A reader's guide to the 2025–2026 Tuolumne County Civil Grand Jury report on the Community Development Department — and the supervisor's project that went outside the county for review.
The Board of Supervisors must respond. Under Penal Code §§ 933 & 933.05, the Board must answer every finding and recommendation in both June 26, 2026 Grand Jury reports — in writing, to the presiding judge of the Superior Court — within 90 days, by late September 2026.
The report is hard to follow partly because titles keep changing hands. This is the shortest path to keeping the players straight.
Longtime developer with a contentious CDD history. Campaigned on "restructuring" the department, won a seat, and was sworn in Jan 2025. Owns the High School Road project through Granite Land Holdings.
Rose from IT Director (2023) to Acting, then permanent, County Administrative Officer. At one point simultaneously acting CAO, CDD Director and Chief Building Official — despite lacking the technical certifications.
The prior CAO, who resigned Jan 2025. The report notes she denied ever authorizing the fire hydrant that a later press release credited to her office.
Led the department before 2025. Publicly rebutted Holland's Amador County comparison, then resigned in July 2025. The role has sat vacant for 11+ months.
Stepped in after Yaley. Issued code-violation notices on the High School Road project — twice — despite being told to stand down, then resigned within weeks.
Agreed to "review" the project after the conflict-of-interest policy passed. Later told the Grand Jury it never issued a real building permit — only Tuolumne County can.
The investigation started with a staffing crisis and ended up at a construction site. They're connected — the same feud runs through both.
A 15% budget cut to close a $6M shortfall collided with what staff described as a hostile new culture. Departures far outran the cuts.
An eight-building storage complex owned by a sitting supervisor, built with a running list of alleged permit problems.
Filter by thread to isolate a single storyline. A ⚑ marks an event the Grand Jury flagged as a compliance or integrity concern.
No events in this thread.
The nineteen findings from Behind the Devastation, grouped by theme. Each expands to its recommendations and deadlines. The companion governance report's six findings follow in the next section. Every item requires a written Board response.
Issued the same day, the jury's second and shorter report (26 pages) steps back from the department to the county's broader habits — ethics, conflicts of interest, cooperation with oversight, and public records. Several findings again center on Supervisor Holland. It began as a look at staffing, but the jury says closed-session confidentiality disputes forced it to widen the scope.
Six findings, six recommendations. The Board of Supervisors must respond to findings F1–F6 and recommendations R1–R6 no later than September 26, 2026. Individual officials have 60 days; the governing body has 90.
Much of the report turns on two distinctions that are easy to blur. Here they are, plainly.
The label decides who permits it, who inspects it, and who's liable. The report found the High School Road hydrant fit neither box cleanly — and was never color-coded.
| Public | Private | |
|---|---|---|
| Owner | Public water agency (here, TUD) | Property owner or developer |
| Protects | The community & water system | One specific property |
| Permit | Often none required | Fire + building permits required |
| Inspected by | Public agencies | Authority Having Jurisdiction |
The catch: "Public" means owned by the water district — not by the county. The supervisor called it public; the jury found it met neither standard.
The buildings advanced through a ladder of permits. The dispute is about work that ran ahead of the rung it was on.
The findings rest on primary documents. These are the appendices a skeptical reader would want to check.
Shows every eliminated, frozen, and filled position as of April 2026.
The Governance Manual edit, with new language marked in red.
Oct 10, 2025 statement the jury found "misleading, inaccurate, or unsupported."
2019 letter setting fire-flow and hydrant conditions before any building permit.
The document Amador says was only for tracking — not a real building permit.
July 1, 2025 request to send the supervisor's project to another county.