hasta ounty

Conclusions 9

• CL1
  City of Redding Resolution 2005–164, which created the Hilltop Hotel Business Improvement District (HHBID)
• CL2
  City of Redding Resolution 2008–56, which created the Tourism Marketing Business Improvement District (TMBID)
• CL3
  California Constitution Article 13c, section 2
• CL4
  Streets and Highways Code Sections 36600-36671
• CL5
  Copies of bills from three hotels and motels The Grand Jury interviewed the following:
• CL6
  Senior Deputy Shasta County Counsel
• CL7
  Member of Redding City Attorney’s Office
• CL8
  Two Hilltop Drive hotel owners via telephone
• CL9
  Three Hilltop Drive hotel/motel managers At times, a Grand Jury may embark on an inquiry or investigation only to find that the agency or operation is functioning properly. In these instances a full report may not be warranted, however, the information gathered may be beneficial to Shasta County residents. An abbreviated version of that information is presented. REU Reserve Fund Loans to the City of Redding The City of Redding’s Piggy Bank In 1972 the Redding Electric Utility (REU) was tapped by the Redding City Council, acting as the board of the Redevelopment Agency, to make an advance (loan) to the Agency’s Midtown Project Fund. The purpose for the $550,000 loan bearing three percent interest, on principal balance only, was to erect a parking structure for the new midtown mall (Promenade). Two year later an additional loan for $550,000, called the Parking Fund Loan, was made for the same purpose. The loan balances as of June 30, 2009, were $576,155 and $550,056, respectively. Some city officials reported that it is unlikely that these loans will ever be repaid. 17 In March 2004, the Redding City Council arranged a $1,500,000 loan from REU to the general fund for the purpose of buying a property outside the city’s sphere of influence. The stated intent was to preserve open space between Redding and Anderson and to present an appealing entry to the city. This parcel (the former Stratte property) is 82 acres west of I-5 and south of South Bonneyview Road. Eighty percent of the property is located in a one-hundred year flood plain. At the time of purchase only a “restricted” appraisal was obtained, meaning no formal appraisal was completed, only a willing buyer and a willing seller agreement. Escrow closed two weeks later in 2004, with interest payments deferred until the 2008- 09 fiscal year. In 2009, a $200,000 payment was made. The property was sold on March 2, 2010, for $1,575,000. The proceeds transferred to REU were $1,418,000, which according to city officials yielded a small profit. It is legal for the Redding City Council to authorize such advances of funds (loans) from the electric utility’s reserve fund to any city entity. (Proposition 218 precludes such loans from utilities other than gas and electric.) Currently, there is approximately $34,000,000 in the REU reserve fund. This is more than 20% of REU’s current operating budget of $140,000,000, which is the level the Redding City council has mandated as a minimum. Despite two consecutive annual rate increases (2009-2010) of 7.8%, the reserve fund is expected to drop due to the increased cost of purchased power. The Redding City council has latitude with the reserve fund and could use it as a big piggy bank, if so inclined. 18 CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMTTEE Overview: The Criminal Justice Committee begins their segment of this report with a review of Shasta County Law Enforcement Agencies’ policies and procedures on the “Use of Deadly Force.” The report is a little technical, providing information that is not normally read by the average citizen. This is followed with informational articles discussing the Grand Jury’s mandated visits. Shasta County Law Enforcement Agencies “Use of Deadly Force”

No Responses Found 1

Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.