Behind the Devastation
Part 2 of a 3 part Series
by Tim McCaffrey
For years, the Community Development Department quietly kept Tuolumne County moving. They reviewed building plans. Issued permits. Conducted inspections. Enforced building codes. Protected public safety. Most people never thought about the department unless they needed a permit.
According to the 2025 - 2026 Tuolumne County Civil Grand Jury, that changed dramatically during 2025.
The report describes a department that went from being a stable, experienced organization to one struggling with budget reductions, resignations, declining morale, leadership changes, and the loss of decades of institutional knowledge.
The title of the report says it all. Behind the Devastation.
What is the CDD?
Before understanding what happened, it’s important to understand what the Community Development Department actually does.
The CDD oversees:
Building permits
Building inspections
Planning
Environmental Health
Housing programs
Code Compliance
Land-use planning
Every home that’s built, every commercial project, every addition, every inspection, every code complaint. All eventually pass through CDD.
When the department functions well, projects move efficiently while ensuring compliance with state and local laws designed to protect public safety. When it struggles, the effects ripple through the entire county.
A Department People Wanted to Work In
One of the report’s more surprising findings is how employees described CDD before 2025.
Current and former staff told the Grand Jury they considered the department a “tight knit family.”
Employees described supportive leadership, experienced managers, and coworkers they trusted. Team breakfasts and holiday traditions helped build camaraderie, but the deeper strength came from confidence in one another’s expertise. Staff felt difficult situations were handled professionally and in accordance with county ordinances, and they knew experienced leaders were available when complex issues arose.
The report also notes that the CDD had recently modernized its permitting system by adopting OpenGov, replacing the older TRAKiT software. According to the Grand Jury, the transition was successful and even helped Tuolumne County earn California’s Prohousing designation in 2024. The Grand Jury found that OpenGov adequately tracked permits and proved invaluable during its investigation, especially because many county emails were no longer available under the county’s 90-day deletion policy.
In other words, the report does not describe a department that was failing across the board before 2025. It describes one that believed it was functioning well.
Then Everything Changed
The report identifies 2025 as a turning point.
Facing a projected $6 million budget shortfall, the Board of Supervisors directed nonpublic-safety departments to reduce their budgets by 15 percent. CDD responded by eliminating positions, freezing vacancies, and reorganizing staffing.
But according to the Grand Jury, the effects extended well beyond the numbers on a budget spreadsheet.
Employees told investigators they began worrying about the department’s future even before many positions were officially eliminated. Some resigned in anticipation of additional cuts. Others retired or sought employment elsewhere.
By the end of 2025, the Grand Jury reports that the department had lost at least 13 positions and employees through a combination of budget reductions, resignations, retirements, and frozen positions. More than a 40 percent reduction from its prior staffing level. That isn’t simply downsizing.
It’s a fundamental transformation.
The Cost of Losing Experience
Government departments depend on something that rarely appears in a budget document. Institutional knowledge.
Experienced employees know why ordinances were written a certain way. They know previous Board decisions, state regulations, who to call when unusual situations arise. When those employees leave, they take decades of experience with them.
The Grand Jury found remaining employees increasingly uncertain about exercising professional judgment, worried about making discretionary decisions without the experienced leadership that had previously supported them. Staff reported feeling they had less confidence in their authority as the department shrank.
Morale Matters
One of the report’s recurring themes is morale.
The Grand Jury interviewed current and former employees who described fear, uncertainty, and a feeling that the department had become a target.
Whether every employee shared that perception is impossible to know, but the Grand Jury concluded the sentiment was widespread enough to contribute to resignations, burnout, and difficulty recruiting qualified replacements.
The report also notes that the CDD wasn’t simply losing staff. It was struggling to replace them. Potential candidates reportedly found higher salaries in the private sector, while others were discouraged by the county’s public reputation as an employer. Multiple witnesses told the Grand Jury that prospective applicants often watched Board meetings before deciding whether to pursue executive positions in Tuolumne County.
The Public Feels It Too
For residents, these internal struggles aren’t just an employment issue. They’re a public service issue.
When planners, inspectors, permit technicians, and code compliance staff leave faster than they can be replaced, the consequences show up as longer waits, heavier workloads, and greater reliance on outside contractors. The county responded by using consultants, temporary assignments, and technology to keep services operating.
The Grand Jury acknowledged those efforts but concluded they could not fully replace the experience and continuity that had been lost.
Why This Matters
This report isn’t simply about staffing levels. It’s about capacity.
Can Tuolumne County review permits efficiently? Can it recruit qualified professionals? Can it enforce building codes consistently? Can it support economic development while protecting public safety?
The Grand Jury argues those questions became harder to answer after the events of 2025.
Whether readers agree with every conclusion is up to them. But one point is difficult to dispute: The Community Development Department experienced extraordinary change in a remarkably short period of time.
Next in this series
Part Three shifts from the department itself to one of the report’s most discussed subjects: the High School Road project, the county’s conflict-of-interest policy, and why the Grand Jury concluded they had broader implications for public trust.
