YUBA COUNTY

GRAND JURY

FINAL REPORT

2005- 2006

This page intentionally left blank.

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report i

Table of Contents

Foreperson’s Letter ......................................................................................................... iii

Members of 2005- 2006 Grand Jury ................................................................................. v

History of Grand Jury ..................................................................................................... vii

Reports and Investigations ( Listed by Committee)

Cities

Marysville, Red Light Camera System ................................................................ 3

Wheatland .............................................................................................................. 7

County

County Administrator .......................................................................................... 13

Board of Supervisors .......................................................................................... 15

Local Area Formation Commission ( LAFCO) ................................................... 19

North Central Counties Consortium ( NCCC) .................................................... 23

Health and Human Services

Health and Human Services Department .......................................................... 27

Law Enforcement

Yuba County Jail ................................................................................................. 35

Yuba- Sutter Juvenile Hall ................................................................................... 39

Public Works

Yuba County Public Works ................................................................................ 47

Schools

Mary Covillaud Elementary School ................................................................... 51

Wheatland School Districts ( contained in the City of Wheatland Report) .......................... 9

Special Districts

Reclamation District # 784 ................................................................................... 59

Yuba County Water District ................................................................................ 61

Attachments .................................................................................................................... 65

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report ii

This page intentionally left blank.

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report iii

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report iv

Attachment to Letter to The Honorable Judge Curry:

The following individuals were excused for the stated investigation due to possible or

perceived conflict of interest:

Grand Juror Connection / Possible Conflict

Sue Cerf Yuba County Supervisor District 2

Eva Conley Child Protection Services, Yuba County Jail

William Hamilton Yuba College District

Joy Markum Yuba County Probation Department

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report v

2005 - 2006 Yuba County Grand Jury

Robert Bennett Wheatland

Sue Cerf Browns Valley

Eva Conley Wheatland

Leslie Drehobl Marysville

Thomas Durham Olivehurst

Wayne Ferguson Linda

William Hamilton, Foreperson Linda

Gary Hoon Marysville

Katherine King, Foreperson Pro Tem Linda

Lisa Kubacak Beale A. F. B.

Jan Lee Linda

Joy Markum Linda

Sherrie Martin Marysville

Elaine Peters Wheatland

Steven Sanders Linda

Harold Walter Scott Olivehurst

Olive Sultzbaugh Oregon House

Cory Watson Marysville

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report vi

This page intentionally left blank.

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report vii

History of the Grand Jury

Some historians believe that the earliest versions of the Grand Jury existed in Athens,

where the Greeks used citizen groups to develop accusations. Others find traces of the

concept in the Teutonic peoples, including early Anglo- Saxons. Evidence also exists that

the early French developed the “ King’s Audit”, involving citizens who were sworn and

required to provide fiscal information related to the operation of the kingdom.

Most commentators, however, believe that the Grand Jury arose as an institution in

England. In the first millennium, English individuals prosecuted criminals with the King

personally involved in the system. Anglo- Saxon King Aetheired ( 980- 1016) appointed a

dozen landowners to investigate alleged crimes. In 1166, King Henry II established a

system of local informers ( twelve men from every hundred) to identify those who were

“ suspected of” various crimes. If the suspects survived their “ trials by ordeal”, they paid

fines to the King. The “ informers” were fined, however, if they failed to indict any suspect or

even enough suspects. After 1188, they became tax collectors as well and after the reign of

Henry III, they were charged with looking into the condition and maintenance of public

works.

The Magna Carta, signed by King John in 1215, did not mention the Grand Jury,

specifically, but did establish various procedures to ensure fairness in the dispensation of

justice. Thereafter, until the mid- 1300s, the twelve- man juries served both to present

indictments and also to rule on the validity of charges. During Edward III’s reign from 1312-

1377, the twelve individuals were replaced by twenty- four knights, called “ le grande inquest”

and the twelve became a “ petit jury” responsible only for declaring innocent or guilty

verdicts.

Ultimately, in the 1600s the English Grand Jury developed as a process to determine

whether there was probable cause to believe that an accused individual was guilty of a

crime. Grand juries, reached their English pinnacle of citizen protectors in 1681, when they

refused to indict enemies of King Charles II for alleged crimes. Ironically, English laws

establishing grand juries were repealed in 1933.

The use of juries in earliest American colonial history was limited. However, procedures

similar to grand juries were used to hear criminal charges of larceny ( Boston, 1644), holding

a disorderly meeting ( Plymouth, 1651), and witchcraft ( Pennsylvania, 1683).

In the early 1600s, colonial representatives of the English monarchs made laws and

prosecuted violators. The first grand juries recommended civil charges against those crown

agents, thus establishing themselves as representatives of the governed, similar to grand

juries today. The first grand juries also looked into government, misconduct of neglect. For

example, the first colonial grand jury, established in Massachusetts in 1635, “ presented”

town officials for neglecting to repair stocks, and also considered cases of murder, robbery,

and spousal abuse.

Other early grand juries performed a variety of administrative functions, including audits of

county funds ( New Jersey), inspections of public buildings ( Carolinas) and review of taxes

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report viii

and public works ( Virginia). Virginia grand juries also investigated whether each family

planted two acres of corn per person.

Later on during colonial times, grand juries considered criminal accusations and

investigated government officials and activities. Grand jurors included popular leaders such

as Paul Revere and John Hancock’s brother. These grand juries played a critical role in the

pre- revolutionary period. For example, three grand juries refused to indict John Peter

Zenger, whose newspaper criticized the royal governor’s actions in New York.

Although he was ultimately prosecuted by the provincial attorney, Alexander Hamilton

defended him and a petit jury acquitted him. Grand juries also denounced arbitrary royal

intrusions on citizens’ rights, refused to indict the leaders against the Stamp Act of 1765,

and refused to bring libel charges against the editors of the Boston Gazette in 1766.

After the Revolutionary War ended, the new federal constitution did not include a grand jury.

Early American leaders such as John Hancock and James Madison objected. Thereafter

the grand jury was included in the Bill of Rights, as part of the Fifth Amendment, which

states in pertinent part: “ No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise

infamous crime, unless on a presentment of indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases

arising in the land or naval forces, or until today, the federal grand jury remains an integral

part of the justice system, used by federal prosecutors for a variety of potential crimes.”

As the various states were admitted to the Union and adopted their legal and operating

procedures, almost every one initially included some reliance on grand juries to either

review criminal indictments or inquire into government activities, or do both. Some states’

grand juries were very active in administrative affairs, even including recommending new

laws.

Throughout this state- by- state development, the underlying concept remained the same:

ordinary citizens, neighbors, and others on grand juries were a necessary part of

government to ensure that public prosecutors were not swayed by personal or political

prejudices, and that government officials efficiently and effectively performed jobs.

Today, all states except Connecticut and Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia may

use grand juries to indict and bring criminal to trial. Twenty- three states and the District of

Columbia require that grand jury indictments be used for certain more serious crimes.

California and twenty- four other states make use of grand jury indictments optional. All

states and the District of Columbia use grand juries for investigative purposes.

Currently, the California grand jury has three basic functions:

1. To weigh criminal charges and determine whether indictments should be returned.

2. To weigh allegations of misconduct against public officials and determine whether to

present formal accusations requesting their removal from office.

3. To act as the public’s “ watchdog” by investigating and reporting upon the affairs of

local government.

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report ix

Of these functions, the watchdog role is by far the one most often played by the modern

grand jury in California. It is estimated that between 83 and 85 percent of the average

grand jury’s time is spent in investigating county agencies. The reporting function of the

grand jury is central to its effective operation in the public interest. Grand juries have issued

reports on the conduct of public officials and other matters pertaining to local governance

for hundreds of years. The final report, containing the grand jury’s findings and

recommendations on the subjects of its investigations is the normal end product of the

grand jury’s activity in the performance of its watchdog function and is the formal means by

which the grand jury seeks to effectuate its recommendations.

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report x

This page intentionally left blank.

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 1

Cities

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 2

This page intentionally left blank.

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 3

City of Marysville

Red Light Camera System

Summary

In May 2005, the City of Marysville installed red light camera systems at three

intersections. These cameras were installed primarily to increase traffic safety in the

City of Marysville. A safer city will result in a higher traffic safety rating which, in

turn, will decrease the cost of auto insurance for the residents and decrease the

number of auto accidents which will result in a cost savings to the city police

department. The increase in revenue from red light violators will allow the police

department to concentrate on more serious type crimes.

Reason for Investigation

The installation of red light cameras at three intersections by the City of Marysville

was discussed in a regular Yuba County Grand Jury meeting. It was suggested that

the Grand Jury should determine if the cameras are cost- effective and actually do

increase auto safety in the community by reducing traffic accidents, making the City

of Marysville a safer place to drive.

Definitions Used in This Report

• Red Light Camera Systems. A computer- controlled camera that acts as an

automated photo enforcement system; in effect, functioning as a police

officer.

• Approach. The entrance to an intersection. There are two cameras at each

approach. There are four approaches in Marysville.

• Event. When a vehicle proceeds through an intersection after the light has

turned red and the vehicle is traveling at a predetermined speed. Two photos

are taken: one photo of the driver and one photo of the rear license plate.

• Loops. Magnetic loops of wire under the pavement that are three feet apart.

The first one is 11 feet from the limit line. These loops are used to compute

the speed of the vehicle.

Background and Discussion

Members of the Yuba County Grand Jury Cities Committee interviewed Officer

Dennis Hauck, traffic enforcement officer for Marysville Police who oversees the red

light camera program. With the time commitment the red light camera program

requires, Officer Hauck does not have time to do traditional law enforcement duties.

The Marysville traffic enforcement officer said in the first month the cameras were in

use, there were 2,759 violations at the combined four red light camera system

approaches. During the first month, the police department did not issue citations;

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 4

warnings were issued during this trial period. Starting in June 2005, a $ 350 ticket

was issued by mail to violators. These citations include a court date for an option to

contest the ticket.

Red light cameras first appeared at traffic intersections in Europe and Australia in

the 1970’ s. Red light cameras came to the United States in 1993 in New York.

The Federal Highway Administration created the “ Stop Red- Light Running Program”

in 1995 as a community- based program. The study showed that red light running is

the leading cause of auto crashes in the nation’s urban areas. That same year, the

California legislature authorized automated enforcement systems at traffic

intersections.

Previously these systems were limited to railroad crossings in California. In 1997,

Oxnard became the first city to install red light camera systems. The new law, which

became effective January 1, 1996 for Oxnard, established a three- year trial period

for these new systems.

A police officer can write about 250 citations per month. It would take three to four

times the officers to keep up with the red light camera system. The camera systems

are very objective and do not add additional risk to police officers. From the

perspective of a traffic enforcement officer, there is no downside to the camera

systems.

The red light camera system that is used in Marysville is on a five- year lease from

Red Flex, a company that specializes in red light camera systems. Each approach

is leased to the city at $ 6,030 plus additional costs for electricity and Digital

Subscriptions Lines ( DSL) internet ( estimated at $ 120/ month) for a total cost of

$ 6,150 per month per camera. The cost of the four approaches totals $ 24,600 per

month for the red light camera systems in Marysville. Red Flex is responsible for all

maintenance and upkeep of the systems. The traffic enforcement officer said that

Red Flex’s response time was very fast, within 24 hours.

In June 2005, 1221 citations were issued for red light violations. The number issued

has gone down due to public awareness, but a dramatic jump to 1054 citations in

March 2006 was noted. The reason for this increase is unknown but may indicate

that the public has become careless or numb to the cameras.

The increase in red light citations has had an unintended result in the courts where

they are processed ( see Attachments 1A and 1B, pages 65 and 66). According to

Yuba County Superior Court Deputy Executive Officer Evelyn Allis, infraction filings

have increased by over 63%, from 11,972 in fiscal year 2004/ 2005 to over 14,000 in

the first nine months of fiscal year 2005/ 2006 ( projects out to 18,944 citations for

fiscal year 2005/ 2006). The increased workload has not been met by an increase in

staff by the state to address this dramatic workload increase.

According to the red light citation information ( see bottom portion of Attachment 1A,

page 65), the City of Marysville has issued an average of 733 citations monthly

which increases their general revenue stream by an average of $ 120,627.85

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 5

monthly. Marysville receives $ 164.50, the state receives $ 113.04, and the county

receives $ 92.46 from each citation. This may look good but Marysville must pay

$ 24,600 plus $ 120 for DSL monthly for the red light cameras. Yuba County’s

general fund only receives $ 3.01 for each citation ( see Attachment 2, page 67). The

actual break down of traffic citations is governed by law as shown in Attachment 2.

Since 2005 was the first year that Marysville had the red light camera system, it will

be necessary to continue monitoring accidents statistics in Marysville over the five-year

trial period to determine if the number of accidents increases or decreases.

The life expectancy of each camera system is about five to ten years. At the present

time, Marysville has red light camera systems at the following intersections: 3rd and

E Streets northbound, 3rd and F Streets eastbound, and two at 10th and G Streets,

one eastbound and one westbound. There is a need for more red light cameras

systems in Marysville. Officer Hauck stated that there are plans to install cameras at

two other intersections, 9th and E Streets and 12th and B Streets.

Findings and Recommendations

Finding 1. Officer Hauck is Marysville Police Department’s expert in the red light

camera systems, but all his time is spent administering this system and making

reports.

Recommendation 1. Use non- sworn law enforcement personnel for the task

of administrating the red light camera systems.

Recommendation 2. The City of Marysville should consider the possibility of

installing more red light camera systems in other locations.

Recommendation 3. The Board of Supervisors should consider installing

red light camera systems at several locations, including North Beale Road

and Hammonton- Smartville Road, Lindhurst and North Beale, and several

other possible locations.

Recommendation 4. The increased workload to the Yuba County Superior

Court needs to be addressed. One possible solution is for the City of

Marysville to fund one court employee and the county to fund one court

employee if they install red light camera systems in the county. The State of

California legislators should be advised because if the system proves viable

in Marysville, several other cities in California will install these systems as

well.

///

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 6

Required Responses to Finding and Recommendations

Finding 1 City of Marysville

Recommendations 1- 2 City of Marysville

Board of Supervisors

Recommendation 3 None

Recommendation 4 Board of Supervisors

City of Marysville

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 7

City of Wheatland

Summary

In reviewing the City of Wheatland’s current “ exploding” population, its lack of

monies to hire permanent staff, and current issues with traffic, the Cities Committee

found that a city manager, finance officer, chief of police and building inspector have

now been hired on a temporary basis.

Reason for Investigation

The 2004- 2005 Yuba County Grand Jury recommended that the 2005- 2006 Yuba

County Grand Jury Cities Committee conduct a follow- up investigation of the rapid

growth within the City of Wheatland.

Background and Discussion

The 2005- 2006 Yuba County Grand Jury Cities Committee followed- up on 2004-

2005 Grand Jury recommendations by conducting a meeting with Wheatland Mayor

Enita Elphick, Interim City Manager Steve Wright, and Interim Finance Director Wes

Peters at their temporary conference room on October 16, 2005.

Mayor Elphick opened the discussion by expressing major concerns about the hiring

of staff members. She stated that they were using individuals that had prior

employment with other cities and since Wheatland did not participate in the Public

Employees Retirement System ( PERS), these individuals could work, yet not have

their current retirement packages affected.

The mayor first hired Steve Wright as the Interim City Manager. Mr. Wright

previously worked for the City of Truckee and has 31 years as a city manger with a

history of “ start- ups” for new cities. The mayor then hired Wes Peters as Interim City

Finance Director. Mr. Peters was previously employed by the County of Marin.

Mayor Elphick is also exploring the possibility of hiring a temporary building inspector

to work on an as- needed basis.

The mayor stated that the above- named individuals work two to three days a week,

but there are no “ hour” restraints since these individuals are not in PERS.

The mayor stated that the current Chief of Police, Ed Meyer, was out on

administrative leave. At this time, Jeff Webster and Rob Langdon, both of whom are

captains with the Yuba City Police Department, are serving as “ Acting Police Chiefs”

for the City of Wheatland. ( Their salaries and benefits are reimbursed to the Yuba

City Police Department for the time they spend in Wheatland.)

///

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 8

Police

The Wheatland Police Department consists of five full- time police officers and two

Level I reserves. There is no police dispatcher. The radio dispatch duties are

provided by Marysville Police Department. ( There is some consideration as to

obtaining dispatching services from Yuba County Sheriff’s Department in the very

near future.) The current budget for the police department is $ 500,000.

Fire

Wheatland’s current budget for the all- volunteer fire department is $ 90,000.

Although the fire department does have one full- time fire fighter, there is a plan to

poll the registered voters in Wheatland to see if they are interested in improving the

fire department, as there is a need for new equipment and facilities. The new

housing developments in the City of Wheatland should bring in revenue and, thus,

help the city’s financial situation in the event the community poll does not favor

improving the fire department.

Sewer and Water System

The sewer lines to the treatment plant now are approximately 70- years old and are

in desperate need of repair. Wheatland is working to obtain possible bonds, grants

and/ or loans to finance the cost of these repairs.

In 2004, Wheatland obtained a loan for $ 3.1 million to install water meters and

associated equipment and training to implement a metered water billing system, but

was unable to bill the residents properly for water usages due to an inability to

operate the installed technology. This problem caused a deficit in Wheatland’s

budget.

New Developments

The City of Wheatland has approved the following new developments:

1. Jones Ranch. Located southwest on Wheatland Road, approximately

450 single family homes in a 3- year development beginning in 2006.

2. Heritage Oaks. Located south of Main Street on the west side of

Highway 65, approximately 400 single family homes beginning in the

winter of 2005.

3. Settler’s Village. Located on the west side of Highway 65 at

McDevitt, a commercial “ strip mall” to consist of no more than 31

businesses.

Traffic Lights

The traffic light will be located at 1st Street and Highway 65. The light has been in

the general plan for several years but funding has not been available. The City of

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 9

Wheatland received a bid from Cal Trans for approximately 2.1 million dollars, which

would include cross walks on all sides, handicap services and turn lanes.

Heritage Oaks Subdivision will also pay for a traffic light at Highway 65 north of the

Bear River Bridge. The developer will put in the proper turn lanes and sidewalks.

Schools

The Cities Committee chose to include the Wheatland schools as part of its review of

the City of Wheatland.

The Wheatland School District ( WSD) operates four schools, two within the City of

Wheatland and two at Beale Air Force Base. The new Bear River Middle School

opened in the fall of 2004. Its previous site is now the new location of Wheatland

Elementary School.

The schools located at Beale Air Force Base are Far West School, grades 4- 6 and

Lone Tree School, grades K- 3 ( this includes the Wheatland Charter Academy and a

pre- school). These schools are operating well below capacity but due to location,

they are not available to the general public.

The Wheatland Union High School District and its high school are located on

Wheatland Road at the western edge of the city. The high school district also

operates the Academy for Career Excellence ( ACE), a charter school that provides

alternate education options to high school- age students. The curriculum includes

Core Academics, Career Preparation and Technology Training.

As of March 2006, the current attendance at Wheatland High School is 688 students

and 40 teachers. Total capacity is estimated at approximately 1,000 students. The

capacity was designed to accommodate students from Beale Air Force Base, but

enrollment has fluctuated with changes in base operations. Currently, overcrowding

is not a problem and the campus has capacity to accommodate increased

enrollment. However, the high school district will soon be accommodating new

students from both Heritage Oaks Estates and Jones Ranch housing developments,

as well as from three subdivisions in the Plumas Elementary School District which

does not currently have its own high school.

The Wheatland Union High School District projects an average of 0.18 high school

students ( grades 9- 12) per new household. The district expects that new high

schools eventually will be needed as a result of growth and development. Each new

high school would serve about 1,300 to 1,400 students and would require between

40 and 45 usable acres. Suitable sites that meet the state Board of Education’s

criteria and are acceptable to local residents are difficult to find.

///

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 10

Findings and Recommendations

Finding 1. The City Manager, Financial Director, Police Chief and Planning

Inspector are interim employees.

Recommendation 1. Replace these interim employees with full- time

employees.

Finding 2. Wheatland has no “ benefit package” for its city employees.

Recommendation 2. Develop a benefit package or buy one to cover the

employees and the city.

Finding 3. There is a need for public safety dispatcher.

Recommendation 3. Hire a public safety dispatcher.

Finding 4. The sewer lines do not meet the current usage needs.

Recommendation 4. Research available funding from the USDA and other

sources to expedite the sewer replacement.

Finding 5. Traffic light at Highway 65 and 1st Street is not completed as proposed.

Recommendation 5. The traffic light has in the past been funded by

individuals and grants ( as noted in 2004- 2005 Grand Jury Report) but there is

no fund tracking of its usage. An investigation of these funds should be

conducted and the traffic light needs should be funded and installed by the

start of the 2006 fall school term.

Required Responses to Findings and Recommendations

Findings 1- 5 City of Wheatland

Recommendations 1- 4 None

Recommendation 5 City of Wheatland

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 11

County

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 12

This page intentionally left blank.

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 13

County Administrator’s Office

Summary

The county administrator’s office would not provide requested documents or an

interview to the 2005- 2006 Yuba County Grand Jury.

Reason for Investigation

The 2004- 2005 Yuba County Grand Jury requested that the 2005- 2006 Yuba County

Grand Jury investigate the county administrator’s office.

Background and Discussion

Attempting to schedule an interview with the county administrator, the 2005- 2006

Yuba County Grand Jury was stonewalled. On two occasions, members of the

2005- 2006 Yuba County Grand Jury visited the county administrator’s office:

October 15, 2005 and October 29, 2005. Two letters to the county administrator’s

office were sent requesting documents and an interview, but the letters were not

responded to. The Grand Jury was unable to acquire the county administrator’s

office policies and procedures manuals. Other documents requested were not

provided.

When financial worksheets were requested from the auditor/ controller, the Grand

Jury was informed by the auditor/ controller’s office by letter dated November 15,

2005 that the requested information is kept in the county administrator’s office. We

were not provided this information.

A new county administrator takes over on March 3rd 2006.

Finding and Recommendation

Finding 1. The county administrator failed to cooperate with the Grand Jury.

Recommendation 1. The 2006- 2007 Grand Jury should investigate the

county administrators’ office.

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 14

This page intentionally left blank.

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 15

Board of Supervisors

Summary

The 2004- 2005 Yuba County Grand Jury investigated the Yuba County Board of

Supervisors ( BOS) in response to improprieties regarding the sheriff’s jail bed funds.

In September of 2005, the BOS filed its response to the “ findings and

recommendations” of the 2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report. The Grand Jury

found that the BOS did not adequately address the issues raised in the report.

Furthermore, the BOS stated in two of its responses that it would “ look forward to

meeting with the 2005- 2006 Grand Jury to further explore these issues”.

Reason for Investigation

The BOS was selected for investigation based on the BOS’s response to the 2004-

2005 Grand Jury Final Report which stated that the BOS looked forward to meeting

with the 2005- 2006 Grand Jury.

Background and Discussion

January 2006, the Grand Jury sent a letter to the BOS requesting a meeting to

discuss the responses to last year’s report. In March, after numerous unsuccessful

attempts to contact the BOS, members of the Grand Jury went to the office of the

BOS and met with Ms. Donna Stottlemeyer, Clerk of the Board, to schedule a

meeting date.

On March 7, 2006, the Grand Jury as a whole met in a closed session with the BOS.

During the meeting the Grand Jury explained to the BOS that the meeting was called

in response to their invitation to meet with them to discuss the responses to last

year’s Grand Jury report. It was apparent that the individual board members were

not aware of this element. The Grand Jury then inquired as to who wrote the

response to the final report. The answer was that County Administrator Kent

McClain wrote the response even though Chairman Mary Jane Griego signed it.

The Grand Jury’s first question pertained to the $ 500,000.00 jail bed fund issue and

how the contract is written regarding the division of these funds. Supervisor Griego

advised that 35% of these funds go to the BOS and the rest to the sheriff’s

department ( see Attachment 3 pages 68 - 69), but past BOS members had never

utilized this allocation.

In discussing the hiring of more deputy sheriffs, the BOS stated that is an issue the

new county administrator will need to determine based upon the county’s current

population.

The Grand Jury then inquired into the Strategic and Implementation Plan regarding

growth in housing, business, and traffic. The strategic plan is generated by the

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 16

Economic Development Department which is headed by John Fleming and the BOS.

Although the strategic plan is updated annually, there is no implementation plan ( an

implementation plan commits assets such as money and personnel to a project; a

strategic plan does not). Recent examples of this growth in the Linda and Olivehurst

area are:

1. Business

a. Wal- Mart

b. D & D Cabinets

c. Anderson Truss

2. Housing

a. Plumas Lake

b. East Linda Specific Plan, i. e., Edgewater Development

3. Traffic

a. Bypass ( originally the state was responsible but the county may

take on this project)

Other discussions involved:

• The status of the county administrator position

• The different departments’ budgets and how they are decided

• The Yuba County Water District

• Measure D and the distribution of yearly funds collected

The meeting ended and the Grand Jury left with the feeling the BOS were dedicated

and concerned about the county, government departments and community of Yuba

County.

Findings and Recommendations

Finding 1. Former County Administrator Kent McClain apparently wrote the

responses to the 2004- 2005 Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report and the BOS

apparently were not aware of what was written even though it was signed by

Chairman Griego.

Recommendation 1. The BOS should respond to the Grand Jury’s final

reports.

Finding 2. The Memorandum of Understanding ( MOU) between the sheriff and

BOS concerning the Jail Bed Fund that was addressed by the 2004- 2005 Grand

Jury Final Report is still out of date and not being followed ( see Attachment 3, 4 and

5, pages 68- 77.)

Recommendation 2. The Jail Bed Fund MOU should be updated and

followed ( see Attachment 3, page 68- 69.)

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 17

Finding 3. The BOS agreed the handling of the $ 500,000 reduction of the sheriff’s

budget was not perfect.

Recommendation 3. The new county administrator and the BOS need to

communicate with the individual county departments when making budget

transfers or changes.

Finding 4. Although the BOS does not control the expenditures of the sheriff’s

budget, they do control the number of authorized county employees including deputy

sheriffs.

Recommendation 4. The BOS should adjust the budget and increase the

number of deputy sheriffs required based upon population growth and

number of calls responded to.

Finding 5. The BOS does have a strategic plan in place but they do not have a plan

to allocate people and resources to achieve the goals in the strategic plan

( implementation plan.)

Recommendation 5. Along with the strategic plan, the BOS needs an

Implementation plan.

Required Responses to Findings and Recommendations

Finding 1 and Recommendation 1 None

Finding 2 and Recommendation 2 Board of Supervisors

Finding 3 and Recommendation 3 Yuba County Administrator

Board of Supervisors

Finding 4 and Recommendation 4 Board of Supervisors

Finding 5 and Recommendation 5 Board of Supervisors

Economic Development Department

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 18

This page intentionally left blank.

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 19

Local Agency Formation Commission

Summary

Although Yuba County has been slow to comply with the Cortese- Knox- Hertzberg

Local Government Act of 2000, it has started to take the necessary steps needed to

comply with State law and the growth needs of Yuba County.

The Yuba County Local Agency Formation Commission ( LAFCO) executive officer

will need the full support of the Yuba County Board of Supervisors ( BOS) in

contracting and funding independent inspectors to perform the review of the special

districts and county service areas. Priority should be given to this area due to the

rapid building and population growth of Yuba County and the fact that the county

contains over 100 municipal service areas that need to be reviewed.

Reason for Investigation

Yuba County Local Agency Formation Commission ( LAFCO) was selected based

upon random selection.

Background and Discussion

The Cortese- Knox Local Government Reorganization Act was updated and changed

substantially by the passage of the Cortese- Knox- Hertzberg Local Government Act

of 2000. The Cortese- Knox- Hertzberg Local Government Act of 2000 became the

law on 1st day of January 2001, which made the California’s Local Agency’s

Formation Commissions ( LAFCO) independent agencies within the counties. These

changes strengthened LAFCO’s ability to: ( 1) act independently and neutrally in its

representation of counties, cities, and special districts; ( 2) protect agricultural and

open- space lands; ( 3) prevent urban sprawl and ensure orderly extension of

government services; ( 4) enhance communication, coordination, and procedures of

LAFCO and local government; ( 5) and increase opportunities for public involvement,

active participation, and information regarding government decision- making. To

meet these goals the BOS hired an independent LAFCO representative.

The new executive officer of LAFCO, Mr. John Bonit, has many compelling and

difficult tasks that will need his attention. Among these is a review of the county’s

special districts, including county service areas, the inclusion of representatives from

the independent special districts on the LAFCO board, and an update of the “ Sphere

of Influence” of each local government.

The Cortese- Knox- Hertzberg Local Government Act of 2000 establishes the

standard composition of all LAFCO’s. The LAFCO board is required to have two

members representing the county, two members representing the cities, two

members representing independent special districts, and one member representing

the public. The public member must receive at least one vote from each of the three

constituencies. At this time there is no representation from the independent special

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 20

districts as required, which indicates that the public member is not correctly

appointed.

LAFCO is required to perform a review of all municipal service areas to establish

infrastructure needs, deficiencies, and their ability to provide services with

consideration given to financing, population growth and population projections.

These agencies should be reviewed before or in conjunction with “ Sphere of

Influence” updates. The county has not started any reviews and has until the 1st day

of January 2008, to comply with this mandate.

Findings and Recommendations

Finding 1. Municipal district reviews have not been done.

Recommendation 1A. LAFCO should start as soon as practicable to review

all municipal districts within Yuba County.

Recommendation 1B. Obtain funding and contract with an independent

inspector to perform the required municipal reviews.

Recommendation 1C. While reviewing the municipal districts a review and

update of their Sphere of Influence should be completed.

Finding 2. LAFCO’s policies and procedures, website information, and publicly

available materials need to be reviewed for accuracy and compliance with state

laws.

Recommendation 2. LAFCO should review and update its policies and

procedures, website, and publicly available materials to ensure accuracy and

compliance with changes in California law.

Finding 3. The Yuba County LAFCO board does not contain representation from

independent service areas.

Recommendation 3A. Contact independent service areas so they can

appoint two members to sit on the LAFCO board as required by law

Recommendation 3B. Conduct a review of all service areas to establish if

they are needed and the possibility of being effectively combined with other

service areas to provide better service at lower cost to Yuba County citizens.

This review should include all service areas, with special focus on water

drainage districts, utility districts, and water districts.

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 21

Required Response to Findings and Recommendations

Finding 1 Board of Supervisors

LAFCO

Findings 2, 3 LAFCO

Recommendation 1 Board of Supervisors

LAFCO

Recommendations 2, 3 LAFCO

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 22

This page intentionally left blank

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 23

North Central Counties Consortium

Summary

The North Central Counties Consortium ( NCCC) is a special district agency formed

by a joint powers agreement between five semi- rural counties. The NCCC is a large

agency that not only acquires and distributes monetary funds and grants, but also

shares area profiles to bring job seekers and employers together.

The executive director was on a leave of absence receiving full pay and benefits

while the interim director was also receiving pay and benefits. This was explained to

us as a benefit covered in the organization’s policies under long- term illness.

Reason for Investigation

The Yuba County Grand Jury received a complaint regarding excessive and wasteful

spending by the NCCC.

Background and Discussion

The NCCC is designated as a “ Workforce Investment Area” under the Workforce

Investment Act. Under this designation, NCCC administers federally funded job-training

programs in Colusa, Glenn, Lake, Yuba, and Sutter Counties. NCCC’s goal

is to improve the quality of the workforce, provide meaningful services to local

business, increase the earning capacity of the local workforce, reduce welfare

dependency, and enhance the productivity and competitiveness of the nations’

economy. The goal of the NCCC is to make the best use of and maximize its

resources. As far as personnel, NCCC has downsized and outsourced by reducing

the staff and trimming down expenses. NCCC is also considering downsizing its

office space or sub- leasing some office space. It has been seeking a new executive

director and, as of January 2006, had found one.

During the Grand Jury’s investigation, we met with Don Schrader, a member of the

Yuba County Board of Supervisors and Yuba County’s representative on the NCCC,

and also with a former employee of the NCCC. We requested copies of the NCCC

Policies and Procedures Manual and Outlook Reports. We reviewed all the

requested items and scheduled an interview with the interim executive director of the

NCCC. This was an in- depth interview, ranging from the history of NCCC to

personnel, internal and external audits, and Outlook Reports.

The Grand Jury contacted the Grand Juries from Sutter, Lake, Glen and Colusa

Counties which make up the consortium. The Grand Juries from these four counties

were not interested in investigating the NCCC as a group.

The 1- Stop Centers are a major component of this consortium. The NCCC has been

on the cutting edge of job training reform in California, helping pioneer the 1- Stop

Career Centers concept. NCCC’s development of regional technology- based

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 24

information systems and collaborative efforts with local welfare departments, local

education providers, the state Employment Development Department, and others

have made it a model for delivering job training programs and services.

Presently the NCCC is not correctly posting public meetings in all counties.

Findings and Recommendations

Finding 1. The executive director was on medical leave but still receiving full pay

pursuant to current policy covering long term illness.

Recommendations 1. None

Finding 2. Notice of meeting dates, times, locations, and agendas were not posed

in all effected counties.

Recommendation 2. Follow guidelines of the Brown Act and post meetings.

Required Responses to Findings and Recommendations

None

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 25

Health and Human

Services

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 26

This page intentionally left blank.

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 27

Health and Human Services Department

Summary

The Yuba County Department Health and Human Services ( HHS) is one of the

largest agencies in the county. Its vision is, “ Working cooperatively to empower and

support Yuba County’s citizens to ensure they enjoy safe, healthy, and self- sufficient

lives.” HSS has two major divisions, the Health Division and the Human Services

Division. The Health Division is comprised of Public Health Services, Veterans

Services, and the For Our Recovering ( FOR) Families Treatment Program. The

Human Services Division is comprised of Adult Services, Children’s Services,

Employment Services, Eligibility, and Fraud Detection and Prevention.

The Grand Jury noted that although there are outside constraints mandated by the

federal government, the State of California, and the Yuba County Board of

Supervisors ( BOS), HSS does meet the terms stated in its mission statement to the

best of its ability.

Reason for Investigation

The Grand Jury Health and Human Services Committee ( the committee) chose to

investigate HHS pursuant to Penal Code § 925.

Background and Discussion

The committee met with the following individuals during a series of meetings held at

the HHS:

Ms. Suzanne Nobles, Director

Mr. Robert Shotwell, Deputy Director Services/ Program

Ms. Chris Adams, Program Manager

Ms. Pam Cook, Assistant Program Manager

Ms. Kathy Cole, Deputy Director Admin/ Finance

The committee used HHS’s Mission Statement as the basis of its investigation,

which states....

􀀹 Deliver timely, professional services with consistency, equity, integrity, and

cultural sensitivity.

􀀹 Seek preventative solutions and early interventions to promote safety, good

health, and economic self- sufficiency for children, families, and individuals.

􀀹 Strengthen partnerships and cultivate cooperation and collaboration between

individuals, neighborhoods, and public and private agencies, to ensure

efficient, cost- effective, coordinated, and expanded services.

􀀹 Promote a positive work environment where individuals' differences and

opinions are valued and respected.

􀀹 Promote personal and professional growth, accountability, and responsibility.

􀀹 Actively engage all employees in decision- making, planning, service delivery,

and employ strong teamwork throughout all levels of the organization.

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 28

Budget

The Yuba County budget is not simple to understand, but it does meet the State of

California’s basic requirements for a county budget.

The bulk of the financial funding for the services offered by HHS are provided by

federal and state grants or allocations which are described as “ matching dollar”

grants. In other words, federal and state dollars are “ matched” by Yuba County

dollars.

An example of a matching dollar grant is:

Out of every dollar HHS has in its budget, there may be ten percent ( or

ten cents) provided by Yuba County and the remainder is divided up

between the federal and state governments. This “ county” dime is

very important because without it, the other ninety cents is not there.

In reviewing the “ County of Yuba, Final Budget, Fiscal Year Ending, June 30, 2006,”

as compiled by the auditor/ controller, page 1 has an item labeled “ Social Services” in

the first column and the amount $ 47,597,642 in the 8th column under “ Total

Financing Requirements.” Yet when compared to the federal and state dollars

provided to “ Social Services”, it seems that Yuba County is only providing

$ 8,155,884 of this budget requirement. If that is the case, then approximately 17%

of HHS’s budget comes from Yuba County. Federal, state and other dollars provide

the remaining 83%.

HHS does not have an official “ five- year budget plan” but they do plan and prepare

for the expenditures they know will occur over numerous years. Each year in

February, HHS submits its budget to the county administrator’s office for the next

fiscal year, which begins in July. Likewise, other various state agencies also receive

this budget for review and, in some cases and for some portions, approval.

The federal government’s fiscal year runs from October through September, which is

different from the State of California’s and Yuba County’s, which run July through

June. Because of the differences in the fiscal years, the funding for the county’s new

fiscal year usually arrives near the end of the first quarter or the beginning of the

second quarter of Yuba County’s fiscal year. Therefore, the budget covers HHS’s

minimum needs and requirements.

Occasionally, the federal and state funds will include extra monies for the upgrading

of equipment, computers, and other items for HHS. However, the BOS have made

and implemented policies regarding the purchase of equipment, computers, and

supplies, and the BOS determines when the county departments are allowed to

upgrade their equipment, computer systems, and other items. The BOS has

determined, because there is not sufficient county funding available for upgrading

other county department’s equipment, computer systems, and other items, that HHS

is not permitted to upgrade. In other words, the BOS deemed the money would be

returned to the agencies it came from, even though the federal and state money was

allotted to HHS for the express purpose of these upgrades which will, in essence,

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 29

keep them current and in touch with the federal, state, county, and mandates placed

upon them. The BOS’s rationale is to not appear to show favoritism to one county

department over another.

The BOS also makes policy regarding the number of personnel positions within

HHS, even though the federal and state governments fund almost all of the

positions.

Should HHS receive more than the minimum it budgeted or was allocated, it is able

to provide more services of better quality than just the minimum to meet the county’s

needs and requirements. Of course, this means that some years HHS can do more

when it has more money; conversely, some years HHS can only manage to provide

the basic needs and requirements.

Administration

The director of HHS is the “ center of authority” for all the divisions and programs

within HHS. There are two deputy directors, one for HHS programs and one for

HHS administration and finance. The programs are then broken down into divisions

that encompass nursing, child protective services ( CPS), Cal Works, eligibility, and

adult services. In addition, there are two assistant program managers, one for CPS

and one for employment.

The director and deputy directors have weekly meetings and meet monthly with all

directors and department heads. These meetings are important tools to a productive

and positive work force environment in HHS. They also have an open- door policy so

at any given time if an issue comes to the forefront that needs to be addressed

before the scheduled meeting, it can be discussed and acted upon. Currently HHS

has enough personnel on hand to comply with state standards. There is a low

turnover rate of employees.

HHS currently employs an internal and external performance evaluation system.

They use the standard provided by the Yuba County Personnel/ Risk Management

office -- once a year for established employees and every three months for new

employees. There are two separate standard performance evaluation forms, one for

staff and one for managers. The forms include a one to five page narrative and are

used to bring forth and highlight the strengths and weaknesses of each person.

Employees are expected to make a yearly goal( s) and their managers and

supervisors support those goals. Goals are not just to “ work more with less,” they

are for the improvement and enrichment of the whole professional person. If

employees accepts a new or different position or grade within HHS, the probation

period starts all over again and they are evaluated at three month intervals until they

have completed the one year probationary period. If an employee who accepts a

new or different position or grade is evaluated at a less than a satisfactory level, that

employee can be let go.

The director reviews all performance evaluations and has noticed an overall positive

thread in the evaluation narratives. Should an employee have a grievance with a

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 30

performance evaluation, he/ she may discuss it with the director, who may then

amend the evaluation if needed.

HHS places high values on training, especially since there are constantly changing

requirements, regulations, and standards placed upon it from the federal and state

governments. Training requirements are extensive and encompass the computer

documentation system ( that must meet the requirements of the federal, state, and

court systems); training requirements provided by the Northern Training Academy

located at the U. C. Davis Northern Consortium campus; POST training provided by

Yuba College; and in- house and mentor training provided by HSS to its employees.

There is also training in courtroom testimony, court report writing, legal standards,

information- gathering techniques, and constant overviews of the federal and state

code ( laws and regulations) requirements provided by the county counsel’s office.

There are also other training requirements and courses provided by the state

through various annual conferences.

The training of new employees is not an inexpensive budget item and is an

investment in attaining highly trained, qualified, and efficient personnel.

Child Protective Services

National or federal laws are passed down to the State of California, who has

oversight over all child protection services. The State of California adds some laws

and regulations and then passes all of these requirements and standards down to

the 58 counties in California. The average caseload ( which complies with state

standards) per social worker is 20- 35, and the social worker’s percentage of time on

paper work is 15- 20%. The State of California mandates that CPS use a statewide

computerized “ case management system” which standardizes everything for every

county within California. Documentation is what makes the case.

All social workers must meet with case families, face- to- face, once a month, and

there is 100% compliance with these face- to- face meetings. The presiding judge

can mandate more visitations per month, but cannot make it less than once per

month. The county counsel also provides legal aid to help the social workers

prepare for court.

Yuba Community College provides foster parent training courses. These courses

cover issues such as structured decision- making and how the court system works.

The county counsel’s office also instructs foster parents on legal and court issues.

Cal Works

HHS administers Cal Works, California’s version of the welfare reform program

passed by the U. S. Congress in 1996. Since January 1998, this program has taken

the place of Aid to Families of Dependent Children ( AFDC) and Temporary

Assistance for Needy Families ( TANF).

Its purpose is to change the direction of aid to applicants from cash assistance to

gainful employment. Instead of supporting the families with dependent children with

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 31

welfare funds until the children grow up, this program limits families to 60 months of

cash assistance for each eligible individual’s lifetime, and offers training and

employment assistance to make each family self- sufficient. However, the program

provides food stamps and Medi- CAL when needed, as well as general relief to

indigents.

The Cal Works program is an example of matching dollars. In addition to this

“ matching- dollar” concept, there is also an allocation process. Some examples of

allocation are AFDC and TANF. Allocations of federal and state dollars is based

upon expenditures in prior year( s), and the state provides a “ block” of funds each

year which may or may not match HHS’s budget.

The federal government pays for half of Cal Works, with the remaining cost shared

between the state and the counties. If the state does not meet the federally

mandated performance outcomes, fiscal sanctions may be imposed upon the state.

Therefore, if the county does not meet the state- mandated performance outcome( s),

fiscal sanctions ( a reduction of funding/ dollars) may be imposed upon the county.

Medi- CAL is California’s medical coverage program and is free for those who qualify.

It is not a part of the welfare program, although you do have to go through HHS to

obtain it.

Finding and Recommendations

Finding 1. The Yuba County Final Budget is not simple and does not provide

information that shows all revenue streams, i. e., federal and state grants and

allocations.

Recommendation 1. A column should be added to the budget that shows

anticipated revenue from federal and state grants and allocations for “ Social

Services” so that the public will understand what portion Yuba County is

funding and what portion is being provided by the federal and state grants

and allocations.

Recommendation 2. The county policy prohibiting or restricting the use of

federal and state funds to purchase and/ or upgrade equipment, computers,

and supplies needs to be revised to allow HHS to keep and use federal and

state monies specified for these purposes.

Required Responses to Findings and Recommendations

None

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 32

This page intentionally left blank.

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 33

Law Enforcement

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 34

This page intentionally left blank.

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 35

Yuba County Jail

Summary

The Yuba County Jail ( YCJ) serves approximately 370 inmates daily. Approximately

183 are inmates under the control of Home Land Security – Immigrations ( INS). The

Yuba County Sheriff’s Department ( YCSD) receives federal funds for each INS

inmate it houses. Federal funds are then calculated into the jail budget. All inmates

receive three meals a day and the required medical, psychological, and dental

services. Most inmates are offered a variety of classes and vocational training

programs based upon which housing unit they are assigned. Housing unit

assignments are based upon several factors including behavior, alleged criminal

behavior, past criminal history, and disciplinary actions from other institutions. The

YCJ is well- maintained and clean. The YCSD deputies are professional, competent,

and knowledgeable.

Reason for Investigation

This investigation was conducted pursuant to Penal Code § 919( b), which states, in

part, that the Grand Jury “... shall inquire into the condition and management of public

prisons within the county.” YCJ falls within this category. YCJ is inspected by the

Yuba County Grand Jury, U. S. Marshals, local health and fire departments, and the

immigration department.

Background and Discussion

Members of the Grand Jury Law Enforcement Committee contacted Sheriff Virginia

Black, who arranged for a tour of the jail facilities. The committee used the “ Jail

Investigation Guidelines” contained in the Yuba County Grand Jury Handbook. The

committee chose to focus on the following areas:

1. Jail procedures and safety

2. Education and training for jail inmates

3. Meals

4. Health and safety

Jail Procedures and Safety

The sheriff’s department is legally responsible for the safekeeping of all persons in

custody. In order to protect the rights of both inmates and employees, certain

regulations must be followed. All inmates receive a copy of the official jail

information booklet. The Board of Corrections has established guidelines on how

jails must operate to assure that inmates are housed safely and their Constitutional

Rights are not violated.

At the time an inmate is booked, the inmate is asked a series of medical questions.

Attached to this report ( see Attachment 6 page 78) is a copy of the Intake Medical

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 36

Screening form. If an inmate is found to be intoxicated during the booking process,

the inmate is given a sobriety assessment. Attached to this report is a Sobriety

Assessment Form ( see Attachment 7, page 79). Cases involving serious injury prior

to booking are taken to Rideout Hospital for clearance by medical staff.

After being booked into the YCJ, inmates are housed in the pre- classification unit.

Housing unit assignments are based upon several factors including but not limited

to, sex, alleged criminal behavior, past criminal history, behavior and disciplinary

actions from other institutions. Jail staff attempt to segregate gang members at all

times. While inmates are being classified they are not allowed mail, visits, outside

exercise, or special programs. Jail personnel monitor and control the jail through 70

security cameras, multiple control rooms, and a redundant system of locks. All

females are supervised by female staff, and all males are supervised by male staff.

Male and female correctional officers have separate sets of keys. Keys to each

gender area are not exchanged.

INS buses run two times each day. The buses accommodate 10 to 50 inmates per

transport. Interpreters are provided by phone through “ Language Line”. This

program costs the jail approximately $ 5,000 per month.

One housing unit consists of 10 two- person cells, 9 two- person cells and one

handicapped cell per housing unit. Some of the housing units are dormitory style.

Housing Unit “ A” is where high- security inmates are housed. Housing Unit “ B” is the

program area. Housing Unit “ C” is for low- security and INS inmates.

The female INS housing unit holds 20 beds. It is comprised of two 20- person cells

and one 8- person cell. There are multiple control rooms which contain officers who

control entry to and exit from the various areas of the jail. The jail is kept in a safe

and sanitary condition.

Inmates are allowed to receive mail. There is no restriction on the number of letters

an inmate may receive. Incoming and outgoing mail is inspected by jail staff for

contraband. Inmates are not allowed to receive packages. Inmates are not allowed

to have written correspondence with other inmates housed at the YCJ.

Discipline is used in the jail to maintain order and control. Disciplinary action is used

when inmates refuse to comply with YCJ rules. Violations of rules are considered as

major or minor violations depending on the severity of the action. The YCJ provides

inmates with an appeals process for major violations. The inmate has the right to

present any relevant information regarding the alleged offense. Inmates are allowed

to have another inmate or staff member act as a lawyer to represent them. The jail

commander determines within 24 hours of the hearing if the charge is true. All

decisions must be made within 96 hours of the request for the hearing.

Education and Training for Jail Inmates

A General Education Diploma program is offered to inmates that have not completed

their high school education. The class covers general education and a variety of

other training alternatives. The inmate must not have an extensive discipline record

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 37

and must have an educational need for the classes. There are class rules, and the

inmates must follow all rules established by and for the jail. The inmate must be

attentive, follow the direction of the instructor, and attend all classes unless

medically cleared. The educational program includes reading, writing, and

arithmetic, as well as basic skills, vocational training, and life skills. Inmates are

required to complete all homework and bring it to class. Female inmates interviewed

expressed that they would like more opportunity for education and vocational skills.

Inmates are involved in various community service projects. All projects are non-profit.

Certificates are available for inmates completing projects and classes. The

certificates do not mention the fact the person earning the certificate is an inmate.

Many of the inmates earn their certificate in the construction trade.

There are several housing unit programs: anger management; vocational janitorial,

education and job skills. The programs are offered only to male inmates, as the

male and female inmate populations cannot be mixed. There is not enough funding

for separate programs, and the staff claims there is not enough female interest to

initiate female inmate equivalent programs. Female inmates do have access to

computers that are paid for through the Inmate Welfare Fund. The welfare fund is

funded through commissary sales. Female inmates are not offered the same

programs as male inmates; however, they are offered skill programs such as

budgeting and computer skills.

The jail contains an up- to- date and comprehensive law library which is available for

use by all inmates.

There are as many as 70 languages spoken in the jail. The average at any one time

is 14.

Meals

The kitchen was toured. It was clean, orderly and well- supervised. The kitchen

provides about 36,000 meals a month. These meals are provided by a full- time staff

that is augmented by inmates ( mostly INS). Each meal costs 75 cents and is

reviewed by a nutritionist for nutritional value to ensure it meets California state

requirements. The menu is checked every six weeks. Sixty special diets are

available and most are prepared for religious reasons. The Grand Jury was served

lunch. The meal consisted of chicken nuggets, soup, French fries, cole- slaw,

pudding, and lemonade. Although the meal tasted bland, the meal was nutritious

and balanced. A disciplinary meal consists of a meatloaf- like item and water.

Health

Upon arrival, all inmates must fill out a medical questionnaire. Newly received

inmates see a physician within 14 days and are given a physical. Medical services

are available 24 hours a day in emergencies. Inmates with severe injuries, illnesses,

or emergencies are taken to Rideout Hospital for treatment. Pursuant to Penal Code

§ 4011.2, inmates are charged $ 3 for each inmate- initiated medical or dental visit.

Prescription drugs are administered in the proper dosage and at the proper time at

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 38

the discretion of the jail nurses. The Yuba County health officer is in charge of

inmate medical care. The jail is short on nursing staff, as the position does not pay

well. The physician is available every morning for inmate sick- call five days per

week. Non- prescription medication is distributed during the regular medication call.

Inmates are charged 50 cents for each dosage.

No inmate is denied medical care or medication based on indigence. Indigent

inmates are given a basic commissary pack containing: toothbrush, toothpaste,

soap, razor, paper and pen, and a comb.

Linen exchange is one time per week. Dirty clothes are exchanged for clean clothes

3 times each week.

Inmates are allowed to exercise at least four times a week for two hours each time.

A psychologist is available one day each week to address mental health issues.

A dentist is available one day each week.

Pregnant inmates are transitioned out of the jail as soon as possible. There is no

maternity living area for pregnant inmates. There is no facility for birthing or

newborns. Inmates give birth at the local hospital and are returned to jail. The

newborn is often placed with a relative or other authorized person. Pregnant

inmates are usually transferred to other facilities well before the due- date of the

child’s birth.

Findings and Recommendations

None

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 39

Yuba- Sutter Juvenile Hall

Summary

This review of the facilities, recreation, dining, medical, educational, staff, and

administration of the Yuba- Sutter Juvenile Hall ( YSJH) and the Maxine Singer Youth

Guidance Center ( Camp Singer) was undertaken to assess the operating

procedures and policies concerning the staff and population, the services provided,

and general housekeeping. The Grand Jury found that the attitude, commitment

level and demeanor of the staff are exceptional. Despite the high- pressure,

emotionally- charged environment and the challenge of working with children who

have multiple emotional and behavioral issues, the staff maintains the highest

standard of care and compassion. The wards are in the hands of people who truly

believe that each child deserves a chance to improve his/ her life, and the staff is

committed to assisting each child in achieving this goal.

Reason for Investigation

This investigation was conducted pursuant to California Penal Code § 919( b), which

states, in part, that the Grand Jury “... shall inquire into the condition and

management of public prisons within the county.” YSJH and Camp Singer fall within

this category.

Background and Discussion

Members of the Grand Jury Law Enforcement Committee interviewed Mr. Frank

Sorgea, Superintendent of Yuba- Sutter Juvenile Hall, and Mr. Steve Roper, Yuba

County’s Chief Probation Officer.

The superintendent provided a detailed and informative explanation of the

operations of YSJH and Camp Singer, including an overview of the budget, staffing

level and qualifications, chain of command, procedures pertaining to arrests and

incidents, educational system, medical/ dental/ mental health care, and facility

population. Grand Jury members were taken on a walking tour of both facilities by

the superintendent.

The chief probation officer provided an overview and introduction to staffing and

administrative issues.

Administration

The YSJH and the Maxine Singer Youth Guidance Center ( Camp Singer) are Yuba-

Sutter bi- county facilities that have operated since 1976 under a joint powers

agreement. The joint powers agreement established an oversight committee

comprised of board members from both Yuba and Sutter Counties. This board

meets quarterly, reviews the activities of the facilities, and establishes the pro rata

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 40

base for cost of operations. Yuba County Probation Department is the

administrative agency.

Facilities

YSJH is a 60- bed facility that provides detention for minors who are pending

disposition by the Yuba and Sutter Juvenile Courts. In addition, the facility is utilized

by the juvenile courts for short- term, post- disposition commitment. YSJH is

comprised of multiple buildings. The main facility consists of three wings: A, B and

C. The main facility was clean and well- maintained. Female detainees had painted

and decorated many of the living units and the common area. The living units of the

male detainees were plain, but clean and well- maintained. The detainees are

allowed television, reading materials and G- PG rated movies in the common area.

The television is controlled by the staff. Detainees in both facilities are segregated

by gender, except while attending school.

The security housing unit ( SHU) is used to house more serious offenders. The SHU

is self- contained and provides on- site educational and recreational space. There

were no detainees in the SHU unit when the committee toured the facility. The SHU

was clean and well- maintained.

Camp Singer is a 60- bed facility located within the YSJH complex. The camp

provides rehabilitative services and programs for detainees who are typically

committed to the program for a period of 210 days. Camp Singer has one main

living unit with a capacity for 48 male detainees. The female unit is a 12- bed facility

located within the camp compound. The Grand Jury reviewed the sleeping and

common areas of both male and female facilities. The detainees have semi- private,

half- walled sleeping areas which are constantly camera monitored and supervised

by staff. The facilities are clean and well maintained. The common area has a

television, reading material and G- PG rated movies. The television is controlled by

the staff. Camp Singer detainees are required to wear military- style uniforms.

Recreation

Recreation for all YSJH and Camp Singer detainees consists of an outdoor

recreational yard, and an indoor recreational “ arena” salvaged and recycled by the

detainees for their own use. The arena was obtained from Yuba County Friday

Night Live, a joint federal, county and state- funded juvenile recreation program within

the community. The detainees had painted a mural on a wall of the indoor

recreational area with the help of a local artist.

Dining Facilities

YSJH and Camp Singer share a common kitchen and dining hall. Detainees

participate in training for food service and preparation. The kitchen was immaculate,

sizeable and well organized. The meal being served was nutritious, appealing and

of adequate size and content. The detainees working in the kitchen were

enthusiastic and well supervised. The hygiene of the staff and detainees was

impeccable.

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 41

Medical / Dental / Mental Health

The facility physician, Yuba County Health Officer Dr. Joseph Cassidy, visits once

per week and is on- call 24 hours per day. Dr. Cassidy is responsible for general

medical care and the prescribing of medications. Medications are dispensed by the

supervising group counselor. There is a medical screening and treatment area near

the booking area in YSJH. Any emergency injuries or illnesses are treated at a local

area hospital ( Rideout Memorial Hospital.) All staff is certified yearly in first- aid and

CPR training.

Dental care is provided on an emergency basis. Detainees must be taken off- site in

restraints by staff to a locally contracted dentist.

Mental health services are many and varied. One of the mental health service

programs that the detainees and their families enjoy is the Family Therapy Program.

The program is successful and received enthusiastically by the detainees and their

families. There is also a substance abuse treatment program, which includes visits

from local church support groups who provide Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics

Anonymous counseling. The staff is vigilant about constantly monitoring the

detainees for signs of unusual and suicidal behavior. The system for obtaining a

new prescription for psychiatric and psychotropic medications is complicated and

slows the treatment time for patients needing them. The staff is exceptional, skilled

and compassionate in their mental health and medical treatment of the detainees.

Education

All detainees are screened upon entry to YSJH to determine their educational level

and needs. Harry P. Carden School is on- site and run by the Yuba County Office of

Education. They provide 4 full- time teachers, 8 aides and 2 resource specialists.

School hours are from 8: 30 a. m. until 3: 00 p. m. and are geared towards one- on- one,

individually- paced learning. Vocational classes are given from 3: 00 p. m. to 5: 00

p. m., with three to five vocational classes available. The Grand Jury observed a

class on electrical home wiring. Detainees and staff were interested and

knowledgeable. Many detainees transition into the Office of Education’s “ Youth

Build, 1- Stop” program. Detainees are not required to attend school, but the

behavioral reward system is tied into school attendance, which encourages

detainees to attend class.

Staff

The staff of YSJH and Camp Singer consists of 100 total staff members, of which 48

are full- time. There is one staff per 10 detainees. All detainees begin in C wing,

which is the most restrictive. The staff implements a “ positive reinforcement” form of

behavioral modification and discipline. Detainees earn points for behavior over a

period of one week. The reward for points consists of being allowed to move to a

less restrictive wing of YSJH for the following week. For extremely disruptive

behavior, detainees are placed in timed “ lock- down.” The staff is authorized to use

“ pepper spray” as a last resort. The superintendent reported that “ pepper spray” has

only been utilized four times in four years. Mr. Roper stated that the staff pay is not

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 42

at the same level as neighboring counties. The retirement system and “ pay banding”

is not in- line with most other counties in Northern California. Mr. Roper also stated

that the Board of Supervisors ( BOS) has, to date, under- recognized the efforts of the

staff of YSJH and Camp Singer.

“ Pay band - pay banding” is an effort to provide, in essence, sufficient growth in a

particular grade that allows for a person to be at that grade and continue to advance

economically without having to advance from a grade structure standpoint.

Findings and Recommendations

Finding 1. Of concern is the confidentiality of the detainees while being transported

in restraints to the contracted dentist. Of further concern is the possible

exacerbation of dental problems by not providing basic, preventive dental care at the

YSJH facility.

Recommendation 1. Consider the practicality of hiring a part- time dentist for

preventive dental care, thus encouraging proper dental care, reducing dental

emergencies and eliminating the problem of confidentiality of the detainees.

Finding 2. The committee was highly impressed with the skills and attitudes of the

staff, the condition of the facilities and the programs offered. The detainees were

clean, well- nourished, cooperative and respectful of staff and the Grand Jury.

Recommendation 2. None.

Finding 3. The detainees and staff demonstrated exceptional motivation and effort

in recycling an abandoned arena from Yuba County Friday Night Live, a federal,

county and state- funded juvenile recreation program within the community, for their

own use.

Recommendation 3. None.

Finding 4. The procedure for obtaining a new prescription for psychiatric or

psychotropic medication is complicated and slows the treatment time for patients

who need them.

Recommendation 4. The Grand Jury would like to see a change to the

system that would expedite the process without risking the well- being and

safety of the detainees.

Finding 5. These facilities lose skilled and motivated staff to other county facilities

that offer higher pay and benefit packages.

Recommendation 5. Continue with the BOS’s efforts to implement “ Pay

Banding” in order to stop the loss of skilled and motivated staff.

Recommendation 6. The BOS should provide much deserved recognition to

the staff of the YSJH complex.

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 43

Required Responses to Findings and Recommendations

None

Follow- up

Through a follow- up, the Grand Jury determined that the BOS has implemented “ pay

banding” which is helping to address the county’s pay inequality; however, the

retirement system still needs to be addressed.

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 44

This page intentionally left blank.

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 45

Public Works

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 46

This page intentionally left blank.

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 47

Yuba County Public Works

Summary

The Yuba County Public Works Department ( PWD) is providing all necessary

services but due to recent retirements, they have had a loss of “ corporate

knowledge” that has proven a hindrance. The loss of a grant writer puts their Five

Year Roadway System Master Plan in jeopardy due to the lack of federal and state

funding.

The PWD should study the use of alternate fuels and hybrid- vehicles within the

county; the use of alternate heating fuels, solar energy systems, and other energy

efficient methods building heating and cooling systems.

Reason for Investigation

The PWD was chosen for review by the 2005- 2006 Yuba County Grand Jury based

upon a selective basis for operational review of the department. This report covers

the basic administrative areas of PWD.

Background and Discussion

The PWD has developed and published a Five Year Roadway System Master Plan.

This plan includes a financial analysis section that is dependent upon grant funds

from the State of California and the federal government. The PWD does not have a

full- time grant writer. The PWD did have a grant- writer position but the county

deleted the position and its funding. However, the Yuba County Board of

Supervisors ( BOS) has approved the Five Year Roadway System Master Plan which

shows the requirement for a grant- writer.

There are approximately 100 bridges within Yuba County that are part of the county

roadway system. According to the PWD, 30% of these bridges are in need of

replacement; however, there have been no funding allocations to meet state and

federal grant monies. The Grand Jury Public Works Committee found that the BOS

need to allocate the required matching funds. The PWD’s goal is to replace one

bridge per year.

Yuba County has been utilizing county service areas ( CSA’s) to provide services in

the county. There are approximately 70 CSA’s in the county. The premise of a CSA

is to fund services that are not otherwise available through traditional sources but

are funded by voter approved assessments to property taxes.

The county service areas of law enforcement, fire protection, and parks and

recreation have been left out of the vast majority of CSA’s in the past. The current

goal of the PWD is to have a 10- year event capability for storm water drainage in

south Yuba County for roadways and a 100- year event capability for residential

structures in south Yuba County. Updating and unification of the fragmented storm

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 48

water drainage system plans would greatly enhance the public health and safety of

the residents in the south Yuba County area.

Findings and Recommendations

Finding 1. The PWD should consider the use of alternative energy sources ( such

as bio- diesel and solar energy).

Recommendation 1. None

Finding 2. The PWD has developed and published a Five Year Roadway System

Master Plan. This plan includes a financial analysis section that appears to be

extremely dependent upon grant funding from the State of California and the federal

government, but the PWD does not have a full- time grant writer or even a grant-writer

position. The PWD did have a full- time grant- writer but the county chose to

eliminate this position.

Recommendation 2. The PWD needs a full- time grant- writer position.

Finding 3. Updating and unifying the fragmented storm water drainage system

plans would greatly enhance the public health and safety of the residents of the

south Yuba County area.

Recommendation 3. The PWD, in coordination with all affected agencies

and special districts, should develop, update, and maintain a unified master

storm water drainage plan for south Yuba County.

Required Responses to Finding and Recommendations

Findings 1- 2 Yuba County Public Works

Board of Supervisors.

Recommendations 1- 2 None

Finding 3 and

Recommendation 3 All South County Drainage Districts

Yuba County Public Works

Board of Supervisors

Local Area Formation Commission

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 49

Schools

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 50

This page intentionally left blank.

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 51

Mary Covillaud Elementary School

Summary

Members of the Yuba County Grand Jury Schools Committee met with the principal

of Mary Covillaud Elementary School ( the school), Mr. Doug Escheman, and toured

the school. The committee visited several classrooms, the library, school

playgrounds, and the auditorium/ cafeteria ( cafeteria.)

The committee noticed the school is in need of a gymnasium or auditorium/ cafeteria

large enough to accommodate one- half of the school population at one time.

Safety and security of the students is a concern. School policy requires all persons

entering the campus during school hours to sign in at the office but a public road,

which is open to unauthorized foot traffic during school hours, runs through the

campus.

The janitorial staff consists of two individuals. They are stretched to their maximum

workload capacity. With two city blocks of campus to maintain, they have a hard

time achieving this. The janitorial staff falls behind but uses the school breaks to

catch up.

Despite the shortcomings and problems, the staff and administration showed a

positive and concerned attitude toward the students and each other. This is most

notable by the fact that student scores on the California Standardized Test are

among the highest in the state.

Reason for Investigation

The school was chosen based upon random selection and focused upon these four

areas:

1. Conditions of school facilities

2. Condition and security of school grounds

3. Education methods used

4. Programs offered to students

Background and Discussion

The school is a kindergarten through fifth grade level school within the Marysville

Joint Unified School District ( MJUSD) with 460 students presently attending. There

is a significant variance in the socio- economic status of the students, ranging from

middle class, homeless, and non- English- speaking transients. Non- English-speaking

children attend classes for English as a second language. The students

present many challenges to administration and staff. Despite these challenges, the

school has one of the highest CST ( California Standardized Test) scores within the

MJUSD which they have been nominated for the Distinguished School Award.

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 52

Attendance levels are extremely high with a 96% average. To keep the attendance

levels high, the attendance clerk and parent liaison call the parents to ascertain why

the children are not in school. They also rely on the district truancy office and a

probation officer ( PASS Officer) who comes to the school. To support attendance,

the school has a monthly Attendance Celebration and gives away prizes.

As for the current learning materials, the “ Readers” are up- to- date but the science

books are out of date ( 1986). The committee was informed that the publisher for the

science book is no longer updating this book. In order to keep current in this subject,

through means of its own, the school purchased a program that uses the internet

known as the “ Knowledge Box”. This program allows teachers to download current

science lesson plans for their teaching. Due to the Knowledge Box program,

students achieved the highest standardized science test scores in the district last

year; 60% of the fifth grade students were proficient or advanced in science.

There are seven computers in the library which are used by the third, fourth and fifth

graders. A separate building houses a reading lab known as the “ Waterford Lab.”

The Waterford Lab is a reading program used by kindergarten through second grade

students to learn and improve their reading skills.

School personnel have networked with the community and local business to raise

money to repair damage done by vandals, and to provide workers to repair and

upgrade the campus and facilities. The school has received donations from over

250 businesses. A single donation of one- half the cost of the Waterford Lab and

sponsoring the cost of the annual “ Mervyn’s Christmas” are examples of community

support.

Education Methods Used

All of the classrooms observed were clean, organized and the children were actively

engaged in the learning process. The teaching method used is a system called

“ Mastery”, where students study a subject to attain a proficiency level in a particular

content. An example would be a student learning how to tell if a number is greater,

less, or equal to another number. Once the student has demonstrated mastery of a

subject, he/ she moves on to the next higher content standard. All students must

meet a minimum standard before being allowed to advance.

Three of the four kindergarten classes are extended- day classes, which means the

classes are two hours longer. The end- of- the- year trimesters have shown there is a

remarkable improvement in learning by the extended- day classes over the half- day

classes.

Programs Offered to Students

There is a library with a full- time librarian. Students are allowed access before

school, during lunch and after school. They also have a regular physical education

program.

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 53

The lunches are prepared at Cedar Lane School and transported to Covillaud School

to be served. Nearly 80% of the students served qualify for reduced- cost or free

lunches. Due to the size of the school’s cafeteria, lunch is served at six separate

time intervals, starting at 10: 50 a. m.

The school offers an after- school program with tutoring and is in the process of

adding a fine arts program.

Conditions of School Facilities

The committee noticed that the school facilities were clean and generally free of any

safety hazards, but several areas are in need of repair.

The cafeteria is a stucco building where many of the school activities, programs, and

meetings are held. Parents participate in many of the school activities and meetings.

The cafeteria is very small and unsuited to these types of activities. No other place

exits for these purposes. The cafeteria is generally in good repair; however, there

are several holes in the outside wall and faucets in the kitchen area were leaking.

The office spaces and classrooms visited were crowded but well organized and

clean. Several of the door strips were missing or in need of repair. Also, mold was

noted on the outside walls.

The school only has three restrooms. They are shared by the students and staff

except that the portable classrooms are self contained. One of the cafeteria

restrooms was under repair at the time the committee visited. This is a very small

number of restrooms for nearly 500 people. In the cafeteria, the pipes in the boy’s

restroom are rusted and mold was noted on the walls.

Condition and Security of School Grounds

The school grounds are in good condition and generally safe for the students, except

for a large hole near the front fence of the school that needs attention.

There is no security on campus. If a problem arises, a teacher or staff member

notifies the Marysville Police Department by telephone. Every classroom has a

phone. There is a Standard Emergency Plan for bomb threats, flood warnings and

fires. Drills are performed to validate the plans. All plans are covered under the

Safe School Plan and are reviewed quarterly.

Campus security needs to be reviewed. A public street runs through the school

campus. It is blocked off to vehicle traffic during school hours, but this does not

prohibit foot traffic. The flagpole on campus has been vandalized three times,

indicating that unauthorized people are on campus after hours.

///

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 54

Findings and Recommendations

Finding 1. The school is in need of a multitude of minor repairs that the janitorial

staff does not have time to complete.

Recommendation 1. Fund and hire additional janitorial personnel.

Finding 2. Restrooms are not adequate. The restrooms in the cafeteria are in need

of renovation.

Recommendation 2. Renovate and provide more restroom facilities.

Finding 3. The cafeteria is too small for the students to enter, eat, and clear in an

orderly and safe manner. This presently requires excessive staff monitoring and

several serving times. The use of the cafeteria as a location for school programs

and activities is inadequate and requires these programs to be held over several

days or to be moved off campus ( Marysville High School.)

Recommendation 3. Expand the current cafeteria to support one- half of the

school’s maximum population. A multipurpose room is needed to support the

school’s needs during inclimate weather and for school programs and

activities.

Finding 4. The school campus is open and allows unauthorized persons on campus

during school hours. Sixth Street runs through the middle of the campus. During

school hours the street is blocked off to vehicle traffic but not foot traffic.

Recommendation 4. The school campus needs to be blocked off from foot

traffic during school hours. A possible solution is to install a retractable gate

that prohibits foot traffic. The Office of Education should be contacted about

the possibility of using their “ Youth Build, 1- Stop” vocational students to

perform the installation.

Required Responses to Findings and Recommendations

Findings 1 – 4 Marysville Joint Unified School District

Recommendations 1 – 4 Marysville Joint Unified School District

Follow- up:

Mary Covillaud Elementary School has received the Distinguished School Award. It

is the first school in the MJUSD to have achieved this honor.

The mold on the walls has been cleaned up and the restroom under repair has been

reopened.

The out- of- date science book is not scheduled for review and adoption until 2007-

2008.

Replacement of the cafeteria restroom is scheduled as a summer project this year.

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 55

Special Districts

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 56

This page intentionally left blank.

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 57

Reclamation District # 784

Summary

On January 19, 2006 at the Feather River Center in Linda, the “ Three Rivers

Improvement Authority” held a public meeting to inform the people of Linda and

Olivehurst about the status of the surrounding levees. Several speakers from local

agencies addressed the audience about disaster and emergency evacuations in the

event of a disaster in the areas of Linda and Olivehurst, and current and future plans

to upgrade our levee system. These plans were implemented in 2004 and included

a slurry wall on the Bear River. Yuba County Acting Planning Officer Kent McClain

gave an overview of the county’s $ 200 million levee improvement project, which will

occur in four phases and should be completed by 2008. The Army Corps of

Engineers has been involved in the process to ensure the construction is performed

in accordance with current federal and state standards.

Reason for Investigation

Written complaints from citizens and several oral complaints received at Three River

Levee District meeting.

Background and Discussion

The Three River Levee meeting ended at 8: 30 p. m. on January 19, 2006. A

concerned citizen asked to speak with attending members of the Yuba County

Grand Jury Special Districts Committee about a perceived trouble spot in the levee

at the Star Bend boat ramp. The citizen stated that there was a bad under- wash of

the levee that he would like for us to see. Members of the Special Districts

Committee scheduled a date to view the levee around Star Bend to see the extent of

damage to the levee. Upon inspection we noticed several sink holes in and around

the area ( see Attachments 8A, 8B and 8C, pages 80- 82.)

Committee members met with Mr. Richard Webb, the manager of Levee District

# 784, at a Three Rivers Levee Improvement Authority Board meeting on April 11,

2006, to schedule a time to view the damaged levee at Star Bend. Mr. Webb

explained that levees were repaired using “ burry” which are rocks and cement

reinforced with steel cables and rebar. He also stated that slip areas are often

caused by burrowing animals tunneling into the levee, which allows water to weep or

run through the tunnels. Traffic on the levees can speed up this process by

collapsing the tunnels.

During a subsequent inspection it was noticed that the area had been repaired, but

damage was visible ( see 9A and 9B, pages 83- 84.) The slide area at Star Bend had

been repaired. The repaired area was approximately 90 feet wide by 65 feet long.

Mr. Webb told the committee members that this area has been a problem area and

has been repaired several times previously. During this inspection, committee

members observed a “ dark spot” on top of the levee near the center of the slide ( see

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 58

Attachment 10, page 85.) The “ dark spot” proved to be a hole approximately 8 feet

by 10 feet of unknown origin.

The committee noted a new sink hole in the road at the base of the levee ( see

Attachment 11, page 86.) This area show evidence of prior repair ( a burry) but it

appeared that water running through a burrow was the cause.

It is of interest that sink holes can appear due to two causes. The first is water

running down a rodent hole and washing out the soil, forming a large hole. The

second cause is from water running through a borrow and heavy traffic ( such as

motor cycles and 4X4s) collapsing these runs.

Finds and Recommendations

Finding 1. 4x4’ s and dirt bikes that use this part of the levee cause excessive

erosion to the levees.

Recommendation 1. Since this is a concern to everyone living in the levee

area, stricter enforcement of levee usage should be implemented.

Finding 2. Levee repairs should be monitored through inspections, and an

investigation should be conducted to identify the cause of the damage to improve

repairs, identify better repair methods, provide information on how to prevent these

occurrences in the future.

Recommendation 2. None

Required Responses to Findings and Recommendation

Finding 1 Reclamation District # 784

Sheriff’s Department

Three Rivers Improvement Authority

Board of Supervisors

Recommendation 1 Reclamation District # 784

Sheriff’s Department

Three Rivers Improvement Authority

Board of Supervisors

Finding 2 Three Rivers Improvement Authority

Reclamation District # 784

All levee district and drainage districts

within Yuba County

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 59

Yuba County Water District

Summary

Since the issuance of the 2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report, the Yuba County

Water District ( YCWD) still seems unable to provide the necessary communication

with its members. This failure makes YCWD’s operations inefficient and may be in

violation of California and/ or federal law. YCWD still has pending members that

have paid their fees but have not been annexed, some for over 20 years. This is not

acceptable and is an example of a district that seems unconcerned with its

members. The YCWD may also be violating its members’ and pending members’

voting rights by holding their money and not annexing them with full membership.

The YCWD has been advised, by their legal counsel, to return the fees paid for

annexation to the individuals who have not been annexed into the YCWD. However,

returning the money would only help the YCWD and would not address the 20 years

of neglect, the lost interest on the funds paid in good faith by the individuals, and the

fact these individuals will still have need for the YCWD’s water services.

We, the Yuba County Grand Jury, request that the Yuba County District Attorney’s

office conduct an investigation of the YCWD for potential wrongdoing, including

violations of the Brown Act and possible violations of the voting rights of its 20- year

pending members.

Reason for Investigation

This investigation was initiated by written citizens’ complaints. In late 2004, the

Yuba County Grand Jury began investigating the YCWD, and for nearly two years,

two to seven members of the Yuba County Grand Jury attended YCWD board

meetings. In 2005 and 2006, the Yuba County Grand Jury committee members

observed and noted numerous verbal and written petitions presented to the YCWD

board. In no YCWD board meeting over the past two years were citizen complaints

ever considered, nor have such items been placed upon the agenda so that the

citizens’ allegations could be properly discussed. At nearly every meeting, citizens

have made written or verbal requests to address the YCWD board to discuss

allegations of potential wrongdoing without any response from the board.

Background and Discussion

The YCWD main office is located at 9066 La Porte Road in Brownsville. The YCWD

has a filtration plant near Forbestown.

The YCWD was formed on July 22, 1952 under the California water law for the

primary purpose of providing domestic ( treated) and irrigation ( untreated) water

service within the YCWD’s boundaries.

///

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 60

The YCWD is currently comprised of five ( 5) individual improvement areas:

District

Number

Date

Formed

Purpose

1 3/ 25/ 64 Irrigation service district

2 9/ 10/ 66 Domestic water service

3 4/ 30/ 68 Forbestown water distribution system

4 7/ 19/ 74 New York Road water distribution system

5 2/ 03/ 79 Rackerby water distribution system

At the current time, YCWD delivers domestic water to 1200 active customers in or

near the communities of Brownsville, Challenge, Forbestown, Rackerby, and

Strawberry Valley. Additionally, YCWD provides irrigation water to approximately

175 active members in and around Dobbins and Oregon House.

Many people have paid to annex into YCWD but have not been annexed, some for

nearly 20 years. In a public meeting, the YCWD board stated that they “ feel” that

they are not under the obligation to annex these individuals, nor to pay the increased

annexation fees associated with such action. While these potential members’ fees

have been held in trust, the annexations have not taken place. Currently the YCWD

board has received legal advice that they should just give the money back and let

the owners of the property pay the current rate.

Members of the Yuba County Special Districts Committee have attended all special

and regular monthly YCWD meetings. At these meetings, members of the public

have ( 1) expressed concerns about how the daily business of the YCWD is

conducted; ( 2) stated they are unclear about members’ rights; ( 3) asked why

individuals who have paid their annexation fees have not been annexed; and ( 4)

asked how complaints are handled by the YCWD board.

The Local Area Formation Commission Organization ( LAFCO) has not conducted

independent studies upon county municipal districts. A new LAFCO executive

officer has been appointed and has stated that reviews of all municipal districts

within the county will be done by January 1, 2007.

As stated above, it is the responsibility of the YCWD to provide for the domestic and

irrigation water needs of its members within its boundaries. The YCWD has the

responsibility to protect the water rights of its members, provide for the water needs

for future development, collect service and miscellaneous charges, and cooperate

with the various adjacent and surrounding water agencies, utility companies, and the

county.

///

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 61

Findings and Recommendations

Finding 1. The 2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report pointed out that many

individuals who paid their fees have not been annexed by the YCWD, some for over

20 years. At a recent meeting, the YCWD’s legal counsel suggested returning the

money these individuals. This type of action does not consider the people who have

paid their fees in good faith, or the loss of interest or devaluation of their money.

Recommendation 1. The YCWD must annex these individuals.

Finding 2. The YCWD may potentially be violating the rights of the non- annexed

individuals.

Recommendation 2. None

Finding 3. The 2005- 2006 Yuba County Grand Jury Special District members have

noted three members talking among themselves. They appear to be conducting

“ Serial Meetings” which would be in violation of the Brown Act. ( Potential violations

of the Brown Act were also noted in the 2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report.)

Recommendation 3. The YCWD board should comply with all provisions of

the Brown Act.

Recommendation 4. The Yuba County District Attorney’s office should

investigate the YCWD for potential wrongdoing, in cooperation with the 2006-

2007 Grand Jury.

Required Responses to Findings and Recommendations

Finding 1 Yuba County Water District

Findings 2, 3 None

Recommendation 1 Yuba County Water District

Recommendations 2 – 4 None

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 62

This page intentionally left blank.

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 63

Attachments

to Final Report

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 64

This page intentionally left blank.

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 65

Attachment 1A

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 66

Attachment 1B

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 67

DISTRIBUTION OF FINE

RUNNING RED LIGHT IN MARYSVILLE

( Based on $ 350 fine

and $ 20 security fee)

May 16, 2006

Description Distribution

Amount

Distributed to

MSVL PC1463.11 30% 102.90 City of Marysville

MSVL PC 1463.001 61.60 City of Marysville

CO GENERAL FUND 3.01 County of Yuba

ROAD FUND 7.49 County of Yuba

EMS TRUST .2857 GC 76104 16.59 County of Yuba

CRIM JUS FUND .1429 GC 76101 8.26 County of Yuba

COUNTY ( 30%) PC 1464 24.01 County of Yuba

CRTHOUSE CONST .5714 GC 76100 33.10 County of Yuba

20% PC1465.7/ AB 3000 14.00 State of California

DNA INDENT GC 76104.6 8.02 State of California

STATE ( 70%) PC 1464 56.00 State of California

GC 70372( A) CT CONSTR 8.02 State of California

AB1759/ PC 1465.8 SEC 20.00 State of California

TCTF GC 68090.8 7.00 State of California

370.00

Legend Distribution

Total

City 164.50

County 92.46

State 113.04

370.00

Attachment 2

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 68

Attachment 3 ( Page 1)

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 69

Attachment 3 ( Page 2)

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 70

Yuba County Board of Supervisors

Reason for Investigation

This investigation was initiated on information received by the Grand Jury at a Yuba County

Supervisors meeting on September 13, 2004 concerning use of County funds.

Focus of Investigation

The supervisors were asked a series of questions that included County fund usage outlined in the

September 13, 2004 supervisors meeting, Yuba County infrastructure needs, and plans for economic

development within the County.

Process of Investigation

Members of the Yuba County Grand Jury County Committee made two visits to interview members of

the Yuba County Board of Supervisors. The first interview included Supervisors Mary Jane Griego and

Hal Stocker. The second appointment was with Supervisors Don Schrader and Dan Logue. Dan

Logue was unable to attend that interview due to illness.

Infrastructure and Increased Traffic Flows

The question was asked, “ What plans do the County Board of Supervisors have to address the lack of

infrastructure and how are they going to address the increased traffic flow brought on by the new

growth, specifically in the Plumas Lake and Edgewater developments?” The supervisors all replied

that at the present time there are no new roads scheduled to be built and there are no funds available

to finance any new additions. They explained that Caltrans owns Highways 70 and 20 and the County

has little or no control over them. Due to cuts in the state budget, Caltrans has lost all funding to build

the highway 70 bypass around Marysville. In addition, the supervisors stated that any new bridges

across the Yuba or Feather Rivers would require federal funding.

During the initial hearings concerning the Plumas Lake development, neither the Yuba County

supervisor’s nor the developers made provisions for law enforcement. At a later date, a special

assessment was added to address this specific problem. To date no new officers have been funded

from this assessment.

Economic Development

There is no infrastructure development within the Yuba County Research and Development Park or

the Yuba County Rancho Road Industrial and Commercial Park ( see Economic Development Report,

pages 43 and 45 respectively, Attachments 4 and 5.)

When asked if the supervisors were aware of a “ retail study” conducted by Chico State University

encompassing Linda, Olivehurst and Plumas Lake, they responded they did indeed know about the

study but not in detail.

Attachment 4 ( Page 1)

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 71

The retail study indicates that in 2004, the Linda- Olivehurst areas had a retail leakage ( monies spent in

other retail areas) of over $ 36 million ( Retail Potential in Linda and Olivehurst, Attachment 6.) This

leakage is expected to increase to over $ 301 million by 2015 due to the increased populations in Linda

and Plumas Lake areas. Specifically, the Committee asked about Yuba County Economic

Development Coordinator John Fleming’s ability to promote Yuba County when his budget has been

cut by 22% over his 2003- 2004 budget, and the plan to promote increased commerce within Linda,

Olivehurst, and Plumas Lake. In the 2003- 2004 budgets, the Economic Development office received

$ 30,475 ( an additional $ 1,500 was added at a later date for a total of $ 31,975), which was reduced to

$ 25,118 in the 2004- 2005 budget. Supervisor Hal Stocker indicated that he would support a plan to

specifically promote Yuba County by Mr. Fleming’s office.

The Yuba County Economic Development Office, through contributions from Economic Development

program income interest ($ 1,600) and First American Title ($ 2,500), published the retail study for

public distribution.

Supervisors and Sheriff

The Grand Jury learned at a Yuba County Board of Supervisors’ meeting on September 13, 2004 that

a half million dollars ($ 500,000) was transferred from the Sheriff’s Jail bed trust fund on March 10,

2004 ( Account Balance Inquiry, Attachment 7.) It was during this same public meeting that Sheriff

Virginia Black alleged this transaction was done by the Yuba County Auditor’s Office without notifying

her and without the consent of the Board of Supervisors.

The situation involves $ 500,000 that the State of California in “ The Budget Act of 2001” authorized for

special funding ( Assembly Bill [ AB] 443) to supplement county sheriffs in small and rural counties. In a

letter dated August 2, 2004 ( Attachment 8), Yuba County Administrative Officer Charles “ Kent”

McClain advised the Yuba County Board of Supervisors ( cc: Sheriff Black, Auditor/ Controller Dean

Sellers, and County Counsel Dan Montgomery) that, “ It is my recommendation that the Final Budget,

prepared by the Auditor/ Controller, show the AB 443 funds ($ 500,000) as added revenue to the

Sheriff/ Jail budget. Further, the General Fund subsidy to the same budget be reduced by an equal

amount and $ 500,000 be returned to the General Fund contingency account.” Sheriff Black replied to

the Yuba County supervisors by letter dated August 3, 2004 ( Attachment 9) that the action

recommended by Mr. McClain was in violation of Government Code § 30070( b), which states: “ Funds

allocated pursuant to this section shall be used to supplement, rather than supplant existing law

enforcement resources.”

In a letter to the board, the Sheriff also alleged that Mr. McClain committed “ misconduct- dishonesty”

during a Yuba County Board of Supervisors’ meeting on May 10, 2004. In this incident, Mr. McClain

stated that Sheriff Black had not submitted a budget proposal reflecting a 10% reduction as requested

by the Yuba County Board of Supervisors. Sheriff Black alleged that this statement by Mr. McClain

was not true, as she did in fact submit the appropriate budget proposal ( see letter dated May 13, 2004,

Attachment 10.)

The Sheriff determined that she needed to have counsel to represent her in connection with the events

described above and due to the fact that the County Counsel cannot represent both the Yuba County

Board of Supervisors and the Yuba County Sheriff, she had to retain, at County expense, a private

attorney.

The Sheriff further stated at the September 13, 2004 Yuba County Board of Supervisors’ meeting that

the “ Board” might have exceeded its legal authority. At the root of the allegations is the

Intergovernmental Service Agreement for Housing Federal Detainees agreement where Yuba County

Jail provides bed space for the U. S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement ( INS) inmates. The original

INS agreement provided for 62 inmates at $ 45 a day for 2 to 4 days per week ( approximately 12,896

days). The new contract, signed February 2, 2004, provides for $ 60 a day per inmate for

approximately 91,250 days per year ($ 5,475,000 annually.) This contract should produce revenue of

$ 1.94 million for the Sheriff’s Department and an equal amount for the General Fund.

Attachment 4 ( Page 2)

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 72

On March 31, 1995, the Yuba County Board of Supervisors ( Chairperson Joan Saunders) and then

Sheriff Gary Tindel entered into an agreement that provides provisions for sharing the revenue

generated by the INS jail bed usage. It provides for 17% for housing, food and clothing for INS

inmates, 6% for partial repayment of the jail construction bonds, 3% for energy cost, and 3% for Jail

Capital Improvement Fund. The remaining 71% is split equally between the Sheriff’s Department and

the General Fund. Yuba County Supervisors Mary Jane Griego, Hal Stocker and Don Schrader,

Auditor/ Controller Dean Sellers and Assistant Auditor/ Controller Albert Dehr have all expressed

concerns about the “ sharing provisions” expressed in the INS Jail Bed Revenue Sharing Memorandum

of Agreement ( MOU).

Findings

1. The Yuba County Board of Supervisors and the Economic Development office have no

specific plan to effectively increase commerce within the Linda, Olivehurst, and Plumas Lake

areas.

2. The Yuba County Board of Supervisors does not sufficiently fund the Economic Development

Office to enable it to effectively attract new consumer services, retail business; or to attract

new industries and commerce to the Yuba County Rancho Road Industrial and Commercial

Park.

3. Poor communication has lead to the hiring of outside attorneys at additional cost to Yuba

County.

4. Documentation indicates that the Yuba County Board of Supervisors received legally

questionable advice on budgetary matters ( see letter to BOS, Attachment 11.)

5. At present, the INS Jail Bed Revenue Sharing MOU is out of date. Its dollar values expressed

are from the 1995 contract. It shows no review by the Sheriff or the Board of Supervisors.

The terms of the MOU are not being followed. Specifically, the division of funds and the use

of the Sheriff’s share to provide “ Allocation for Sheriff’s Department for additional personnel,

safety equipment and fixed assets.…” In addition, the MOU indicates that these revenues are

to be used at the end of the fiscal year and are not to replace the Sheriff’s annual budget

( Attachments 12A and 12B.) Further, there is indication that the Yuba County Board of

Supervisors is using the moneys to supplant the Sheriff’s current year budget ( Attachments 13

and 14.)

Recommendations

1. The Board of Supervisors and the Economic Development office should develop a specific

plan to effectively increase commerce within the Linda, Olivehurst, and Plumas Lake areas as

well as a plan to promote economic development within the Yuba County Research and

Development Park and the Yuba County Rancho Road Industrial and Commercial Park.

2. The Board of Supervisors should fund additional officers for Sheriff’s Department to provide

traffic patrols.

3. When funds are transferred, adequate notice should be provided to all parties.

4. The Board of Supervisors needs to review and update the INS Jail Bed Revenue Sharing

MOU.

5. The Board of Supervisors needs to review the annual budget to ensure that monies budgeted

are from and for the current year.

Attachment 4 ( Page 3)

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 73

The Board of Supervisors needs to review the Sheriff’s budget to ensure that it is correctly budgeted

out of the County General Fund and to ensure that other revenue sources are not being used to

supplant the Sheriff’s budget ( i. e., AB 443 funds and Jail bed revenue.)

6. The 2005- 2006 Grand Jury should investigate the Yuba County Administration Office, The

County Administrator, and follow- up on the Yuba County Board of Supervisors to ensure

corrections of errors noted.

Required Responses to Findings

1 Yuba County Board of Supervisors and Yuba County Economic Development Office

2- 5 Yuba County Board of Supervisors

Required Responses to Recommendations

1 Yuba County Board of Supervisors and Yuba County Economic Development Office

2 Yuba County Board of Supervisors

3 Yuba County Auditor/ Controller’s Office

4- 6 Yuba County Board of Supervisors

Attachment 4 ( Page 4)

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 74

Attachment 5 ( Page 1)

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 75

Attachment 5 ( Page 2)

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 76

Attachment 5 ( Page 3)

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 77

Attachment 5 ( Page 4)

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 78

Attachment 6

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 79

Attachment 7.

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 80

Attachment 8A

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 81

Attachment 8B

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 82

Attachment 8C

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 83

Attachment 9A

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 84

Attachment 9B

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 85

Attachment 10

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 86

Attachment 11

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 87

NOTE TO RESPONDENTS

The legal requirements affecting respondents and responses to grand jury findings

and recommendations are contained in California Penal Code § 933.05. The full text

of the law is included herein.

Each respondent should become familiar with these legal requirements and, if in

doubt, should consult legal counsel prior to responding.

For the assistance of all respondents, California Penal Code § 933.05 is summarized

as follows:

How to Respond to the Findings

The responding person or entity must respond in one of two ways:

1. That you agree with the finding.

2. That you disagree wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the

response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and

shall include an explanation of the reasons for the disagreement.

How to Report Action in Response to Recommendations

Recommendations by the grand jury require action. The responding person or entity

must report action on all recommendations in one of four ways:

1. The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary of the

implemented action.

2. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented

in the future, with a time frame for implementation.

3. The recommendation requires further analysis. If a person or entity reports in

this manner, the law requires that a detailed explanation of the analysis or

study must be submitted to the officer, director or governing body of the

agency being investigated.

4. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or

is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor.

Budgetary or Personnel Recommendations

If either a finding or recommendation deals with budgetary or personnel matters of a

county department headed by an elected officer, both the elected officer and the

Board of Supervisors shall respond if the grand jury so requests. While the Board of

Supervisors’ response is somewhat limited, the response by the department head

must address all aspects of the findings or recommendations.

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 88

Appearance Before the Grand Jury

Prior to the publication or release of the grand jury findings, the grand jury may

request a personal appearance by the person or entity to discuss the proposed

findings.

Time to Respond, Where and to Whom to Respond

Depending upon the type of respondent, California Penal Code § 933.05 sets forth

the response times and to whom the response must be made:

1. Public Agency. The governing body of any public agency must respond

within ( 90) days. The response must be addressed to the grand jury

presiding judge. For fiscal year 2004/ 05, responses should be forward to:

The Honorable James L. Curry

Yuba County Superior Court

215 Fifth Street, Suite 200

Marysville, CA 95901

2. Elected Official or Agency Head. All elected officers or heads of

agencies which are required to respond must do so within sixty ( 60)

days. The response must be address to the grand jury presiding

judge, James L. Curry ( address above), with a copy provided to the

Board of Supervisors.

Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 89

California Penal Code § 933.05

( a) For purposes of subdivision ( b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the

responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following:

( 1) The respondent agrees with the finding.

( 2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the

response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include

an explanation of the reasons therefor.

( b) For purposes of subdivision ( b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation,

the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions:

( 1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the

implemented action.

( 2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in

the future, with a timeframe for implementation.

( 3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the

scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to

be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department

being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency

when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of

publication of the grand jury report.

( 4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is

not reasonable, with an explanation therefor.

( c) However, if a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or

personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both

the agency or department head and the board of supervisors shall respond if requested

by the grand jury, but the response of the board of supervisors shall address only those

budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision- making authority. The

response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the

findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department.

( d) A grand jury may request a subject person or entity to come before the grand jury for the

purpose of reading and discussing the findings of the grand jury report that relates to that

person or entity in order to verify the accuracy of the findings prior to their release.

( e) During an investigation, the grand jury shall meet with the subject of that investigation

regarding the investigation, unless the court, either on its own determination or upon

request of the foreperson of the grand jury, determines that such a meeting would be

detrimental.

( f) A grand jury shall provide to the affected agency a copy of the portion of the grand jury

report relating to that person or entity two working days prior to its public release and

after the approval of the presiding judge. No officer, agency, department, or governing

body of a public agency shall disclose any contents of the report prior to the public

release of the final report.