Yuba County Grand Jury
2011-2012
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
Pursuant to Yuba County Policy and Procedures Manual, the Board of Supervisors is the only County entity that is authorized to establish, change and waive fees for County- provided services.
F2:
“Half fee” waivers were given to residential construction projects, where the work was performed by the owners themselves, between 2005 and 2008, without authority from the Board of Supervisors.
F3:
“Half fee” waivers were given to a commercial home developer group in October 2006.
F4:
“Half fee” waivers were given to a commercial construction project in May 2008, which was and is owned by a former Yuba County Supervisor.
F5:
A similar commercial construction project to that of the former Supervisor did not receive the “half fee” waiver in May 2008, but rather paid full price.
F6:
The Chief Building Official did not and does not have the authority to establish, change and waive permit fees.
F7:
The Chief Building Official appears to have exhibited favoritism by providing the “half fee” waiver to residential construction projects, where the work was performed by the owners themselves.
F8:
The Chief Building Official appears to have exhibited favoritism by granting the “half fee” waiver to one commercial home developer group.
F9:
The Chief Building Official appears to have exhibited favoritism by granting the “half fee” waiver to a former Supervisor for his commercial construction project, while not granting the “half fee” waiver to a similar commercial construction project taking place during the same timeframe.
F10:
The Chief Building Official stated he was instructed by the Board of Supervisors to provide the “half fee” waiver, but the Supervisors who were interviewed had no knowledge of such a waiver.
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Increased oversight should be implemented to ensure that only fees authorized by the Board of Supervisors are charged.
R2:
The Chief Building Official should be held accountable for failing to follow the County’s Administrative Policy & Procedures Manual, Policy B-2, regarding the establishment of fees.
R3:
The Chief Building Official should be held accountable for a perceived show of favoritism when providing the “half fee” to residential construction projects where the work is 2011-2012 Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report Unauthorized Changes in Building Permit Fees performed by the owners themselves, as well as to the two commercial construction projects.
R4:
The Chief Building Official should be held accountable for the loss of revenue to the Building Department.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
Generally, the Yuba-Sutter Juvenile Hall facilities appear to be well maintained.
F2:
The Yuba-Sutter Juvenile Hall facilities appear to provide supportive programs for troubled youth.
F3:
The surveillance system inside the Yuba-Sutter Juvenile Hall needs to be upgraded. 2011-2012 Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report Juvenile Hall
F4:
Exposed and damaged insulation within Camp Singer’s indoor recreation area is a safety and energy concern.
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Evaluate cost requirements needed to upgrade video surveillance equipment to ensure the continued safety and security in all areas of the Yuba-Sutter Juvenile Hall.
R2:
Secure funding for replacement and upgrade of the video surveillance system in all areas of the Yuba-Sutter Juvenile Hall.
R3:
Investigate the cost of energy loss caused by the missing/damaged insulation in Camp Singer’s indoor recreation area.
R4:
Secure funding for the repair or replacement of the insulation in Camp Singer’s indoor recreation area.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
Pursuant to Yuba County Policy and Procedures Manual, the Board of Supervisors is the only County entity that is authorized to establish, change and waive fees for County- provided services.
F2:
“Half fee” waivers were given to residential construction projects, where the work was performed by the owners themselves, between 2005 and 2008, without authority from the Board of Supervisors.
F3:
“Half fee” waivers were given to a commercial home developer group in October 2006.
F4:
“Half fee” waivers were given to a commercial construction project in May 2008, which was and is owned by a former Yuba County Supervisor.
F5:
A similar commercial construction project to that of the former Supervisor did not receive the “half fee” waiver in May 2008, but rather paid full price.
F6:
The Chief Building Official did not and does not have the authority to establish, change and waive permit fees.
F7:
The Chief Building Official appears to have exhibited favoritism by providing the “half fee” waiver to residential construction projects, where the work was performed by the owners themselves.
F8:
The Chief Building Official appears to have exhibited favoritism by granting the “half fee” waiver to one commercial home developer group.
F9:
The Chief Building Official appears to have exhibited favoritism by granting the “half fee” waiver to a former Supervisor for his commercial construction project, while not granting the “half fee” waiver to a similar commercial construction project taking place during the same timeframe.
F10:
The Chief Building Official stated he was instructed by the Board of Supervisors to provide the “half fee” waiver, but the Supervisors who were interviewed had no knowledge of such a waiver.
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Increased oversight should be implemented to ensure that only fees authorized by the Board of Supervisors are charged.
R2:
The Chief Building Official should be held accountable for failing to follow the County’s Administrative Policy & Procedures Manual, Policy B-2, regarding the establishment of fees.
R3:
The Chief Building Official should be held accountable for a perceived show of favoritism when providing the “half fee” to residential construction projects where the work is 2011-2012 Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report Unauthorized Changes in Building Permit Fees performed by the owners themselves, as well as to the two commercial construction projects.
R4:
The Chief Building Official should be held accountable for the loss of revenue to the Building Department.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
U.S. Flags flown over the decorative arches along D Street are not being illuminated between sundown and sunrise.
F2:
Proper light fixtures are in place to light the U.S. flags; however, they are not being used.
F3:
The Marysville City Manager was unaware that the lights were off.
F4:
Yuba County Consolidated Fee Schedule requires permits and fees for certain items specifically exempted in its Title X, Chapter 10.05, Standards of Building Construction.
F5:
Neither the County Administrative Officer, the Director of the Community Development Services Agency, nor the interviewed members of the Board of Supervisors were aware that permits were being required for specifically exempted items within the county’s building codes.
F6:
Through conflicting county ordinances, the residents of Yuba County are required to pay for permits for items that are specifically exempted by the county’s building codes.
F7:
The residents of Yuba County, who have performed work that is specifically exempted from the permit process pursuant to the county’s building code, have been put in a position of being in violation of the county’s consolidated Fee Schedule and are subject to possible jail time, fines and/or both.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Ensure that proper respect is provided by keeping the flags atop the arches along D Street illuminated between sundown and sunrise.
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
Pursuant to Yuba County Policy and Procedures Manual, the Board of Supervisors is the only County entity that is authorized to establish, change and waive fees for County- provided services.
F2:
“Half fee” waivers were given to residential construction projects, where the work was performed by the owners themselves, between 2005 and 2008, without authority from the Board of Supervisors.
F3:
“Half fee” waivers were given to a commercial home developer group in October 2006.
F4:
“Half fee” waivers were given to a commercial construction project in May 2008, which was and is owned by a former Yuba County Supervisor.
F5:
A similar commercial construction project to that of the former Supervisor did not receive the “half fee” waiver in May 2008, but rather paid full price.
F6:
The Chief Building Official did not and does not have the authority to establish, change and waive permit fees.
F7:
The Chief Building Official appears to have exhibited favoritism by providing the “half fee” waiver to residential construction projects, where the work was performed by the owners themselves.
F8:
The Chief Building Official appears to have exhibited favoritism by granting the “half fee” waiver to one commercial home developer group.
F9:
The Chief Building Official appears to have exhibited favoritism by granting the “half fee” waiver to a former Supervisor for his commercial construction project, while not granting the “half fee” waiver to a similar commercial construction project taking place during the same timeframe.
F10:
The Chief Building Official stated he was instructed by the Board of Supervisors to provide the “half fee” waiver, but the Supervisors who were interviewed had no knowledge of such a waiver.
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Increased oversight should be implemented to ensure that only fees authorized by the Board of Supervisors are charged.
R2:
The Chief Building Official should be held accountable for failing to follow the County’s Administrative Policy & Procedures Manual, Policy B-2, regarding the establishment of fees.
R3:
The Chief Building Official should be held accountable for a perceived show of favoritism when providing the “half fee” to residential construction projects where the work is 2011-2012 Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report Unauthorized Changes in Building Permit Fees performed by the owners themselves, as well as to the two commercial construction projects.
R4:
The Chief Building Official should be held accountable for the loss of revenue to the Building Department.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
Pursuant to Yuba County Policy and Procedures Manual, the Board of Supervisors is the only County entity that is authorized to establish, change and waive fees for County- provided services.
F2:
“Half fee” waivers were given to residential construction projects, where the work was performed by the owners themselves, between 2005 and 2008, without authority from the Board of Supervisors.
F3:
“Half fee” waivers were given to a commercial home developer group in October 2006.
F4:
“Half fee” waivers were given to a commercial construction project in May 2008, which was and is owned by a former Yuba County Supervisor.
F5:
A similar commercial construction project to that of the former Supervisor did not receive the “half fee” waiver in May 2008, but rather paid full price.
F6:
The Chief Building Official did not and does not have the authority to establish, change and waive permit fees.
F7:
The Chief Building Official appears to have exhibited favoritism by providing the “half fee” waiver to residential construction projects, where the work was performed by the owners themselves.
F8:
The Chief Building Official appears to have exhibited favoritism by granting the “half fee” waiver to one commercial home developer group.
F9:
The Chief Building Official appears to have exhibited favoritism by granting the “half fee” waiver to a former Supervisor for his commercial construction project, while not granting the “half fee” waiver to a similar commercial construction project taking place during the same timeframe.
F10:
The Chief Building Official stated he was instructed by the Board of Supervisors to provide the “half fee” waiver, but the Supervisors who were interviewed had no knowledge of such a waiver.
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Increased oversight should be implemented to ensure that only fees authorized by the Board of Supervisors are charged.
R2:
The Chief Building Official should be held accountable for failing to follow the County’s Administrative Policy & Procedures Manual, Policy B-2, regarding the establishment of fees.
R3:
The Chief Building Official should be held accountable for a perceived show of favoritism when providing the “half fee” to residential construction projects where the work is 2011-2012 Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report Unauthorized Changes in Building Permit Fees performed by the owners themselves, as well as to the two commercial construction projects.
R4:
The Chief Building Official should be held accountable for the loss of revenue to the Building Department.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
Generally, the Yuba-Sutter Juvenile Hall facilities appear to be well maintained.
F2:
The Yuba-Sutter Juvenile Hall facilities appear to provide supportive programs for troubled youth.
F3:
The surveillance system inside the Yuba-Sutter Juvenile Hall needs to be upgraded. 2011-2012 Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report Juvenile Hall
F4:
Exposed and damaged insulation within Camp Singer’s indoor recreation area is a safety and energy concern.
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Evaluate cost requirements needed to upgrade video surveillance equipment to ensure the continued safety and security in all areas of the Yuba-Sutter Juvenile Hall.
R2:
Secure funding for replacement and upgrade of the video surveillance system in all areas of the Yuba-Sutter Juvenile Hall.
R3:
Investigate the cost of energy loss caused by the missing/damaged insulation in Camp Singer’s indoor recreation area.
R4:
Secure funding for the repair or replacement of the insulation in Camp Singer’s indoor recreation area.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
U.S. Flags flown over the decorative arches along D Street are not being illuminated between sundown and sunrise.
F2:
Proper light fixtures are in place to light the U.S. flags; however, they are not being used.
F3:
The Marysville City Manager was unaware that the lights were off.
F4:
Yuba County Consolidated Fee Schedule requires permits and fees for certain items specifically exempted in its Title X, Chapter 10.05, Standards of Building Construction.
F5:
Neither the County Administrative Officer, the Director of the Community Development Services Agency, nor the interviewed members of the Board of Supervisors were aware that permits were being required for specifically exempted items within the county’s building codes.
F6:
Through conflicting county ordinances, the residents of Yuba County are required to pay for permits for items that are specifically exempted by the county’s building codes.
F7:
The residents of Yuba County, who have performed work that is specifically exempted from the permit process pursuant to the county’s building code, have been put in a position of being in violation of the county’s consolidated Fee Schedule and are subject to possible jail time, fines and/or both.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Ensure that proper respect is provided by keeping the flags atop the arches along D Street illuminated between sundown and sunrise.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
The Yuba County Grand Jury finds the Yuba County Jail staff to be well trained and attentive to the needs of the inmates.
F2:
The Yuba County Grand jury finds the Yuba County Jail offers a wide variety of meals, with provisions for religious and dietary requirements.
F3:
The Yuba County Grand Jury finds the laundry area to be efficient and clean.
F4:
The Yuba County Grand Jury finds that the laundry is a revenue producer based on services it provides to Yuba/Sutter Mental Health.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Yuba County Grand Jury recommends that the Yuba County Sheriff commend Jail staff for their dedication and hard work.
R2:
The Yuba County Grand Jury recommends the Yuba County Board of Supervisors commend the Sheriff and the Sheriff’s Department staff for their excellent work.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
The Yuba County Grand Jury finds the Yuba County Jail staff to be well trained and attentive to the needs of the inmates.
F2:
The Yuba County Grand jury finds the Yuba County Jail offers a wide variety of meals, with provisions for religious and dietary requirements.
F3:
The Yuba County Grand Jury finds the laundry area to be efficient and clean.
F4:
The Yuba County Grand Jury finds that the laundry is a revenue producer based on services it provides to Yuba/Sutter Mental Health.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Yuba County Grand Jury recommends that the Yuba County Sheriff commend Jail staff for their dedication and hard work.
R2:
The Yuba County Grand Jury recommends the Yuba County Board of Supervisors commend the Sheriff and the Sheriff’s Department staff for their excellent work.
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The three most common areas of concern for HHS field workers are dogs, unexpected or unknown persons in the home and poor cellular communication in the foothills.
F2:
HHS field workers were generally aware of personal safety procedures due to verbal reminders from Dispatch Center personnel.
F3:
None of the field workers interviewed said they knew about HHS Policy and Procedures manuals.
F4:
None of the field workers interviewed said they had received any safety training subsequent to their initial training.
F5:
Senior HHS personnel said that safety is emphasized by HHS and is something field workers practice routinely.
F6:
There is an inconsistency between field workers’ safety knowledge and training and what senior HHS personnel believe is provided.
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
HHS should develop and provide annual safety training for its field workers.
R2:
HHS should consider the feasibility of providing field workers with defensive tools for protection against aggressive or overly protective animals.
R3:
HHS administration should commend its Dispatch Center personnel for their ongoing personal safety-reminders to field workers.
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The three most common areas of concern for HHS field workers are dogs, unexpected or unknown persons in the home and poor cellular communication in the foothills.
F2:
HHS field workers were generally aware of personal safety procedures due to verbal reminders from Dispatch Center personnel.
F3:
None of the field workers interviewed said they knew about HHS Policy and Procedures manuals.
F4:
None of the field workers interviewed said they had received any safety training subsequent to their initial training.
F5:
Senior HHS personnel said that safety is emphasized by HHS and is something field workers practice routinely.
F6:
There is an inconsistency between field workers’ safety knowledge and training and what senior HHS personnel believe is provided.
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
HHS should develop and provide annual safety training for its field workers.
R2:
HHS should consider the feasibility of providing field workers with defensive tools for protection against aggressive or overly protective animals.
R3:
HHS administration should commend its Dispatch Center personnel for their ongoing personal safety-reminders to field workers.
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
Pursuant to Yuba County Policy and Procedures Manual, the Board of Supervisors is the only County entity that is authorized to establish, change and waive fees for County- provided services.
F2:
“Half fee” waivers were given to residential construction projects, where the work was performed by the owners themselves, between 2005 and 2008, without authority from the Board of Supervisors.
F3:
“Half fee” waivers were given to a commercial home developer group in October 2006.
F4:
“Half fee” waivers were given to a commercial construction project in May 2008, which was and is owned by a former Yuba County Supervisor.
F5:
A similar commercial construction project to that of the former Supervisor did not receive the “half fee” waiver in May 2008, but rather paid full price.
F6:
The Chief Building Official did not and does not have the authority to establish, change and waive permit fees.
F7:
The Chief Building Official appears to have exhibited favoritism by providing the “half fee” waiver to residential construction projects, where the work was performed by the owners themselves.
F8:
The Chief Building Official appears to have exhibited favoritism by granting the “half fee” waiver to one commercial home developer group.
F9:
The Chief Building Official appears to have exhibited favoritism by granting the “half fee” waiver to a former Supervisor for his commercial construction project, while not granting the “half fee” waiver to a similar commercial construction project taking place during the same timeframe.
F10:
The Chief Building Official stated he was instructed by the Board of Supervisors to provide the “half fee” waiver, but the Supervisors who were interviewed had no knowledge of such a waiver.
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Increased oversight should be implemented to ensure that only fees authorized by the Board of Supervisors are charged.
R2:
The Chief Building Official should be held accountable for failing to follow the County’s Administrative Policy & Procedures Manual, Policy B-2, regarding the establishment of fees.
R3:
The Chief Building Official should be held accountable for a perceived show of favoritism when providing the “half fee” to residential construction projects where the work is 2011-2012 Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report Unauthorized Changes in Building Permit Fees performed by the owners themselves, as well as to the two commercial construction projects.
R4:
The Chief Building Official should be held accountable for the loss of revenue to the Building Department.