Sutter County Grand Jury
2021-2022
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
There was a staffing issue in the jail
F2:
Drugs and other contraband were present in the jail
F3:
The medium security exercise yard was lacking overhead netting
F4:
The current search method for contraband at the jail was inadequate
F5:
The laundry room had no surveillance cameras present With these findings, the 2019-2020 SCGJ made the following recommendations:
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Expand jail employment
R2:
Invest in a full body scanner (Addresses both F1 and F4 above)
R3:
Purchase and install overhead netting
R4:
Add surveillance cameras to the laundry room 36 The 2020-2021 SCGJ followed up on the recommendations made by the previous grand jury. Their continuity report noted the following:
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
The County has R1: The Board of F1: Disagree with the This recommendation has been lacking in Supervisors require the Finding. not been implemented. collecting fines County to collect or from citations for mitigate the outstanding R1: The The County revised the the last three years. fines before new policies recommendation will fines from $1,143,991.15 take effect. not be implemented to approximately because it is not $168,000 after warranted. The report interpreting the code identified $1,143,991.15 enforcement policies in outstanding fines differently. After based upon a reviewing the county data spreadsheet that was and interviewing county provided by the staff, the Sutter County Development Services Grand Jury (SCGJ) Department to the cannot determine if any Grand Jury as the result of the revised amount has of a Public Records been collected. Request. In consultation with Code Enforcement, consultant TRB+ Associates have indicated, based upon their experience and court rulings, that the County's Administrative Penalties Ordinance, Section 87, was incorrectly interpreted to accrue daily fines and is flawed as applied. TRB+ Associates advised that daily fines should be accumulated on any day that a site inspection is made, and an existing violation is confirmed. As a result of this guidance, the revised accrued fine balance is approximately $168,000. Follow up Responses to Recommendations 2020-21 Grand Jury Reports Sutter County Code Enforcement F2 GJ Report Recommendation Response 2020-21 Grand Jury Follow up Response
F2:
The County has R2: The Board of F2: Agree with the This recommendation understaffed Code Supervisors have to hire Finding. has been implemented. Enforcement for the additional code The County hired two last three years. enforcement officers to R2: The additional code adequately address the recommendation will enforcement officers in workload immediately. be implemented by June of 2021. One code August 31, 2021. The enforcement officer Board of Supervisors resigned and the county approved an additional reposted the position. A Code Enforcement replacement code Officer position at its enforcement officer was meeting on April 27, hired in February 2022. 2021. Funding for the additional positions will be included in the FY 2021-22 Recommended Budget. Follow up Responses to Recommendations 2020-21 Grand Jury Reports Sutter County Code Enforcement F3 GJ Report Recommendation Response 2020-21 Grand Jury Follow up Response
F3:
The County R3: The County F3: Disagree with the This recommendation has been Administrator inform the Finding. has been implemented. negligent in Board of Supervisors of The Grand Jury verified pursuing the progress that code R3: The recommendation that as of the Nov 16th, violations and enforcement has been will not be implemented 2021 Board of citations for the making at monthly board because it is not warranted. Supervisors (BOS) last three years. meetings starting Instead, the Development meeting, the progress immediately. Services Department will for code enforcements include a monthly summary cases was added in the of Code Enforcement Correspondence section activities on an agenda of of the Agenda Packet as the Board of Supervisors in well as verbally the Correspondence section. presenting it to the The report will include Supervisors. As of information on new cases, April 2022, the county existing cases investigated, has continued this existing cases closed, the progress reporting number of administrative every month. hearings held, and the value of administrative penalties collected and outstanding. The County Administrator will also verbally address the report as appropriate to update the Board of Supervisors on the progress of the program. Follow up Responses to Recommendations 2020-21 Grand Jury Reports Sutter County Code Enforcement F4 and F5 GJ Report Recommendation Response 2020-21 Grand Jury Follow up Response
F4:
The County R4: The County F4: The Board of This recommendation has been closing Administration publicly Supervisors disagrees with has not been cases without explain why each of the this finding. implemented. The Grand inspecting them cases were closed without Jury reviewed the with no valid investigation within the F5: The Board of agendas for the BOS reason given. next six months and Supervisors disagrees with meetings from June 2021 reopen those cases for this finding. through April 2022 and
F5:
Some investigation, if the found no evidence of the legitimate reason for closure was R4: The recommendation county staff publicly complaints, insufficient. will be implemented by presenting Code possible June 30, 2021 Enforcement cases that citations and were closed without fines are being inspection. ignored. Follow up Responses to Recommendations 2020-21 Grand Jury Reports Development in South Sutter County - Fowl Play in the Natomas Basin F1 GJ Report Recommendation Response 2020-21 Grand Jury Follow up Response
F6:
Current R6: The Sutter F6: The Board of Supervisors This recommendation has plans for County Board of disagrees with this finding in part. not been implemented. development Supervisors direct There is not currently adequate Interviews with county in the county staff to information available on the staff revealed Sutter Sacramento prepare a letter for mitigation measures Sacramento County officials are County (not a signatures County plans to take. Sutter concerned about member of clarifying their County will evaluate the development by the position to both the environmental documents and Sacramento County that is conservancy) County of mitigation measures once it is developed outside of the disrupt Sacramento and the published. conservancy. When the planned City of Sacramento new developments plans Sutter County and objecting to R6: This recommendation will not and Environmental Impact development development not be implemented. Mitigation for the Reports are available then in the meeting the City of Sacramento's development Sutter County will Natomas Conservation Plan. outside of their permit area is a comment and file Basin. resolved matter. It is Sutter objections as appropriate. County's understanding the mitigation plan/strategy is a stand- alone approval by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the US Fish and Wildlife Service for this development. It is Sutter County's understanding the Greenbriar project developers pursued mitigation for their development independent of the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan. Sutter County is monitoring the processing of the "Grand Park" project by the County of Sacramento. At the time the project and its draft environmental impact report is released for public review, Sutter County will review and provide appropriate responses. The County has not reviewed a complete project plan, nor a proposed mitigation strategy for this development, so it is premature to comment on this project at this time. Follow up Responses to Recommendations 2020-21 Grand Jury Reports Sutter County Fire and Emergency Services - Is Sutter County Playing with Fire? F1 GJ Report Recommendation Response 2020-21 Grand Jury Follow up Response
F7:
The County R4: The Board of F7: The Board of This recommendation has does not have a Supervisors direct the Supervisors agrees with this been implemented. viable capital County Administrative finding. The Sutter County Fire improvement Officer to develop and Chief has a capital fund or plan, institute a viable R4: This recommendation improvement plan ready even though a capital improvement has commenced with the but the county does not majority (65%) plan for firefighting recent adoption of the have a capital of the Sutter equipment in Sutter Sutter County Fiscal Year improvement fund yet. County CSAs' C, County before the end 2021-22 Annual Budget Some high priority D and F fire of the Fiscal Year and will be completed by firefighting equipment was apparatus are 2022-2023. the end of FY 2022-23, as purchased through grant outdated and recommended by the Grand funding. need to be Jury. The County has replaced. created a template which Interviews of county staff will serve as the capital revealed that the capital improvement plan for all improvement fund will be departments. However, implemented once new only the purchases that funding streams are have funding were included implemented. in the plan. Funding issues for the Fire Department need to be resolved before any capital improvement plan can be viable. Follow up Responses to Recommendations 2020-21 Grand Jury Reports Gray Avenue Property - Making it Right, Gray Avenue Finally Sees the Light! F1 GJ Report Recommendation Response 2020-21 Grand Jury Follow up Response
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
This recommendation will not be implemented. It may be beneficial to adopt a policy regarding leasing, but subjecting transactions to a 120-day limitation may not be realistic as every transaction is different. Follow up Responses to Recommendations 2020-21 Grand Jury Reports Gray Avenue Property - Making it Right, Gray Avenue Finally Sees the Light! F2 GJ Report Recommendation Response 2020-21 Grand Jury Follow up Response
R2:
This recommendation has been implemented. The purchase of the building is complete. Follow up Responses to Recommendations 2020-21 Grand Jury Reports Gray Avenue Property - Making it Right, Gray Avenue Finally Sees the Light! F3 GJ Report Recommendation Response 2020-21 Grand Jury Follow up Response
R3:
This recommendation possibly demolishing the will not be implemented. old structure and building The County will work a new multi-use two-story toward completing structure, selling the renovations. However, the property, or bringing in a current cost of building big box store to occupy materials and labor has the property and share in made construction under the tax revenue with the the current plan cost city. prohibitive. County staff, at the direction of the Board's The county purchased the Real Estate Ad Hoc property citing a need to Committee, is working on house all of the Health and revised plans that Human Services (HHS) in incorporate post-pandemic one upgraded building. work environments Currently HHS offices are (including increased in multiple old buildings. telework) to revise the That need still exists. design and layout of space. The timeline suggested by the Grand Jury may not be feasible given current construction conditions. Follow up Responses to Recommendations 2020-21 Grand Jury Reports Gray Avenue Property - Making it Right, Gray Avenue Finally Sees the Light! R4 GJ Report Recommendation Response 2020-21 Grand Jury Follow up Response
R4:
The Board of R4: This recommendation This recommendation has Supervisors request the will be implemented with not been implemented. County Administrator bi-annual reports to the provide a semi-annual Board of Supervisors The Grand Jury checked report on financing, beginning in December of the BOS agendas expenditures, 2021. December 2021 through renovation and April 2022 and there was relocation progress no report presented on the beginning six months financing, expenditures, after the close of renovation and relocation escrow. progress of the Gray Ave property.
Findings & Recommendations
15 findings
F1:
F1. The patient rooms at the Sutter-Yuba Behavioral Health (SYBH) Psychiatric Health Facility (PHF)contain multiple Ligature Points. Among staff and administrative personnel interviewed, there was a general awareness of these issues but no apparent sense of urgency to address them.
F2:
F2. Based on site observations of the SYBH PHF Unit, various doors did not appear secure, leaving certain areas potentially vulnerable to unauthorized patient access.
F3:
F3. The perimeter fencing at the SYBH PHF Unit’s outdoor recreation area is vulnerable to the exchange of contraband, due to easy public access. It creates a sense of being “locked” in, which is not welcoming or comforting for the patients.
F4:
F4. The perimeter fencing at the SYBH PHF Unit’s outdoor recreation area is an AWOL risk.
F5:
F5. Based on site observations and interviews with staff, the Video Monitoring System at the PHF Unit is an old and antiquated system. Components of the system are non-operational including many of the cameras. Repairs of the current system are either cost prohibitive or not possible due to the age of the system.
F6:
F6. SYBH use of private security is inefficient and lacks good use of the services.
F7:
F7. SYBH Policy and Procedure of recording an AWOL and Hazard/Incident Report is antiquated. It lacks sufficient information and structure to monitor and record AWOL incidents in a concise and professional manner.
F8:
F8. Based on SCGJ observations, the signage at the County’s PHF Unit is inadequate, outdated, and in very poor shape.
F9:
F9. The beds in the Isolation Rooms at the PHF Unit are an old version that leave the patient in an uncomfortable position if restraint is required.
F10:
F10 The parking lot at the SYBH facility is in disrepair and a hazard to the public.
F11:
F11. The building and grounds at the County’s PHF Unit show lack of regular maintenance. The vegetation is overgrown. Weeds growing up in sidewalks as well as in large unplanted areas. The exterior walls, concrete walkways, garbage receptacles are dingy or outright dirty. The window information signage is unprofessional in appearance.
F12:
F12. Based on those interviewed and a review of budgetary documents, it appears some SYBH and Health and Human Services (HHS) management and key fiscal staff lack sufficient knowledge/understanding of the budget practices. This includes MHSA and Realignment funding.
F13:
F13. Based on Sutter County Grand Jury research and those interviewed, there is no regular meeting of key fiscal staff, department heads, and directors to address changing budgetary issues. Currently, this is done once a year or on an “as needed” basis. This has created some issues with timely budgetary reporting.
F14:
F14. Based on Grand Jury research and those interviewed, the existing SYBH Electronic Health Care Record System is inadequate.
F15:
F15. Based on site observations, review of county plans for the Gray Ave Building, and SYBH administration interviews, the 1965 Live Oak Blvd Building is no longer adequate to house the Psychiatric Health Facility (PHF) and other SYBH offices/programs. 96
Additional Recommendations
20
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
R1. SYBH and the County must take the Ligature Points concerns seriously. SYBH needs to perform a needs assessment to clearly identify the issues and submit a comprehensive request to the County. The County, in turn, needs to share a sense of urgency and prioritize funding as soon as possible. These should be resolved by July 31st, 2022.
R2:
R2. SYBH needs to perform an assessment of all access points with the PHF Unit and address any necessary modifications to ensure proper security and controls are in place for the safety and well-being of both the patients and the staff while mitigating AWOL opportunities. These should include: the doors leading to the staff break area just south of the nurses’ station inside the PHF unit. The door leading from the breakroom to the south side of the building by the parking lot. The double doors to be replaced at the entrance of the PHF unit. Half “Dutch” door to the medication room.
R3:
R3. SYBH and the County need to take all necessary measures to ensure constant supervision and safety of the perimeter of the outside fenced in recreation yard on the PHF unit to resolve the potential exchange of contraband. The simple practice of 1:1 of a mental health care worker to a patient is not enough to sufficiently address the situation. Contraband can be placed inside the fence at any time due to the openness of the current fencing system, not just during recreation or fresh air breaks.
R4:
R4. SYBH needs to address the serious issue of AWOL from the PHF unit by means of the chain link fence recreation area. One option is to remove the chain link fence and replace it with concrete block. This would address the risk of AWOL, reduce the risk of contraband, and create a more welcoming and inviting recreation area for those on the PHF unit.
R5:
R5. SYBH has identified a replacement Video Monitoring system and submitted its request. This system plays a key role in the facility’s security, safety, and sense of well- being for both patients and staff. SYBH and the County need to recognize the importance of this system and prioritize funding by July 31st, 2022.
R6:
R6. SYBH needs to re-evaluate where contracted security services are located on the grounds and the scope of services provided.
R7:
R7. SYBH needs to update Policy and Procedure of recording of AWOL and related Hazard/Incident Report. The system should include:
R8:
Digitally date/time stamped signatures of any personnel that needs to be included of AWOL and Hazard/Incident Report
R9:
SYBH should consider a specific time frame for when each personnel needs to sign, review and finalize the AWOL report, no more than 7 days is recommended.
R10:
The system should include an “addendum” form, including a digital time/date stamp, if additional information about the AWOL has occurred from the original document time frame.
R11:
R8. SYBH and the County need to add to and or replace the facilities exterior building, site and street signage that has appropriate names and lighting. 97
R12:
R9. SYBH and the County need to address the importance of ensuring the comfort of patients in need of isolation and possible restraint. SYBH needs to identify and submit a replacement request to the County. The County in turn needs to recognize the importance by prioritizing funding by July 31st, 2022.
R13:
R10. SYBH and the County need to prioritize the performance of the work needed to complete the parking lot by September 30st, 2022. If funding is still not available, an allocation of funds needs to take priority to ensure this work gets completed.
R14:
R11. SYBH and the County need to take the initiative to clean up, enhance, and consistently maintain the overall appearance of the SYBH facility.
R15:
R12. SYBH and HHS need to reevaluate the scope and value of their training program, as well as their outside 3rd party consultant contract(s) to make sure it is being used effectively.
R16:
R13. SYBH needs to provide proper training and education to ensure sufficient knowledge / understanding of MHSA and Realignment funding in order to maximize the necessary funding required in order to support the county programs dependent upon this funding.
R17:
R14. SYBH and HHS need to assess its current staff, training and processes related to its budget. They then need to develop standardized processes/procedures to facilitate necessary communication between department heads and key fiscal personnel as it relates to internal reporting, discussion, and evaluation of ongoing budgetary goals and or issues, etc.
R18:
R15. There should be regularly scheduled meetings between Department Heads, Branch Directors, Administrators, and key fiscal staff. For transparency purposes, these meeting updates should be presented to the Sutter Yuba Behavioral Health Advisory Committee as well as Sutter County Board of Supervisor Meetings.
R19:
R16. Based on the grand jury’s research, a new Electronic Health Care Record System has been defined and budgeted by SYBH. SYBH needs an implementation plan. The County needs to prioritize and approve funding for a complete EHR for outpatient, inpatient, and PES.
R20:
R17. The County needs to work with HHS to perform a needs assessment and begin developing a long-term strategy to address the clear need for a new facility for SYBH which includes housing the PHF Unit. 98