📋
Extracted from Consolidated Report
This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings 8 findings
F1
Page 77
The City of Red Bluff does not employ a full-time City Manager, City Attorney and Community Development Director. Currently, the City has a combined City Manager/City Attorney position and uses a contracted Community Development Director who travels to Red Bluff twice a week from Chico, CA. Response to Finding F1: The City agrees with the finding. ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED: Yes
F2
Page 77
The City of Red Bluff’s 20-Year City General Plan is set to expire. The current plan includes an Economic Development Element that clearly conveys the challenges facing the City of Red Bluff. A new 20-year plan is currently in the process of being created and approved by the Red Bluff City Council. Response to Finding F2: The City agrees with the finding. ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED: Yes
F3
Page 77
The City of Red Bluff took the initiative to write a very good Economic Development Plan that was created and approved in April of 2002. Many of the goals, policies, and implementation measures are still relevant and continue to be issues in 2019. Response to Finding F3: The City agrees with the finding. ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED: Yes
F4
Page 77
Financial resources are a big challenge for Red Bluff. Development requirements pose a big challenge for developers planning to build within the city. The City’s infrastructure and public facilities lack ease when planning for new or expanding structures posing significant growth restrictions. Response to Finding F4: The City disagrees partially with the finding. It is correct that financial resources are always a challenge. The City disagrees that "Development requirements pose a big challenge for developers planning to build within the City." In fact, the City has sewer and water lines in place, with available capacity, located virtually everywhere within the City limits. The City has also extended lines outside the City limits in multiple locations in order to assist citizens in the County needing service and to accommodate future growth. The recent PJ Helicopter Expansion Project was unique as the property is located in a relatively remote location on airport property where further development was not originally anticipated nor planned. Fire Safety Codes required extension of a City water line to the site of the expanded operations. ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED: Yes
F5
Page 77
Economic development is not actively promoted, it is facilitated. There are no defined incentives for redevelopment and investment in Red Bluff. The City of Red Bluff Building and Planning Department may reduce or waive development fees, as approved by the City Council, however, considerations are made on a case-by-case basis as opposed to 2019-2020 Tehama County Grand Jury Final Report 76 following specific guidelines for granting financial relief if developments align with the City of Red Bluff’s specific growth objectives. Response to Finding F5: The City disagrees in part with the finding. The City has a "Fee Waiver Request Policy" which sets forth 8 Criteria to be considered by the City Council when evaluating a fee waiver request. The first Criteria asks, "Would the project in question be of general benefit to the residents of the City of Red Bluff?" The eighth Criteria calls for the application of "Other factors deemed relevant by the City Manager and Finance Director or the City Council." Thus, the evaluation Criteria may include economic considerations such as job creation, sales or TOT tax generated, etc. ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED: Yes
F6
Page 78
The City of Red Bluff does not consistently require individual or joint city developments involving improvements or changes to the city’s infrastructure or public facilities such as water, sewer, and solid waste facilities. They do not have a fully executed Business Development Agreement on file outlining terms, financial obligations and agreed upon deliverables. Response to Finding F6: The City disagrees with the Finding. The Finding erroneously assumes that the City may require property owners/developers to enter into development agreements (emphasis added). The City incorporates its response to Recommendation # 7 as if fully set forth herein. ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED: Yes
F7
Page 87
The budget and budget quarterly reports cannot be reconciled to each other without having the work papers or a schedule from the Auditor-Controller to know how amounts were accumulated. Response to Finding 7. To this point, the Auditor-Controller must respectfully disagree. ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED: Yes Response to Finding 7. The Board of Supervisors concur with the Grand Jury findings. ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED: Yes
F8
Page 87
The budget and financial statements cannot be reconciled to each other since categories and purposes for each are different. Response to Finding 8. The Auditor-Controller agrees with the statement in F8 that “the budget and financial statements cannot be reconciled to each other since the categories and purposes for each are different.” In fact, the accuracy of that statement formulates our response and our position that such a reconciliation is impractical. ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED: Yes Response to Finding 8. The Board of Supervisors concur with the Grand Jury findings. ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED: Yes 2019-2020 Tehama County Grand Jury Final Report 86
Recommendations 8
-
R1Page 78The Grand Jury recommends that the City of Red Bluff employs a full-time Community Development Director that actively pursues outside funding for community revitalization from local, state and federal funding sources by July 1, 2020. Response to Recommendation R1: The recommendation requires further analysis. The City is now into the 2019-2020 Budget year and this change was not considered in that Budget process. The proposed change to a full-time Community Development Director requires a thoughtful analysis regarding the cost, efficiency, ability to recruit and hire a qualified candidate, etc. This recommendation will be referred to the City's Budget Committee in early 2020 for a thorough evaluation. ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED: Yes
-
R2Page 78The Grand Jury recommends that the City of Red Bluff incorporate financial incentives tied to “individual positions compensation packages” in order to increase the vested interest in the community development and help to achieve long-term growth opportunities by July 1, 2020. Response to Recommendation: R2. The recommendation requires further analysis. It is not clear what is recommended, but the suggestion appears to promote compensation incentives for City employees who demonstrate an increased "vested interest in the Community 2019-2020 Tehama County Grand Jury Final Report 77 development and help to achieve long-term growth opportunities". The recommendation was not considered or evaluated during the budget process for the current budget year (2019/2020) and there are no funds budgeted for this purpose. Another issue is developing an objective measure of an employee's contributions to community development. Attracting new business is often the result of collaboration with several individuals and entities. This recommendation will be referred to the City's Budget Committee in early 2020 for evaluation. ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED: Yes
-
R3Page 79The Grand Jury recommends that the City of Red Bluff continue to include the Economic Development Element in the new 20-year General Plan by July 1, 2020. Input should come from as many stakeholders as possible, including the DRBBA and RBTCCC in the creation of the goals, policy, and implementation measures. Response to Recommendation R3: The recommendation has not yet been implemented but will be implemented in the future in conjunction with the City's General Plan update process. ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED: Yes
-
R4Page 79The Grand Jury recommends that the City Manager present to the Red Bluff City Council an annual progress report update of the City’s 20-Year General Plan beginning with the adoption of the new 20-Year General Plan. Progress reports beginning in July 1, 2020. Response to Recommendation R4: The recommendation has not yet been implemented but will be implemented in the future. Council progress reports will also be made in conjunction with the City's General Plan update process. ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED: Yes
-
R5Page 79The Grand Jury recommends that the City of Red Bluff determine their available financial resources to be used for infrastructure and public facilities that can support future growth by July 1, 2020. Response to Recommendation R5: This recommendation has been implemented. The Public Works Department and the Finance Department review financial resources available for infrastructure and public facilities during the annual budget process as well as multiple times during the current budget year. Periodic reports are made to Council. ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED: Yes
-
R6Page 79The Grand Jury recommends that the City of Red Bluff create specific guidelines for granting financial relief to proposed developments that align with the City’s specific growth objectives by July 1, 2020. Response to Recommendation R6: The recommendation has been implemented. As noted in the City's response to Finding F5, the Council has previous adopted a "Fee Waiver Request Policy" which sets forth eight (8) Criteria to be considered by the City Council when evaluating a fee waiver request. However, it may be time to update the criteria as the Council 2019-2020 Tehama County Grand Jury Final Report 78 may direct. The City Manager will present a draft revised Fee Waiver Policy for the Council to consider of this response. ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED: Yes
-
R7Page 80The Grand Jury recommends that the City of Red Bluff require all developments be under contract that will outline expectations and requirements in order to protect both the City’s and Developers’ vested interests, by December 31, 2019. Response to Recommendation R7: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or reasonable because the City cannot legally require property owners to sign a development agreement. A development agreement is a mutually agreed contract between a developer or property owner and the City. Once approved by the City and property owner, a development agreement governs the development of a specific portion of land or a project. (GOVC 65866) A development agreement is formed, and may be amended in whole or in part, by mutual consent of the parties, based on terms that are negotiated between the developer and the City. (GOV C 65868; City Code §25.246(A), § 25.251(G». Thus, a development agreement cannot be required by the City, a property owner cannot be compelled to sign, approve or consent to such an agreement. Pursuant to the City Code, "Any owner of real property may request and apply through the Planning Department to enter into a development agreement." (City Code §25.246(A) emphasis added.) The City is prepared to process applications for development agreements upon request. As required by the City Code, "The Planning Department shall receive, review, and process all applications for development agreements and prepare recommendations for Planning Commission and City Council consideration for all such applications." (City Code §25.246(B) emphasis added.) The City agrees that development agreements can be a useful tool in the process for obtaining/granting land use entitlements. As required by the City Code, the Planning Department processes all requests for development agreements. The City, however, cannot compel a property owner to agree to a development agreement or any specific terms thereof. ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED: Yes COUNTY GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE The State of Tehama County Elections Responses required from the Tehama County Clerk and Recorder (F1-F5, R1-R5) Invited responses from the California Secretary of State (SoS) (F1-F5, R1-R5)
-
R8Page 90It is recommended that the Auditor-Controller and external auditors produce a report reconciling budget reports and financial statements by August 1, 2019. Response to Recommendation R8: The purpose of the budget is to provide a spending plan for various operating funds, along with anticipated revenue estimates. The financial statements, on the other hand, reflect the financial condition of various components of the County. These two functions are practically not related. As stated again, in the Grand Jury Report on , under the Budget and Financial Statements section, last paragraph, last sentence "For these reasons, it is not possible to reconcile the financial statements to the budget." Additionally, the finding and recommendation are a little vague. It is not clear what, exactly, the Grand Jury is hoping to have 'reconciled'. Furthermore, any reconciliation is not within the scope of the current contract with the external auditors. We are open to further discussion on this point with the next Grand Jury. ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED: Yes Response to Recommendation R8: The Board of Supervisors agree with the Statement in F8 that "the budget and financial statements cannot be reconciled to each other since categories and purposes are different" and concurs with the response of the Auditor- Controller. Budget and financial statements cannot be reconciled due to the categories and purposes for each are different. County funds are not received in a consistent manner during the year which further supports the position the reconciliation is impractical. The budget provides a spending plan for the various operating funds along with anticipated revenue estimates. The financial statements reflect the financial condition of the various County components. ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED: Yes 2019-2020 Tehama County Grand Jury Final Report 89 CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMITTEE Tehama County Coroner’s Department Responses required from the Tehama County Sheriff - All Responses required from the Tehama County Board of Supervisors - All
Agency Responses 5
Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.