Tehama County Grand Jury
2020-2021
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
Available funds were not automatically awarded to rural counties/communities. Funding is distributed from the state as a reimbursement. The City of Red Bluff determined that any expenditures would be a financial risk and did not move to implement project plans until the State of California issued formal notice that reimbursements were guaranteed.
F2:
The City of Red Bluff does not have a strategic or implementation plan that can be used to prioritize projects for funding allocations.
F3:
The City of Red Bluff collaborated with other communities under a Memorandum of Understanding with the County of Tehama to administer a small business loan program with the contracted assistance of long-standing, non-profit economic development and job training entities.
F4:
The small business loan program did not begin reviewing applications until July, 2021; sixteen months after the Shelter in Place was declared.
F5:
Administrators for the City of Red Bluff could not articulate the intentions or timelines for the small business loan program for which they had invested.
F10:
County Counsel answered the citizen on July 19, 2021.
Additional Recommendations
12
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the City of Red Bluff engage in a community needs assessment to determine the strengths, challenges and risks the city experiences, from which a strategic and implementation plan should be developed to guide city planning.
R1A:
The Grand Jury recommends adding a category to the next annual budget that would allow for emergency repairs.
R1B:
The Grand Jury recommends that jail administrators immediately compile a list of contractors for needed repairs.
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that city administrators take an active role in the oversight of the small business loan program.
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that the City of Red Bluff Administrator consider working collaboratively with other rural California communities to address rural equitability by advocating with local State Assembly and Senate Representatives. It is further recommended that city administrators work with the Tehama County Board of Supervisors to address these inequities.
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that the 2022 Tehama County Grand Jury Continuity Committee and City Government Committee continue to review the use of public funds intended to mitigate the effects of COVID-19, as some projects will continue until 2024.
R5:
The Grand Jury recommends that by 3-1-2022, TCPWD implement LIDAR surveying technology within Tehama County. 2022 Grand Jury to follow up regarding implementation of this process.
R6:
Meetings should be rescheduled as soon as they can be done safely per County and Public Health guidance. ALLEGATION 7: “The MOU approved on 9/01/2020 is believed to be in violation of AB 1682. “Employees of the Public Authority shall not be employees of the county for any purpose.” The 9/01/2020 MOU has no end date and instead has the statement: “…shall commence upon July 1, 2020 and remain in full force and effect…” It is asserted that this MOU is flawed as any contractual agreement should have a reasonable end date (Most other Tehama County contracts are one to three years). This MOU also lacks a not to exceed spending amount for the contractual period. It is assumed that since a dollar amount was noted in the previous MOU that one could reasonably be expected here. It is believed that this MOU must be immediately redrawn and written to comply with the law. The MOU asserts “This MO shall not be amended, except in a writing that is executed by authorized representatives of both parties.” Both parties' consideration may not be appropriate.”
R7:
None ALLEGATION 8: “The IHSS PA board of directors have failed in their obligations and responsibilities as they have not held the Chief Administrator and IHSS PA Executive Director, and now the existing Executive Director accountable to the intent of the mandate. They have approved minutes of the PA with no activity reported and they have not performed their obligation of oversight responsibility for the program.”
R8:
None ALLEGATION 9: “It is asserted that a particular County employee … and other county employees have been working within the business of the IHSS PA, in spite of the AB 1682 language that intends for the IHSS PA to remain a separate entity.”
R9:
None ALLEGATION 10: “Finally, a citizen… through multiple Public Record Act requests has identified problems, yet documents have been written to cover up issues.”
R10:
None ALLEGATION 11: “When the Chief Administrator ceased being the PA Executive Director, it does not appear that his contract was adjusted to remove the additional compensation.”
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
Available funds were not automatically awarded to rural counties/communities. Funding is distributed from the state as a reimbursement. The City of Red Bluff determined that any expenditures would be a financial risk and did not move to implement project plans until the State of California issued formal notice that reimbursements were guaranteed.
F2:
The City of Red Bluff does not have a strategic or implementation plan that can be used to prioritize projects for funding allocations.
F3:
The City of Red Bluff collaborated with other communities under a Memorandum of Understanding with the County of Tehama to administer a small business loan program with the contracted assistance of long-standing, non-profit economic development and job training entities.
F4:
The small business loan program did not begin reviewing applications until July, 2021; sixteen months after the Shelter in Place was declared.
F5:
Administrators for the City of Red Bluff could not articulate the intentions or timelines for the small business loan program for which they had invested.
F10:
County Counsel answered the citizen on July 19, 2021.
Additional Recommendations
12
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the City of Red Bluff engage in a community needs assessment to determine the strengths, challenges and risks the city experiences, from which a strategic and implementation plan should be developed to guide city planning.
R1A:
The Grand Jury recommends adding a category to the next annual budget that would allow for emergency repairs.
R1B:
The Grand Jury recommends that jail administrators immediately compile a list of contractors for needed repairs.
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that city administrators take an active role in the oversight of the small business loan program.
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that the City of Red Bluff Administrator consider working collaboratively with other rural California communities to address rural equitability by advocating with local State Assembly and Senate Representatives. It is further recommended that city administrators work with the Tehama County Board of Supervisors to address these inequities.
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that the 2022 Tehama County Grand Jury Continuity Committee and City Government Committee continue to review the use of public funds intended to mitigate the effects of COVID-19, as some projects will continue until 2024.
R5:
The Grand Jury recommends that by 3-1-2022, TCPWD implement LIDAR surveying technology within Tehama County. 2022 Grand Jury to follow up regarding implementation of this process.
R6:
Meetings should be rescheduled as soon as they can be done safely per County and Public Health guidance. ALLEGATION 7: “The MOU approved on 9/01/2020 is believed to be in violation of AB 1682. “Employees of the Public Authority shall not be employees of the county for any purpose.” The 9/01/2020 MOU has no end date and instead has the statement: “…shall commence upon July 1, 2020 and remain in full force and effect…” It is asserted that this MOU is flawed as any contractual agreement should have a reasonable end date (Most other Tehama County contracts are one to three years). This MOU also lacks a not to exceed spending amount for the contractual period. It is assumed that since a dollar amount was noted in the previous MOU that one could reasonably be expected here. It is believed that this MOU must be immediately redrawn and written to comply with the law. The MOU asserts “This MO shall not be amended, except in a writing that is executed by authorized representatives of both parties.” Both parties' consideration may not be appropriate.”
R7:
None ALLEGATION 8: “The IHSS PA board of directors have failed in their obligations and responsibilities as they have not held the Chief Administrator and IHSS PA Executive Director, and now the existing Executive Director accountable to the intent of the mandate. They have approved minutes of the PA with no activity reported and they have not performed their obligation of oversight responsibility for the program.”
R8:
None ALLEGATION 9: “It is asserted that a particular County employee … and other county employees have been working within the business of the IHSS PA, in spite of the AB 1682 language that intends for the IHSS PA to remain a separate entity.”
R9:
None ALLEGATION 10: “Finally, a citizen… through multiple Public Record Act requests has identified problems, yet documents have been written to cover up issues.”
R10:
None ALLEGATION 11: “When the Chief Administrator ceased being the PA Executive Director, it does not appear that his contract was adjusted to remove the additional compensation.”
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
Available funds were not automatically awarded to rural counties/communities. Funding is distributed from the state as a reimbursement. The City of Red Bluff determined that any expenditures would be a financial risk and did not move to implement project plans until the State of California issued formal notice that reimbursements were guaranteed.
F2:
The City of Red Bluff does not have a strategic or implementation plan that can be used to prioritize projects for funding allocations.
F3:
The City of Red Bluff collaborated with other communities under a Memorandum of Understanding with the County of Tehama to administer a small business loan program with the contracted assistance of long-standing, non-profit economic development and job training entities.
F4:
The small business loan program did not begin reviewing applications until July, 2021; sixteen months after the Shelter in Place was declared.
F5:
Administrators for the City of Red Bluff could not articulate the intentions or timelines for the small business loan program for which they had invested.
F10:
County Counsel answered the citizen on July 19, 2021.
Additional Recommendations
12
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the City of Red Bluff engage in a community needs assessment to determine the strengths, challenges and risks the city experiences, from which a strategic and implementation plan should be developed to guide city planning.
R1A:
The Grand Jury recommends adding a category to the next annual budget that would allow for emergency repairs.
R1B:
The Grand Jury recommends that jail administrators immediately compile a list of contractors for needed repairs.
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that city administrators take an active role in the oversight of the small business loan program.
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that the City of Red Bluff Administrator consider working collaboratively with other rural California communities to address rural equitability by advocating with local State Assembly and Senate Representatives. It is further recommended that city administrators work with the Tehama County Board of Supervisors to address these inequities.
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that the 2022 Tehama County Grand Jury Continuity Committee and City Government Committee continue to review the use of public funds intended to mitigate the effects of COVID-19, as some projects will continue until 2024.
R5:
The Grand Jury recommends that by 3-1-2022, TCPWD implement LIDAR surveying technology within Tehama County. 2022 Grand Jury to follow up regarding implementation of this process.
R6:
Meetings should be rescheduled as soon as they can be done safely per County and Public Health guidance. ALLEGATION 7: “The MOU approved on 9/01/2020 is believed to be in violation of AB 1682. “Employees of the Public Authority shall not be employees of the county for any purpose.” The 9/01/2020 MOU has no end date and instead has the statement: “…shall commence upon July 1, 2020 and remain in full force and effect…” It is asserted that this MOU is flawed as any contractual agreement should have a reasonable end date (Most other Tehama County contracts are one to three years). This MOU also lacks a not to exceed spending amount for the contractual period. It is assumed that since a dollar amount was noted in the previous MOU that one could reasonably be expected here. It is believed that this MOU must be immediately redrawn and written to comply with the law. The MOU asserts “This MO shall not be amended, except in a writing that is executed by authorized representatives of both parties.” Both parties' consideration may not be appropriate.”
R7:
None ALLEGATION 8: “The IHSS PA board of directors have failed in their obligations and responsibilities as they have not held the Chief Administrator and IHSS PA Executive Director, and now the existing Executive Director accountable to the intent of the mandate. They have approved minutes of the PA with no activity reported and they have not performed their obligation of oversight responsibility for the program.”
R8:
None ALLEGATION 9: “It is asserted that a particular County employee … and other county employees have been working within the business of the IHSS PA, in spite of the AB 1682 language that intends for the IHSS PA to remain a separate entity.”
R9:
None ALLEGATION 10: “Finally, a citizen… through multiple Public Record Act requests has identified problems, yet documents have been written to cover up issues.”
R10:
None ALLEGATION 11: “When the Chief Administrator ceased being the PA Executive Director, it does not appear that his contract was adjusted to remove the additional compensation.”
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
Available funds were not automatically awarded to rural counties/communities. Funding is distributed from the state as a reimbursement. The City of Red Bluff determined that any expenditures would be a financial risk and did not move to implement project plans until the State of California issued formal notice that reimbursements were guaranteed.
F2:
The City of Red Bluff does not have a strategic or implementation plan that can be used to prioritize projects for funding allocations.
F3:
The City of Red Bluff collaborated with other communities under a Memorandum of Understanding with the County of Tehama to administer a small business loan program with the contracted assistance of long-standing, non-profit economic development and job training entities.
F4:
The small business loan program did not begin reviewing applications until July, 2021; sixteen months after the Shelter in Place was declared.
F5:
Administrators for the City of Red Bluff could not articulate the intentions or timelines for the small business loan program for which they had invested.
F10:
County Counsel answered the citizen on July 19, 2021.
Additional Recommendations
12
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the City of Red Bluff engage in a community needs assessment to determine the strengths, challenges and risks the city experiences, from which a strategic and implementation plan should be developed to guide city planning.
R1A:
The Grand Jury recommends adding a category to the next annual budget that would allow for emergency repairs.
R1B:
The Grand Jury recommends that jail administrators immediately compile a list of contractors for needed repairs.
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that city administrators take an active role in the oversight of the small business loan program.
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that the City of Red Bluff Administrator consider working collaboratively with other rural California communities to address rural equitability by advocating with local State Assembly and Senate Representatives. It is further recommended that city administrators work with the Tehama County Board of Supervisors to address these inequities.
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that the 2022 Tehama County Grand Jury Continuity Committee and City Government Committee continue to review the use of public funds intended to mitigate the effects of COVID-19, as some projects will continue until 2024.
R5:
The Grand Jury recommends that by 3-1-2022, TCPWD implement LIDAR surveying technology within Tehama County. 2022 Grand Jury to follow up regarding implementation of this process.
R6:
Meetings should be rescheduled as soon as they can be done safely per County and Public Health guidance. ALLEGATION 7: “The MOU approved on 9/01/2020 is believed to be in violation of AB 1682. “Employees of the Public Authority shall not be employees of the county for any purpose.” The 9/01/2020 MOU has no end date and instead has the statement: “…shall commence upon July 1, 2020 and remain in full force and effect…” It is asserted that this MOU is flawed as any contractual agreement should have a reasonable end date (Most other Tehama County contracts are one to three years). This MOU also lacks a not to exceed spending amount for the contractual period. It is assumed that since a dollar amount was noted in the previous MOU that one could reasonably be expected here. It is believed that this MOU must be immediately redrawn and written to comply with the law. The MOU asserts “This MO shall not be amended, except in a writing that is executed by authorized representatives of both parties.” Both parties' consideration may not be appropriate.”
R7:
None ALLEGATION 8: “The IHSS PA board of directors have failed in their obligations and responsibilities as they have not held the Chief Administrator and IHSS PA Executive Director, and now the existing Executive Director accountable to the intent of the mandate. They have approved minutes of the PA with no activity reported and they have not performed their obligation of oversight responsibility for the program.”
R8:
None ALLEGATION 9: “It is asserted that a particular County employee … and other county employees have been working within the business of the IHSS PA, in spite of the AB 1682 language that intends for the IHSS PA to remain a separate entity.”
R9:
None ALLEGATION 10: “Finally, a citizen… through multiple Public Record Act requests has identified problems, yet documents have been written to cover up issues.”
R10:
None ALLEGATION 11: “When the Chief Administrator ceased being the PA Executive Director, it does not appear that his contract was adjusted to remove the additional compensation.”
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
There is a large plate glass security window in the tower that is damaged. The replacement procedure has created a delay in completing a repair.
F2:
The new jail facility does not have a start date for the expansion. The delay in construction of the new jail facility is adding to the cost of the project.
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1A:
The Grand Jury recommends adding a category to the next annual budget that would allow for emergency repairs.
R1B:
The Grand Jury recommends that jail administrators immediately compile a list of contractors for needed repairs. 2021 Tehama Grand Jury Final Report 29 | P age
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends exploring a bond initiative to address the funding shortfall for the new jail facility. Required Response Pursuant to Penal Code section 933 and 933.05, the Grand Jury requests responses to R1- R2 within 90 days.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F2:
This appears to have been corrected. Agendas, meetings and minutes are posted online at tehamacountyihsspa.com. It appears that meetings were suspended after March, 2020 due to COVID-19.
F4:
This appears to have been corrected. Agendas, meetings and minutes are posted online at tehamacountyihsspa.com. It appears that meetings were suspended after March 2020 due to COVID-19.
F10:
County Counsel answered the citizen on July 19, 2021.
Additional Recommendations
10
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
None, as we believe there is no violation of AB 1682. 2021 Tehama Grand Jury Final Report 36 | P age ALLEGATION 2: “It is asserted that while an IHSS PA Advisory Board was in place, the Advisory Board folded for lack of management and lack of attention paid to it during the county's CAO assignment as Executive Director. It is a mandate of the program to continue to have an IHSS PA Advisory Board. The IHSS PA Advisory Board has not been treated as an appropriate Brown Act notice meeting with agendas, minutes, consistent times and dates, by laws, etc.”
R2:
Meetings should be rescheduled as soon as they can be done safely per County and Public Health guidance, and the website updated within 90 days.
R3:
None ALLEGATION 4: “It appears that the IHSS PA Advisory Board and IHSS PA Board of Directors meetings are possibly not properly noticed. IHSS PA Advisory Board meetings were not held for at least a couple of years under the County CAO. Also, when the IHSS PA Advisory Board was being reestablished, the Chair and Vice Chair complained that the meetings were 2021 Tehama Grand Jury Final Report 37 | P age either not held or inconsistent or planned at dates or times the IHSS PA Advisory Board members could not be there.”
R4:
Meetings should be rescheduled as soon as they can be done safely per County and Public Health guidance, and the website updated within 90 days.
R5:
None ALLEGATION 6: “The website (tehamacountyihsspa.com) has not been updated since March 19, 2020 No reports or financial updates are provided there. Only a few meeting minutes appear there.”
R6:
Meetings should be rescheduled as soon as they can be done safely per County and Public Health guidance. 2021 Tehama Grand Jury Final Report 38 | P age ALLEGATION 7: “The MOU approved on 9/01/2020 is believed to be in violation of AB 1682. “Employees of the Public Authority shall not be employees of the county for any purpose.” The 9/01/2020 MOU has no end date and instead has the statement: “…shall commence upon July 1, 2020 and remain in full force and effect…” It is asserted that this MOU is flawed as any contractual agreement should have a reasonable end date (Most other Tehama County contracts are one to three years). This MOU also lacks a not to exceed spending amount for the contractual period. It is assumed that since a dollar amount was noted in the previous MOU that one could reasonably be expected here. It is believed that this MOU must be immediately redrawn and written to comply with the law. The MOU asserts “This MO shall not be amended, except in a writing that is executed by authorized representatives of both parties.” Both parties' consideration may not be appropriate.”
R7:
None ALLEGATION 8: “The IHSS PA board of directors have failed in their obligations and responsibilities as they have not held the Chief Administrator and IHSS PA Executive Director, and now the existing Executive Director accountable to the intent of the mandate. They have approved minutes of the PA with no activity reported and they have not performed their obligation of oversight responsibility for the program.”
R8:
None 2021 Tehama Grand Jury Final Report 39 | P age ALLEGATION 9: “It is asserted that a particular County employee … and other county employees have been working within the business of the IHSS PA, in spite of the AB 1682 language that intends for the IHSS PA to remain a separate entity.”
R9:
None ALLEGATION 10: “Finally, a citizen… through multiple Public Record Act requests has identified problems, yet documents have been written to cover up issues.”
R10:
None ALLEGATION 11: “When the Chief Administrator ceased being the PA Executive Director, it does not appear that his contract was adjusted to remove the additional compensation.”
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
TCPWD annual budget, staffing shortages, outdated equipment and low wages have affected road inspection and repair timelines. TCPWD is responsible for 1,088 miles of roadway and 260 miles of unpaved roadway. TCPWD is currently behind in their designated three-year inspection cycle.
F2:
The Reeds Creek Road washout has closed one lane of a two-lane roadway and currently, traffic must stop in each direction to alternate passage of the area. Reeds Creek Road is utilized by individuals who live in the area, Reeds Creek Elementary School busses, parents driving children to school as well as ranchers with large cattle trailers. Emergency evacuations were not adequately addressed during the interview process.
F3:
TCPWD identified issues prohibiting the repair as being: 1. Property domain issues 2. Environmental studies 3. Budget restraints. TCPWD has not identified any Tehama County roadways that are as significantly impacted as the Reeds Creek Road washout.
F4:
Currently, TCPWD visually inspects the Reeds Creek Road washout monthly and is scheduled for re-survey every two years, however the washout has impacted the roadway since the early 1990’s. TCPWD has identified that Reeds Creek Road is safe for vehicle traffic and the 2021 Tehama Grand Jury Final Report 12 | P age roadway is not currently undercut; however, TCPWD reported that if the road does become severely undercut the repair project will then be seen as a priority.
F5:
Currently, TCPWD is reliant on law enforcement, first responders, general public and staff to identify and report needed roadway repairs. TCPWD has obtained a consulting group to use LIDAR data radar to process and analyze Tehama County roadways.
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the TCPWD implement LIDAR surveying technology that identifies roadway issues within Tehama County and implements data-driven reports in a timely manner. It is also recommended that TCPWD research and identify additional funding streams through grants or contracts.
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that TCPWD develop and implement a written safety policy for emergency evacuations. The safety plan policy will be shared with emergency first responder agencies within Tehama County. The safety plan policy will be provided to the 2022 Grand Jury for review and posted on the Tehama County website.
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that TCPWD prioritize implementation of the property domain and environmental studies for the Reeds Creek Road washout repair process. TCPWD to identify timelines for the process to begin and report to the 2022 Grand Jury.
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that TCPWD temporarily reinforce the Reeds Creek Road washout until such time as permanent repairs can be completed. It is also recommended that the Tehama County Board of Supervisors make an onsite visit to the Reeds Creek Road washout site.
R5:
The Grand Jury recommends that by 3-1-2022, TCPWD implement LIDAR surveying technology within Tehama County. 2022 Grand Jury to follow up regarding implementation of this process.