Is It Legal? GRAND JURY Report on Supervisor Holland’s Fire Hydrant
The 2025-2026 Tuolumne County Civil Grand Jury report repeatedly cited District 1 Supervisor, Mike Holland, for mishandling his private development project on High School Road in Jamestown where he is building a storage facility. Holland has been accused of diverting public water usage by installing an unpermitted hydrant, as well as numerous other permit violations. He also allegedly misused his public office in going to Amador County for permitting, which it turns out, is not within its authority.
A citizen’s complaint regarding the installation of the hydrant on a county-owned water line without proper Tuolumne Utilities District (TUD) approval to benefit his private project was referred to the District Attorney for possible criminal charges. The DA subsequently determined that the hydrant installation did not violate any criminal laws.
Two days after Holland installed the unpermitted hydrant in July 2025, the Acting Chief Administrative Officer (CAO), Roger Root met with the Acting Community Development Department (CDD) Director, Brian Bell, and told him, “to discontinue further oversight and involvement in the project,” the report stated. Nevertheless, Bell then issued a notice of violations, including installing a fire hydrant without the required permit. Root again instructed him to remove himself from any involvement in the project. Bell soon resigned.
After the CDD Code Compliance Officer issued another notice of violation in August 2025, and following ongoing citizen complaints regarding violations, Holland addressed the Board of Supervisors (BOS) in October and stated that the hydrant was public, not private, and that former CAO Traci Riggs had approved its installation. Riggs resigned following her BOS evaluation in January 2025, barely two weeks after Holland began his term as Supervisor and later denied giving her approval.
Meanwhile, TUD General Manager Don Perkins disputed Root’s version of events, stating he had not attended meetings about the project. He said TUD does field visits with County officials, but no decisions are made there. He also said that any water used by the hydrant would be billable to the County because it is a County-owned and -maintained water line. The Grand Jury report states, “the term ‘public’ refers specifically to facilities owned, operated, and maintained by TUD, and does not refer to Tuolumne County.”
At their September 1, 2026, meeting, the BOS voted 3-2 to accept the County’s response to the report, disputing most of the Grand Jury’s Findings and questioning the Grand Jury’s right to require any action from them. The Board’s reasoning is that they are the legislative branch of government and are not overseen by the judicial branch. However, in this case, the specific task of the civil Grand Jury is, by law, to investigate citizen concerns of public agencies.
Read on for Grand Jury findings, recommendations, and the County’s response.
FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS
The Civil Grand Jury reviewed documentation, correspondence, public records, and other relevant materials supporting the following Findings and Recommendations, which are offered to strengthen administrative oversight, improve public confidence, and enhance consistency in County permitting, enforcement, and interagency coordination practices.
Finding 14: Amador County did not issue a permit for the actual work performed on the High School Road project, nor was it ever in their scope of work to issue permits for work performed in another County. Amador County officials stated that they assumed no responsibility for issuing permits for work done in Tuolumne County.
Response to Finding 14. The County PARTIALLY AGREES and OTHERWISE DISAGREES with Finding 14. The County AGREES that Amador County does not have permitting authority in Tuolumne County. The County OTHERWISE DISAGREES with the finding’s implication that the absence of Amador County permitting authority establishes that the High School Road project lacked lawful County review, approval, or oversight. The report states that Amador County did not issue a permit for work performed on the High School Road project and assumed no responsibility for issuing permits in Tuolumne County. That does not establish the broader conclusions the finding implies.
Recommendation 14-1: By September 1, 2026, Tuolumne County should retain qualified and certified independent third-party professionals to conduct a comprehensive review of the High School Road project to determine compliance with all applicable permitting, inspection, and approval requirements, including, but not limited to, grading, building, occupancy, fire protection systems, and related public safety regulations. The review should include an evaluation of whether all required inspections were properly completed and documented, and whether corrective actions or enforcement measures are warranted based on the findings.
Response to Recommendation 14-1. This recommendation WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED because it is not warranted as framed. The County will not retain a special third-party review team based on the Grand Jury’s unsupported premise that the project requires extraordinary re-review. The County will continue to apply applicable County processes. Note: The Grand Jury has no authority to order and mandate deadlines as that invades the discretionary decision-making of the legislative branch.
Recommendation 14-2: Any deficiencies identified through the review referenced in Recommendation 8-1 should be corrected, at the expense of the property owner, prior to further project advancement.
Response to Recommendation 14-2. This recommendation WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED because it is not warranted as framed.
Recommendation 14-3. A Certificate of Occupancy for the High School Road project must not be issued until there has been verification by a qualified and certified Tuolumne County CDD employee that all applicable Tuolumne County requirements, including fire and life safety standards, have been fully satisfied.
Response to Recommendation 14-3. This recommendation WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED because it is not warranted as framed. The County will issue a Certificate of Occupancy when all applicable County requirements that are legally required for issuance have been satisfied and verified through appropriate County procedures. The County will continue to apply applicable County processes.
Finding 15: The hydrant at the High School Road project was installed without a permit. While the Assistant CAO gave approval of the concept, formal written approval, and the extent to which such approval addressed installation, permitting, and compliance requirements is unclear. Qualified and appropriately certified personnel did not perform, document, or verify all required inspections, testing, and compliance evaluations necessary to confirm that the fire hydrant installation met applicable fire safety standards. As a result, the extent of the project’s compliance with applicable public safety and permitting requirements remains unclear.
Response to Finding 15. The County PARTIALLY AGREES and PARTIALLY DISAGREES with Finding 15. The County AGREES that the hydrant was installed without a permit, but only because it is a public hydrant and does not require the permit suggested by the finding. The County OTHERWISE DISAGREES with the finding’s assertions that formal approval was unclear, that qualified personnel did not perform or document necessary work, or that compliance remains unclear. The finding conflates permitting requirements for private improvements with the treatment of a public hydrant.
Recommendation 15-1: By September 1, 2026, the appropriate agencies should conduct a comprehensive review of the fire hydrant installed at the High School Road project to determine whether all applicable permitting, inspection, engineering, fire protection, testing, and code-compliance requirements were properly satisfied. The review should also evaluate whether required approvals, inspections, and documentation were completed in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, and accepted professional standards, and whether corrective actions, additional approvals, or remedial measures are warranted.
Response to Recommendation 15-1. This recommendation WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED because it is not warranted. The County rejects the premise that the public hydrant requires the permitting and code-compliance review as described in the recommendation. Note: The Grand Jury has no authority to order and mandate deadlines as that invades the discretionary decision-making of the legislative branch.
Recommendation 15-2: Any costs associated with the review, inspections, testing, corrective work, or remedial repairs should be the responsibility of the property owner to the extent permitted by applicable laws, ordinances, and County policies.
Response to Recommendation 15-2. This recommendation WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED because it is not warranted as framed. The County will not impose review, testing, correction, or repair costs on a property owner based on a rejected premise that the hydrant installation was a private hydrant and was improperly unpermitted.
Recommendation 15-3: The “donation” of the hydrant alluded to by Supervisor Holland should not be accepted by the County until all permitting, inspections, corrections and payment of fees have been completed.
Response to Recommendation 15-3. This recommendation WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED because it is not warranted as framed. The recommendation assumes unresolved permitting, inspection, correction, and fee obligations that the County does not accept.