Tehama County Grand Jury
2024-2025
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
- Inequitable Fees Disagrees Adequate
F2:
- Inadequate Communication from the GSA Disagrees Adequate Already
F3:
- Internal Debt Repayment Disagrees Adequate
F4:
- The GSA Extended It’s Authority Beyond Disagrees Adequate Groundwater Priority Subbasins
F5:
- Accountability for Approval of GSPs Disagrees Adequate
F6:
- Antelope Subbasin Groundwater Plan is Incomplete Disagrees Adequate
Additional Recommendations
11
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
- Return Well Registration Program Fees Further Analysis Adequate
R2a:
- Improve Public Communication Adequate Implemented
R2b:
- Maintain Public Outreach Program Agrees Adequate
R3:
- Debt Repayment Strategy Disagrees Adequate
R4:
- Align GSA Authority with SGMA Groundwater Disagrees Adequate Subbasins
R5:
- Enforce the Contract Scope for the GSP Consulting Disagrees Adequate Services
R6a:
- Research Dry Well Correlation to Diversion Dam Disagrees Adequate Decommissioning
R6b:
- Install Additional Groundwater Monitoring Wells Agrees Adequate
R6c:
- Develop Wastewater Master Plan (WWMP) Disagrees Adequate Already
R6d:
- Develop Groundwater Recharge Program Adequate Implemented
R6e:
- Incorporate Recommendations into Antelope GSP Agrees Adequate
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F2:
The issues and corrective action regarding Significant Deficiency 2020-2021 were adequately addressed by the Auditor-Controller and departmental staff. COMMENDATION R1. The Auditor’s Office and county departments should be congratulated on their effective implementation of corrective actions, and their focus on continued improvements. REQUIRED RESPONSE: None 85
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F6:
Antelope Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan is Incomplete C: 0 .l,l . "' Many groundwater wells within the Antelope Groundwater Subbasin have gone dry apparently a:: :: as a result of the decommissioning of the Diversion Dam. The GSA appears not to have taken u.. into consideration public information regarding the effects the Diversion Dam had on ..;.,.; groundwater recharge in the Antelope Subbasin, both during and after its decommissioning, C: E when drafting the Antelope Subbasin Sustainability Plan. .c: " ! The District's Response to FG: The District partially disagrees with the finding. The drying of Lake Red Bluff had a clear and predicted effect on groundwater levels in the Antelope subbasin. Monitoring wells in the area indicate a drop of up to 14' in the water table locally. This is an unfortunate ramification of a Federal project which occurred prior to the adoption of SGMA by the California Legislature and would not be considered when drafting the GSPs. RG.a Research Dry Well Correlation to Diversion Dam Decommissioning The Grand Jury recommends the TCFC&WCD, in cooperation with the County Environmental Health, research the dry well areas in the Antelope Subbasin. The question should be answered whether there is a correlation between dry wells in the Antelope subbasin and decommissioning of the Diversion Dam. This research should cover an appropriate period of Packet Pg. 9 96 3.1.a time before and after the decommissioning, as well a representative radius of influence from the dam and Lake Red Bluff. The District's Response to R6a: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. No research is necessary to clearly see the dam's decommissioning's effect on wells. The dam was decommissioned in 2013 and dry well reports in the area began in 2014. Many wells east of the East Sand Slough were shallow and quickly lost access to water. The radius of the lowering is indicated in our existing monitoring well system.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R6:
b Install Additional Groundwater Monitoring Wells a, The Grand JQry recommends the GSA install additional·groundwater monitoring wells for the "' C: Antelope Subbasin to better track groundwater fluctuation in the dry well affected area(s) and a 0 . "' provide a more robust database for dry well remediation. &! ~ The District's Response to R6b: ,- : ,, , The recommendation will be implemented, but its timing will require further analysis. C: ~ Expansion of groundwater monitoring is necessary in all basins and areas that feed them, this Cl M will be ongoing into the foreseeable future. While the District is looking at the institution of a N 0 N dry well mitigation program, it is unlikely that the program will include mitigation for wells that ~ went dry due to the Federal Government's actions prior to the institution of SGMA. <O 0
Findings & Recommendations
11 findings
F1:
According to the Pavement Condition Index (PCI) survey completed in December 2023. The city's 135.99 lane miles have an average PCI rating of 39 on a 100-point scale, indicating that the majority of roads are in poor condition. This low rating suggests that many streets require immediate maintenance or rehabilitation to prevent further degradation.
F2:
Funding for maintenance and upgrading the roadway surface has been inadequate.
F3:
Due to the City of Red Bluff’s untimely repair and maintenance of roads, costs are increasing.
F4:
The City of Red Bluff has difficulty securing funding grants.
F5:
The roadways in the City of Red Bluff create hazardous and unsafe driving conditions, presenting a significant liability risk to the city.
F6:
The current Sobering and Safety Cells are inadequate and have been since reported in the 2018-2019 Grand Jury Final Report.
F7:
Overpopulation (in reference to the inmate/officer ratio) of the jail can lead to some offenders being released early to make space for additional inmates. This has led to a negative public perception of “catch and release”.
F8:
Currently there are no volunteer led community programs for inmates, which reduces re-habilitation and education opportunities.
F9:
Without resolving the staffing shortage, the new Re-Entry Center will be unable to fulfill its intended purpose.
F10:
Previous attempts to secure funding for Re-Entry Center staffing through county tax measures have been unsuccessful due to insufficient community support.
F11:
To fulfill one of the requirements of being a Re-Entry Center, Shasta College will partner with TCSO to offer culinary training to inmates, proving them a useful skill after release. 39
Additional Recommendations
7
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends Public Works should create a plan for improving the Pavement Condition Index (PCI) of the roadways and communicate this to the public within one year of issuance of this report. 22
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends Public Works conduct annual (starting in 2025) community forums to gather feedback on roadway conditions and facilitate communication with the public.
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends Public Works create a plan to downsize roadway projects’ scope of maintenance to reduce cost and improve likelihood of project completion. Plan should be completed in 2025.
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends Public Works should make a plan to increase grant funding in 2025.
R5:
The Grand Jury recommends Public Works should allocate annual funds for roadway maintenance with budget breakdown and communicate this to the public in 2025 (and going forward).
R6:
The Grand Jury recommends the City of Red Bluff should create a space for designated roadway maintenance and work in progress updates on it’s website within 6 months of issuance of this report.
R7:
The Grand Jury recommends that the City of Red Bluff propose a special use sales tax dedicated to city street improvements and enhance public awareness through social media advertising to promote the proposed tax. 23
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
The BOS meetings are a cause for concern due to the inability of the Board to operate as a cohesive team.
F2:
Animosity between several of the BOS inhibits the ability to get county work done in a timely manner.
F3:
There are members of the public that continually make unsubstantiated allegations instead of focusing on the County business which slows down the BOS from getting county business done in a timely manner.
F4:
A member of the BOS has expressed intent to remove the CA, Personnel Director, and County Counsel. This has caused unnecessary tension within County Administration.
F5:
One of the BOS thinks the CA intimidates the DHPMs. Our interviews pointed out that 22 out of 24 DHPMs feel supported and work well with the CA. This discrepancy suggests a significant gap between the perception of one supervisor and the experiences of the majority of DHPMs.
F6:
Although paid by the county, BOS members are not county employees and are not bound by county personnel rules. This lack of enforceable standards for elected officials appears to reduce accountability and encourage poor behavior, undermining a respectful workplace. 69
F7:
All of the current BOS agreed that a Code of Conduct for the BOS would be beneficial. Implementing a Code of Conduct could enhance public trust, improve working relationships within the BOS, and set consistent expectations that support a respectful and effective governing environment.
F8:
There is confusion among Tehama County officials over which personnel rules should apply to whom. This ambiguity has led to questions about whether elected, appointed, and hired individuals are being treated consistently and fairly under county policies, highlighting the need for clearer definitions and uniform application of rules.
F9:
All of Department heads noticed the conflict between the Sheriff and the CA which has created an uncomfortable and challenging work environment. This tension has negatively impacted the effectiveness of county operations and must be resolved.
F10:
The TCGJ observed that the BOS sometimes goes beyond its policy-making role by micromanaging the CA, making it difficult for the CA to effectively carry out his responsibilities.
Additional Recommendations
10
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The BOS shall hire an outside mediator to resolve differences between the Sheriff and the CA by October 1, 2025.
R1a:
The BOS and the TCSO shall work together to provide a plan to secure the money needed to fully staff the Re-Entry Center and the Jail. This plan should be presented at a BOS meeting by January 1, 2026.
R1b:
The BOS shall reinstate the Ad Hoc Public Safety Tax Initiative Working Group by August 30, 2025. This group shall present a plan for securing additional tax revenue without unduly burdening the citizens of the county. All revenue shall go to a dedicated public safety fund for jail and Re-entry center staffing. The plan shall be presented at a BOS meeting by December 31, 2025.
R1c:
The BOS and the TCSO shall work together to present a plan to educate the community on the necessity of these funds and gain community trust that the funds will be used as intended. Efforts could include but should not be limited to; town hall meetings, public presentations, facility tours, PSAs, etc. This plan should be presented at a BOS meeting by December 31, 2025.
R2:
The BOS and the TCSO work together to make a plan to address retention and possible bonuses for attracting and retaining correctional officers. This plan shall be presented at a BOS meeting by January 1, 2026.
R3:
The TCSO shall produce a written plan to address the inadequate Safety and Sobering Cell facilities. This plan shall be presented at a BOS meeting by December 31, 2025.
R4:
The TCSO shall restore or implement new community led programs that would further the inmates’ rehabilitation and educational needs (i.e. AA, NA, GED, etc.). At least 2 programs must be operating by September 30, 2025. 40
R5:
TCGJ recommends the Public Comment period be moved from the beginning of the BOS meetings to the end of the meetings by October 1, 2025.
R6:
The TCGJ recommends that the BOS develop and use a speaker’s card system to better organize the public input during agenda items at BOS meetings. If no card is submitted, the individual should not be permitted to speak. This process will help ensure orderly, timely, and relevant public participation in Board proceedings. The system should be in place by October 1, 2025.
R7:
TCGJ recommends that the Personnel Director work with an Ad Hoc committee to clearly explain which personnel rules apply to hired, elected, and appointed county staff in the Tehama County Personnel Rules Handbook. Pursuant to California Penal Code Section 933 and 933.05, the following response is required: • Board of Supervisors of the County of Tehama shall respond to: o Findings: F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F10 o Recommendations: R1, R3, R4, R5 • Tehama County Counsel shall respond to: o Finding: F10 o Recommendation: R2 • Tehama County Personnel Director shall respond to: o Finding: F8 o Recommendation: R7 In accordance with California Penal Code Section 933.06, five members of the Tehama County Grand Jury have recused themselves from participating in the inquiry, deliberation, and preparation of this report due to a potential conflict of interest or other disqualifying circumstances. 71
Additional documents
Documents found alongside this year's reports — not grand jury reports or responses.