Yuba County Grand Jury
2008-2009
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
The select list of contractors employed by MJUSD for its lease-leaseback contracting is a closed pool of contractors with little or no competition. This has resulted in a closed and exclusive list of contractors, subject to favoritism or abuse, noted by the large percentage of contract dollars awarded to two general contractors with previous relationships to personnel in the Facilities Department.
F2:
The Facilities Department has no established criteria for the hiring of local subcontractors to enable the bond money to stay within the community and there are no established procedures for adding new contractors on a regular basis to ensure securing “best value” for the taxpayers.
F3:
The MJUSD needs to establish a method to ensure the ethics laws of California are being adhered to in the contracting of services. The staff at MJUSD is not provided ethics training at this time.
F4:
There is minimal review of lease-leaseback contracts by the MJUSD Board. The Board is given a listed contractor on a project by the Facilities Department. The Board does not have the Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report June 25, 2009 opportunity to review the full range of proposals to ensure equity, fairness and oversight in awarding contracts paid by public bond funds.
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The MJUSD needs to establish an open and public list of contractors for lease-leaseback contracting or return to the low-bid process to ensure fairness in the awarding of contracts.
R2:
The MJUSD Board should establish goals to utilize a minimum percentage of local subcontractors in lease-leaseback projects in order to put the bond money voted by Yuba County residents back into Yuba County. They establish a procedure to update and add new contractors to the established list.
R3:
Establish a requirement for all officials and all individuals required to purchase, contract or make decisions for the school district, to have ethics training every two years as recommended in Senate Bill 106.
R4:
The Board should formulate a procedure for the reviewing of proposals for lease-leaseback contracts including additional time to examine the compiled list from which to select the most qualified proposal. PASSED and ADOPTED by the Yuba County Grand Jury on June 12, 2009
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
The updated version of the Health and Human Services Department’s Strategic Plan is incomplete. The Plan does not provide clear objectives and strategies to build an action plan for improvement.
F2:
The C-IV system is web-based and more efficient than ISAWS, which will no longer be supported by the State after 2010. Yuba County is expected to implement C-IV in June 2010.
F3:
Some of the holding area doors are scratched and are difficult to lock. The carpet is torn, which could result in injuries. The windows in the cells have paper stuffed into the holes around them and they are scratched with gang affiliations.
F4:
The Exposure Control Plan is outdated with the last revision being completed in September 2001. The OSHA Regulation (29 CFR, § 1910.1030) requires that the Exposure Control Plan be reviewed on an annual basis.
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Establish a clear Strategic Plan with reachable objectives and strategies to implement an action plan, then implement the Plan.
R3:
Replace and repair as necessary.
R4:
Update the Exposure Control Plan and establish a procedure to ensure the plan is reviewed on an annual basis. PASSED and ADOPTED by the Yuba County Grand Jury on May 26, 2009
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
The chemicals used in the laundry are in large buckets next to one of the washers and not secured.
F2:
The wards working in the laundry are not trained in exposure control or offered hepatitis B vaccinations as required by OSHA Regulation (29 CFR, § 1910.1030).
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Establish a caged area to lock the chemicals out of reach and to restrict access to the dangerous chemicals.
R2:
Offer the laundry workers hepatitis B vaccinations in accordance with OSHA Regulation (29 CFR, § 1910.1030),
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
The Exposure Control Plan is outdated with the last revision being completed in September 2001. The OSHA Regulation (29 CFR, § 1910.1030) requires that the Exposure Control Plan be reviewed on an annual basis.
F2:
Complainant and complainant’s employer stated to the Committee that the CSS staff was abrupt and indifferent to wage garnishment concerns and unresponsive to telephone calls. In addition, the complainant had multiple case managers resulting in the complainant being unable to effectively discuss or to reconcile payment errors with CSS.
F3:
The Committee found that CSS only responds to those non-custodial parents persistent enough to seek fair and correct entries for their payments. The CSS’ policy is inflexible and burdensome to both the employer and the employee. The employees who are paid at the end of the month, that have with no option to alter payment dates, will constantly be in arrears.
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Update the Exposure Control Plan and establish a procedure to ensure the plan is reviewed on an annual basis. Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report June 25, 2009
R2:
The CSS must follow and enforce established procedures with respect to customer service. The Management should require all case managers to be Customer Service Certified and agree to continuous training. In addition, CSS must improve the method of transferring cases between the case managers to avoid the ineffectiveness and inconsistency of customer service, as experienced by the complainant.
R3:
With a clear legislative mandate to ensure reasonable access, visibility and accountability to the public, the CSS must adapt to payroll policies of the public. PASSED and ADOPTED by the Yuba County Grand Jury on June 2, 2009
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
Based on the review of documents the policies and procedures currently in place in the CED adequately manage and monitor each public nuisance complaint from inception to resolution.
F2:
The nature of public nuisance abatement is ongoing and fluid. As existing complaints are resolved new complaints are being logged and tracked.
F3:
The Community Development and Services Agency continues to improve both customer relations and complaint resolution in the Building Department.
F4:
Code Enforcement is “response driven” as per the policy of the Board of Supervisors; there is no proactive approach to public nuisance abatement in Yuba County.
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Consider placing the portable classrooms in a safer location. PASSED and ADOPTED by the Yuba County Grand Jury on June 12, 2009
R2:
The OPUD should develop and maintain written procedures for handling, storage and distribution of confidential information. The OPUD must ensure all employees are trained in these procedures and understand the applicability of these procedures to their respective job duties and responsibilities.
R3:
The Community Development and Services Agency should take the lessons learned with the streamlined complaint process in the Building Department and extend them throughout the Agency. PASSED and ADOPTED by the Yuba County Grand Jury on June 2, 2009
R4:
“Response driven” public nuisance abatement may not be the best model for a sparsely populated, largely rural county such as Yuba. It is recommended that the Board of Supervisors revisit this policy for improving the purpose and mission effectiveness of the Code Enforcement Department. PASSED and ADOPTED by the Yuba County Grand Jury on June 2, 2009 Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report June 25, 2009
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
The complaint process has improved and follows a chain of command for greater accountability.
F2:
The future Residential Construction Guide will be a useful and necessary tool for do-it- yourselfers and the professional builders in Yuba County.
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
from the Final Report reads as follows: “The building department needs to build a friendly approachable reputation, especially with construction professionals. “
R2:
The Community Development and Services Agency needs to complete, post and publicize the Residential Construction Guide as soon as possible. Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report June 25, 2009
R5:
from the Final Report reads as follows: “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.” Method of the Investigation The Committee requested information from the Community Development and Services Agency (CDSA), which included the agency’s overall goals, budget goals, organizational information, and 2007-2008 accomplishments of the agency. The Committee reviewed the provided information. Interviews were held with the CDSA staff with a minimum of two members present. Facts and Observations The CDSA is comprised of the county Building, Planning, Environmental Health, and Public Works departments. The agency posts its Mission Statement on the Yuba County website as follows: Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report June 25, 2009 “The Community Development & Services Agency coordinates the orderly growth and development of the County while ensuring proper housing, circulation and public health and safety of its residents. The Agency provides direction, coordination, and administrative support for the Building, Environmental Health, Planning, and Public Works Departments. The four Departments within the Agency and the Divisions within the Departments which include Code Enforcement, CUPA, Housing & Community Services, and the County Surveyor encompass all services necessary for the County to provide land use, building, housing, circulation and code compliance information in an efficient, courteous, professional and cost-effective manner to the residents of Yuba County.” During staff interviews, it was indicated that the complaint resolution process has been streamlined. The CDSA staff mentioned that, contrary to prior practice, one individual is now responsible for tracking and resolving complaints in the Building Department. The complaint process has been improved by providing this single point of contact. Once a complaint is received, the point of contact communicates with the Director throughout the resolution process. The Committee was given the opportunity to review a draft of the Residential Construction Guide (Guide). When complete, this Guide will be available free of charge at the CDSA office as well as on the CDSA website. The Guide will present a large amount of information and will be useful for both the do-it-yourselfer and the professional builder. The Guide will also help those seeking to hire a contractor for either a remodeling job or new home construction. It will cover everything from building permits to fire and energy standards, including code enforcement requirements. The Guide will contain extensive material requirement lists for every phase of building from grading and drainage to roofing.
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
The surgery and recovery room are not utilized as originally intended resulting in lost revenue to the county. In addition, not having a clinic in the county requires the community members to seek lower-cost services in overbooked out-of-county locations.
F2:
Food and Agriculture Code § 31108 requires an extended holding period for animals, above and beyond the current county ordinance requirements, with exception in the case of increased business hours (e.g. 7:00 p.m. one weekday).
F3:
In the last year there have been more animals found abandoned due to foreclosures in the area, as well as people not being able to afford continued care for their animals.
F4:
The county lost approximately $49,000 in dog licensing revenue due to nearly half of the pet owners not responding to the ACS’ letters.
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Establish a contract with a veterinarian to be put on retainer or hire part-time staff. This would generate revenue for the county by administering vaccines, spaying and neutering animals and meet the new requirements outlined in the “Hayden Law”.
R2:
The hours need to be extended at least one weekday to 7:00 p.m. to meet the “Hayden Law’s” intent that “Shelters should be open during hours that permit working pet owners to redeem pets during nonworking hours”. Further research would be required in order to find the best solution to meet the intent of the law.
R4:
Establish a procedure to increase the payments for dog licenses, including but not limited to, visits from officers to the homes. The collection of the fees would help in the funding of a staff position for ACS. PASSED and ADOPTED by the Yuba County Grand Jury on May 12, 2009
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F2:
Proper procedures for personnel (staff and inmates) working in the laundry facility are not being followed. Training of inmates working in this area is not adequate. a. Laundry inmate workers were found to be eating in the laundry room. b. Laundry inmate workers were not wearing gloves or aprons (though they were available) while working in the laundry. c. Inmates were locked in the laundry room while working. d. Could not determine if inmates were offered hepatitis B vaccinations as required by OSHA Regulation (29 CFR, § 1910.1030) and Cal OSHA (Title 8, § 5193.)
F3:
Female inmates are not offered vocational training in electrical or carpentry courses and the male inmates are not offered life-skills training.
F4:
The laundry area was built for a smaller jail. Though it meets CCR Title 15 requirements, it requires extended shifts to ensure clean laundry is provided to all inmates.
F5:
The computer system in the control room is approximately fourteen years old, but is currently working adequately. In terms of technology’s exponential improvements over the past decade, this system is outdated but functional.
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R2:
Provide training to inmate workers for exposure situations. The laundry personnel need to be offered hepatitis B vaccinations in accordance OSHA Regulation (29 CFR, § 1910.1030),
R3:
Establish a method to offer the same training to all inmates.
R4:
Establish a plan to replace or increase the size of the laundry to maintain the CCR Title 15 requirements as well as the needs of the inmates.
R5:
The county needs to continue to upgrade software as available, but needs to plan ahead for replacement of the system within the next five years. Commendation: The Sheriff’s Department has developed a comprehensive strategic plan that has the ability to track past accomplishments and setbacks and for continuing to plan for and enact departmental improvements. PASSED and ADOPTED by the Yuba County Grand Jury on May 19 2009 Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report June 25, 2009
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The current RHCSD Board of Directors has not produced a budget for either 2007-2008 or for the 2008-2009 years as required by California Government Code § 61110.
F2:
Based on previous Financial Statements reviewed no payroll expenses were found. Therefore, it is assumed all “employees” of RHCSD are outside contractors. Outside contractors hired by the RHCSD did not receive their copies of IRS form 1099 in a timely manner for the years of 2007 and 2008. This lack of attention may have caused undue tax penalties to some contractors and for the RHCSD.
F3:
Multiple violations, according to California Government Code § 61047, were found when reviewing stipend payments to some past and current board members. These stipend payments only added to the already overburdened costs to the RHCSD.
F4:
California Government Code §§ 53234 and 53235.1 require ethics training, if the local agency provides any type of compensation, salary or stipend to those officials. Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report June 25, 2009
F5:
The dissolution of the RHCSD is being considered by the County and LAFCO. The County is in the process of determining the liability of the bonds for which the RHCSD has administrative responsibilities.
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The RHCSD Board of Directors must establish a budget for the coming year as required by California Government Code § 61110.
R2:
Work with the RHCSD accounting firm to ensure timely distribution of IRS Form 1099 for contractors as required by law.
R3:
Audit previous stipend payments and require reimbursement to RHCSD for those payments which did not meet the requirements of the law. Establish a procedure to review stipend requests for payment that will conform to the law.
R4:
Establish a procedure to review ethics training and ensure all board members have the training available per California Government Code §§ 53234 and 53235.1. There is an on-line course available at no charge through the State and classes are also available through other training agencies.
R5:
The Committee concurs with the County and LAFCO that RHCSD should be dissolved and its various contracts and obligations transferred to appropriate entities. PASSED and ADOPTED by the Yuba County Grand Jury on May 26, 2009