Tehama County Grand Jury
2022-2023
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
Tehama LAFCo Commissioners and staff were unaware of who is on the Commission as regular members or alternates. This makes it difficult to have a cohesive, well-functioning Commission .
F2:
Tehama LAFCo does not have an updated set of written PPS which include procedural requirements of the CKH Act. The absence of an up-to-date policy document to guide LAFCo activities may result in a failure to properly execute responsibilities.
F3:
Funding splits for the annual Tehama LAFCo budget is not secured from the cities in Tehama County as required by the CKH Act, resulting in the full burden of Tehama LAFCo funding solely on the county.
F4:
Tehama LAFCo does not have a contract with county employees for LAFCo staffing as required by the CKH Act (GC §56380). The lack of a contract results in the inability for Tehama LAFCo to provide the appearance of autonomy from the County.
F5:
Tehama LAFCo has neither completed nor plans to complete at least one full round of SOI reviews and updates and accompanying MSRs (as called for by GC §§56425 and 56430 of the CKH Act) on all 33 special districts in Tehama County.
F6:
No information on special districts in Tehama County can be found through the Tehama LAFCo website resulting in members of the public having no consolidated electronic access to information on special districts in the County.
F7:
Having no formal LAFCo training, Tehama LAFCo Commissioners are not adequately prepared to fully implement the requirements of the CKH Act.
F8:
Tehama LAFCo does not hold regularly scheduled meetings resulting in lack of continuity of LAFCo business, LAFCo business being superseded by other Commissioner responsibilities and general loss of tracking of Commission appointments.
F9:
Some Tehama LAFCo Commissioners seem unaware of their legal requirement to cooperate with Tehama County Grand Jurors, resulting in unnecessary delays to Grand Jury timelines for completing interviews and writing reports.
Additional Recommendations
12
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
By April 1, 2023 Tehama LAFCo Commissioners and staff names should be listed and maintained on the Tehama LAFCo website to confirm Commission appointment. 26
R2:
By April 1, 2023 Tehama LAFCo Commissioners and staff should implement a regular meeting schedule, at least quarterly, to help all participants remain aware of current issues, updated legal responsibilities and Commission appointments.
R3:
4 By April 1, 2023 Tehama LAFCo Commissioners and staff should revisit and redraft their PPS document to ensure they comply with the mandates, requirements and timelines of the CKH Act. Tehama LAFCo should define timelines and include criteria for when review and updates of SOIs and creation of accompanying MSRs are required to be completed.
R4:
By April 1, 2023 Tehama LAFCo Commissioners should resume discussions to attempt to secure funding splits from the cities in Tehama County as required by the CKH Act.
R5:
By April 1, 2023 Tehama LAFCo Commissioners should develop contracts annually with the County or others for Tehama LAFCo staffing consistent with GC §56380, such as the example provided in APPENDIX C.
R6:
By April 1, 2023 Tehama LAFCo should develop annual work plans that outline schedules for the proactive reviews and updates of SOIs and production of MSRs, consistent with the CKH Act, as well as any other expected work in the given fiscal year. These work plans should put an emphasis on the completion of MSRs and SOI review and updates for special districts.
R7:
By April 1, 2023 Tehama LAFCo should annually develop budgets and seek adequate funding to allow accomplishment of annual work plans called for in Recommendation 6. MSRs and SOIs should be scheduled and budgeted over time to reduce the burden of costs.
R8:
5 By April 1, 2023 Tehama LAFCo should have updated information on their webpage which provides a complete inventory (i.e., special district name, service(s) provided, contact information, etc.) of all the special districts in the County, as well as links to all updated SOIs and MSRs that have been completed and should reference the CKH Act.
R9:
By April 1, 2023 Tehama LAFCo Commissioners should be required to have Grand Jury training and have subsequent refresher training at some interval to be determined.
R10:
By July 1, 2023 Tehama LAFCo should develop checklists, such as those created in Yolo County, to document when MSR and SOI reviews are conducted and if SOI updates are found to be deemed necessary or not. The Grand Jury was presented in September 2022 with draft work products addressing R3 and parts of
R11:
By October 18, 2023 Tehama LAFCo Commissioners and staff should begin attending Annual CALAFCO Conference Workshops. The 2023 conference will be held on October 18-23, 2023.
R12:
By January 1, 2024 all Tehama LAFCo Commissioners and staff should receive formal training in the requirements of the CKH Act. . 28
Quick View
Full Details →
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R1A:
The Grand Jury recommends adding a category to the next annual budget that would allow for emergency repairs. Response from Tehama County Sheriff: “We agree with the Grand Jury about this issue. The County has contingency funds set aside for these type(s) of emergency repairs. The Sheriff’s budget is used to provide services to the people and for public safety. Emergency repairs to structures owned by the county fall within the Facilities Maintenance Program. As in past years, the Grand Jury have identified many areas of Sheriff’s facilities in disrepair and these issues have been presented to the Board of Supervisors with little to no action taken.” ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED: YES Response from The Board of Supervisors: The Board of Supervisors concur with the recommendation. “It is the current and past practice for funds to be budgeted annually with the Maintenance of Structure account of the Jail’s budget unit (106-2032-53180).” ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED: YES
R1B:
The Grand Jury recommends that jail administrators immediately compile a list of contractors for needed repairs. Response from Tehama County Sheriff: We agree with the Grand Jury,”we have several vendors on contract that provide ongoing maintenance of our facilities and operations. However, when faced with a substantial repair, there is an ever-evolving contractors list and a bid process that is controlled by the County. Funds for projects like these are controlled by the County.” ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED: YES Response from The Board of Supervisors: The Board of Supervisors concur with the recommendation. “It is the current and past practice of the Tehama County Purchasing Department to maintain a list of contractors and vendors.” ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED: YES
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends exploring a bond initiative to address the funding shortfall for the new jail facility. Response from Tehama County Sheriff: “We appreciate the Grand Jury recommendation of exploring a bond initiative to fund the new Jail Facility. With the rising inflation rates and cost of living increases already inflicted on our citizens, we cannot support a new tax initiative to fund this project. Especially when this project could have been easily completed if the Board of Supervisors would have acted on it in a timely manner. The Jail Expansion Project is the result of a needs assessment report, completed at significant expense, identifying this project as the foundation for public safety and the overall health of our County. This project is the responsibility of the Chief Administrator, “under the general administrative direction of the Board of Supervisors.” ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED: YES Response from The Board of Supervisors: The Board of Supervisors “appreciates the Grand Jury’s recommendation. At this time the Board of Supervisors will not initiate a bond initiative to fund the new jail facility.” ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED: YES 44 Special Investigations – In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) Public Authority Recommendations: 3
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that TCPWD temporarily reinforce Reeds Creek Road washout until such time as permanent repairs can be completed. It is also recommended that Tehama County Board of Supervisors make an onsite visit to the Reeds Creek washout site. Response from TCPWD: “ Agree: TCPWD is evaluating temporary versus permanent repair options for the Reeds Creek Road washout. It should be noted that considerations regarding a temporary repair include: - a temporary repair will be costly, likely on the same order of magnitude as a permanent repair - a temporary repair may limit permanent repair options if the temporary repair is incorporated into the permanent solution -funding and environmental constraints limit TCPWD’s ability to timely perform temporary repairs.” ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED: YES Follow up: “ There is no information regarding the Grand Jury’s recommendation that the Board of Supervisors make an onsite visit to the Reeds Creek Road washout site.” Response from The Board of Supervisors: The Board of Supervisors “concur with the recommendation and is supportive of TCPWD evaluating temporary versus permanent repair options as outlined in the department response.” ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED: YES
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. Response from TCPWD: “Agree: TCPWD entered into an agreement with a consultant as approved by the Board of Supervisors on January 4, 2022. Initial information was transmitted to the consultant and a kick-off meeting with TCPWD and consultant project staff was held February 1, 2022. The schedule provides for performance of services through October 2022 with a presentation planned for the Board of Supervisors in November 2022.” ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED: YES Response from The Board of Supervisors: The Board of Supervisors “concur with the commitment by TCPWD to implement LIDAR surveying technology with presentation planned for the Board of Supervisors in November 2022.” ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED: YES 43 Criminal Justice Committee: Tehama County Jail Recommendations: 3
R6:
Meeting should be rescheduled as soon as they can be done safely per County and Public Health guidance. Response from Tehama County IHSS Public Authority: “We agree with the recommendation, and believe that due to our website not being updated, it did not accurately reflect that meetings had been held since March 2020. We have updated our website. As of December 2021, we lost a board member and are actively recruiting for quorum. We will resume meetings as soon as quorum is achieved.” ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED: YES Response from The Board of Supervisors: The Board of Supervisors “concur with the recommendation and is supportive of the steps taken by the Director as outlined in the response.” ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED: YES 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59
Quick View
Full Details →
Additional Recommendations
4
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. Response from The City of Red Bluff: “The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but is currently a work in progress. The City of Red Bluff is working on a General Plan update, which incorporates a community needs assessment, to develop the General Plan. The City of Red Bluff anticipates that the General Plan update will be complete in late 2022 or early 2023 with the adoption by the City Council.” ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED: YES
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that city administrators take an active role in the oversight of the small business loan program. Response from The City of Red Bluff: “The recommendation has not yet been implemented but is a work in progress. Unfortunately, the small business loan program has stalled due to numerous problems. To date, no monies have been distributed to businesses.” ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED: YES
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. Response from The City of Red Bluff: “The recommendation has been implemented. City staff will continue to work with Tehama County Administration, local State Assembly, and Senate Representatives to address rural equitability.” ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED: YES Response from The Board of Supervisors: “Although a response from the Board of Supervisors is not required, the Board of Supervisors agree with this recommendation and 41 welcomes the opportunity to work collaboratively with the new city manager to address rural equitability.” ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED: YES
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. Response from The City of Red Bluff: “It is unknown what the 2022 Tehama County Grand Jury Continuity Committee and City Government Committee intend to review during the current year. However, the City will respond and cooperate with all reasonable requests from the Grand Jury.” ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED: YES County Government Committee: Tehama County Public Works Department (TCPWD) Recommendations: 5