Understanding the 2025-2026 Grand Jury Reports

Behind the Devastation: Tuolumne County Community Development Department Staffing Findings

Introduction

The Tuolumne County Community Development Department (CDD) is one of the county’s most important public-facing departments. Its responsibilities touch nearly every aspect of development and property use in the community, including building permits and inspections, planning, code compliance, environmental health, and housing. When the department has adequate staffing, experienced leadership, and the resources necessary to perform its work, these functions can operate largely behind the scenes. When that expertise is diminished, however, the effects can extend well beyond the department itself.

At the center of the Grand Jury’s staffing findings is a fundamental question: 

What happens to essential county services when an experienced workforce is reduced faster than the organization can recruit, train, and retain qualified replacements?

According to the Grand Jury, the CDD lost at least 13 positions and employees during 2025, representing a reduction of more than 40 percent from its previous staffing level. It should have been treated similarly to other departments affected by a 15 percent cut. Why 40 percent?  The report attributes the staffing crisis to budget reductions, anticipated cuts, resignations, retirements, vacancies, compensation concerns, and declining employee morale.

These findings matter beyond a simple headcount. CDD relies heavily on institutional knowledge—the accumulated experience of employees who understand county procedures, ordinances, permitting requirements, regulatory history, and the practical complexities of individual projects. The departure of experienced employees can therefore affect not only workload and response times, but also an organization’s ability to provide consistent, knowledgeable, and timely service to residents and businesses.

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 inter-agency coordination practices.

[Note: For those Grand Jury recommendations with a specific date, the County’s response includes the following statement: “The Grand Jury has no authority to order and mandate deadlines as that invades the discretionary decision-making of the legislative branch.”]

Staffing Findings

Finding 1: Budget cuts have led to concerns about future job loss, causing CDD employees to resign or retire before being let go. The perception of a poor employee pay structure, newly degraded work culture, and a lack of support from the Board of Supervisors has resulted in difficulty filling vacancies within CDD. Current staffing levels within CDD are not sufficient for maintaining minimum service levels without utilizing more costly third-party Contracts.

Response to Finding 1: The County of Tuolumne PARTIALLY AGREES AND PARTIALLY DISAGREES with Finding 1.

The County of Tuolumne AGREES that budget cuts have affected jobs within the Community Development Department. The County of Tuolumne acknowledges that budget reductions have led to workforce adjustments that have affected staffing levels and may have contributed to employee departures.

The County of Tuolumne DISAGREES with the remaining aspects of Finding 1. Specifically, the County of Tuolumne disagrees with the characterization that budget cuts have caused employees to resign or retire “before being let go,” as this implies anticipated involuntary separations that were not planned or communicated to staff in that manner. The County of Tuolumne also disagrees with the assertion that there is a “perception of a poor employee pay structure, newly degraded work culture, and a lack of support from the Board of Supervisors,” as this characterization does not accurately reflect the County of Tuolumne’s compensation practices, workplace culture initiatives, or the Board’s support for departmental operations. The County of Tuolumne further disagrees that current staffing levels are insufficient to maintain minimum service levels without using more costly third-party contracts, as the Department has maintained core services through operational adjustments and prioritization.

Recommendation 1-1.

Update and maintain the publicly available organization charts for CDD to align with current budgeted positions and vacancy status by August 31, 2026.

Response to Recommendation 1-1. The recommendation HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED.

The County of Tuolumne will update the publicly available organization charts for the Community Development Department to align with current budgeted positions and vacancy status. The County will post the updated charts on the County website and maintain them to ensure accuracy.

Recommendation 1-2.

Review ILG literature related to the Bridge Initiative, or other similar local government apprenticeship programs, and report back on the feasibility of implementing something similar or expanding the existing internship programs by September 30, 2026.

Response to Recommendation 1-2. The recommendation WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED.

The County of Tuolumne has determined that implementing a formal apprenticeship program modeled on the Bridge Initiative is not aligned with current departmental priorities. The County of Tuolumne will continue to utilize existing internship programs.

Recommendation 1-3.

To identify opportunities to increase morale and improve the overall work culture within the County, perform an anonymous, county-wide employee survey by December 31, 2026.

Response to Recommendation 1-3. The recommendation WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED.

The County of Tuolumne has determined that a county-wide employee survey is not necessary at this time because it would duplicate existing efforts conducted for each employee by personal evaluation and is not the most effective means of assessing employee morale given these existing feedback mechanisms. The County of Tuolumne will continue to monitor employee morale through the annual evaluation processes and address workplace culture concerns through such existing processes.

Finding 2: Supervisor Holland’s presentation “Maybe Time for a New Approach” created a misleading comparison between the Tuolumne County and Amador County Community Development Departments by relying on staffing, budget, and permit processing comparisons between departments with materially different structures, responsibilities, and workloads.

Response to Finding 2. The County disagrees wholly with Finding 2. The report asserts that Supervisor Holland’s presentation created a misleading comparison between the Tuolumne County and Amador County Community Development Departments because the departments allegedly have materially different structures, responsibilities, and workloads. The County rejects that characterization. Public comparison of governmental departments, budgets, staffing, and performance is a legitimate governance function and is not rendered “misleading” merely because the compared agencies are not identical. The finding substitutes the Grand Jury’s subjective disagreement with the presentation’s framing for any actual evidence that the presentation was outside the Board’s governance role.

Finding 3: The lack of definitive metrics/guidelines for permit approval time inhibits the ability to identify opportunities for improvement in the permit approval process and contributes to the poor public perception of the CDD.

Response to Finding 3. The County partially agrees and partially disagrees with Finding 3.

The County agrees only that meaningful metrics can assist process management and may help identify opportunities to improve the permit-approval process. The County otherwise disagrees with the finding’s assertion that the absence of definitive metrics.

“contributes to the poor public perception” of CDD. That assertion is conclusory and improperly treats public perception as established fact attributable to a single operational cause.

Recommendation 2/3-1. Once a CDD Director has been hired, develop goals for permit approval times by category groups and utilize data from OpenGov to track progress against those goals, by March 31, 2027.

Response to Recommendation 2/3-1. This recommendation WILL BE IMPLEMENTED. 

After a CDD Director is hired, the County will develop permit-approval goals by category groups and use available OpenGov data or successor-system data to track progress. Implementation does not constitute agreement with Finding 2 or 3.

Recommendation 2/3-2. Once a CDD Director has been hired, develop target approval times by category groups and make this available to the public by March 31, 2027.

Response to Recommendation 2/3-2. This recommendation WILL BE IMPLEMENTED.

After a CDD Director is hired, the County will develop target approval times by category groups and make appropriate target information available to the public. Implementation does not constitute agreement with Finding 2 or 3.

Recommendation 2/3-3. Develop and implement a plan to publicly reinforce the value of the CDD and the permit process via Public Service Announcements, Town Hall Meetings, Board of Supervisors presentations, or similar, by December 31, 2026.

Response to Recommendation 2/3-3. This recommendation WILL BE IMPLEMENTED.

The County will develop a plan to communicate the value of the CDD and the permit process through appropriate public communications. Implementation does not constitute agreement with the Grand Jury’s criticism of any individual Board member or prior presentation. Implementation does not constitute agreement with Finding 2 or 3.

Finding 4: The Board of Supervisors’ use of the Board Reports agenda section to deliver an extensive presentation criticizing the CDD immediately before the closed-session evaluation of the CDD Director created the perception of improper public discussion of personnel matters, undermined public confidence in Brown Act compliance and fair governance practices, and addressed matters not properly agendized while denying the public and the department a meaningful opportunity to comment or respond.

Response to Finding 4. The County DISAGREES wholly with Finding 4.

The report alleges that use of the Board Reports agenda section for a presentation concerning CDD created perceptions of improper public discussion of personnel matters, undermined public confidence, addressed matters not properly agendized, and denied a meaningful opportunity to respond. The County rejects the finding. A claimed “perception” is not a substitute for a violation, and the finding does not establish that the Board unlawfully evaluated a specific employee in open session or took action outside the agenda. The Grand Jury’s disagreement with the tone, length, or timing of public remarks does not transform those remarks into improper personnel action.

Finding 5: The timing and manner of the presentation, immediately preceding the CDD Director’s performance evaluation, contributed to the perception of intimidation, unfair treatment of county staff, and inconsistency in the personnel evaluation process.

Response to Finding 5. The County DISAGREES wholly with Finding 5.

The report asserts that the timing and manner of the presentation contributed to perceptions of intimidation, unfair treatment, and inconsistency in the personnel evaluation process. The County rejects the finding because it is built on speculation about perception and motive rather than established misconduct. The County further rejects any implication that criticism of department-level operations is inherently intimidation or unfair treatment of staff.

Recommendation 5-1. By October 1, 2026, the Board of Supervisors should adopt standards of conduct promoting professional and respectful treatment of County staff to reduce the perception of intimidation, retaliation, or politically motivated targeting of department leadership.

Response to Recommendation 5-1. This recommendation WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED because it is not warranted as framed. The recommendation asks the Board to adopt standards of conduct in response to alleged perceptions of intimidation, retaliation, or politically motivated targeting. The County does not accept the premise that such conduct occurred. The Board may continue to observe and refine professional norms, but it will not adopt a policy premised on unsupported accusations.

Recommendation 5-2. By October 1, 2026, the Board of Supervisors should adopt clear guidance reinforcing that discussions tied to the performance of a specific employee belong in closed session under Government Code §§ 54953 and 54957. If a department-level discussion could reasonably be attributed to a department head, it should either stay strictly policy-level in open session or be moved to closed session. The Board should also ensure evaluation practices are applied consistently, and that employees are given a fair opportunity to respond, to avoid both Brown Act concerns and potential HR-related issues.

Response to Recommendation 5-2. This recommendation WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED because it is not warranted as framed. The recommendation incorrectly treats department-level operational discussion as presumptively tied to a specific employee whenever it “could reasonably be attributed” to a department head. The County rejects that overbroad standard. It would chill legitimate public discussion of departmental performance and policy issues.

Recommendation 5-3. By October 1, 2026, the Board of Supervisors should adopt a formal policy defining the permissible scope and limitations of Board Reports,including reasonable time limits and restrictions on using the section for extensive presentations, policy advocacy, or criticism of specific departments or employees without proper agendization.

Response to Recommendation 5-3. This recommendation WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED because it is not warranted or reasonable as framed. The recommendation would impose formal limitations on Board Reports based on the Grand Jury’s disagreement with a particular presentation. The County will not adopt a restrictive rule that undermines the Board’s ability to report on matters of public concern.

Recommendation 5-4. County Counsel should provide annual Brown Act and governance training to all Board members regarding proper agendization requirements, the distinction between public policy discussions and personnel evaluations, appropriate use of Board Reports, and due process and fairness considerations involving department heads and county staff.

Response to Recommendation 5-4. This recommendation HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED.

County Counsel provides Brown Act and governance training to Board members on a biennial basis or through an equivalent recurring training process, including agenda practices and the distinction between public policy discussion and personnel evaluation. Implementation does not constitute agreement with Findings 4 or 5.

Recommendation 5-5. By October 1, 2026, the Board of Supervisors should require that substantive presentations involving criticism, evaluation, or comparison of county departments be placed on a properly noticed agenda item to allow adequate public notice, staff preparation, and an opportunity to respond.

Response to Recommendation 5-5. This recommendation WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED because it is not warranted as framed. The County will continue to comply with applicable agenda requirements, but it rejects the recommendation’s implication that substantive criticism of county departments must be separately agendized whenever it occurs within a Board report.