office Return to Table of Contents REQUIREMENT FOR COVID-19 VACCINATION FOR ELIGIBLE SACRAMENTO COUNTY PUBLIC K-12 SCHOOL DISTRICTS The Sacramento County Grand Jury recommended that all eligible persons in Sacramento County’s Public K-12 school districts be required to have the COVID-19 vaccine. The report calls upon the 13 school districts, representing more than 260,000 children and thousands of personnel within the County, to mandate vaccinations for all eligible public-school students and staff as a prerequisite for in-person attendance of classes or school activities. The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R33: Sacramento City Unified School District

R34: Sacramento County Office of Education 2021-2022 Grand Jury Investigative Reports DEL PASO MANOR WATER DISTRICT FLOODED WITH PUBLIC SAFETY DANGERS A seven-month investigation into a formal complaint against the Del Paso Manor Water District has led to a scathing report by the Sacramento County Grand Jury identifying a literal flood of concerns ranging from water contamination to aging infrastructure to non-compliance with State of California water monitoring requirements. The report cites an on-going significant lack of public transparency by the District’s Board of Directors to act on numerous recommended improvements made by its own consultants and other entities. A failure to complete an estimated $35 million in repairs and upgrades could have disastrous results, including the potential failure of the entire water complex. The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R35: Del Paso Manor Water District President

R36: Del Paso Manor Water District

R37: Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District

R38: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

R39: State Water Resources Control Board

R40: Sacramento County District Attorney

R41: Sacramento LAFCo - Initial

R42: Sacramento LAFCo - Additional Sacramento County Grand Jury Status Review: Del Paso Manor Water District There are more than 100 special districts in Sacramento County, with a staggering 3,400 spread across the state. From local water and sanitation services to lesser known entities like cemetery districts, each operates under individualized budgets and authorities. While some work well and have a large revenue support base, many others struggle to provide essential resources. The Full Status Review Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R43: Supervisor Rich Desmond

R44: Del Paso Manor Water District President 2021-2022 Grand Jury Investigative Reports ISLETON CITY COUNCIL VIOLATES STATE ELECTION LAWS A Sacramento County Grand Jury investigation has found that the Isleton City Council violated state law, and ignored voter concerns by failing to properly fill a council seat following the death of one of its members in April 2021. The position continues to remain empty some nine months later and could potentially go unfilled throughout 2022, diluting the public’s representation in government. The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R45: City of Isleton - Initial

R46: City of Isleton - Update PUBLIC CONFINEMENT REVIEW The Sacramento County Grand Jury is mandated each year by California Penal Code 919 (b) to inquire into the conditions and management of public confinement facilities in Sacramento County. In fulfillment of this obligation, the 2020-2021 Sacramento Grand Jury toured all six confinement facilities within its jurisdiction, as well as the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Work Release Division. The Full Report can be found HERE RESPONSES TO THE 2019-2020 GRAND JURY REPORTS ELK GROVE PARKS: WHERE HAVE ALL THE FLOWERS GONE The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R47: Cosumnes Community Services District

R48: City of Elk Grove Return to Table of Contents IMPACT OF GENTRIFICATION AND NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION ON THE DISPLACEMENT OF RESIDENTS The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R49: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

R50: Downtown Sacramento Partnership

R51: Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency

R52: City of Sacramento Return to Table of Contents HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUTS: HOW ARE DISTRICTS IN SACRAMENTO COUNTY DOING AND WHAT ARE THE BEST PRACTICES FOR IMPROVEMENT? The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R53: Sacramento County Office of Education Responses to the 2019-2020 Grand Jury Reports 911 – THE SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT STAFFING CRISIS The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R54: Sacramento Police Department

R55: City of Sacramento Return to Table of Contents ELECTION SECURITY IN SACRAMENTO COUNTY The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R56: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors Return to Table of Contents CALIFORNIA SENATE BILL 1022: A GIFT TOO GOOD TO IGNORE The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R57: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

R58: Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office 2021-2022 SACRAMENTO COUNTY GRAND JURY Pictured (Left to Right) Front Row: Rachel Kaldor, Deanna Hanson (Foreperson), Jeannine English Second Row: Fran Bremson, Olivia Washington, Tina Bonilla, Steve Holland, Barbara Marquez Third Row: Norv Wellsfry, Gregg Magaziner, Ken Smith, Jill Sherrill, Jim Parvis, Chris Budwine, Endy Tapia-Bouthillier (Grand Jury Coordinator) Back Row: Greg Williams, Scott McDonald, Marc Remis, Brian McElroy, Patty Murray-Turner

R59: Sacramento City Unified School District

R60: Sacramento County Office of Education 2021-2022 Grand Jury Investigative Reports DEL PASO MANOR WATER DISTRICT FLOODED WITH PUBLIC SAFETY DANGERS A seven-month investigation into a formal complaint against the Del Paso Manor Water District has led to a scathing report by the Sacramento County Grand Jury identifying a literal flood of concerns ranging from water contamination to aging infrastructure to non-compliance with State of California water monitoring requirements. The report cites an on-going significant lack of public transparency by the District’s Board of Directors to act on numerous recommended improvements made by its own consultants and other entities. A failure to complete an estimated $35 million in repairs and upgrades could have disastrous results, including the potential failure of the entire water complex. The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R61: Del Paso Manor Water District President

R62: Del Paso Manor Water District

R63: Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District

R64: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

R65: State Water Resources Control Board

R66: Sacramento County District Attorney

R67: Sacramento LAFCo - Initial

R68: Sacramento LAFCo - Additional Sacramento County Grand Jury Status Review: Del Paso Manor Water District There are more than 100 special districts in Sacramento County, with a staggering 3,400 spread across the state. From local water and sanitation services to lesser known entities like cemetery districts, each operates under individualized budgets and authorities. While some work well and have a large revenue support base, many others struggle to provide essential resources. The Full Status Review Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R69: Supervisor Rich Desmond

R70: Del Paso Manor Water District President 2021-2022 Grand Jury Investigative Reports ISLETON CITY COUNCIL VIOLATES STATE ELECTION LAWS A Sacramento County Grand Jury investigation has found that the Isleton City Council violated state law, and ignored voter concerns by failing to properly fill a council seat following the death of one of its members in April 2021. The position continues to remain empty some nine months later and could potentially go unfilled throughout 2022, diluting the public’s representation in government. The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R71: City of Isleton - Initial

R72: City of Isleton - Update PUBLIC CONFINEMENT REVIEW The Sacramento County Grand Jury is mandated each year by California Penal Code 919 (b) to inquire into the conditions and management of public confinement facilities in Sacramento County. In fulfillment of this obligation, the 2020-2021 Sacramento Grand Jury toured all six confinement facilities within its jurisdiction, as well as the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Work Release Division. The Full Report can be found HERE RESPONSES TO THE 2019-2020 GRAND JURY REPORTS ELK GROVE PARKS: WHERE HAVE ALL THE FLOWERS GONE The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R73: Cosumnes Community Services District

R74: City of Elk Grove Return to Table of Contents IMPACT OF GENTRIFICATION AND NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION ON THE DISPLACEMENT OF RESIDENTS The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R75: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

R76: Downtown Sacramento Partnership

R77: Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency

R78: City of Sacramento Return to Table of Contents HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUTS: HOW ARE DISTRICTS IN SACRAMENTO COUNTY DOING AND WHAT ARE THE BEST PRACTICES FOR IMPROVEMENT? The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R79: Sacramento County Office of Education Responses to the 2019-2020 Grand Jury Reports 911 – THE SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT STAFFING CRISIS The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R80: Sacramento Police Department

R81: City of Sacramento Return to Table of Contents ELECTION SECURITY IN SACRAMENTO COUNTY The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R82: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors Return to Table of Contents CALIFORNIA SENATE BILL 1022: A GIFT TOO GOOD TO IGNORE The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R83: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

R84: Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office 2021-2022 SACRAMENTO COUNTY GRAND JURY Pictured (Left to Right) Front Row: Rachel Kaldor, Deanna Hanson (Foreperson), Jeannine English Second Row: Fran Bremson, Olivia Washington, Tina Bonilla, Steve Holland, Barbara Marquez Third Row: Norv Wellsfry, Gregg Magaziner, Ken Smith, Jill Sherrill, Jim Parvis, Chris Budwine, Endy Tapia-Bouthillier (Grand Jury Coordinator) Back Row: Greg Williams, Scott McDonald, Marc Remis, Brian McElroy, Patty Murray-Turner

R85: Del Paso Manor Water District President

R86: Del Paso Manor Water District

R87: Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District

R88: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

R89: State Water Resources Control Board

R90: Sacramento County District Attorney

R91: Sacramento LAFCo - Initial

R92: Sacramento LAFCo - Additional Sacramento County Grand Jury Status Review: Del Paso Manor Water District There are more than 100 special districts in Sacramento County, with a staggering 3,400 spread across the state. From local water and sanitation services to lesser known entities like cemetery districts, each operates under individualized budgets and authorities. While some work well and have a large revenue support base, many others struggle to provide essential resources. The Full Status Review Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R93: Supervisor Rich Desmond

R94: Del Paso Manor Water District President 2021-2022 Grand Jury Investigative Reports ISLETON CITY COUNCIL VIOLATES STATE ELECTION LAWS A Sacramento County Grand Jury investigation has found that the Isleton City Council violated state law, and ignored voter concerns by failing to properly fill a council seat following the death of one of its members in April 2021. The position continues to remain empty some nine months later and could potentially go unfilled throughout 2022, diluting the public’s representation in government. The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R95: City of Isleton - Initial

R96: City of Isleton - Update PUBLIC CONFINEMENT REVIEW The Sacramento County Grand Jury is mandated each year by California Penal Code 919 (b) to inquire into the conditions and management of public confinement facilities in Sacramento County. In fulfillment of this obligation, the 2020-2021 Sacramento Grand Jury toured all six confinement facilities within its jurisdiction, as well as the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Work Release Division. The Full Report can be found HERE RESPONSES TO THE 2019-2020 GRAND JURY REPORTS ELK GROVE PARKS: WHERE HAVE ALL THE FLOWERS GONE The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R97: Cosumnes Community Services District

R98: City of Elk Grove Return to Table of Contents IMPACT OF GENTRIFICATION AND NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION ON THE DISPLACEMENT OF RESIDENTS The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R99: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

R100: Downtown Sacramento Partnership

R101: Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency

R102: City of Sacramento Return to Table of Contents HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUTS: HOW ARE DISTRICTS IN SACRAMENTO COUNTY DOING AND WHAT ARE THE BEST PRACTICES FOR IMPROVEMENT? The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R103: Sacramento County Office of Education Responses to the 2019-2020 Grand Jury Reports 911 – THE SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT STAFFING CRISIS The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R104: Sacramento Police Department

R105: City of Sacramento Return to Table of Contents ELECTION SECURITY IN SACRAMENTO COUNTY The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R106: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors Return to Table of Contents CALIFORNIA SENATE BILL 1022: A GIFT TOO GOOD TO IGNORE The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R107: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

R108: Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office 2021-2022 SACRAMENTO COUNTY GRAND JURY Pictured (Left to Right) Front Row: Rachel Kaldor, Deanna Hanson (Foreperson), Jeannine English Second Row: Fran Bremson, Olivia Washington, Tina Bonilla, Steve Holland, Barbara Marquez Third Row: Norv Wellsfry, Gregg Magaziner, Ken Smith, Jill Sherrill, Jim Parvis, Chris Budwine, Endy Tapia-Bouthillier (Grand Jury Coordinator) Back Row: Greg Williams, Scott McDonald, Marc Remis, Brian McElroy, Patty Murray-Turner

R109: Supervisor Rich Desmond

R110: Del Paso Manor Water District President 2021-2022 Grand Jury Investigative Reports ISLETON CITY COUNCIL VIOLATES STATE ELECTION LAWS A Sacramento County Grand Jury investigation has found that the Isleton City Council violated state law, and ignored voter concerns by failing to properly fill a council seat following the death of one of its members in April 2021. The position continues to remain empty some nine months later and could potentially go unfilled throughout 2022, diluting the public’s representation in government. The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R111: City of Isleton - Initial

R112: City of Isleton - Update PUBLIC CONFINEMENT REVIEW The Sacramento County Grand Jury is mandated each year by California Penal Code 919 (b) to inquire into the conditions and management of public confinement facilities in Sacramento County. In fulfillment of this obligation, the 2020-2021 Sacramento Grand Jury toured all six confinement facilities within its jurisdiction, as well as the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Work Release Division. The Full Report can be found HERE RESPONSES TO THE 2019-2020 GRAND JURY REPORTS ELK GROVE PARKS: WHERE HAVE ALL THE FLOWERS GONE The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R113: Cosumnes Community Services District

R114: City of Elk Grove Return to Table of Contents IMPACT OF GENTRIFICATION AND NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION ON THE DISPLACEMENT OF RESIDENTS The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R115: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

R116: Downtown Sacramento Partnership

R117: Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency

R118: City of Sacramento Return to Table of Contents HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUTS: HOW ARE DISTRICTS IN SACRAMENTO COUNTY DOING AND WHAT ARE THE BEST PRACTICES FOR IMPROVEMENT? The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R119: Sacramento County Office of Education Responses to the 2019-2020 Grand Jury Reports 911 – THE SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT STAFFING CRISIS The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R120: Sacramento Police Department

R121: City of Sacramento Return to Table of Contents ELECTION SECURITY IN SACRAMENTO COUNTY The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R122: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors Return to Table of Contents CALIFORNIA SENATE BILL 1022: A GIFT TOO GOOD TO IGNORE The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R123: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

R124: Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office 2021-2022 SACRAMENTO COUNTY GRAND JURY Pictured (Left to Right) Front Row: Rachel Kaldor, Deanna Hanson (Foreperson), Jeannine English Second Row: Fran Bremson, Olivia Washington, Tina Bonilla, Steve Holland, Barbara Marquez Third Row: Norv Wellsfry, Gregg Magaziner, Ken Smith, Jill Sherrill, Jim Parvis, Chris Budwine, Endy Tapia-Bouthillier (Grand Jury Coordinator) Back Row: Greg Williams, Scott McDonald, Marc Remis, Brian McElroy, Patty Murray-Turner

R125: City of Isleton - Initial

R126: City of Isleton - Update PUBLIC CONFINEMENT REVIEW The Sacramento County Grand Jury is mandated each year by California Penal Code 919 (b) to inquire into the conditions and management of public confinement facilities in Sacramento County. In fulfillment of this obligation, the 2020-2021 Sacramento Grand Jury toured all six confinement facilities within its jurisdiction, as well as the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Work Release Division. The Full Report can be found HERE RESPONSES TO THE 2019-2020 GRAND JURY REPORTS ELK GROVE PARKS: WHERE HAVE ALL THE FLOWERS GONE The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R127: Cosumnes Community Services District

R128: City of Elk Grove Return to Table of Contents IMPACT OF GENTRIFICATION AND NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION ON THE DISPLACEMENT OF RESIDENTS The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R129: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

R130: Downtown Sacramento Partnership

R131: Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency

R132: City of Sacramento Return to Table of Contents HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUTS: HOW ARE DISTRICTS IN SACRAMENTO COUNTY DOING AND WHAT ARE THE BEST PRACTICES FOR IMPROVEMENT? The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R133: Sacramento County Office of Education Responses to the 2019-2020 Grand Jury Reports 911 – THE SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT STAFFING CRISIS The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R134: Sacramento Police Department

R135: City of Sacramento Return to Table of Contents ELECTION SECURITY IN SACRAMENTO COUNTY The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R136: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors Return to Table of Contents CALIFORNIA SENATE BILL 1022: A GIFT TOO GOOD TO IGNORE The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R137: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

R138: Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office 2021-2022 SACRAMENTO COUNTY GRAND JURY Pictured (Left to Right) Front Row: Rachel Kaldor, Deanna Hanson (Foreperson), Jeannine English Second Row: Fran Bremson, Olivia Washington, Tina Bonilla, Steve Holland, Barbara Marquez Third Row: Norv Wellsfry, Gregg Magaziner, Ken Smith, Jill Sherrill, Jim Parvis, Chris Budwine, Endy Tapia-Bouthillier (Grand Jury Coordinator) Back Row: Greg Williams, Scott McDonald, Marc Remis, Brian McElroy, Patty Murray-Turner

R139: Cosumnes Community Services District

R140: City of Elk Grove Return to Table of Contents IMPACT OF GENTRIFICATION AND NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION ON THE DISPLACEMENT OF RESIDENTS The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R141: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

R142: Downtown Sacramento Partnership

R143: Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency

R144: City of Sacramento Return to Table of Contents HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUTS: HOW ARE DISTRICTS IN SACRAMENTO COUNTY DOING AND WHAT ARE THE BEST PRACTICES FOR IMPROVEMENT? The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R145: Sacramento County Office of Education Responses to the 2019-2020 Grand Jury Reports 911 – THE SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT STAFFING CRISIS The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R146: Sacramento Police Department

R147: City of Sacramento Return to Table of Contents ELECTION SECURITY IN SACRAMENTO COUNTY The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R148: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors Return to Table of Contents CALIFORNIA SENATE BILL 1022: A GIFT TOO GOOD TO IGNORE The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R149: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

R150: Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office 2021-2022 SACRAMENTO COUNTY GRAND JURY Pictured (Left to Right) Front Row: Rachel Kaldor, Deanna Hanson (Foreperson), Jeannine English Second Row: Fran Bremson, Olivia Washington, Tina Bonilla, Steve Holland, Barbara Marquez Third Row: Norv Wellsfry, Gregg Magaziner, Ken Smith, Jill Sherrill, Jim Parvis, Chris Budwine, Endy Tapia-Bouthillier (Grand Jury Coordinator) Back Row: Greg Williams, Scott McDonald, Marc Remis, Brian McElroy, Patty Murray-Turner

R151: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

R152: Downtown Sacramento Partnership

R153: Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency

R154: City of Sacramento Return to Table of Contents HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUTS: HOW ARE DISTRICTS IN SACRAMENTO COUNTY DOING AND WHAT ARE THE BEST PRACTICES FOR IMPROVEMENT? The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R155: Sacramento County Office of Education Responses to the 2019-2020 Grand Jury Reports 911 – THE SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT STAFFING CRISIS The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R156: Sacramento Police Department

R157: City of Sacramento Return to Table of Contents ELECTION SECURITY IN SACRAMENTO COUNTY The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R158: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors Return to Table of Contents CALIFORNIA SENATE BILL 1022: A GIFT TOO GOOD TO IGNORE The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R159: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

R160: Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office 2021-2022 SACRAMENTO COUNTY GRAND JURY Pictured (Left to Right) Front Row: Rachel Kaldor, Deanna Hanson (Foreperson), Jeannine English Second Row: Fran Bremson, Olivia Washington, Tina Bonilla, Steve Holland, Barbara Marquez Third Row: Norv Wellsfry, Gregg Magaziner, Ken Smith, Jill Sherrill, Jim Parvis, Chris Budwine, Endy Tapia-Bouthillier (Grand Jury Coordinator) Back Row: Greg Williams, Scott McDonald, Marc Remis, Brian McElroy, Patty Murray-Turner

R161: Sacramento County Office of Education Responses to the 2019-2020 Grand Jury Reports 911 – THE SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT STAFFING CRISIS The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R162: Sacramento Police Department

R163: City of Sacramento Return to Table of Contents ELECTION SECURITY IN SACRAMENTO COUNTY The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R164: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors Return to Table of Contents CALIFORNIA SENATE BILL 1022: A GIFT TOO GOOD TO IGNORE The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R165: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

R166: Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office 2021-2022 SACRAMENTO COUNTY GRAND JURY Pictured (Left to Right) Front Row: Rachel Kaldor, Deanna Hanson (Foreperson), Jeannine English Second Row: Fran Bremson, Olivia Washington, Tina Bonilla, Steve Holland, Barbara Marquez Third Row: Norv Wellsfry, Gregg Magaziner, Ken Smith, Jill Sherrill, Jim Parvis, Chris Budwine, Endy Tapia-Bouthillier (Grand Jury Coordinator) Back Row: Greg Williams, Scott McDonald, Marc Remis, Brian McElroy, Patty Murray-Turner

R167: Sacramento Police Department

R168: City of Sacramento Return to Table of Contents ELECTION SECURITY IN SACRAMENTO COUNTY The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R169: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors Return to Table of Contents CALIFORNIA SENATE BILL 1022: A GIFT TOO GOOD TO IGNORE The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R170: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

R171: Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office 2021-2022 SACRAMENTO COUNTY GRAND JURY Pictured (Left to Right) Front Row: Rachel Kaldor, Deanna Hanson (Foreperson), Jeannine English Second Row: Fran Bremson, Olivia Washington, Tina Bonilla, Steve Holland, Barbara Marquez Third Row: Norv Wellsfry, Gregg Magaziner, Ken Smith, Jill Sherrill, Jim Parvis, Chris Budwine, Endy Tapia-Bouthillier (Grand Jury Coordinator) Back Row: Greg Williams, Scott McDonald, Marc Remis, Brian McElroy, Patty Murray-Turner

R172: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors Return to Table of Contents CALIFORNIA SENATE BILL 1022: A GIFT TOO GOOD TO IGNORE The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R173: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

R174: Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office 2021-2022 SACRAMENTO COUNTY GRAND JURY Pictured (Left to Right) Front Row: Rachel Kaldor, Deanna Hanson (Foreperson), Jeannine English Second Row: Fran Bremson, Olivia Washington, Tina Bonilla, Steve Holland, Barbara Marquez Third Row: Norv Wellsfry, Gregg Magaziner, Ken Smith, Jill Sherrill, Jim Parvis, Chris Budwine, Endy Tapia-Bouthillier (Grand Jury Coordinator) Back Row: Greg Williams, Scott McDonald, Marc Remis, Brian McElroy, Patty Murray-Turner

R175: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

R176: Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office 2021-2022 SACRAMENTO COUNTY GRAND JURY Pictured (Left to Right) Front Row: Rachel Kaldor, Deanna Hanson (Foreperson), Jeannine English Second Row: Fran Bremson, Olivia Washington, Tina Bonilla, Steve Holland, Barbara Marquez Third Row: Norv Wellsfry, Gregg Magaziner, Ken Smith, Jill Sherrill, Jim Parvis, Chris Budwine, Endy Tapia-Bouthillier (Grand Jury Coordinator) Back Row: Greg Williams, Scott McDonald, Marc Remis, Brian McElroy, Patty Murray-Turner

📋June 30, 2022 — Public Health Office Abandoned by County Board of Supervisors in Covid-19 Crisis An extensive investigation into the

13 pages 176 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Additional Recommendations 176

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

R3: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

R5: Sacramento City Unified School District

R7: Del Paso Manor Water District President

R8: Del Paso Manor Water District

R9: Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District

R10: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

R11: State Water Resources Control Board

R12: Sacramento County District Attorney

R13: Sacramento LAFCo - Initial

R15: Supervisor Rich Desmond

R17: City of Isleton - Initial

R19: Cosumnes Community Services District

R21: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

R22: Downtown Sacramento Partnership

R23: Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency

R26: Sacramento Police Department

R27: City of Sacramento Return to Table of Contents ELECTION SECURITY IN SACRAMENTO COUNTY The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R29: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

R31: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

R33: Sacramento City Unified School District

R35: Del Paso Manor Water District President

R36: Del Paso Manor Water District

R37: Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District

R38: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

R39: State Water Resources Control Board

R40: Sacramento County District Attorney

R41: Sacramento LAFCo - Initial

R43: Supervisor Rich Desmond

R45: City of Isleton - Initial

R47: Cosumnes Community Services District

R49: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

R50: Downtown Sacramento Partnership

R51: Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency

R54: Sacramento Police Department

R55: City of Sacramento Return to Table of Contents ELECTION SECURITY IN SACRAMENTO COUNTY The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R57: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

R59: Sacramento City Unified School District

R61: Del Paso Manor Water District President

R62: Del Paso Manor Water District

R63: Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District

R64: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

R65: State Water Resources Control Board

R66: Sacramento County District Attorney

R67: Sacramento LAFCo - Initial

R69: Supervisor Rich Desmond

R71: City of Isleton - Initial

R73: Cosumnes Community Services District

R75: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

R76: Downtown Sacramento Partnership

R77: Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency

R80: Sacramento Police Department

R81: City of Sacramento Return to Table of Contents ELECTION SECURITY IN SACRAMENTO COUNTY The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R83: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

R85: Del Paso Manor Water District President

R86: Del Paso Manor Water District

R87: Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District

R88: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

R89: State Water Resources Control Board

R90: Sacramento County District Attorney

R91: Sacramento LAFCo - Initial

R93: Supervisor Rich Desmond

R95: City of Isleton - Initial

R97: Cosumnes Community Services District

R99: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

R100: Downtown Sacramento Partnership

R101: Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency

R104: Sacramento Police Department

R105: City of Sacramento Return to Table of Contents ELECTION SECURITY IN SACRAMENTO COUNTY The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R107: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

R109: Supervisor Rich Desmond

R111: City of Isleton - Initial

R113: Cosumnes Community Services District

R115: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

R116: Downtown Sacramento Partnership

R117: Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency

R120: Sacramento Police Department

R121: City of Sacramento Return to Table of Contents ELECTION SECURITY IN SACRAMENTO COUNTY The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R123: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

R125: City of Isleton - Initial

R127: Cosumnes Community Services District

R129: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

R130: Downtown Sacramento Partnership

R131: Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency

R134: Sacramento Police Department

R135: City of Sacramento Return to Table of Contents ELECTION SECURITY IN SACRAMENTO COUNTY The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R137: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

R139: Cosumnes Community Services District

R141: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

R142: Downtown Sacramento Partnership

R143: Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency

R146: Sacramento Police Department

R147: City of Sacramento Return to Table of Contents ELECTION SECURITY IN SACRAMENTO COUNTY The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R149: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

R151: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

R152: Downtown Sacramento Partnership

R153: Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency

R156: Sacramento Police Department

R157: City of Sacramento Return to Table of Contents ELECTION SECURITY IN SACRAMENTO COUNTY The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R159: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

R162: Sacramento Police Department

R163: City of Sacramento Return to Table of Contents ELECTION SECURITY IN SACRAMENTO COUNTY The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R165: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

R167: Sacramento Police Department

R168: City of Sacramento Return to Table of Contents ELECTION SECURITY IN SACRAMENTO COUNTY The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R170: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

R173: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

R175: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

📋June 22, 2022 — DEL Paso Manor Water District Flooded with Public Safety Dangers a seven-month investigation into a formal complaint

6 pages 92 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Additional Recommendations 92

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: Del Paso Manor Water District President

Page 8

R2: Del Paso Manor Water District

Page 8

R3: Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District

Page 8

R4: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

Page 8

R5: State Water Resources Control Board

Page 8

R6: Sacramento County District Attorney

Page 8

R7: Sacramento LAFCo - Initial

Page 8

R8: Sacramento LAFCo - Additional Sacramento County Grand Jury Status Review: Del Paso Manor Water District There are more than 100 special districts in Sacramento County, with a staggering 3,400 spread across the state. From local water and sanitation services to lesser known entities like cemetery districts, each operates under individualized budgets and authorities. While some work well and have a large revenue support base, many others struggle to provide essential resources. The Full Status Review Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R9: Supervisor Rich Desmond

Page 8

R10: Del Paso Manor Water District President Return to Table of Contents 2021-2022 Grand Jury 3 Final Report 2021-2022 Grand Jury Investigative Reports ISLETON CITY COUNCIL VIOLATES STATE ELECTION LAWS A Sacramento County Grand Jury investigation has found that the Isleton City Council violated state law, and ignored voter concerns by failing to properly fill a council seat following the death of one of its members in April 2021. The position continues to remain empty some nine months later and could potentially go unfilled throughout 2022, diluting the public’s representation in government. The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R11: City of Isleton - Initial

Page 9

R12: City of Isleton - Update Return to Table of Contents 2021-2022 Grand Jury 4 Final Report PUBLIC CONFINEMENT REVIEW The Sacramento County Grand Jury is mandated each year by California Penal Code 919 (b) to inquire into the conditions and management of public confinement facilities in Sacramento County. In fulfillment of this obligation, the 2020-2021 Sacramento Grand Jury toured all six confinement facilities within its jurisdiction, as well as the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Work Release Division. The Full Report can be found HERE Return to Table of Contents 2021-2022 Grand Jury 5 Final Report RESPONSES TO THE 2019-2020 GRAND JURY REPORTS ELK GROVE PARKS: WHERE HAVE ALL THE FLOWERS GONE The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R13: Cosumnes Community Services District

Page 11

R14: City of Elk Grove Return to Table of Contents IMPACT OF GENTRIFICATION AND NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION ON THE DISPLACEMENT OF RESIDENTS The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R15: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

Page 8

R16: Downtown Sacramento Partnership

Page 11

R17: Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency

Page 11

R18: City of Sacramento Return to Table of Contents HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUTS: HOW ARE DISTRICTS IN SACRAMENTO COUNTY DOING AND WHAT ARE THE BEST PRACTICES FOR IMPROVEMENT? The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R19: Sacramento County Office of Education Return to Table of Contents 2021-2022 Grand Jury 6 Final Report Responses to the 2019-2020 Grand Jury Reports 911 – THE SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT STAFFING CRISIS The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R20: Sacramento Police Department

Page 12

R21: City of Sacramento Return to Table of Contents ELECTION SECURITY IN SACRAMENTO COUNTY The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R22: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors Return to Table of Contents CALIFORNIA SENATE BILL 1022: A GIFT TOO GOOD TO IGNORE The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R23: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

Page 8

R24: Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office Return to Table of Contents 2021-2022 Grand Jury 7 Final Report 2021-2022 SACRAMENTO COUNTY GRAND JURY Pictured (Left to Right) Front Row: Rachel Kaldor, Deanna Hanson (Foreperson), Jeannine English Second Row: Fran Bremson, Olivia Washington, Tina Bonilla, Steve Holland, Barbara Marquez Third Row: Norv Wellsfry, Gregg Magaziner, Ken Smith, Jill Sherrill, Jim Parvis, Chris Budwine, Endy Tapia-Bouthillier (Grand Jury Coordinator) Back Row: Greg Williams, Scott McDonald, Marc Remis, Brian McElroy, Patty Murray-Turner Return to Table of Contents 2021-2022 Grand Jury 8 Final Report

R25: Supervisor Rich Desmond

Page 8

R26: Del Paso Manor Water District President Return to Table of Contents 2021-2022 Grand Jury 3 Final Report 2021-2022 Grand Jury Investigative Reports ISLETON CITY COUNCIL VIOLATES STATE ELECTION LAWS A Sacramento County Grand Jury investigation has found that the Isleton City Council violated state law, and ignored voter concerns by failing to properly fill a council seat following the death of one of its members in April 2021. The position continues to remain empty some nine months later and could potentially go unfilled throughout 2022, diluting the public’s representation in government. The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R27: City of Isleton - Initial

Page 9

R28: City of Isleton - Update Return to Table of Contents 2021-2022 Grand Jury 4 Final Report PUBLIC CONFINEMENT REVIEW The Sacramento County Grand Jury is mandated each year by California Penal Code 919 (b) to inquire into the conditions and management of public confinement facilities in Sacramento County. In fulfillment of this obligation, the 2020-2021 Sacramento Grand Jury toured all six confinement facilities within its jurisdiction, as well as the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Work Release Division. The Full Report can be found HERE Return to Table of Contents 2021-2022 Grand Jury 5 Final Report RESPONSES TO THE 2019-2020 GRAND JURY REPORTS ELK GROVE PARKS: WHERE HAVE ALL THE FLOWERS GONE The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R29: Cosumnes Community Services District

Page 11

R30: City of Elk Grove Return to Table of Contents IMPACT OF GENTRIFICATION AND NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION ON THE DISPLACEMENT OF RESIDENTS The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R31: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

Page 8

R32: Downtown Sacramento Partnership

Page 11

R33: Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency

Page 11

R34: City of Sacramento Return to Table of Contents HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUTS: HOW ARE DISTRICTS IN SACRAMENTO COUNTY DOING AND WHAT ARE THE BEST PRACTICES FOR IMPROVEMENT? The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R35: Sacramento County Office of Education Return to Table of Contents 2021-2022 Grand Jury 6 Final Report Responses to the 2019-2020 Grand Jury Reports 911 – THE SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT STAFFING CRISIS The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R36: Sacramento Police Department

Page 12

R37: City of Sacramento Return to Table of Contents ELECTION SECURITY IN SACRAMENTO COUNTY The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R38: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors Return to Table of Contents CALIFORNIA SENATE BILL 1022: A GIFT TOO GOOD TO IGNORE The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R39: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

Page 8

R40: Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office Return to Table of Contents 2021-2022 Grand Jury 7 Final Report 2021-2022 SACRAMENTO COUNTY GRAND JURY Pictured (Left to Right) Front Row: Rachel Kaldor, Deanna Hanson (Foreperson), Jeannine English Second Row: Fran Bremson, Olivia Washington, Tina Bonilla, Steve Holland, Barbara Marquez Third Row: Norv Wellsfry, Gregg Magaziner, Ken Smith, Jill Sherrill, Jim Parvis, Chris Budwine, Endy Tapia-Bouthillier (Grand Jury Coordinator) Back Row: Greg Williams, Scott McDonald, Marc Remis, Brian McElroy, Patty Murray-Turner Return to Table of Contents 2021-2022 Grand Jury 8 Final Report

R41: City of Isleton - Initial

Page 9

R42: City of Isleton - Update Return to Table of Contents 2021-2022 Grand Jury 4 Final Report PUBLIC CONFINEMENT REVIEW The Sacramento County Grand Jury is mandated each year by California Penal Code 919 (b) to inquire into the conditions and management of public confinement facilities in Sacramento County. In fulfillment of this obligation, the 2020-2021 Sacramento Grand Jury toured all six confinement facilities within its jurisdiction, as well as the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Work Release Division. The Full Report can be found HERE Return to Table of Contents 2021-2022 Grand Jury 5 Final Report RESPONSES TO THE 2019-2020 GRAND JURY REPORTS ELK GROVE PARKS: WHERE HAVE ALL THE FLOWERS GONE The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R43: Cosumnes Community Services District

Page 11

R44: City of Elk Grove Return to Table of Contents IMPACT OF GENTRIFICATION AND NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION ON THE DISPLACEMENT OF RESIDENTS The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R45: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

Page 8

R46: Downtown Sacramento Partnership

Page 11

R47: Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency

Page 11

R48: City of Sacramento Return to Table of Contents HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUTS: HOW ARE DISTRICTS IN SACRAMENTO COUNTY DOING AND WHAT ARE THE BEST PRACTICES FOR IMPROVEMENT? The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R49: Sacramento County Office of Education Return to Table of Contents 2021-2022 Grand Jury 6 Final Report Responses to the 2019-2020 Grand Jury Reports 911 – THE SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT STAFFING CRISIS The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R50: Sacramento Police Department

Page 12

R51: City of Sacramento Return to Table of Contents ELECTION SECURITY IN SACRAMENTO COUNTY The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R52: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors Return to Table of Contents CALIFORNIA SENATE BILL 1022: A GIFT TOO GOOD TO IGNORE The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R53: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

Page 8

R54: Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office Return to Table of Contents 2021-2022 Grand Jury 7 Final Report 2021-2022 SACRAMENTO COUNTY GRAND JURY Pictured (Left to Right) Front Row: Rachel Kaldor, Deanna Hanson (Foreperson), Jeannine English Second Row: Fran Bremson, Olivia Washington, Tina Bonilla, Steve Holland, Barbara Marquez Third Row: Norv Wellsfry, Gregg Magaziner, Ken Smith, Jill Sherrill, Jim Parvis, Chris Budwine, Endy Tapia-Bouthillier (Grand Jury Coordinator) Back Row: Greg Williams, Scott McDonald, Marc Remis, Brian McElroy, Patty Murray-Turner Return to Table of Contents 2021-2022 Grand Jury 8 Final Report

R55: Cosumnes Community Services District

Page 11

R56: City of Elk Grove Return to Table of Contents IMPACT OF GENTRIFICATION AND NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION ON THE DISPLACEMENT OF RESIDENTS The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R57: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

Page 8

R58: Downtown Sacramento Partnership

Page 11

R59: Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency

Page 11

R60: City of Sacramento Return to Table of Contents HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUTS: HOW ARE DISTRICTS IN SACRAMENTO COUNTY DOING AND WHAT ARE THE BEST PRACTICES FOR IMPROVEMENT? The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R61: Sacramento County Office of Education Return to Table of Contents 2021-2022 Grand Jury 6 Final Report Responses to the 2019-2020 Grand Jury Reports 911 – THE SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT STAFFING CRISIS The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R62: Sacramento Police Department

Page 12

R63: City of Sacramento Return to Table of Contents ELECTION SECURITY IN SACRAMENTO COUNTY The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R64: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors Return to Table of Contents CALIFORNIA SENATE BILL 1022: A GIFT TOO GOOD TO IGNORE The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R65: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

Page 8

R66: Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office Return to Table of Contents 2021-2022 Grand Jury 7 Final Report 2021-2022 SACRAMENTO COUNTY GRAND JURY Pictured (Left to Right) Front Row: Rachel Kaldor, Deanna Hanson (Foreperson), Jeannine English Second Row: Fran Bremson, Olivia Washington, Tina Bonilla, Steve Holland, Barbara Marquez Third Row: Norv Wellsfry, Gregg Magaziner, Ken Smith, Jill Sherrill, Jim Parvis, Chris Budwine, Endy Tapia-Bouthillier (Grand Jury Coordinator) Back Row: Greg Williams, Scott McDonald, Marc Remis, Brian McElroy, Patty Murray-Turner Return to Table of Contents 2021-2022 Grand Jury 8 Final Report

R67: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

Page 8

R68: Downtown Sacramento Partnership

Page 11

R69: Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency

Page 11

R70: City of Sacramento Return to Table of Contents HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUTS: HOW ARE DISTRICTS IN SACRAMENTO COUNTY DOING AND WHAT ARE THE BEST PRACTICES FOR IMPROVEMENT? The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R71: Sacramento County Office of Education Return to Table of Contents 2021-2022 Grand Jury 6 Final Report Responses to the 2019-2020 Grand Jury Reports 911 – THE SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT STAFFING CRISIS The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R72: Sacramento Police Department

Page 12

R73: City of Sacramento Return to Table of Contents ELECTION SECURITY IN SACRAMENTO COUNTY The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R74: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors Return to Table of Contents CALIFORNIA SENATE BILL 1022: A GIFT TOO GOOD TO IGNORE The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R75: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

Page 8

R76: Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office Return to Table of Contents 2021-2022 Grand Jury 7 Final Report 2021-2022 SACRAMENTO COUNTY GRAND JURY Pictured (Left to Right) Front Row: Rachel Kaldor, Deanna Hanson (Foreperson), Jeannine English Second Row: Fran Bremson, Olivia Washington, Tina Bonilla, Steve Holland, Barbara Marquez Third Row: Norv Wellsfry, Gregg Magaziner, Ken Smith, Jill Sherrill, Jim Parvis, Chris Budwine, Endy Tapia-Bouthillier (Grand Jury Coordinator) Back Row: Greg Williams, Scott McDonald, Marc Remis, Brian McElroy, Patty Murray-Turner Return to Table of Contents 2021-2022 Grand Jury 8 Final Report

R77: Sacramento County Office of Education Return to Table of Contents 2021-2022 Grand Jury 6 Final Report Responses to the 2019-2020 Grand Jury Reports 911 – THE SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT STAFFING CRISIS The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R78: Sacramento Police Department

Page 12

R79: City of Sacramento Return to Table of Contents ELECTION SECURITY IN SACRAMENTO COUNTY The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R80: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors Return to Table of Contents CALIFORNIA SENATE BILL 1022: A GIFT TOO GOOD TO IGNORE The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R81: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

Page 8

R82: Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office Return to Table of Contents 2021-2022 Grand Jury 7 Final Report 2021-2022 SACRAMENTO COUNTY GRAND JURY Pictured (Left to Right) Front Row: Rachel Kaldor, Deanna Hanson (Foreperson), Jeannine English Second Row: Fran Bremson, Olivia Washington, Tina Bonilla, Steve Holland, Barbara Marquez Third Row: Norv Wellsfry, Gregg Magaziner, Ken Smith, Jill Sherrill, Jim Parvis, Chris Budwine, Endy Tapia-Bouthillier (Grand Jury Coordinator) Back Row: Greg Williams, Scott McDonald, Marc Remis, Brian McElroy, Patty Murray-Turner Return to Table of Contents 2021-2022 Grand Jury 8 Final Report

R83: Sacramento Police Department

Page 12

R84: City of Sacramento Return to Table of Contents ELECTION SECURITY IN SACRAMENTO COUNTY The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R85: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors Return to Table of Contents CALIFORNIA SENATE BILL 1022: A GIFT TOO GOOD TO IGNORE The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R86: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

Page 8

R87: Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office Return to Table of Contents 2021-2022 Grand Jury 7 Final Report 2021-2022 SACRAMENTO COUNTY GRAND JURY Pictured (Left to Right) Front Row: Rachel Kaldor, Deanna Hanson (Foreperson), Jeannine English Second Row: Fran Bremson, Olivia Washington, Tina Bonilla, Steve Holland, Barbara Marquez Third Row: Norv Wellsfry, Gregg Magaziner, Ken Smith, Jill Sherrill, Jim Parvis, Chris Budwine, Endy Tapia-Bouthillier (Grand Jury Coordinator) Back Row: Greg Williams, Scott McDonald, Marc Remis, Brian McElroy, Patty Murray-Turner Return to Table of Contents 2021-2022 Grand Jury 8 Final Report

R88: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors Return to Table of Contents CALIFORNIA SENATE BILL 1022: A GIFT TOO GOOD TO IGNORE The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R89: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

Page 8

R90: Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office Return to Table of Contents 2021-2022 Grand Jury 7 Final Report 2021-2022 SACRAMENTO COUNTY GRAND JURY Pictured (Left to Right) Front Row: Rachel Kaldor, Deanna Hanson (Foreperson), Jeannine English Second Row: Fran Bremson, Olivia Washington, Tina Bonilla, Steve Holland, Barbara Marquez Third Row: Norv Wellsfry, Gregg Magaziner, Ken Smith, Jill Sherrill, Jim Parvis, Chris Budwine, Endy Tapia-Bouthillier (Grand Jury Coordinator) Back Row: Greg Williams, Scott McDonald, Marc Remis, Brian McElroy, Patty Murray-Turner Return to Table of Contents 2021-2022 Grand Jury 8 Final Report

R91: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

Page 8

R92: Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office Return to Table of Contents 2021-2022 Grand Jury 7 Final Report 2021-2022 SACRAMENTO COUNTY GRAND JURY Pictured (Left to Right) Front Row: Rachel Kaldor, Deanna Hanson (Foreperson), Jeannine English Second Row: Fran Bremson, Olivia Washington, Tina Bonilla, Steve Holland, Barbara Marquez Third Row: Norv Wellsfry, Gregg Magaziner, Ken Smith, Jill Sherrill, Jim Parvis, Chris Budwine, Endy Tapia-Bouthillier (Grand Jury Coordinator) Back Row: Greg Williams, Scott McDonald, Marc Remis, Brian McElroy, Patty Murray-Turner Return to Table of Contents 2021-2022 Grand Jury 8 Final Report

📋June 22, 2022 — DEL Paso Manor Water District Flooded with Public Safety Dangers a seven-month investigation into a formal complaint

6 pages 92 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Additional Recommendations 92

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: Del Paso Manor Water District President

Page 8

R2: Del Paso Manor Water District

Page 8

R3: Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District

Page 8

R4: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

Page 8

R5: State Water Resources Control Board

Page 8

R6: Sacramento County District Attorney

Page 8

R7: Sacramento LAFCo - Initial

Page 8

R9: Supervisor Rich Desmond

Page 8

R11: City of Isleton - Initial

Page 9

R13: Cosumnes Community Services District

Page 11

R15: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

Page 8

R16: Downtown Sacramento Partnership

Page 11

R17: Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency

Page 11

R20: Sacramento Police Department

Page 12

R21: City of Sacramento Return to Table of Contents ELECTION SECURITY IN SACRAMENTO COUNTY The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R23: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

Page 8

R25: Supervisor Rich Desmond

Page 8

R27: City of Isleton - Initial

Page 9

R29: Cosumnes Community Services District

Page 11

R31: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

Page 8

R32: Downtown Sacramento Partnership

Page 11

R33: Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency

Page 11

R36: Sacramento Police Department

Page 12

R37: City of Sacramento Return to Table of Contents ELECTION SECURITY IN SACRAMENTO COUNTY The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R39: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

Page 8

R41: City of Isleton - Initial

Page 9

R43: Cosumnes Community Services District

Page 11

R45: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

Page 8

R46: Downtown Sacramento Partnership

Page 11

R47: Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency

Page 11

R50: Sacramento Police Department

Page 12

R51: City of Sacramento Return to Table of Contents ELECTION SECURITY IN SACRAMENTO COUNTY The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R53: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

Page 8

R55: Cosumnes Community Services District

Page 11

R57: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

Page 8

R58: Downtown Sacramento Partnership

Page 11

R59: Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency

Page 11

R62: Sacramento Police Department

Page 12

R63: City of Sacramento Return to Table of Contents ELECTION SECURITY IN SACRAMENTO COUNTY The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R65: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

Page 8

R67: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

Page 8

R68: Downtown Sacramento Partnership

Page 11

R69: Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency

Page 11

R72: Sacramento Police Department

Page 12

R73: City of Sacramento Return to Table of Contents ELECTION SECURITY IN SACRAMENTO COUNTY The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R75: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

Page 8

R78: Sacramento Police Department

Page 12

R79: City of Sacramento Return to Table of Contents ELECTION SECURITY IN SACRAMENTO COUNTY The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R81: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

Page 8

R83: Sacramento Police Department

Page 12

R84: City of Sacramento Return to Table of Contents ELECTION SECURITY IN SACRAMENTO COUNTY The Full Report can be found HERE Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations

R86: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

Page 8

R89: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

Page 8

R91: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

Page 8

June 07, 2022 — Sacramento County Grand Jury Status Review:

3 pages

Quick View Full Details →

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

June 07, 2022 — Sacramento County Grand Jury Status Review:

3 pages

Quick View Full Details →

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

📋May 10, 2022 — VIA E-mail and U.s. Mail Honorable Michael Bowman Presiding Judge Sacramento County Superior Court*

1 pages

Quick View Full Details →

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

📋May 10, 2022 — VIA E-mail and U.s. Mail Honorable Michael Bowman Presiding Judge Sacramento County Superior Court*

1 pages

Quick View Full Details →

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

📋May 10, 2022 — VIA E-mail and U.s. Mail Honorable Michael Bowman Presiding Judge Sacramento County Superior Court*

1 pages

Quick View Full Details →

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

📋May 10, 2022 — VIA E-mail and U.s. Mail Honorable Michael Bowman Presiding Judge Sacramento County Superior Court*

1 pages

Quick View Full Details →

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

March 10, 2022 — Public Confinement Review

14 pages

Quick View Full Details →

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

November 05, 2021 — DEL Paso Manor Water District Flooded with Public Safety Dangers November 5, 2021 Del Paso Manor Water District Well

18 pages 7 findings 8 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 7 findings

F1: The DPMWD has abdicated its mission to “provide safe drinking water in accordance with California and federal regulations and to maintain a reliable water supply for water consumption and fire protection.”

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The DPMWD should publish and distribute district-wide a report, to meet its public transparency obligations, disclosing the extent of the District’s immediate and longer- term water quality, delivery, and fire flow infrastructure improvement needs, and the resulting cost impact to water district ratepayers. This report should be the subject of a Special Board Meeting as well. The Grand Jury recommends that this work should begin immediately and be completed within six months.

F2: The DPMWD has deferred action on the District’s 2009 Water Master Plan, the 2011 LAFCO Municipal Service Review, the 2021 HydroScience Strategic Water Solutions Technical Memorandum, and the July 2021 General Manager Final Recommendations Report, all of which outline the urgent need to address the District’s critical infrastructure needs for repair or replacement.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: The DPMWD should address the findings and recommendations of the May 2021 HydroScience Strategic Water Solutions Technical Memorandum, originally authorized by the DPMWD as a Proposed Update to its 2009 Water District Master Plan; formal public involvement should be documented to meet the requirements of the Brown Act. This process should begin immediately and be completed within 60 days.

F3: The DPMWD Board of Directors awarded a $56,830.00 contract to HydroScience Strategic Water Solutions, to complete a Water District Master Plan Update, without officially taking a public re-vote at its December 2020 board meeting to authorize the contract as required by the Sacramento County District Attorney.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: A Municipal Service Review should be performed by LAFCO to study and analyze information about the Water District’s governance structures and efficiencies. The Grand Jury also recommends that DPMWD fully cooperate with LAFCO to initiate this process by January 31, 2022 for completion of a new Municipal Service Review by June 30, 2022.

F4: During its October 20, 2020 general meeting, the DPMWD Board of Directors failed to provide all of the meeting documents in its board packets to the public. Upon request from the public for the materials, the Board president denied their release to the public as required by both the Brown Act and the Public Records Act.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: The DPMWD should notify ratepayers in the required timeframe for any Notice of Violation, including when a water sampling test result exceeds the water Maximum Contaminant Level, along with its corrective actions. The DPMWD Board of Directors and staff should be trained on the public notification requirements and procedures. A new section in the DPMWD Policy Manual should be added to address these public notification requirements. The Grand Jury recommends that the DPMWD complete this training by January 31, 2022, and the Policy Manual should be updated accordingly by March 31, 2022.

F5: The DPMWD failed to follow the California State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water guidance in publicly reporting notable Maximum Contamination Level violations in the required timeframe. Additionally, the DPMWD did not follow the prescribed reporting requirements in the Consumer Confidence Reports (2018, 2019).

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: The DPMWD should prepare its 2021 Consumer Confidence Report and all subsequent annual reports to fully comply with the requirements issued by the State of California. The DPMWD should request that its draft 2021 Consumer Confidence Report be reviewed by DDW to ensure that it meets all of the State requirements before its final release. The review of this draft public document should be completed in May 2022.

F6: The agendas for the public meetings of the DPMWD Board of Directors have provided inadequate and vague descriptions of the items to be discussed or acted upon at its General and Special meetings.

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: The DPMWD board meeting agendas and minutes should be reviewed by their legal counsel to ensure that the documents have clear and unambiguous descriptions. The Grand Jury recommends that reviews begin immediately and continue for every meeting.

F7: The ambiguous agenda item descriptions of the DPMWD Board of Directors meetings violate the intent of the Ralph M. Brown Act, which is designed to properly inform the public of the business to be undertaken at public meetings by public officials and to encourage their participation.

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: The DPMWD board members and staff should attend annual and detailed Brown Act training sessions with an emphasis on developing unambiguous agenda descriptions. That Brown Act training could include participation in the California Special District Association's Certificate of Excellence Program for District Transparency. The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Directors conduct its first training session by January 31, 2022, particularly as more than half of the Board members are new.

Additional Recommendations 1

Not linked to specific findings.

R8: The DPMWD board members and staff must ensure that all materials in the board meeting packets are available to the public 72 hours prior to any Board meeting to avoid any Brown Act violations. The Grand Jury recommends that this begin immediately and continue for every meeting.

November 05, 2021 — Del Paso Manor Water District Flooded with Public Safety Dangers November 5, 2021 Del Paso Manor Water District Well

18 pages 7 findings 8 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 7 findings

Related Recommendations (1)

F6: The agendas for the public meetings of the DPMWD Board of Directors have provided inadequate and vague descriptions of the items to be discussed or acted upon at its General and Special meetings.

Related Recommendations (1)

Additional Recommendations 1

Not linked to specific findings.

November 05, 2021 — Sacramento County Grand Jury Status Review: Del Paso Manor Water District

8 pages 5 findings 5 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 5 findings

F1: The DPMWD Board of Directors has responded to and agreed with each of the eight

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The DPMWD should complete in earnest a full analysis of the 2009 Water District Master Plan, as was the original intent of the HydroScience Engineering contract to complete a Master Plan Update. This should incorporate all short, mid, and long-range repair and replacement needs with well-defined costs.

F2: The DPMWD Board of Directors is meeting the requirements of the Ralph M. Brown Act and Public Records Act with regard to providing public meeting agendas, minutes, and board packets in a timely manner. They have also conducted Brown Act training, as recommended by the Grand Jury.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: The DPMWD should continue to work with the Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission to complete a new Municipal Service Review in 2022, in alliance with the timeline developed and provided to the Grand Jury.

F3: The Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission has agreed to conduct a new Municipal Service Review in coordination with the DPMWD, providing a detailed timeline for completion in 2022.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: The DPMWD should develop and publicize its own Action Plans with timeframes for the Municipal Service Review and Proposition 218 process to secure voter approval of necessary rate increases.

F4: The DPMWD Board of Directors has agreed to initiate a Proposition 218 process to address a rate increase for needed infrastructure improvements.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: The DPMWD should develop a strategic communications planning effort to regularly interact with its ratepayers through a variety of direct outreach efforts to ensure constituencies are informed of actions and associated costs to ensure a safe water supply.

F5: Although the DPMWD Board of Directors has publicly agreed with the recommendations of the Grand Jury’s November 5, 2021 report, the District has only begun to publicly address the methodology it will undertake to determine the full extent of the costs to repair infrastructure and make necessary safety improvements. 5

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: In the absence of a meaningful response by local leaders and agencies, the DPMWD should look for opportunities at the state and federal levels for funding resources which might help to alleviate the financial hardships confronting its ratepayers.

November 05, 2021 — Sacramento County Grand Jury Status Review: Del Paso Manor Water District

8 pages 5 findings 5 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 5 findings

F1: The DPMWD Board of Directors has responded to and agreed with each of the eight

Related Recommendations (1)

F3: The Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission has agreed to conduct a new Municipal Service Review in coordination with the DPMWD, providing a detailed timeline for completion in 2022.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: The DPMWD should develop and publicize its own Action Plans with timeframes for the Municipal Service Review and Proposition 218 process to secure voter approval of necessary rate increases.

F4: The DPMWD Board of Directors has agreed to initiate a Proposition 218 process to address a rate increase for needed infrastructure improvements.

Related Recommendations (1)

August 26, 2021 — Requirement for Covid-19 Vaccination for Eligible Sacramento County Public K-12 School Districts August 26, 2021

6 pages 4 findings 2 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 4 findings

F1: Because there are no vaccine mandates for eligible students attending Sacramento County public schools, public school children are at greater risk of contracting the COVID-19 virus. Children are now more vulnerable to infection because the Delta variant of COVID-19 is more highly transmissible. Children under the age of 12 are vulnerable within Sacramento County for contracting COVID-19 because they are not yet eligible for vaccinations.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The Sacramento County Grand Jury recommends that Sacramento County K-12 public school districts require all eligible students and district staff to be vaccinated against COVID-19 in order to return to in-person activities within any district facility.

F2: Masks are an important tool, but vaccinations are the most prudent long-term solution to significantly reduce transmission and slow the disease spread by providing a significant portion of the population immunity from the disease.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: The Sacramento County Grand Jury recommends that all participants and attendees at school-sponsored extra-curricular events be required to be vaccinated in order to attend the event.

F3: Participation in school sponsored sporting events and other extra-curricular activities at schools are much safer when participants and attendees are vaccinated since, in many cases, masks are not feasible during these activities. It is widely acknowledged that children need social activities as part of the process through which they develop skills, attitudes and values. Vaccinations are the only solution to ensure that these activities are provided safely.

F4: Remote Classes are an option for students who are not vaccinated.

August 26, 2021 — Requirement for Covid-19 Vaccination for Eligible Sacramento County Public K-12 School Districts August 26, 2021

6 pages 4 findings 2 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 4 findings

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: The Sacramento County Grand Jury recommends that all participants and attendees at school-sponsored extra-curricular events be required to be vaccinated in order to attend the event.

F4: Remote Classes are an option for students who are not vaccinated.

📋April 23, 2021 — Isleton City Council Violates State Election Laws City of Isleton Photo credit: Sarah Stierch (cc by 4.0)

8 pages 5 findings 2 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 5 findings

F1: The Isleton City Council violated Government Code section 36512(b) by failing to appoint and/or failing to call for a Special Election to replace a vacancy on the Isleton City Council.

F2: The Isleton City Council disregarded Government Code section 36512(b), the advice of its City Attorney, the advice contained in the Staff Report dated June 22, 2021, and

F3: Failure of the Isleton City Council to follow the mandate of Government Code section 36512(b) was a breach of the City of Isleton Code of Conduct for City Council Members.

F4: Failure to appoint a person to fill the vacancy on the Isleton City Council dilutes the public’s representation in government since there is one fewer Council Member to express views, opinions, ideas, and diverse opinions as well as potentially resulting in split decisions which would inhibit the Council from making appropriate decisions.

F5: The lack of a penalty provision for failure to comply with Government Code section 36512(b) motivated the Isleton City Council to ignore the mandatory requirement to either appoint or call for a Special Election to fill the vacancy on the City Council and leave its constituency with no redress. 5

Additional Recommendations 2

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: The Isleton City Council should appoint a person to fill the vacancy on the Isleton City Council by June 30, 2022.

R2: If the Isleton City Council fails to appoint a replacement by June 30, 2022, a Special Election should be held.

Sacramento County Board of Supervisors Abandons Responsibility for Covid-19 Cares Act Spending

13 pages 14 findings 5 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 14 findings

F1: The Sacramento County Board of Supervisors abdicated its responsibility to determine community needs and to provide oversight in the development and implementation of the County COVID-19 response.

Related Recommendations (2)

R3: The County Board of Supervisors should engage in an active process to identify and address community needs and develop a plan to deliver appropriate funding and services to the community outside of County operations. A policy should be developed and approved to ensure community input in the use of supplemental emergency funding by December 2022.

R4: A policy should be developed by the County Board of Supervisors directing the County Executive to provide clear and specific direction and oversight to county operations to ensure that the Board’s plans and strategic directions in response to community emergencies are properly carried out. This policy should be developed and approved by December 2022.

F2: The Sacramento County Board of Supervisors used the vast majority of the CARES Act funding it received to augment the county budget and support county operations while providing minimal support to the Sacramento County Health Department or other County agencies to address community needs resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, neglecting its public support responsibility.

Related Recommendations (1)

F3: The vast majority of the Sacramento County CARES Act dollars were used to fund County operations. No funds were distributed to the cities within the County to assist their effort to directly address the COVID-19 pandemic.

F4: Each department within the Sacramento County Administration had to create its own action plan to address the COVID-19 pandemic because there was no overarching County Plan nor was specific direction provided from the County Executive regarding these action plans. 7

Related Recommendations (1)

F5: The Sheriff's Department final FY 2019-2020 budget was not increased due to the use of CARES Act funding of $104.2 million. At year-end closing, Sacramento County provided the Sheriff's Department with $104.2 million of CARES Act funds, and removed an equivalent amount of General Funds from the Sheriff's Department. The Sheriff used these CARES Act funds for standard non-COVID-19 operations. The Grand Jury was unable to determine if the switching of funds was in compliance with federal CARES Act requirements.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The Board of Supervisors should appoint an independent panel by June 2022 to conduct an audit to determine whether County actions were, in fact, in compliance with federal CARES Act requirements.

F6: Sacramento County's allocation of the majority of CARES Act funds to the Sheriff's Department achieved several benefits. It ensured there was no loss of CARES Act funds, provided the County with greater financial flexibility in funding services, and addressed the COVID-19 emergency. The Grand Jury was unable to determine if the switching of funds was in compliance with federal CARES Act requirements.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The Board of Supervisors should appoint an independent panel by June 2022 to conduct an audit to determine whether County actions were, in fact, in compliance with federal CARES Act requirements.

F7: The County Executive's decision to allocate 70% of Sacramento County's FY2019/2020 CARES Act expenditures to the Sheriff's Department ignored many of the critical public health needs to contain the spread of COVID-19. The Grand Jury was unable to determine if this action was in compliance with federal CARES Act requirements.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The Board of Supervisors should appoint an independent panel by June 2022 to conduct an audit to determine whether County actions were, in fact, in compliance with federal CARES Act requirements.

F8: While the Sheriff's Department conducted COVID-19 mitigation efforts within detention facilities, it expressly chose not to enforce the Governor's active emergency orders related to minimizing the spread of COVID-19 among the general public. The Grand Jury was unable to determine if the lack of enforcement of the Governor’s emergency orders while using CARES Act funding was in compliance with federal CARES Act requirements.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The Board of Supervisors should appoint an independent panel by June 2022 to conduct an audit to determine whether County actions were, in fact, in compliance with federal CARES Act requirements.

F9: The CARES Act prohibited use of its funds for already budgeted staffing activities. But these CARES Act funded "public safety" employees simply continued to perform their same duties as they had prior to the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Grand Jury was unable to determine if this action was in compliance with federal CARES Act requirements.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The Board of Supervisors should appoint an independent panel by June 2022 to conduct an audit to determine whether County actions were, in fact, in compliance with federal CARES Act requirements.

F10: The Board of Supervisors, the County Executive, and the Sheriff's Department were not transparent in the use of the CARES Act funds. There was no written notice provided in the Board meeting agenda nor explanation within the Board Packet meeting materials regarding the replacement of allocated Sheriff's Department General Funds with CARES Act funds.

Related Recommendations (2)

R2: The Sacramento Board of Supervisors, the County Executive, and the Sheriff’s Department should each adopt a transparent and properly noticed budget allocation and approval process to be used upon receipt by the County for all funding sources, including surplus dollars. This process should include adequate notice, extensive engagement with county residents, and utilize detailed public notices, media briefings, stakeholder workshops and appropriate social media outreach. This recommendation should be in place by December 2022.

R5: A policy should be developed by County Board of Supervisors to require that the County Executive provide monthly updates on the use of special funding. This policy should be developed and approved by December 2022.

F11: The lack of governance and oversight by the Board of Supervisors allowed the County Executive to violate the first goal of the County's stated criteria for use of CARES Act funds.

F12: The City of Sacramento used a significant majority of its federal CARES Act funding to mitigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the local community.

F13: The City of Sacramento actively solicited community input on the allocation of CARES Act funding from local community. 8

F14: The Sacramento City Council actively engaged in the planning and oversight of CARES Act funding and determined five categories of funding included in the City’s “COVID-19 Response: CARES Act Investments.”

Sacramento County Board of Supervisors Abandons Responsibility for Covid-19 Cares ACT Spending Acra

13 pages 14 findings 5 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 14 findings

Related Recommendations (2)

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The Board of Supervisors should appoint an independent panel by June 2022 to conduct an audit to determine whether County actions were, in fact, in compliance with federal CARES Act requirements.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The Board of Supervisors should appoint an independent panel by June 2022 to conduct an audit to determine whether County actions were, in fact, in compliance with federal CARES Act requirements.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The Board of Supervisors should appoint an independent panel by June 2022 to conduct an audit to determine whether County actions were, in fact, in compliance with federal CARES Act requirements.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The Board of Supervisors should appoint an independent panel by June 2022 to conduct an audit to determine whether County actions were, in fact, in compliance with federal CARES Act requirements.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The Board of Supervisors should appoint an independent panel by June 2022 to conduct an audit to determine whether County actions were, in fact, in compliance with federal CARES Act requirements.

Related Recommendations (2)

F11: The lack of governance and oversight by the Board of Supervisors allowed the County Executive to violate the first goal of the County's stated criteria for use of CARES Act funds.

F12: The City of Sacramento used a significant majority of its federal CARES Act funding to mitigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the local community.

F13: The City of Sacramento actively solicited community input on the allocation of CARES Act funding from local community. 8

Public Health Office Abandoned by County Board of Superviors in Covid-19 Crisis Drivers Line Up at Cal Expo for

9 pages 6 findings 6 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 6 findings

F1: On March 19, 2020 the Sacramento County Public Health Officer issued a Public Health Order. Lack of coordinated emergency response and direction from the County Executive and the Board of Supervisors shifted all oversight of the planning and implementation to the Public Health Officer and the Office of Emergency Services.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The County Executive, Board of Supervisors, and OPH should develop and adopt a public health emergency response plan which recognizes, and plans for the immediate requirements of OPH to implement public health orders to best ensure public safety. The Board of Supervisors should finalize and approve the response plan by December 2022.

F2: In 2009, OPH experienced dramatic staffing and funding cutbacks, which have never been fully restored. As a result, OPH entered the 2020 pandemic with distinct deficits in areas, such as the field nursing unit, services for at-risk communities, and other programs that significantly impacted its ability to respond to the dynamic nature of the COVID-19 pandemic as it reached Sacramento in early 2020. These under-investments in Public Health presented significant challenges for OPH in meeting the immediate public health emergency response required in a pandemic.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: The Board of Supervisors should immediately develop, formally approve and implement a direct and regular reporting process for the Public Health Officer. This process should require at least monthly reporting to the Board during public sessions. Whenever a community wide public health order has been declared, the Board of Supervisors should augment regular reporting by OPH with detailed reporting on the response to the public health emergency, including recommendations for needed services, programs and funding. These policies and processes should be adopted by the Board of Supervisors no later than June 2022.

F3: Sacramento County administrators adhered to a traditional budget process and calendar in response to emergency funding requests from OPH, despite the availability of $181 mil- lion in CARES Act funding. That rigid process absolutely stymied appropriate and timely disbursal of emergency funds requested by OPH for needed equipment, staffing and ser- vices. 6

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: Funding for OPH should be immediately reviewed and adequately increased to build and maintain a strong organizational infrastructure with sufficient staffing. Such funding is essential to ensure that OPH maintains the critical capacity to immediately implement all essential and emergency public health services. This funding assessment and increased funding levels should be included in the budget process for the 2022-2023 budget.

F4: Despite the gravity of the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on Sacramento County residents, the Board of Supervisors did not request pandemic response reports directly from its Public Health Officer for nearly five months after the issuance of the first COVID-19 Public Health Order.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: The County should develop and adopt a separate emergency budget allocation and approval process. This process would operate outside the regular fiscal year county budget process in order to expedite emergency funding requests from County departments. Such a process should include program staff training, as well as transparent allocation and expenditure reporting to the Board of Supervisors and County Executive staff. The Board of Supervisors should finalize and approve the emergency budget allocation process by December 2022.

F5: The Board of Supervisors does not have its own “Continuity of Operation” plan in place for the Board of Supervisors to use in the case of any type of public emergency which would prevent or adversely impact critical Board of Supervisors governance activities and responsibilities.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: The Board of Supervisors should develop and adopt its own “Continuity of Operation” plan, with periodic updating as appropriate. The Board of Supervisors should finalize its “Continuity of Operation” plan by December 2022. 7

F6: Implementation of COVID-19 related Public Health Orders was hamstrung by a lack of enforcement support from the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors, the County Chief Executive, the County Sheriff and local law enforcement agencies.

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: The Board of Supervisors and OPH should immediately begin discussions with the County Sheriff and other County law enforcement entities. These discussions should result in a County ordinance directing local law enforcement to enforce public health emergency orders. The Board of Supervisors should enact this ordinance by December 2022

* 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.