Gran Jurado del Condado de Tuolumne
2025-2026
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 (8)
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
19 hallazgos
F1:
Budget cuts have led to concerns about future job loss, causing CDD employees to resign or retire prior to being let go. The perception of a poor employee pay structure, newly degraded work culture, and a lack of support from the Board of Supervisors has resulted in difficulty filling vacancies within CDD. Current staffing levels within CDD are not sufficient for maintaining minimum service levels without utilizing more costly third-party contracts.
F2:
Supervisor Holland’s presentation "Maybe Time for a New Approach” created a misleading comparison between the Tuolumne County and Amador County Community Development Departments by relying on staffing, budget, and permit processing comparisons between departments with materially different structures, responsibilities, and workloads.
F3:
The lack of definitive metrics/guidelines for permit approval time inhibits the ability to identify opportunities for improvement in the permit approval process and contributes to the poor public perception of the CDD. 45
F4:
The Board of Supervisors’ use of the Board Reports agenda section to deliver an extensive presentation criticizing the CDD immediately prior to the closed-session evaluation of the CDD Director created the perception of improper public discussion of personnel matters, undermined public confidence in Brown Act compliance and fair governance practices, and addressed matters not properly agendized while denying the public and the department a meaningful opportunity to comment or respond.
F5:
The timing and manner of the presentation, immediately preceding the CDD Director’s performance evaluation, contributed to the perception of intimidation, unfair treatment of county staff, and inconsistency in the personnel evaluation process.
F6:
CDD maintained a practice of applying unwritten “Tuolumne County” requirements in addition to formally adopted State codes and regulations, despite those local requirements not being formally codified or publicly adopted through the required legislative process. This practice contributed to project delays, increased costs, and frustration among applicants and contractors, and created a perception of inconsistency and inefficiency within the permitting process.
F7:
CDD routinely fails to rely on the expertise of engineer’s preparing plan documents and does not always accept plans when there is the presence of an engineer’s professional stamp on submitted plans.
F8:
CDD frequently provided applicants with incremental or successive correction notices during the plan review and permitting process whereby additional corrections or new requirements were often issued that had not been identified during prior reviews even after applicants had corrected identified deficiencies and resubmitted revised materials. This practice contributed to project delays, increased costs, and frustration among applicants and contractors, and created a perception of inconsistency and inefficiency within the permitting process.
F9:
CDD has demonstrated inconsistent enforcement of ordinance code and their level of flexibility for remediation of issues.
F10:
The Board of Supervisors amended its Governance Manual on June 3, 2025, to include a Conflict-of-Interest provision establishing a mechanism for projects involving potential conflicts of interest to be reviewed by an outside agency when multiple conflict- resolution and review mechanisms already existed. The Grand Jury further found that 48 Supervisor Holland participated in discussions and voting related to the adoption of the Conflict-of-Interest provisions while having an active project that was subsequently subject to the policy. These circumstances created concerns regarding transparency, impartiality, and public trust.
F11:
Policies and procedures governing the delegation of project review, permitting, and inspection responsibilities to an external agency under the Conflict-of-Interest provisions are not clearly defined. The Grand Jury found limited guidance regarding scope of authority, roles and responsibilities, communication requirements, documentation standards, and oversight of projects transferred outside Tuolumne County. In the case of the work sent to Amador County, the Grand Jury found that the solution to the problem was even more dysfunctional than the problem itself.
F12:
The Grand Jury found limited transparency and project tracking when responsibility for review, permitting, or inspection is assigned to an external jurisdiction. This creates uncertainty regarding project status, decision-making authority, document retention, and accountability to the public.
F13:
The Grand Jury was unable to identify an active Code Compliance Board within the County's current Code Compliance framework. Current County materials describe enforcement through the CDD and Chapter 1.10 of the Tuolumne County Ordinance Code but do not reference a functioning Code Compliance Board. The Grand Jury did not determine whether the Board was formally dissolved, whether its duties were reassigned, or when it last met.
F14:
Amador County did not issue a permit for the actual work performed on the High School Road project, nor was it ever in their scope of work to issue permits for work performed in another County. Amador County officials stated that they assumed no responsibility for issuing permits for work done in Tuolumne County.
F15:
The hydrant at the High School Road project was installed without a permit. While the Assistant CAO gave approval of the concept, formal written approval, and the extent to which such approval addressed installation, permitting, and compliance requirements is unclear. Qualified and appropriately certified personnel did not perform, document, or verify all required inspections, testing, and compliance evaluations necessary to confirm that the fire hydrant installation met applicable fire safety standards. As a result, the extent of the project’s compliance with applicable public safety and permitting requirements remains unclear.
F16:
The Conflict-of-Interest provisions contained within the Tuolumne County Governance Manual state, in part, that “A County Board member shall not make, participate in making, or in any way use or attempt to use his/her official position to influence a governmental decision in which he/she knows or has reason to know that he/she has a disqualifying conflict-of-interest.” The Grand Jury also found that permitting, inspection, and enforcement activities conducted outside the normal jurisdictional structure reduced transparency, complicated oversight responsibilities, and contributed to confusion regarding authority, accountability, and applicable standards.
F17:
Supervisor Holland’s actions while serving as a member of the Board of Supervisors, a position entrusted with maintaining the public trust, raises concerns regarding compliance with Tuolumne County governance policies and ethical standards. These actions undermine public confidence in Tuolumne County government.
F18:
The Grand Jury identified a clear and recurring lack of understanding by County leadership regarding the complexities of permitting, code compliance, and inspection requirements. A notable example involved the distinction between public and private fire hydrants, including the differing permitting requirements, inspection standards, jurisdictional authority, and installation procedures applicable to each. Such misunderstandings contributed to confusion regarding compliance obligations, oversight responsibilities, and enforcement actions. The absence of sufficient technical familiarity with applicable building, fire, and public works requirements created the potential for inconsistent decision-making and increased risk to both public safety and County liability exposure. Your Grand Jury appreciates that the CAO has been tasked with doing multiple jobs concurrently and is making his best effort to meet expectations. However, the Grand Jury finds that technical, regulatory, permitting, and code-compliance determinations should be made only by appropriately qualified and authorized personnel within the applicable departments or by certified subject-matter experts.
F19:
The Grand Jury determined that the press release issued by the CAO on October 10, 2025, contained statements that were misleading, inaccurate, or unsupported by available documentation and witness testimony.
Recomendaciones adicionales
10
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R3:
Residential, one- and two-family d IIIB 158.15 695 $109,914.25 PERMIT DECLARATION Permit fees are non-refundable unless in error. This permit expires if work is not commenced within 180 days or if work is suspended for more than 180 days. After 180 days, plans will be destroyed. To continue with this project after the expiration date, new permit application, plans and all supporting documents must be provided, and new fees based on current valuation and ordinances must be paid. Construction or work for which a permit is required shall be subject to inspection and shall remain accessible and exposed for inspection purposes until approved per Section 109 of the California Building Code. I hereby acknowledge that I submitted this application and state that the information given is correct. I agree to comply with all county ordinances and state laws regulating building construction. Assessment Note: Improvements to your property may result in a change in your property assessment and a site visit from the Assessor’s office. Further information is available from the Assessor’s office at 810 Court St, in Jackson or by phone at 209-223-6351. Permit Issued To: Granite land Holdings Date: 08-Oct-2025 Reviewed By: Date: 08-Oct-2025 Additional Permit Notes/Comments/Requirements: PC 3.5 HRs PRP 09-29-2025 76
R6:
The Board of Supervisors and CDD should ensure that all plan review and permitting decisions are based solely on formally adopted State and local codes; any additional local requirements should be clearly documented, formally adopted, and publicly accessible by September 1, 2026.
R7:
The Board of Supervisors and CDD should establish and adhere to clear guidelines for plan review involving professionally prepared and stamped engineering documents. Such guidelines should define the respective roles and responsibilities of design professionals and plan reviewers, while ensuring compliance with adopted codes by September 1, 2026. 47
R8:
By October 1, 2026, the CDD should evaluate and improve its plan review and permitting procedures to promote greater consistency, completeness, and accuracy in applicant feedback. The CDD should make reasonable efforts to identify and communicate all known deficiencies and required corrections during the initial review stages in order to minimize repeated correction cycles, reduce unnecessary delays, and improve transparency and customer service throughout the permitting process.
R11:
By September 1, 2026, the Board of Supervisors should develop and implement formal procedures establishing minimum requirements for 49 agreements with outside counties or agencies performing project review, permitting, inspection, or related functions under the Conflict-of-Interest provisions.
R12:
By September 1, 2026, the Board of Supervisors should establish a policy requiring any outside jurisdiction performing work on behalf of Tuolumne County to provide regular written status updates and supporting documentation. Tuolumne County should maintain these records within its project tracking systems, including OpenGov or any successor platform, to ensure transparency, accountability, and continuity of oversight.
R13:
By September 1, 2026, the Board of Supervisors should review the status, authority, and purpose of the Code Compliance Board and determine whether an independent local review body should be re-established, activated, or otherwise replaced to provide an additional layer of public oversight and accountability within the County's regulatory framework. HIGH SCHOOL ROAD PROJECT FINDINGS
R16:
The Grand Jury recommends that Tuolumne County immediately rescind the agreement with Amador County related to permitting review, inspection, and regulatory services associated with the High School Road project, and that all such responsibilities be returned to the jurisdiction of the Tuolumne County Community Development Department and other appropriate County agencies.
R18:
The Grand Jury recommends that the CAO immediately discontinue making independent technical or code-compliance determinations and instead defer such matters to qualified County staff, licensed professionals, or other properly authorized experts.
R19:
The County Administrative Officer should, by August 1, 2026, issue a revised public statement or corrected press release containing accurate and verified information regarding the permitting status, hydrant classification, County involvement, and approval history associated with the High School Road project. Prior to release, the information should be reviewed for factual accuracy by the appropriate County departments and qualified personnel to ensure that future public communications are complete, accurate, and consistent with the documented record. 53
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
7 hallazgos
F1:
On May 5, 2025, Supervisor Holland participated in a debate and vote regarding mobile home park fees, despite having a conflict-of-interest on that item because he had a direct personal financial interest in the matter. Such violation undermines public confidence in the integrity of the decision-making process. 17
F2:
The District 1 Supervisor holds potentially incompatible offices on the Board of Supervisors and the Sonora High School Board, which creates the appearance and opportunities for a clash of duties. The appearance of this conflict calls into question impartiality around budgeting, personnel, and governance.
F3:
Members of the Board of Supervisors demonstrated an inconsistent and incomplete understanding of their legal obligations when responding to Grand Jury inquiries involving closed session matters, hindering the investigation, delaying conclusions, and creating unnecessary barriers to lawful oversight.
F4:
The District 1 Supervisor hindered a Grand Jury interview based on demands to remove two jurors for alleged bias, demonstrating a misunderstanding of the Grand Jury’s statutory oversight role and conflict of interest law.
F5:
The County’s 90-day email deletion policy hinders Grand Jury investigative efforts, access of public records, and undermines public accountability and transparency. 19
F6:
The lack of readily available, accessible, and comprehensive records of County Board of Supervisors meetings imposes a burden on the public seeking to engage local government and hold officials accountable.
F7:
Please send all responses as either Microsoft Word or Adobe PDF files. If you have questions about the response format, please contact the Grand Jury by email: [email protected] Where to Respond:
Recomendaciones adicionales
7
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
18 Clash of Duties or Loyalties ...................................................................................... 18
R2:
Provide the title and page number from the Grand Jury report.
R3:
19 Transparency and Accountability .............................................................................. 19
R4:
County Counsel should coordinate with CSAC or other qualified governmental ethics and governance training providers to provide training to the Board of Supervisors regarding the authority and oversight role of the Civil Grand Jury, including witness obligations and cooperation with Grand Jury investigations and interviews, no later than December 31, 2026.
R5:
The County should comply with state laws to retain potential public records for a two- year period by amending the automatic email deletion policy or creating policy requirements regarding employee and official retention of emails to comply with state law, beginning no later than December 31, 2026.
R6:
20 Responses ................................................................................................................. Bibliography ............................................................................................................... Ethical Behavior ....................................................................................................... Clash of Duties or Loyalties ...................................................................................... Procedural Understanding ........................................................................................ Transparency and Accountability .............................................................................. 23 3
R7:
Please send all responses as either Microsoft Word or Adobe PDF files. If you have questions about the response format, please contact the Grand Jury by email: [email protected] Where to Respond:
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
1 hallazgos
F1:
Payroll processes comply with state and local policies.
Recomendaciones adicionales
1
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that Fire Districts hold educational workshops and create 3 FAQ lists for better transparency, education, and awareness of how pay and reimbursement is carried out, identifying acronyms in sample paychecks for employees and especially volunteers.
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
1 hallazgos
F1:
Water damage due to leaks has the potential to cause future health and safety issues (roof damage, mold, etc.) and damage to facility equipment if not quickly repaired or prevented.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
Evaluate maintenance protocols to ensure that roof drainage systems are clear and fully functioning prior to the rainy season. [F1]
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
13 hallazgos
F1:
1: Tuolumne County does not maintain or update safety documents in a manner consistent with prioritizing employee safety, and the lack of a document control system makes it impossible for a County employee to know if a particular copy of a document is the current release or an obsolete version.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
1: Tuolumne County Board of Supervisors should mandate the CAO adopt a policy and a document control system (commercial, freeware, or manual) to ensure that safety documents are maintained, updated, and tracked. This should include the date of approval and date of updates with approval signatures. This should be implemented by December 31, 2022. (F1.1, F1.2, F1.6)
F2:
1: The Grand Jury finds that the Board meeting rules and regulations adopted pursuant to Resolution No. 23-15 and the Code of Conduct are not consistently followed or well understood by Board members, contributing to inefficient and ineffective meetings.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2:
1: on the Board Rules and Regulations and Board Code of Conduct and Code of Ethics. This should be implemented by December 31, 2022. (F2.1, F2.3) The Board of Supervisors should review, revise, and expand the Code of
F1.1:
: Tuolumne County does not maintain or update safety documents in a manner consistent with prioritizing employee safety, and the lack of a document control system makes it impossible for a County employee to know if a particular copy of a document is the current release or an obsolete version. The County's failure to keep safety documents current have caused some
F1.2:
: County departments to contract with outside entities to obtain current documents adding to County expenditures.
F1.3:
: The Tuolumne County Administration Office does not effectively promote keeping safety documentation up to date with OSHA standards and best practices. Many shortcomings with safety document maintenance and management can be
F1.4:
: attributed to the County lacking a Safety Management System that would mandate updating, maintaining, and implementing safety documents.
F1.5:
: For many years Tuolumne County has not had a functioning and effective Safety Committee that enables County departments to react to new safety issues, to learn from near misses, or steer an improved safety culture within County departments.
F1.6:
: The Tuolumne CAO has not followed through with the commitment to update by March 2021 the Personnel Rules and Regulations adopted in 1997, leaving them out of date compared with current human resource best practices.
F2.1:
: The Grand Jury finds that the Board meeting rules and regulations adopted pursuant to Resolution No. 23-15 and the Code of Conduct are not consistently followed or well understood by Board members, contributing to inefficient and ineffective meetings. The Grand Jury finds that the County's Code of Conduct and Code of Ethics
F2.2:
: are not specific enough to guide Board of Supervisors and staff behavior towards achieving excellence in governance and the omission of "Provide accurate and usable information" in the recently approved Code of Conduct is unexplained.
F2.3:
: The Grand Jury finds that the Board of Supervisors does not have an adequate, structured training requirement for the subjects of ethics, Code of Conduct, or meeting rules of order.
F2.4:
: The Grand Jury finds that Supervisors presented material during public Board Meetings without utilizing County professionals to vet the information, resulting in information being presented that was later refuted by the scientific community.
F2.5:
: The Grand Jury finds that the draft Tuolumne County Board of Supervisors Governance Manual dated February 2021 has not yet been finalized leaving the Administration without an effective governance document.
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
6 hallazgos
F1:
environment for detained youths that has reduced recidivism and fostered rehabilitation through their trauma-informed services and a focus on respectful, responsible, and safe behavioral goals. Despite the constraints of the COVID-19 pandemic, a motivated and creative
F2:
staff have adapted and maintained high quality educational programs and behavioral health treatment.
F3:
The COVID-19 pandemic reduced programs offered by volunteers, including religious, gardening, recreational, and other activities that have negatively impacted enrichment programs.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
The Tuolumne County Grand Jury recommends continued work with the Department of Public Health, parents or guardians of youths, staff, and prospective volunteers to develop and implement appropriate COVID-19 mitigation measures that will allow a return to enrichment activities that are currently curtailed by September 30, 2022. (F3) The Tuolumne County Grand Jury urges implementation of security upgrades by
F4:
A gap in security is evidenced by the escape of one youth. A successful grant application for security upgrades is noted.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2:
December 31, 2022. (F4)
F5:
Occupancy rates are being optimized and costs per youth per day are lower than some alternative placements, saving the county costs for detained youth.
F6:
Increasing occupancy to full capacity will require recruitment and retention of additional Juvenile Correction Officers through competitive wage scales and opportunities for advancement.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R3:
The Tuolumne County Grand Jury recommends that county Human Resources conduct a review of the salary structure, particularly for entry level staff, at MLRJDF by December 31, 2022. (F6)
R4:
The Tuolumne County Grand Jury recommends that MLRJDF develop a multi-year plan for accommodation of additional youth and a corresponding staff recruitment plan for additional juvenile correction officers by December 31, 2022. (F6)
Recomendaciones adicionales
1
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R29-90:
days, 5 percent (four) stayed 91-180 days, and 4 percent (three youths) stayed 181 days or more. One reason for increasing length of stay is that there are more youth in secure detention locally who are categorized under 707 (b) offenses, which are more serious and violent crimes. Table 2. Average length of stay and costs per day for youths Fiscal Year Average Length of Total cost Net TC cost (July-June) per youth Stay per youth per day* per day FY 17/18 $452 42.8 days $574 FY 18/19 48.37 days $490 $417 FY 19/20 55.7 days $361 $287 $333 $180 FY 20/21 76.1 days 65.5 days† $354†† $228†† FY 21/22 * Net cost = Expenditures minus revenues; costs that must be covered by county discretionary funds † Average length of stay for the first 3 quarters of the current fiscal year. †† Partial year cost information During FY 20/21 there were expenses of $1,456,992, of which 84 percent were for salaries and benefits. Revenues were $669,977, which included $287,015 from state revenue and $380,938 from other governments. Revenues from other counties have increased as they have referred more youth to this excellent program (Figure 1). State revenues also increased from $179,338 to $387,015 during this time period. Tuolumne County contributions in FY 20/21 were $787,015. The Steps to Success juvenile CAMP program will yield additional state revenues and two state grants provide $100,000 in service enhancements this year without impacting the general fund. Counties in the region served by MLRJDF pay Tuolumne County to reserve beds for their youth requiring secure detention. Calaveras County reserves two beds and the other three counties in the region reserve one bed each. In FY 21/22 these counties paid $150 per bed per day ($54,750/year for each reserved bed) and $175 per day for additional beds; rates for FY 22/23 are currently being negotiated. County of Tuolumne. Mother Lode Regional Juvenile Detention budget 0001-203220. https://stories.opengov.com/tuolumnecountyca/published/i65JjNxep accessed March 8, 2022 Figure 1. Revenue sources from regional counties Total MLRJDF Placement Revenue by Fiscal Year $500,000 $422,725 $400,000 $300,000 $200,000 $126,312 $100,000 $34,100 $26,100 Ś- 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 Regional Counties' Overall Contribution to MLRJDF Placement Revenue Mariposa, Amador, $121,312,20% $121,175,20% Inyo, $60,950, 10% Calaveras, $305,800,50% The core of the staff who interact with youths at MLRJDF are classified as Juvenile Correctional Officers I/II with salary ranges from $22.05/hour at entry level to $29.74/hour at the top step. Senior Juvenile Correctional Officers have a salary range from $26.92 to $32.86 per hour. The current facility has a capacity of thirty youth, but accommodation of more than sixteen youth in MLRJDF will require additional correctional officers. Recruitment of Juvenile Correction Officer I/II positions may be hampered by noncompetitive wages, though promotions of staff in the past year appear to have contributed to retention of existing staff.13 13Government Compensation in California (GCC) website. https://www.google.com/url?q=https://publicpay.ca.gov/Reports/Department.aspx?departmentid%3D1069 2\%26 y ear \%3D2020 \&sa=D \&source=docs \&ust=1646753172325659 \&usg=AOvVaw1K7 mDkprwGPkyiiajGPkyiiajGPkyiiajGPkyiiajGPkyiiajGPkyiiajGPkyiiajGPkyiiajGPkyiiajGPkyiiajGPkyiiajGPkyiiajGPkyiiajGPkyiiajGPkyiiajGPkyiiajGPkyiiajGPk XVpq FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND COMMENDATIONS
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
12 hallazgos
F1:
1: Considering its inherited and aging infrastructure, TUD’s existing rate structure is not adequate to fund its capital improvement needs should significant grant funding not materialize. While the agency is doing a good job in maintaining affordable rates, living within its means, and seeking external funding, it relies heavily on sources beyond its control to fund its CIP. This creates a risk of further deferring important capital improvements.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
1: TUD should continue to seek grant funding for its capital improvement needs. Recognizing the recent passage of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the next several years could be a watershed opportunity for funding upgrades to aging infrastructure in the utilities sector. TUD should ensure it is prepared to meet oncoming changes by: staying abreast of grant qualification thresholds (i.e., proportional rate percent of MHI);
F2:
1a: The frequent termination and turnover of TUD general managers over the last decade has carried both tangible and intangible costs, including costs associated with the payment of severance pay and benefits, impacts to employee morale, and a reduction in productivity associated with changes in leadership priorities.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2:
1: Prior to the next performance review/compensation cycle, the TUD board should adopt a policy that establishes the process for hiring and firing, evaluating the performance of, and adjusting the compensation of the general manager. Institute for Local Government, "Good Governance Checklist: Good and Better Practices," (undated), available at: http://www.ca-ilg.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/checklist_v4.pdf.
F3:
1: There has been a lack of transparency about the status, progress, potential conclusion, and possible effects of the proposed acquisition of PG&E property and water rights on TUD and the ratepayers. Potential effects of this lack of transparency include public confusion and ultimately a risk to public support for the proposal.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3:
1: TUD should designate a "point person" to answer public inquiries regarding the PG&E acquisition. Without further delay, TUD should disclose to the public all non-confidential information regarding the current state of discussions regarding the PG&E acquisition.
F1.1:
: Considering its inherited and aging infrastructure, TUD's existing rate structure is not adequate to fund its capital improvement needs should significant grant funding not materialize. While the agency is doing a good job in maintaining affordable rates, living within its means, and seeking external funding, it relies heavily on sources beyond its control to fund its CIP. This creates a risk of further deferring important capital improvements.
F1.2:
: TUD's budget is not providing adequate contingency reserve funding, as illustrated by the discrepancy between the estimated $100,000 in damage from the December 2021 storm event compared to the $19,486 set aside in the Fiscal Year 2022 budget for the water contingency fund. The ability of TUD customers to survive and thrive requires the agency to have a robust capacity to budget and to plan for the unforeseen without relying on emergency declarations, grants, or assistance from other agencies in the short response term.
F1.3:
: TUD has a clear and appropriate new connections process and has not impeded county development through denial of new connections.
F2.1:
a: The frequent termination and turnover of TUD general managers over the last decade has carried both tangible and intangible costs, including costs associated with the payment of severance pay and benefits, impacts to employee morale, and a reduction in productivity associated with changes in leadership priorities.
F2.2:
: TUD department managers and other agency employees may be uniquely suited to assist the TUD board in assessing qualifications of general manager applicants and evaluating the performance of the general manager or other senior TUD employees, but there is no TUD board- approved policy encouraging the involvement of subordinate employees in hiring and performance review appraisals of the general manager or other senior TUD staff.
F2.3:
: The competitiveness of TUD employee compensation is an important consideration in the district's ability to recruit and retain the quality personnel upon which it is so dependent.
F3.1:
: There has been a lack of transparency about the status, progress, potential conclusion, and possible effects of the proposed acquisition of PG&E property and water rights on TUD and the ratepayers. Potential effects of this lack of transparency include public confusion and ultimately a risk to public support for the proposal.
F3.2:
: The PLPRP has been only partially implemented and has not addressed important opportunities for recreation or environmental benefits.
F3.3:
: TUD has an important opportunity to protect, preserve, and enhance the environment, and to enrich recreational opportunities in the county that are not adequately addressed in their strategic plan, its staffing, and funding.
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
7 hallazgos
F1:
“Title 13, California Code of Regulations, Section 2025, effective January 1, 2020 requires the replacement of the diesel truck used for the essential pick up, delivery and distribution for the food bank. At the time of this Grand Jury inquiry, a replacement truck had not been obtained.”
F2:
“ATCAA is meticulous in its duties of coordinating multiple-funding sources and federal, state, and local regulations. Likewise, in the general management of the agency and individual programs, the Grand Jury found their performance to be exemplary as they employ creative and frugal solutions to address diminishing resources.”
F3:
“ATCAA practices a spirit of cooperation and collaboration with neighboring counties in pooling resources and partnership activities, to help as many people in need as possible.”
F4:
“Tuolumne County does not have a key employeesuccession plan in place, which stifles upward mobility and professional growth for certain mid-level positions.”
F5:
“Conflict of Interest Agreements were entered into with the County and County Counsel and the County and the Public Defender to establish and maintain conflict of interest protocols.”
F6:
“Salaries for Tuolumne County Public Defender and other similar department heads are fair and equitable as determined by an independent study.”
F7:
“Tuolumne County code [sic] regarding defensible space and fuel modification is not adequate to protect residents, property owners, and natural resources, because it does not address fuels on vacant property, or require fuel reduction along neighborhood roads to maintain a safe clearance.”
* 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.
Additional documents
Documents found alongside this year's reports — not grand jury reports or responses.