Yuba County Grand Jury
2007-2008
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
There are no restrictions imposed on the city council with regards to spending funds gained from the sale of city property.
F2:
Although losses have been decreased substantially, Goldsox baseball continues to cost the City of Marysville. Net costs to the City for the 2005/2006 year were $77,385, estimated to be $63,582 in 2006/2007, and budgeted to be $39,500 in 2007/2008.
F3:
The fire department changed from a city-operated fire department to a contract fire department operated by California Department of Forestry (CDF) in November of 1997. No in-depth study has been performed since 1997 to determine if operating with a CDF contract continues to be advantageous to the City.
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Draft an ordinance requiring funds received from the sale of city property to be deposited in a reserve account. The funds would be limited to use on capital improvement projects.
R2:
Enter into discussions with Yuba-Sutter Community Baseball, Inc, to explore the potential for negotiating a new agreement. Any new agreement should move the City to a minimum of a breakeven cost.
R3:
Conduct a study to verify that operating the fire department through a contract with CDF continues to be advantageous to the City. PASSED and ADOPTED by the Yuba County Grand Jury on the 17th day of May, 2008.
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
The Yuba County Grand Jury Cities Committee finds that the Marysville Levee District is doing an excellent job.
F2:
The Marysville Levee District budget is not sufficient. Current tax assessment has been in effect since the mid 1990’s (see Exhibit G – Budget.)
F3:
Marysville Levee District operations are dependent on one extremely experienced employee.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R2:
Place a measure on a future ballot to increase the tax assessment for the Marysville Levee District.
R3:
Develop contingency plan for hiring and training additional individual(s) in the operation of the Levee District. PASSED and ADOPTED by the Yuba County Grand Jury on the 25th day of March, 2008. Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report June 26, 2008
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
Some police department job descriptions do not accurately describe what the employees are actually doing in the performance of their duties.
F2:
There is no “Traffic Safety Fund” in the Marysville City Budget as required by California Vehicle Code Section 42200.
F3:
The computer system is inadequate, obsolete and lacks offsite backup.
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Job descriptions should be reviewed and rewritten as necessary to reflect the work being done.
R2:
The City should establish a Traffic Safety Fund in the budget, and expend the monies according to California Vehicle Code Section 42200.
R3:
Upgrade the Marysville Police Department computer system and install backup at the City Maintenance Yard. Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report June 26, 2008
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
Concerns on how the $2.78 million in Gold Village bond funds were disbursed have been around for several years. Unfortunately, it may not be possible to locate 15-year old records which would be used to prepare an accounting of the funds. If records are located, professional services will be needed to audit the records.
F2:
RHCSD, as a special service district, is a legal identity separate from any city or county. As Gold Village was the only development within this district, the RHCSD’s primary responsibility was to provide water delivery, wastewater treatment and collections to the 84 homes. However, with the failure of the wastewater treatment plant, the Superior Court of California, County of Yuba has ordered Yuba County to become responsible for overseeing the RHCSD. Therefore, Yuba County could ultimately be held accountable for any community service district within its borders.
F3:
Members of the current RHCSD board of directors and county officials in the Office of Emergency Services have worked extremely hard to resolve the problems of RHCSD.
F4:
Dispatch Center is not staffed 24/7.
F5:
Police Vehicle Maintenance is performed by the City of Marysville at the city yard.
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Yuba County should facilitate the organization of an ad- hoc committee to discuss the degree of interest in pursuing an audit on the disbursement of $2.78 million in Gold Village bond funds. The committee should determine if such an audit could prove beneficial to Gold Village residents and if the costs justify the effort. Members of the committee should include top county management, RHCSD board members, Gold Village residents, and others as deemed appropriate.
R2:
Yuba County should develop training, education and support services for the service districts within its borders. Yuba County government should be pro-active with the community service districts in an effort to avoid a repeat of RHCSD.
R4:
Hire sufficient personnel to fully staff the Dispatch Center.
R5:
The MPD should have a dedicated mechanic for better control of repairs and preventive maintenance. PASSED and ADOPTED by the Yuba County Grand Jury on the 27th day of May, 2008.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
The Yuba County Office of Education has very limited responsibility over school construction projects and renovations.
F2:
The California state school construction and renovation codes are not clearly defined in one document.
F3:
To safeguard residents and office workers, it is required that buildings undergo rigorous inspections to meet building codes. For similar reasons, the Division of State Architect regulates school construction. The laws under which DSA operates allow certain school construction to escape their examination. If it is a school property, it is outside the jurisdiction of local building authorities. For construction to avoid oversight requires that certain conditions exist, and those conditions existed at 711 Olive Street. Despite the lack of oversight, because of the way that the current laws are written, the construction would have been legal had the school personnel scheduled the required fire inspections.
F4:
According to the Wheatland Fire Department, 711 Olive Street was not fire inspected until November 12, 2007, after the School Committee met with the Wheatland Fire Department.
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Yuba County Office of Education should review and remind school districts of their responsibilities regarding state policies on construction, renovation, and inspections.
R2:
The Yuba County Office of Education needs to create and publish a procedures manual outlining existing codes related to school construction and renovation projects and distribute them to all Yuba County school districts.
R3:
The Yuba County Superintendent of Schools should address this issue of inspection authority with the State Superintendent of Schools and help propose revised school construction legislation that will require inspection for any building that will house children, regardless of whether they are students.
R4:
The school district needs to maintain a log of all fire inspections of all district buildings to record all inspections and corrections. PASSED and ADOPTED by the Yuba County Grand Jury on the 3rd day of June, 2008. Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report June 26, 2008
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F1:
The Wheatland Police Department is run efficiently and is working for the future of Wheatland. During this investigation, the Law Committee was impressed with the overall organization and cooperation of city management and police department.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
None. PASSED and ADOPTED by the Yuba County Grand Jury on the 25th day of March, 2008. Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report June 26, 2008
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
As mentioned above, every construction professional required a promise of anonymity and secrecy before agreeing to be interviewed about their experiences with the building department because of a fear of reprisals.
F2:
One general finding, gleaned from a review of the County Committee’s notes and the satisfaction survey, is that persons who had completed projects several years ago had more, as well as more severe, complaints than more recent customers. The Grand Jury County Committee concluded that the building department is maturing and that the current staff is more professional and customer-focused than the prior field and counter staff (4 plus years ago.)
F3:
Senior building officials have questioned, even rejected, engineered “stamped” plans for homes, especially those that employ more modern construction techniques.
F4:
Over the past few years the county has improved the quality of building inspection as reflected by the professional demeanor of the inspectors whom the County Committee interviewed.
F5:
While the field interviews showed that newer projects suffered fewer complaints than older construction, there were still complaints and frustrations with the permit process.
F6:
AdvanTex filtration systems are currently being introduced as experimental systems in Yuba County in locations where sand filters were the only effluent processing means. The experimental program prudently allows the county Environmental Health Department to gather data from AdvanTex filter systems to compare with the large volume of available third party data. Once satisfied that AdvanTex systems process effluent as well or better than sand filtration, AdvanTex filters can become mainstream selections for homeowners, especially in the foothills.
F7:
The county surveyor has been working to simplify the lot line adjustment process. As a result of his work, a lot line adjustment is cheaper and easier than before.
F8:
During the housing boom, consultants were brought in to augment staff. Some of the contractors interviewed claimed that the consultants were actually slowing the permit process. Now that the housing boom has abated, consultants are still in use in at least one department.
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The building department needs to build a friendly approachable reputation, especially with construction professionals.
R3:
Yuba County should retain the services of a licensed engineer to explain plans that employ new technology with which building officials are unfamiliar.
R4:
Inspectors should continue their supervised weekly meetings. Field inspectors should also be allowed unsupervised meetings to compare field notes and educate themselves on new construction techniques.
R5:
The building department needs to formalize a complaint process. Complaints and their solutions should be documented. Community Development and Services management should periodically review the complaint / solution database to determine that complaints are being resolved. Customers of the building department need to be made aware that such a system exists and that there will be no reprisals for using it. Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report June 26, 2008
R8:
Review the functions performed by the outside consultants and assess whether those activities could be accomplished more efficiently and cost effectively in-house. PASSED and ADOPTED by the Yuba County Grand Jury on the 5th day of June, 2008.