Office of the Assessor-recorder Numbers and Manners Count Office of the Assessor-Recorder Administration Building,

Commendations 59

• CM1
  and Recommendation 3 (a). 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 CONSOLIDATION/UNIFICATION OF SHASTA COUNTY SCHOOLS Is Bigger Always Better? Shasta County Office of Education 1644 Magnolia Street Redding, CA 96001 REASON FOR INQUIRY: 530.225.0200 Section 933.5 of the California Penal Code provides that the Grand Jury may investigate and report on the operations of any special-purpose assessing or taxing district located wholly or partly within the county. The Grand Jury received a request to investigate the feasibility of combining Shasta County school districts. BACKGROUND: School districts may exist independently or may be combined into either of two arrangements: consolidation or unification. Consolidation is the combining of two or more elementary or high school districts with adjoining borders to form a single district. Unification is the joining together of all, or part of, an elementary school district (grades K-8) with a high school district (grades 9-12) to form a new district encompassing grades K-12. Both consolidated and unified districts have single governing boards. . School districts in California operate with their own governing boards and appointed superintendents. Each district incurs costs for salaries, retirement contributions and insurance benefits for employees. Most districts pay trustees for board meeting attendance. Some also pay trustees’ retirement and insurance benefits, association memberships, and conference attendance costs. The Shasta County Office of Education (SCOE) is, in effect, a service organization that acts as an intermediary between local school districts and the California State Department of Education. With regard to local school districts, SCOE is more administrative 279 than educational in that it offers limited curricular support to the districts. SCOE also ensures that each district operates in a financially responsible manner and that all required State report deadlines are met. SCOE receives operating funds from the State for all of the public school districts in Shasta County. The amount SCOE receives is based on the Average Daily Attendance (ADA) of each school district in the County. ADA is a state-adopted formula used to determine per student revenue. ADA funding provides most of the revenue for local school districts, and is disbursed by SCOE to each district at pre-set times throughout the year. For each public school student the 2005/2006 ADA formula provides $5,059 for elementary districts, $6,294 for high school districts, and $5,917 for unified districts. School enrollment is declining, both locally and statewide. Therefore, ADA financing for local school operations is also declining. METHOD OF INQUIRY: The Grand Jury reviewed the following documents: • Shasta County Board of Education web-site, www.shastacoe.org. • California State Master Plan for Education, 2002 • Declining Enrollment in California, Fall 2003, California County Superintendents of Educational Services Association • Fingertip Facts on Education in Shasta County, 2005/06, Shasta County Office of Education • Shasta County School Districts’ 2005/2006 School Year Schedule, Shasta County Office of Education 280 • School Administration – Is the Cost Too High? Report by the 2004 Marin County Grand Jury The Grand Jury conducted the following interviews: • Sixteen private citizens • Shasta County Registrar of Voters • Two elementary school board members • A high school superintendent • An elementary school superintendent • A high school principal FINDINGS 1. In Shasta County there are 25 elementary, high school and unified public school districts: • Elementary districts 21 • High school districts 2 • Unified districts 2 2. These 25 districts are comprised of 69 schools: • Elementary schools 32 • Middle/Junior high schools 9 • High schools 8 • Charter schools 14 • Continuation high schools 5 • Regional occupational school 1 3. Total enrollment in Shasta County public schools in 2005/2006 is 27,274: • Kindergarten-Grade 3 5,907 281 • Grades 4-6 6,449 • Grades 7-8 4,656 • Grades 9-12 10,145 • Alternative schools 67 4. The enrollment figures for Shasta County schools show a loss of 3,021 students (10%) from 2001/2002 to 2002/2003. Between the years 2000/2001 and 2005/2006 private school enrollment also declined, from 2,812 to 2,447, or 365 students (13%). 5. According to school officials, reasons for declining enrollment include: • Reduction in family size due to advancements in birth control. During the past ten years the average number of children per family declined from 2.5 to 1.5. • Lack of affordable housing for families with children. During the past five years the average cost of a home in Shasta County increased from $174,500 in the year 2000 to $315,049 in 2005. • Loss of employment opportunities in the forestry and agriculture industries, which has caused young families to leave the area and reduced the influx of young families into the county. 6. The decline in enrollment during the past three years resulted in a reduction in ADA revenue to Shasta County school districts in excess of $15 million. The effects of diminished ADA revenue include elimination or reduction of: • extracurricular activities including athletic, drama, art, and music programs • remedial programs • programs for high-functioning students • classroom aide positions 282 • school nurse and psychological service positions • staff development opportunities 7. School district calendars vary significantly. For example, there are six different school year opening dates, five different winter and spring breaks, and five different closing dates. This can adversely impact schedules for families with children enrolled in more than one district. Unification or consolidation could minimize this impact. 8. Costs of school board elections in Shasta County depend on the number of board vacancies. For example, in 2003 this cost was $149,670. A cost saving would be realized by reducing the total number of board members through consolidation/unification. 9. A local elementary school administrator reported that eight eastern Shasta County elementary school districts recently joined forces for state-mandated training. This example of cooperation, sometimes called a consortium, resulted in a combined savings of $56,000 to the districts. 10. Unification and consolidation have additional positives and negatives. A significant issue is the loss of component district independence and autonomy. School officials report some parents perceive that unification or consolidation diminishes the quality of education. Other factors cited include a less responsive school board; decreased parental involvement; and increased class size. However, coordination of the curriculum throughout a unified district could ensure that students receive the same educational opportunities no matter which school they attend. Unification would permit a seamless transfer of students between schools within the district. Increased 283 opportunities for extracurricular activities such as athletic programs, drama, arts and music might also be realized. 11. Supporters of unification/consolidation claim that costs would be reduced due to a reduction in the number of school administrators. Also, district support services can be combined to realize savings. However, a 2004 Marin County study concluded that unification in that county would result in an overall saving of only 3%, and that any administrative savings would be offset by other costs of unification such as making all salaries uniform at the highest rate. The study concludes that, “While the likelihood of significant savings from district reorganization is questionable and the hurdles to achievement are high, understanding how individual district funds are used seems to be the best way to ensure that education monies are used effectively.”
• CM2
  The total FY 2005/2006 budget for the Crystal Creek Regional Boy’s Camp is $1.7 million of which $1.2 million is allocated to salaries and benefits
• CM3
  The average cost per cadet at the camp is $2,280 per month compared to foster home care cost of $4,800 to $6,300 per month.
• CM4
  One hundred and eighty-two boys participated in the Crystal Creek Camp program in FY 2004/2005.
• CM5
  In 2005, the cadets performed 10,116 hours of community service work for public agencies throughout Shasta County.
• CM6
  The Grand Jury observed that the kitchen/dining hall, barracks, workshops and campgrounds were clean, and well maintained and organized. During a classroom tour, several cadets demonstrated their computer skills and briefed the Grand Jury about their classroom activities. The cadets have the opportunity of 54 obtaining their General Education Diploma. During the Grand Jury visit, the cadets were polite, courteous and considerate at all times.
• CM7
  It appears that the Camp Director and staff are committed, dedicated and loyal to the cadets and to the camp program.
• CM8
  In most instances, funding needed to begin a redevelopment project is generated by issuing tax allocation bonds. These are repaid using the property tax increment revenue described above (Finding #3). Repayment of these bonds is the responsibility of the RDA, not its sponsoring city or county. However, because the credit-worthiness of these bonds is critical to any city’s or county’s overall credit rating, it is highly unlikely a city or county would let a redevelopment bond default. Indeed, RRA staffers and each Redding City Council member interviewed by the Grand Jury indicated that the City of Redding would never permit any RRA bond default. City officials told the Grand Jury that the City, on two occasions, saved the downtown redevelopment project area from default. In 1972, the Redding City Council authorized a $550,000 loan from its Electric Utility Fund to the RRA for the construction of the mall parking garage in its Downtown project area. Currently, the outstanding loan balance is $539,183, which includes principle of $308,105 and interest of $231,078. Also, during the 1970s, the City made an “advance” (not a loan) of an indeterminate amount of money 66 from its Parking Fund to the RRA to support construction of the garage. During FY 2004/2005, the RRA made a $250,000 payment on this advance, and the outstanding balance is $734,162.
• CM9
  Redevelopment funding is approved by a simple majority vote of the five-member RRA board which also serves as Redding’s City Council. No vote of the public is required to authorize the issuance of tax allocation bonds. The RRA board (City Council) is the sole check-and-balance over redevelopment decision-making and the commitment of tens of millions of dollars of redevelopment spending. Newly elected City Council members receive redevelopment orientation by RRA staff. They are also offered an opportunity to attend a formal training seminar provided by the California Redevelopment Association. RRA staff stated that none of the current City Council members have availed themselves of this opportunity. The City Council/RRA board members who were interviewed rated themselves between “somewhat” and “very” knowledgeable regarding redevelopment law and policy. However, they agreed they depend heavily on RRA staff for input and explanations of pending RRA decisions. The four RRA board members were asked seven basic questions regarding redevelopment. Only one scored greater than 30 percent, and another was able to answer only one of the seven questions correctly. Only three votes (a board majority) are required to commit millions of future tax dollars for decades of debt service. The California Community Redevelopment Law Reform Act of 1993 (AB1290) removed the requirement of citizen oversight committees for redevelopment project areas. When queried about reinstating this citizen safeguard, RRA staff unanimously opposed reinstating it and the RRA board agreed, stating that citizen committees are ineffective. Instead, City Council members stated elections are a 67 sufficient curb on redevelopment abuses. (The Grand Jury notes that two of the current five RRA board members were not actually elected to the Council, but were appointed by the other members.) Additionally, Redding city officials stated that they believe input from the city attorney, yearly agency audits, and the periodic public review of project area implementation plans provide adequate RRA oversight. Because of the significant amount and complexity of funding ($50 million), the Grand Jury is concerned that this is not adequate oversight and that this “unknown government” operates beneath the radar screen of public scrutiny.
• CM10
  As stated in the above findings, the RRA board is comprised of the same individuals who serve as Redding City Council members. These individuals are also board members of the Redding Housing Authority, Redding Joint Powers Financing Authority, and Redding Capital Services Corporation. These agencies control the flow of significant amounts of money and the Grand Jury is concerned that City Council members “wear too many hats” while performing these agencies’ various functions. Indeed, at the October 18, 2005 Council meeting, the Grand Jury observed that all council members were unaware they were directors of the Redding Capital Services Corporation. The RRA board meetings are often held concurrently and interchangeably with City Council meetings. And, although the City Council shares similar interests with its redevelopment agency, potential conflicts may arise because each agency has different legal powers, responsibilities and functions. However, this does not represent a true, legal, “conflict of interest” because the board members do not directly benefit financially from their decisions. Nevertheless, these multiple roles afford city leaders a mechanism to bypass procedural hurdles that can impede costly projects from moving forward. For example, 68 the City Council can exercise eminent domain only for public use and must gain voter approval to issue general obligation bonds. However, acting as the RRA board, the City Council members can create a redevelopment zone (or annex land into an existing zone) and then employ eminent domain for public or private use, or issue bonds without voter approval. A proposed auto mall and a business park are excellent examples of expensive projects unlikely to garner voter approval for financing, but readily accomplished with the aid of the city’s multiple financing mechanisms. At the October 18, 2005, City Council meeting the City signed a letter of intent to partner with its RRA and a private entity to begin development of an auto mall on State Route 44. Similarly, over $16 million from the city’s Capital Services Corporation and $10 million from the RRA have been proposed by City staff to support infrastructure improvements for the Stillwater Business Park.
• CM11
  After a declaration of blight, eminent domain law allows RDA’s to acquire private land and/or property within a redevelopment project area. Blight is broadly defined by statute. It is usually categorized as physical, such as a dilapidated or unsafe building or structure, but may also be socio-economic, such as a stagnant area with low property values or a high crime rate. Even vacant, undeveloped land can be designated blighted, usually on an economic basis. All redevelopment staff interviewed by the Grand Jury agreed that vacant land might fit the definition of blight. Although most RRA staff members considered the undeveloped areas of Park Marina blighted, each of the four RRA board members interviewed did not. The vague, legal definition of economic blight can even be applied to Redding’s recently completed City Hall – if replaced by a shopping mall, the 69 property and sales tax generated could be of greater economic benefit to the city than the current, non-taxable building. Recently, California state legislators from this area co-sponsored two constitutional amendments that would further restrict the use of eminent domain. While the Shasta County Board of Supervisors unanimously supported both proposals, the RDA staffs of Anderson, Redding and Shasta Lake City, and all RRA board members interviewed by the Grand Jury opposed the amendments. This difference in opinion is possibly explained by the significant funding ($50 million) the cities have invested in redevelopment.
• CM12
  Usually RDA’s are able to negotiate real property purchases from private property owners by offering “just compensation” for their property. Often, simply the threat of eminent domain proceedings is sufficient to convince reluctant property owners to negotiate. All those interviewed recognized the unpopularity of eminent domain and preferred to avoid it. Although used rarely, the RRA has resorted to eminent domain to seize private property in the past. Examples include: o The Dana Drive freeway ramp o Completion of the Court Street extension north to the Sacramento River The Park Marina Drive area along the Sacramento River has a huge potential impact on Redding’s future downtown development. This area is situated between RRA’s Market Street and Canby-Hilltop-Cypress project areas. There has been a spirited and sometimes contentious debate as to exactly how and when this privately owned property should be developed. The Grand Jury has learned that City of Redding staff has recently discussed the possible use of eminent domain proceedings if development of this property is indefinitely delayed. However, four members of the RRA board assured the 70 Grand Jury that the City currently has no plans to either incorporate Park Marina into a redevelopment project area or utilize eminent domain to acquire this property. The four RRA board members interviewed also stated they would not apply eminent domain proceedings to the Parkview Market, but some were less certain about using eminent domain for the Stillwater Business Park. All Grand Jury interviewees expressed reluctance regarding the use of eminent domain, and some pledged never to utilize it. In some jurisdictions, however, it appears eminent domain becomes more acceptable when large amounts of money are involved. The mayor of Dunsmuir in Siskiyou County was quoted as saying, “I’m the guy who came on council and said, ‘I have a problem with eminent domain’ and I do.” However, he subsequently reversed his position when the city stood to forfeit a $140,000 federal grant and in March 2006, The Dunsmuir City Council decided to implement eminent domain to seize private property around its airport.
• CM13
  California redevelopment law limits the amount of vacant land within a redevelopment area to 20 percent. However, there is no limit to how much of a city’s developed land can be placed into redevelopment zones. The law also requires a determination be made that only a redevelopment agency, and not private development, can revitalize a blighted area, but the law does not specify any objective standards for this determination. Therefore, a RDA board has autonomy in making this determination. In the past 10 years, the amount of land within RRA’s project areas has more than doubled. Twenty-five percent, or 15.34 square miles, of Redding’s total geographic area is now located within redevelopment project zones. The City Council, acting as the RRA board, designated this land as blighted and determined that only redevelopment could 71 revitalize it. Obviously, as more land is placed into redevelopment areas, less land will be available for private development not specified in the project plan.
• CM14
  This Grand Jury’s review of Shasta County RDA’s did not reveal any illegalities. It has, however, made us acutely aware of the large sums of money involved with redevelopment and the potential for abuses to occur without proper scrutiny. The total bonded indebtedness of the RRA is approaching 10 percent of the City of Redding’s total assets (estimated at $500 million) and one quarter of the city is now included within redevelopment areas. A highly professional staff with sophisticated knowledge of redevelopment law and policy manages the RRA. It has successfully utilized this funding tool to make many infrastructure improvements, develop capital projects, and provide economic recovery and affordable housing. In most instances, areas designated as “blighted” have been improved. We applaud the RRA’s efforts, but at the same time, we encourage increased public scrutiny and transparency to ensure that abuses do not occur.
• CM15
  During its last ISO evaluation in 2004, the ISO indicated the City of Redding’s fire rating would be changed from 3 to 4 (that is, the City’s ability to combat fire worsened). In a last minute effort to maintain its prior rating, the RFD was able to make improvements by purchasing additional equipment and upgrading communication equipment at the SHASCOM dispatch center. These actions allowed the City to narrowly retain its rating of 3 and prevented both commercial and residential fire premiums from rising. According to the Fire Chief, two major deficiencies continue to prevent the City from improving its ISO rating: insufficient RFD staffing levels and the lack of a second ladder truck to serve the eastern half of the City. 45 143
• CM16
  Rank and file support for RFD administration is negligible. Some fire personnel view RFD administrators and the City Council and its staff as “the same enemy.” Several fire personnel thought their union did not represent all members, and others believe being active in the union limits their ability for promotion. A long-standing “history of distrust” between the fire department and the City of Redding regarding staffing levels was reported. Several RFD administrators labeled a few of the firefighters as troublemakers (the “five percenters”) who create dissension within the ranks. The Grand Jury confirmed the existence of such a group. Some City Council members felt the union “goes overboard in its demands.” It was apparent to the Grand Jury that there were significant issues between all investigated public agency personnel (RFD, SHASCOM, Redding Police Department and Shasta County Sheriff’s Office) and their respective management staffs and governing boards. No interviewee could offer an easy resolution to the above problems. Despite this seemingly insurmountable degree of distrust, firefighters overall felt satisfied with their jobs and City Council members felt satisfied with the level of RFD service. It was universally agreed that, “when the bay doors open, they become firefighters who do their job.”
• CM17
  The end result of RFD understaffing is a greater risk to citizen’s lives and homes. The Grand Jury finds that, at current staffing levels, when the RFD responds to a structure fire, its main objective, after the protection of human life, is the prevention of the fire’s spread to adjacent structures. In most cases the burning structure itself will incur significant damage or be a total loss. Fire department personnel and City staff substantiated that Redding’s ex-city manager stated he would rather pay a homeowner for the loss of a home from fire than have any fire department at all. Perhaps this statement shouldn’t be taken literally as the Grand 46 144 Jury notes that, without a fire department, not only would a home be lost, but the unchecked fire would immediately spread to adjacent homes. However, the statement further emphasizes the distrust between firefighters and City Hall. Of greater concern to the Grand Jury are statements, heard from all fire personnel interviewed, predicting the inevitability that a devastating wildland fire sweeping through western Redding. All fire personnel agreed that it is not a matter of if, but when this catastrophe will occur. The topography of the west side, our hot and dry summers, and a triggering act (natural or human carelessness) are the ingredients of a “perfect storm” for fire. When queried about this potential danger, City Council members pointed to mutual aid agreements with CDF and Shasta County Fire Department; seasonal firefighters; fire sprinklers in new Westside housing divisions; and weed abatement programs, all as mitigating factors for this catastrophe. However, all fire personnel assured the Grand Jury that these factors would have little impact on an out-of-control wildland fire.
• CM18
  Fire protection services in Redding could be enhanced if the general public applied sufficient pressure on the City Council. As an example, once residents in the northeast area of Redding became convinced of a need for increased fire protection, they lobbied the City Council and Station No. 8 was constructed well ahead of schedule. There are other examples of pressure producing results. As this Grand Jury investigation proceeded: 1) Fire Station No. 2, which had been observed by Grand Jurors to be frequently unoccupied, now is usually occupied. 2) The Fire Chief, when informed by the Grand Jury that it was in his job description to do so, now regularly attends Redding City Council meetings. 47 145 3) A RFD training log for 2005 was submitted to the Grand Jury after it was informed that there was no such log. RFD training has also intensified during the last four months. 4) After initial Grand Jury interviews called attention to communication deficiencies within the Department, morning briefings between RFD administrators and firefighters were instituted in January. Fire protection is similar to an insurance policy: the premiums seem costly upfront, but the coverage is always appreciated once an emergency occurs. The citizens of Redding must decide what level of fire protection they want to pay for, and then lobby City Council members to allocate the appropriate funds.
• CM19
  Despite its staffing and facility deficiencies, RPD continues to provide a high level of safety and security to the community. The Department works to develop proactive programs that continue to enhance the well-being of the community. Notably, the lack of significant gang activity is attributable to the aggressive actions of RPD in collaboration with other law enforcement agencies within Shasta County.
• CM20
  Due to allegations of excessive use of force in other jurisdictions, RPD has provided additional training in this area. RPD officers began a study in October 2005 regarding the use of force during contacts with the public. It revealed that force over and above control holds was used in only 18 of 1,742 arrests during the last quarter of 2005, and in only 17 in 2,500 arrests in the first quarter of 2006. This demonstrates maturity and restraint in dangerous situations.
• CM21
  utilize RDA’s as a major source of employment, income and tax revenue. RDA’s were not conceived to publicly fund property development entities just for the sake of development, or for the purpose of generating additional tax revenues for the sponsoring city or county. The primary goal has always been the elimination of blight within a specific area; indeed, once blight has been eliminated, the law provides for the closure of the RDA (although this rarely occurs). Some efforts to eradicate blight have produced successful examples of economic revitalization, infrastructure enhancement and city beautification. On the other hand, RDA’s 60 can incur excessive administrative costs, compete with private sector services rather than eliminating real blight, and can actually reduce the number of affordable (low and moderate income) housing units. METHOD OF INQUIRY: The Grand Jury reviewed the following documents: • California Community Redevelopment Law and Statutes Referenced Therein (2005) – Kane, Ballmer & Berkman, Los Angeles, CA • Redevelopment: The Unknown Government (2004) - published by Municipal Officials for Redevelopment Reform, Fullerton, CA • Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (2002,2003,2004,2005) – Redding Redevelopment Agency • Audited Financial Statements (2004), (2005) – City of Shasta Lake Redevelopment Agency • Downtown Redding Specific Plan (2005) - City of Redding • Canby-Hilltop-Cypress Redevelopment Project Area Five-Year Implementation Plan 2005-2009 (2005) – Redding Redevelopment Agency • Market Street Redevelopment Project Area Five-Year Implementation Plan (2005) – Redding Redevelopment Agency • Buckeye Redevelopment Project Area Five-Year Implementation Plan 2005-2009 (2005) – Redding Redevelopment Agency, Shasta County Redevelopment Agency • Implementation Plan for the Shastec Redevelopment Project 2001-2006 (2001) – Redding Redevelopment Agency, Shasta County Redevelopment Agency, Anderson Redevelopment Agency 61 • Amended Five-Year Implementation Plan for the Shasta Dam Area Redevelopment Project 2005-2009-City of Shasta Lake Redevelopment Agency • Sections 33030-33039, 33390-33399, 33485-33489 of the California Health and Safety Code The Grand Jury conducted the following interviews: • City of Redding Redevelopment Director • City of Shasta Lake Redevelopment Director • Shasta County Redevelopment Director • City of Anderson City Manager • Three Senior Redevelopment Project Coordinators, City of Redding • City of Redding Finance Director • City of Redding, Deputy City Manager • City of Redding, Assistant City Manager • Four City of Redding Council Members • Chairman, Redding Area Chamber of Commerce • Chairman, Shasta Builder’s Exchange • Five members of the Shasta County Board of Supervisors The Grand Jury attended the following meetings: • All regularly scheduled and special meetings of the Redding City Council from July, 2005` through June 30, 2006 • Redding Redevelopment Agency meetings on September 6, 2005, October 18, 2005, November 15, 2005, February 21, 2006, and April 4, 2006 • California Assemblyman Doug LaMalfa Town Meeting on November 1, 2005 • California Senator Sam Aanestead Town Meeting on February 23, 2006 62 The Grand Jury accessed the following websites: 1. California Redevelopment Association www.calredevelop.org. 2. City of Redding www.ci.redding.cal.us. 3. City of Anderson www.ci.anderson.cal.us 4. City of Shasta Lake www.ci.shasta-lake.cal.us. 5. County of Shasta www.co.shasta.cal.us. FINDINGS: 1. The Cities of Anderson, Shasta Lake and Redding and the County of Shasta currently operate RDA’s. In total there are six redevelopment project areas in the county: Shasta Dam (Shasta Lake City); Southwest (Anderson); and Market Street, Canby-Hilltop- Cypress, Buckeye and Shastec (Redding). In 1993, section 33216.5 of the California Health and Safety Code was enacted and authorized the transfer of the Shasta Dam Area Redevelopment Project from Shasta County to the City of Shasta Lake. The City of Anderson and Shasta County cooperate with the Redding RDA as a multi-jurisdictional agency in the Shastec Project Area. The County also partners with the City of Redding in controlling the Buckeye Project Area. Currently, these partnerships generate no income for Shasta County. As of June 2004, the total indebtedness for all RDA’s in Shasta County approached $50 million, with the City of Redding’s Redevelopment Agency (RRA) issuing more than 90 percent of that debt. 2. Table I shows financial data which demonstrates the significant growth of the RRA over the past decade. Both the property tax increment and the administrative cost to run the agency have nearly tripled since 1995 and total agency bond indebtedness has ballooned 63 to over $40 million. The 2004/2005 total assessed property value of the RRA project areas was $1.75 billion. Table 1: Economic data for the Redding Redevelopment Agency 1995-1996 2001-2002 2004-2005 Tax Increment Income $3,714,000 $5,591,000 $11,720,000 Total Bond Debt $25,200,000 $22,550,000 $41,425,000 Administrative Costs $428,000 $1,208,000 $1,477,000 3. The 2005 RRA tax increment income of $11.7 million represents the amount of money (less set asides and pass-through funds) that must, by law, be reinvested in the redevelopment project areas within RRA, or debt service. This tax increment results from increased value, usually created by the redevelopment. Critics of redevelopment have claimed that the tax increment diversion deprives a city’s general fund of needed cash. It is true that increases in property taxes from outside the project area are deposited directly into the General Fund, but the City retains only about 10 percent of these property tax dollars (due to the 90 percent diversion to the state and county). In contrast, the RDA receives approximately 60 percent of each tax increment dollar and only 40 percent is diverted to the state and county. Additionally, a commercially successful project area, like the Canby-Hilltop-Cypress development, also generates significant sales tax revenue for the City. Proponents of RDA’s further argue that, without redevelopment, blighted areas may generate little, if any, future property tax revenue. Redding City officials interviewed agreed that the Downtown Mall is an example of a redevelopment project area that actually resulted in blight while attempting to reverse it. The mall’s high vacancy rate, lack of economic productivity, and deteriorating physical structure are prime components of blight. Instead of accepting a redevelopment failure 64 and terminating this project, the RRA board decided, in 1990, to rename and expand this zone from its initial 10 acres to over 2600 acres. This decision has stimulated revitalization of the City’s core. 4. Redevelopment agencies commonly allocate 10 to 20 percent of their income for administrative costs, primarily staff salaries. In 2005, the RRA spent nearly $1.5 million on administrative costs, which was 16 percent of the tax increment after set-asides and pass-throughs are deducted. The RRA contributes $4,000 annually to the California Redevelopment Association. Although the RRA has a dedicated core staff, the total number of city staff supported by agency funding at any time fluctuates. Employees of various city departments track their hours devoted to RRA business and the agency is charged accordingly. For example, the Executive Redevelopment Director for the City of Redding draws half his salary from redevelopment funds. Redevelopment funding affords the City of Redding a means of creating staff positions not entirely devoted to redevelopment functions. City officials could not supply the Grand Jury with a formal accounting of job-sharing costs between agency and non-agency staff. 5. The RRA is required, by law, to pass-through some of its incremental property tax revenues to local schools and community colleges. This amount was $782,553 for 2004/2005 and is estimated to be $811,961 for 2005/2006. After housing, pass-through and administrative funds are deducted, the remaining revenue is reinvested in the redevelopment project areas. The RRA has adopted a Capital Improvements Program (CIP) to spend in excess of $20 million over the next five years. Some CIP funding is dedicated to the partial removal of the roof on the Downtown Mall. The remainder of the CIP funds will be invested throughout the city’s four project areas. In addition to CIP 65 spending, the RRA will contribute $3 million towards the Cypress Avenue bridge replacement and $5.2 million for the widening and realignment of Churn Creek Road. 6. The RRA must, by law, set aside 20 percent of its tax increment to preserve and improve low- and moderate-income housing. This currently amounts to $1.4 million per year. The housing fund has a current balance of $4 - 5 million. In the past, over $8 million in RRA funding has been appropriated to provide affordable housing in the Martin Luther King area. According to its Director, the RRA is exceeding its five-year goal for affordable housing. The RRA added over 100 housing units (predominantly rental) in 2004/2005. The RRA board also proposed changes to its Downpayment Assistance Program (DAP) which will make it easier for low-income citizens to purchase a home. 7. In most instances, funding needed to begin a redevelopment project is generated by issuing tax allocation bonds. These are repaid using the property tax increment revenue described above (Finding #3). Repayment of these bonds is the responsibility of the RDA, not its sponsoring city or county. However, because the credit-worthiness of these bonds is critical to any city’s or county’s overall credit rating, it is highly unlikely a city or county would let a redevelopment bond default. Indeed, RRA staffers and each Redding City Council member interviewed by the Grand Jury indicated that the City of Redding would never permit any RRA bond default. City officials told the Grand Jury that the City, on two occasions, saved the downtown redevelopment project area from default. In 1972, the Redding City Council authorized a $550,000 loan from its Electric Utility Fund to the RRA for the construction of the mall parking garage in its Downtown project area. Currently, the outstanding loan balance is $539,183, which includes principle of $308,105 and interest of $231,078. Also, during the 1970s, the City made an “advance” (not a loan) of an indeterminate amount of money 66 from its Parking Fund to the RRA to support construction of the garage. During FY 2004/2005, the RRA made a $250,000 payment on this advance, and the outstanding balance is $734,162. 8. Redevelopment funding is approved by a simple majority vote of the five-member RRA board which also serves as Redding’s City Council. No vote of the public is required to authorize the issuance of tax allocation bonds. The RRA board (City Council) is the sole check-and-balance over redevelopment decision-making and the commitment of tens of millions of dollars of redevelopment spending. Newly elected City Council members receive redevelopment orientation by RRA staff. They are also offered an opportunity to attend a formal training seminar provided by the California Redevelopment Association. RRA staff stated that none of the current City Council members have availed themselves of this opportunity. The City Council/RRA board members who were interviewed rated themselves between “somewhat” and “very” knowledgeable regarding redevelopment law and policy. However, they agreed they depend heavily on RRA staff for input and explanations of pending RRA decisions. The four RRA board members were asked seven basic questions regarding redevelopment. Only one scored greater than 30 percent, and another was able to answer only one of the seven questions correctly. Only three votes (a board majority) are required to commit millions of future tax dollars for decades of debt service. The California Community Redevelopment Law Reform Act of 1993 (AB1290) removed the requirement of citizen oversight committees for redevelopment project areas. When queried about reinstating this citizen safeguard, RRA staff unanimously opposed reinstating it and the RRA board agreed, stating that citizen committees are ineffective. Instead, City Council members stated elections are a 67 sufficient curb on redevelopment abuses. (The Grand Jury notes that two of the current five RRA board members were not actually elected to the Council, but were appointed by the other members.) Additionally, Redding city officials stated that they believe input from the city attorney, yearly agency audits, and the periodic public review of project area implementation plans provide adequate RRA oversight. Because of the significant amount and complexity of funding ($50 million), the Grand Jury is concerned that this is not adequate oversight and that this “unknown government” operates beneath the radar screen of public scrutiny. 9. As stated in the above findings, the RRA board is comprised of the same individuals who serve as Redding City Council members. These individuals are also board members of the Redding Housing Authority, Redding Joint Powers Financing Authority, and Redding Capital Services Corporation. These agencies control the flow of significant amounts of money and the Grand Jury is concerned that City Council members “wear too many hats” while performing these agencies’ various functions. Indeed, at the October 18, 2005 Council meeting, the Grand Jury observed that all council members were unaware they were directors of the Redding Capital Services Corporation. The RRA board meetings are often held concurrently and interchangeably with City Council meetings. And, although the City Council shares similar interests with its redevelopment agency, potential conflicts may arise because each agency has different legal powers, responsibilities and functions. However, this does not represent a true, legal, “conflict of interest” because the board members do not directly benefit financially from their decisions. Nevertheless, these multiple roles afford city leaders a mechanism to bypass procedural hurdles that can impede costly projects from moving forward. For example, 68 the City Council can exercise eminent domain only for public use and must gain voter approval to issue general obligation bonds. However, acting as the RRA board, the City Council members can create a redevelopment zone (or annex land into an existing zone) and then employ eminent domain for public or private use, or issue bonds without voter approval. A proposed auto mall and a business park are excellent examples of expensive projects unlikely to garner voter approval for financing, but readily accomplished with the aid of the city’s multiple financing mechanisms. At the October 18, 2005, City Council meeting the City signed a letter of intent to partner with its RRA and a private entity to begin development of an auto mall on State Route 44. Similarly, over $16 million from the city’s Capital Services Corporation and $10 million from the RRA have been proposed by City staff to support infrastructure improvements for the Stillwater Business Park. 10. After a declaration of blight, eminent domain law allows RDA’s to acquire private land and/or property within a redevelopment project area. Blight is broadly defined by statute. It is usually categorized as physical, such as a dilapidated or unsafe building or structure, but may also be socio-economic, such as a stagnant area with low property values or a high crime rate. Even vacant, undeveloped land can be designated blighted, usually on an economic basis. All redevelopment staff interviewed by the Grand Jury agreed that vacant land might fit the definition of blight. Although most RRA staff members considered the undeveloped areas of Park Marina blighted, each of the four RRA board members interviewed did not. The vague, legal definition of economic blight can even be applied to Redding’s recently completed City Hall – if replaced by a shopping mall, the 69 property and sales tax generated could be of greater economic benefit to the city than the current, non-taxable building. Recently, California state legislators from this area co-sponsored two constitutional amendments that would further restrict the use of eminent domain. While the Shasta County Board of Supervisors unanimously supported both proposals, the RDA staffs of Anderson, Redding and Shasta Lake City, and all RRA board members interviewed by the Grand Jury opposed the amendments. This difference in opinion is possibly explained by the significant funding ($50 million) the cities have invested in redevelopment. 11. Usually RDA’s are able to negotiate real property purchases from private property owners by offering “just compensation” for their property. Often, simply the threat of eminent domain proceedings is sufficient to convince reluctant property owners to negotiate. All those interviewed recognized the unpopularity of eminent domain and preferred to avoid it. Although used rarely, the RRA has resorted to eminent domain to seize private property in the past. Examples include: o The Dana Drive freeway ramp o Completion of the Court Street extension north to the Sacramento River The Park Marina Drive area along the Sacramento River has a huge potential impact on Redding’s future downtown development. This area is situated between RRA’s Market Street and Canby-Hilltop-Cypress project areas. There has been a spirited and sometimes contentious debate as to exactly how and when this privately owned property should be developed. The Grand Jury has learned that City of Redding staff has recently discussed the possible use of eminent domain proceedings if development of this property is indefinitely delayed. However, four members of the RRA board assured the 70 Grand Jury that the City currently has no plans to either incorporate Park Marina into a redevelopment project area or utilize eminent domain to acquire this property. The four RRA board members interviewed also stated they would not apply eminent domain proceedings to the Parkview Market, but some were less certain about using eminent domain for the Stillwater Business Park. All Grand Jury interviewees expressed reluctance regarding the use of eminent domain, and some pledged never to utilize it. In some jurisdictions, however, it appears eminent domain becomes more acceptable when large amounts of money are involved. The mayor of Dunsmuir in Siskiyou County was quoted as saying, “I’m the guy who came on council and said, ‘I have a problem with eminent domain’ and I do.” However, he subsequently reversed his position when the city stood to forfeit a $140,000 federal grant and in March 2006, The Dunsmuir City Council decided to implement eminent domain to seize private property around its airport. 12. California redevelopment law limits the amount of vacant land within a redevelopment area to 20 percent. However, there is no limit to how much of a city’s developed land can be placed into redevelopment zones. The law also requires a determination be made that only a redevelopment agency, and not private development, can revitalize a blighted area, but the law does not specify any objective standards for this determination. Therefore, a RDA board has autonomy in making this determination. In the past 10 years, the amount of land within RRA’s project areas has more than doubled. Twenty-five percent, or 15.34 square miles, of Redding’s total geographic area is now located within redevelopment project zones. The City Council, acting as the RRA board, designated this land as blighted and determined that only redevelopment could 71 revitalize it. Obviously, as more land is placed into redevelopment areas, less land will be available for private development not specified in the project plan. 13. This Grand Jury’s review of Shasta County RDA’s did not reveal any illegalities. It has, however, made us acutely aware of the large sums of money involved with redevelopment and the potential for abuses to occur without proper scrutiny. The total bonded indebtedness of the RRA is approaching 10 percent of the City of Redding’s total assets (estimated at $500 million) and one quarter of the city is now included within redevelopment areas. A highly professional staff with sophisticated knowledge of redevelopment law and policy manages the RRA. It has successfully utilized this funding tool to make many infrastructure improvements, develop capital projects, and provide economic recovery and affordable housing. In most instances, areas designated as “blighted” have been improved. We applaud the RRA’s efforts, but at the same time, we encourage increased public scrutiny and transparency to ensure that abuses do not occur.
• CM22
  Establishment of Redevelopment Agencies is a major tool for financing improvements within a city or county. The activities of the Redding Redevelopment Agency (RRA) are discussed at length elsewhere in this Grand Jury Report.
• CM23
  The Redding Housing Authority (RHA) is funded primarily through the federal government. Its FY 2005/2006 projected revenue is $8.2 million of which 13% will cover administrative costs and 73% will be used for projects and programs, primarily housing assistance for the poor. Like the RRA, it is controlled by the City Council but federal regulations require the inclusion of one citizen on its governing board.
• CM24
  The Redding Capital Services Corporation (CSC) is a non-profit corporation empowered to issue bonds to fund the expansion or upgrading of capital projects for the City, as well as its enterprise funds. Although these transactions involve tens of millions of dollars, the bonds can be authorized without voter approval because the bond indebtedness is not reflected as a general obligation of the City. Like the RRA and RHA, the officers of the CSC are the City Council. At the City Council meeting on October 18, 2005, the mayor publicly stated that he 17 107 was surprised to learn that he was the president of a corporation he never knew existed. Nevertheless, the City Council, acting as the CSC Board, in a 5-0 vote, authorized the issuance of $37.5 million in Redding Electric Utility (REU) bonds for capital improvements including electricity service to the Stillwater Business Park. Should the bonds default, REU customers will eventually foot the bill. None of the four City Council members interviewed by the Grand Jury could explain the function of the CSC they govern.
• CM25
  The Redding Joint Powers Financing Authority (RJPFA) is yet another mechanism authorized to issue bonds to finance improvements. California state law authorizes two or more local agencies to form a joint powers authority and empowers such an authority to issue bonds to finance “capital improvements, working capital, liability and other insurance needs, or projects whenever there are significant public benefits, as determined by the local agency.” In 2004, the City and its Housing Authority formed a joint powers financing authority authorized to issue up to $22 million in lease revenue bonds for a variety of capital projects including Big League Dreams Park ($750,000), Fire Station No. 8 ($1.5 million), and the refinancing of certain municipal facilities ($14 million). Like the RRA, RHA and CSC, the RJPFA is governed by the City Council.
• CM26
  A Business Improvement District (BID) is a funding mechanism that supports the improvement of a defined commercial area. The California Property and Business Improvement Law of 1994 authorized the formation of BIDs. To form a BID, businesses located and operating within a defined area must first declare they are unable to attract customers due to inadequate facilities, services and activities. The City and the involved businesses may then form a BID by introducing a proposal, conducting hearings and passing an ordinance. Once established, the BID can levy “assessments” to fund improvements 18 108 which confer special benefits and services to the businesses or real properties within the BID. The assessments are not taxes for the general use of the City. Services include marketing, tourism promotion, special events and programs, funding for physical improvements, and advocacy of business interests. The governing board of a BID consists of the City Council either alone or in partnership with BID members. The Downtown Redding Business Improvement District (DRBID) was formed in 1997. Funding for the DRBID is generated by annual assessments of businesses within the district ($30,000 in 2005). In October 2005, the City Council declared its intention to form the Hilltop Hotel Business Improvement District (HHBID) comprised of the major hotel businesses along Hilltop Drive. Following a public hearing on December 6, 2005, the City Council voted 5-0 in favor of forming the HHBID, a proactive effort to ensure Hilltop Drive remains competitive. Members of the district are concerned that retail growth to the City’s north and population sprawl to the south will have a negative economic impact on businesses in the HHBID. With City Council approval, REU has agreed to fund the $2 million needed to underground the existing utility wires on Hilltop Drive within the next two to three years. The RRA also will contribute up to $2 million for aesthetic improvements within the district. HHBID funding (estimated at $259, 000 per year) will be generated, in part, by a 1.5% increase in hotel occupancy fees.
• CM27
  In a 2005 City-sponsored citizen survey, only one-third of those interviewed gave positive ratings to the City of Redding for its management of funds. When queried by the Grand Jury, City Council members stated they did not believe that multiple layers of City government funding and spending were a major reason for this poor support. Instead, each 19 109 City Council member attributed the public’s response to an overall dissatisfaction with government starting at the federal and state levels. Despite the survey results, Council members asserted that the people trust local government the most. City Council members unanimously agreed that the Redding City Manager and the City financial staff could be trusted with respect to the accounting and expenditure of all City funds. All denied using the Investment Pool as a “discretionary checking account,” and stated they would continue using the pool to take advantage of attractive investment opportunities.
• CM28
  Only one of four City Council members stated that the City has emphasized project growth over infrastructure growth in an unbalanced way during the last 15 years. All City Council members denied allegations made by local business leaders and City department heads to the Grand Jury that City administrators regularly project budget shortfalls; recommend and make departmental cuts; then, when the shortfalls never materialize (or excesses occur), recommend using the unexpected revenue for projects instead of infrastructure. These allegations were confirmed by the Grand Jury members who attended a special Redding City Council meeting on February 13, 2006. The purpose of the special meeting was to gather public input regarding the expenditure of $1.8 million in unexpected sales and property tax revenue. During that meeting, City staff proposed spending the money on a “project wish list.” The Grand Jury believes the money should have been used to restore the five percent cuts in FY2005/2006 police and fire budgets. Three of four City Council members interviewed by the Grand Jury stated that public safety should be the top priority of city government. However, regarding future projects, no City 20 110 Council member prioritized the construction of a new police facility ahead of a City-funded business park and road improvements.
• CM29
  The Grand Jury finds that, in addition to the use of Investment Pool funds to take advantage of attractive investment opportunities, the following are examples of behavior which contribute to the perception that City funds are mismanaged: a) The Analysis of Redding City Finances report in 2005, sponsored by the business community, questioned the City’s continuing ability to offer unrestricted retirement and health care benefits to its employees. The report also recommended a greater transparency of City finances in future budgets. b) At a July, 2005 City Council meeting, Council members admitted to “hiding” $10 million from “a potential raid” by the State of California by transferring the money from the General Fund to a Debt Service Fund in FY 2002/2003 and then reversing the transfer the following year. c) In January 2006, a construction-industry watchdog criticized the City for performing street repair work that legally should have “gone to bid.” The City Finance Director, City Manager, and City Council did not initially recognize this error until it was brought to their attention. The City admitted to unintentionally breaking state contracting laws on some paving contracts. d) In February 2006, extensive criticism followed the release of inaccurate data by the City of Redding Tourism Director regarding the profitability (for the City) of the Big League Dreams Park. e) Acceptance of a several million dollar federal grant for a City-sponsored business park resulted in a requirement for a significantly more complex environmental impact report. 21 111 The resulting five-year delay in completing the report, coupled with rising labor and building expenses, increased the total project cost from an initially estimated $12 million to between $70-100 million. f) In the late 1990s, a Deputy City Manager negotiated a compensated time off (CTO) benefit for the City’s police and fire unions. The unions did not request this benefit, nor were police or fire administrators present at the negotiations to alert the City of its potential negative effects. The CTO policy has added $400,000 in overtime costs to the Fire Department in FY 2005/2006. Of the above-mentioned items, retirement and health care benefits for current and retired City employees will have the greatest impact on the City’s future financial health. Beginning in FY 2007/2008, the City’s financial statements must adhere to the Governmental Accounting Standards Board’s revised reporting standards that were adopted in 2004. Rather than the current “pay-as-you-go” reporting method for employee and other non-retirement benefits, public employers will need to account for those benefits on an actuarial basis (similar to the accounting for retirement benefits). City financial statements will be required to quantify all unfunded liabilities associated with retiree health benefits as well as retirement benefits.
• CM30
  The Grand Jury finds that the use of the funding mechanisms discussed above are legal, proper and justified. However, their use is generally unknown or misunderstood by the public. The volume and complexity of the City’s budget is difficult for the average citizen to comprehend and its lack of clarity creates suspicion and distrust. This contributes to a perception of mismanagement of City finances. Those individuals who serve on the City Council also serve on the governing boards of the Redding Redevelopment Agency, Redding Housing Authority, Redding Capital Services 22 112 Corporation, Redding Joint Powers Financing Authority and Business Improvement Districts. The Grand Jury finds that, when Council members “wear so many hats,” they do not fully understand the complexity of the financial systems they govern. The City distributes approximately $70 million each year through its General Fund. Additionally, the City controls $50 million of Redevelopment debt, $37.5 million of Capital Services Corporation debt, $22 million in Joint Power Financing Authority debt, and $6 million per year in Housing Authority funds. The five part-time City Council members oversee more than $135 million of funds with only minimal direct citizen input. The Grand Jury finds that the City Council members are not sufficiently familiar with the intricacies of municipal funding mechanisms. Numerous educational opportunities such as seminars and workshops are available for enhancing their proficiency in these matters. The Grand Jury also questions whether part-time officials can adequately research and administer the financial complexities of Redding City government.
• CM31
  Overtime costs for the RFD in FY 2005/2006 are projected at $1.3 million and estimated at $1.4 million in FY 2006/2007. Every public safety force uses mandatory and required overtime. This overtime is required to fill expected vacancies such as vacation, sick time, training and maternity leave. All rank and file firefighters interviewed accept the policy of mandatory overtime and many prefer it because they earn additional income. However, when the amount of mandatory overtime interferes with other commitments (family and personal) or causes fatigue and safety concerns, firefighter morale can be negatively affected. Overtime is less expensive than the cost of new personnel. The additional cost of paying a 39 137 current employee time-and-a-half of base pay for overtime is less than that of paying a new employee, who would receive employee benefits (1.50 vs. 1.72 per hour). However, this cost savings is less important when excessive overtime affects job performance and employee or civilian safety. Compensated time-off (CTO) is a benefit enjoyed by most, if not all, City of Redding employees. It is a policy whereby an employee who works overtime may select either time- and-one-half pay for those hours or trade them for time-and-one-half off with pay. A day off here and there may have little impact for city employees with desk jobs, but safety forces must meet minimum staffing requirements. Therefore, when firefighters take a paid CTO day off, they must be replaced by another firefighter, who because of understaffing must be paid overtime. Thus, the department must pay two wages when a single firefighter takes a CTO day off – one at regular pay and one at overtime pay. To lessen the impact on the regular schedule, CTO days must be arranged 30 days in advance. CTO benefits will cost the RFD an additional $400,000 in FY 2005/2006. RFD is, therefore, paying $1.7 million or more each year for CTO and overtime. The Grand Jury learned that the City offered this CTO benefit to both of its public safety unions during negotiations in the late 1990s. The fire union did not request CTO, nor was the then-Chief present to counsel City negotiators about the negative impacts of this benefit. The City’s public safety forces are inherently costly. The Grand Jury believes that unrestricted CTO has no place in the efficient operation of a city’s safety forces. Many firefighters depend on overtime to augment their salaries. Similarly, firefighters do not want to relinquish the CTO benefit because it affords them additional family time. And, although they uniformly complain about being understaffed, most firefighters were not 40 138 willing to exchange their overtime pay for new personnel. At first glance, the Grand Jury found this logic contradictory since, on average, firefighters are only scheduled to work five 24-hour shifts every 14 days, leaving ample spare time. However, if all overtime were eliminated, many firefighters told the Grand Jury that they would find it necessary to seek second jobs. Then, if needed, they would be unavailable for extra duty work or emergencies on their off-days. Unlike police work, firefighting is directly affected by the weather and unpredictable high-risk conditions (temperature, humidity and wind). For example, at a moment’s notice, RFD must dedicate extra engine companies and call back many firefighters to immediately suppress a developing wildland fire and prevent its spread. Some firefighters accumulate CTO as a safety blanket in case they suffer an off-the-job injury and are unable to work. Others use CTO to supplement their allotted vacation time. Firefighters, who must find their own replacement for an absence of a few hours, often have difficulty doing so. Therefore, they use CTO to take a full day off for a doctor’s appointment or to attend a family event. Very few of the firefighters interviewed felt that the current amount of overtime is a major stress or fatigue factor.
• CM32
  RFD training is supervised by the Deputy Fire Chief/Operations who, because of extensive administrative duties, devotes less than five percent of his time to ensure personnel receive state-mandated fire training, which is administered and supervised by RFD captains. The RFD must ensure that every firefighter receives 280 hours of training each year. Ensuring that each shift receives training while simultaneously providing emergency fire and medical service involves significant logistical problems. Half the stations train in the morning and half in the afternoon. 41 139 Most of the firefighters interviewed stated that their training is inadequate and a few alleged that training records were falsified. Training information is entered into a computer database by captains, and there are no safeguards as to the accuracy of this input. All RFD administrative staff interviewed stated there were no falsifications of training records and the Grand Jury was unable to determine whether violations actually occurred. Many of the Battalion Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs felt training could be improved. The Fire Chief rated the Department’s training as only average. The Grand Jury’s analysis of the 2005 RFD Required Training Report revealed that the records of mandated RFD training for last year were grossly incomplete. Firefighters had little or no training in 10 areas, including hazardous materials, incident command, airport operations, shore-based rescue, technical rescue, ventilation and water supply. Less than 25% of firefighters completed apparatus (vehicle and pump operation), report writing, and communications (dispatch) training. Required training in firefighter safety, inspection procedures and emergency medical aid was only 50% completed. Self-rescue and firefighter rescue and seasonal firefighter training had the greatest completion percentage as did wildland fire training (although there is no wildland training requirement, Redding has extensive wildland areas). Only a handful of firefighters are adequately trained to operate the department’s fire rescue boat, and although all firefighters have some hazardous material (HAZMAT) training, less than 20% are fully certified. Therefore, whenever a water or HAZMAT incident occurs, certified personnel are not immediately available and must be summoned from numerous stations. A review of nine Northern California city fire departments revealed widely diverse yearly expenditures for training. For example, in 2002, fire departments in Woodland, Chico and 42 140 Redding (cities of similar size) budgeted $195,000, $70,000, and $18,000 respectively for personnel training. Three years later, the training allocation for the RFD remained at $18,000. However, because of mandatory FAA airport firefighter training requirements, the City Council authorized an additional $15,800 for training at its December 6, 2005 meeting. RFD administrators and rank and file agreed that the department needs a dedicated training officer – one who has the time to focus primarily on training and not on other duties. A training officer could also maintain adequate and verifiable training logs and ensure that recommended guidelines and standards for training are met. While all firefighters stated that they could safely perform their duties, all agreed that the department’s training program needed drastic improvement. The Grand Jury finds the department’s current training substandard and the training budget inadequate. We concur with RFD staff that a training officer position be created.
• CM33
  All interviewees stated that RFD’s equipment is satisfactory. The engine fleet is well maintained although replacement of aging trucks is a continuing expense ($350,000 to $500,000 per truck). Recent budget cuts have affected the department’s ability to purchase or replace needed supplies. Although it is Shasta County’s responsibility to patrol the Sacramento River, RFD maintains a fire rescue boat at Station No. 4 on Bonnyview Road. The Department also has a HAZMAT vehicle at Station No. 8, at the north end of Churn Creek Road. The department has one ladder truck, located at its downtown Station No. 1. A ladder truck is dispatched to all structure fires. Most RFD administrators and firefighters agree that there is a need for a second ladder truck to service the City east of the Sacramento River (Station No. 8 is large enough to store the extra-long truck). Indeed, the City lost points in its 43 141 last ISO rating for lack of a second ladder truck. Some argue for a third truck to be used when a ladder truck is being serviced.
• CM34
  All those interviewed agree that the Redding fire stations are aging but are functioning well. City Council members eagerly took credit for the opening of the City’s newest fire station, Station No. 8, located at the north end of Churn Creek Road. Council members’ responses were less enthusiastic when asked about the logic of opening a new station without supplying additional firefighters to staff it. Station No.8 is the first Redding fire station to be constructed in 27 years. The new station, built at a cost of $2.9 million, had not been scheduled for completion until 2007, but pressure from area residents prompted the Council to accelerate the project. For the new station, City Council members adopted the cheapest staffing proposal advanced by the union: transferring a two-person engine company from Station No. 5 in the Enterprise area. Prior to Station No. 8’s opening, Station No. 5 had two engine companies and had been the busiest Redding fire station, handling almost 4,000 service calls in 2005 (40% of the total RFD calls). Some of these calls will now be handled by Station No. 8. Station No. 7, located adjacent to the Redding Municipal Airport has been declared substandard by the FAA and is undergoing a $2.6 million major remodel. The Redding Redevelopment Agency is providing $500,000 and the balance is being borne by the federal government. In FY 2005/2006 the RFD budgeted $118,580 for station improvements, $16,000 of which is required for routine maintenance at its eight stations. The Department budgeted almost $58,000 for repaving its station parking surfaces. However, of the $118,580 budgeted for repairs and maintenance, $48,000 has been diverted to payment of overtime. 44 142 The Grand Jury made unannounced visits to some of the stations. The first firehouse in the City of Redding, Fire Station No. 1 on Shasta Street in downtown Redding, is more than 70 years old. Its three bay doors are in need of replacement ($12,840) and it is slated for an electrical panel upgrade ($6,430). The Grand Jury inspection of this station revealed an aging but well kept structure. According to its staff, the bay doors have not yet been replaced, but recently some electrical improvements were made. Station No. 2, at Buenaventura and Placer, was clean and organized. Both the living and work areas were well maintained. The pavement in front of the bay doors is in need of major repair or replacement. Station No. 3, at Buenaventura and Rte. 273, is also in need of repaving, and has limited office space. Grand Jury members found Station No. 5, located on Hartnell Avenue in the Enterprise area, to be well maintained. However, its concrete floor is in need of resealing and it needs a new roof ($48,230 was budgeted in FY 2005/2006 for a new roof).
• CM35
  Over the last 15 years, the City of Redding has followed a policy of prioritizing project growth over infrastructure and personnel growth. As a result, RPD police officer staffing has not increased proportionately to the growth of population. According to Uniform 171 Crime Reporting Statistics of 2004, the average number of sworn officers per 1,000 residents for western U.S cities of 50,000-99,000 population is 1.9. RPD currently employs 113 sworn peace officers. Based on a population of 88,459 residents within the incorporated city limits, that equates to 1.28 officers per 1,000 residents. This ratio is 30% less than the national average. One of the goals of the City of Redding General Plan 2000-2020 was to “maintain at a minimum, a sworn officer to population ratio of 1.36 officers per 1,000 residents.” The four new officers approved by the Redding City Council on February 13, 2006, will raise the current ratio to 1.32 officers per thousand. This is still less than the City’s target recommendation
• CM36
  Redding’s daytime population increases significantly because the majority of Shasta County’s retail establishments, government agencies, and health care providers are located within the city limits. Additionally, Redding’s priority on development of cultural and recreational opportunities has succeeded, thus attracting many temporary visitors. These factors further increase the daily service demands on RPD.
• CM37
  Staffing within the Investigation Division is adequate at this time. As the number of service calls continues to increase, the workload will exceed capacity and necessitate the assignment of additional officers.
• CM38
  According to the 2002 Redding Police Department 10-Year Plan, the average response time for priority calls (e.g., homicide, rape, robbery) was 10.5 minutes in 2002. In the past four years, this response time has dramatically increased to more than 16 minutes, a result of the City’s failure to increase hiring in proportion to population growth. Due to the size of Redding and its population growth, RPD administrators repeatedly recommended to City staff that two patrol beats be added. (A patrol beat is a 172 geographic area assigned to specific officers for patrol.) RPD administrators estimated that this increase would reduce the response time to an acceptable six to eight minutes for priority calls. Staffing one patrol beat 24 hours a day, seven days a week with allowance for time off and court time, requires seven officers. These two patrol beats would require adding 14 new officers, increasing coverage to 1.43 sworn officers per thousand residents. This is still significantly below the Western States’ average ratio of 1.9. However, the RPD Chief of Police informed the Grand Jury that coverage should reflect a combination of factors, including geographic size, population density, crime rate, response time and existence of neighborhood revitalization programs. He stated that a ratio of 1.4 to 1.45 officers per 1000 population is adequate for Redding. On February 13, 2006, the Redding City Council approved a RPD proposal to add one new police beat and four new officers. Currently the annual average cost for a new officer, including benefits, is $98,000. The four new officers will be funded by the General Fund. The beat will be staffed by utilizing the four new officers; two officers hired through a U.S. Department of Justice grant; one officer hired in partnership with Shasta College for additional services to the college; and by reassigning an officer from dedicated traffic detail. The additional beat is expected to reduce the priority response time by as much as two to three minutes. Utilizing the General Fund to increase the number of safety personnel must be continued if Redding is to revitalize its police force and keep up with crime and traffic incidents.
• CM39
  Redding has taken steps to reduce crime within the city. For example, inclusion of the Parkview Neighborhood within a redevelopment area and the utilization of all available resources transformed that crime-ridden neighborhood into a safe and productive one. In 173 2001, the Redding Redevelopment Agency (RRA) began buying property and tearing down the most seedy apartment complexes in the Parkview Neighborhood. The City Housing Division provided grants to low-income Parkview Neighborhood homeowners for home and yard improvements and the RRA contracted with a developer to build single family homes within the area. The Parkview Neighborhood has progressed from being the area with the highest number of police calls for service into a neighborhood with one of the lowest.
• CM40
  RPD public surveys consistently reveal that traffic is perceived to be the most important public safety issue in Redding. That perception is supported by collision statistics. Speeding and red-light violations are seen by the public as everyday occurrences. Due in part to citizens’ complaints regarding traffic, the Redding City Council is considering installation of “red-light cameras” at critical intersections. The 2004 California Office of Traffic Safety Report compared traffic collisions in 97 California cities with populations between 50,001-100,000. Redding was ranked number one in both fatal and injury accidents as well as number one in overall accident rates. In the same study, the City of Redding ranked fifth in “driving under the influence” (DUI) of drugs or alcohol-associated collisions. However, Redding ranked only 76th of 97 cities in DUI arrests, suggesting to the Grand Jury that increased DUI enforcement is needed.
• CM41
  Faced with lack of resources to add more traffic units, RPD administration now requires all patrol officers to emphasize enforcement of traffic laws. A guideline developed with the police officers’ union has been implemented to hold officers accountable for this policy. Traffic performance standards, which include citations and arrest rates, are now emphasized in officer evaluations. 174
• CM42
  RPD personnel interviewed by the Grand Jury state that the morale of patrol officers is lower than it has been in many years. Multiple factors contribute to low morale, but the primary cause is the ongoing staffing shortage. As the City has grown in both population and area, there has not been a corresponding increase in the number of staff. Officers interviewed relate that they believe this shortage prevents them from accomplishing their basic goal of “… protecting the safety of the community.” A moderate amount of overtime is unavoidable to cover court appearances, training and emergency situations; however, according to RPD staff interviewed, overtime is currently being used to compensate for chronic shortages in personnel. Staffing shortages contribute to excessive mandatory overtime which interferes with family life, personal time and the ability to engage in outside activities. It may be less expensive to pay overtime than to hire additional staff, but it is detrimental to the morale of the Department and to public and officer safety. Temporary staffing shortages have traditionally been managed by redistribution of personnel, reprioritization of duties and a commitment to “get through the crisis.” These strategies become ineffective in the face of chronic personnel shortages. Personnel look to their administration for long- term solutions and report doubts about the effectiveness of attempting to deal with the personnel crisis without treating underlying problems. The officers interviewed by the Grand Jury indicate that they lack confidence in the ability of RPD administration to adequately address these issues. They acknowledge that many of the problems associated with the lack of personnel are not within the control of RPD administrators. Officers consider both unresponsiveness and 175 lack of financial support by the Redding City Council and city staff as the fundamental factor underlying these problems. Another factor adversely affecting morale is the traffic enforcement policy and its relationship to evaluations. This is a major point of dissension because the officers interviewed by the Grand Jury perceive the emphasis on traffic control impedes their ability to conduct crime investigations, community policing and problem resolution - areas that officers see as priorities. Many officers dislike the current policy, and this contributes to their basic mistrust of their administration. A committee of officers and RPD administrators is revising the Police Officer Performance Evaluation policy to clarify the evaluation process and to reflect the concerns of both administration and the patrol officers. Underlying some of the morale issues is the officers’ perception of the Police Chief. They recognize the many problems and obligations facing him and that he is under cross-pressure from the police rank-and-file and the City Council. They acknowledge his expertise in planning and budget analysis. However, they report that a lack of personal contact compromises his popularity and diminishes the full support and confidence of his department’s police officers. During the Grand Jury’s interview, the Chief indicated that he does not disagree with that criticism. He states that more personal contact with his officers is one of his goals and that he recognizes how important this is to the morale of the department. All personnel interviewed have high praise for the leadership skills and resource management of RPD’s mid-managers.
• CM43
  RPD administrators state that the Department has experienced difficulty recruiting and retaining quality police personnel. The rural nature of Shasta County, its abundant 176 recreational opportunities, positive family environment and the reputation of RPD are positive factors attracting outstanding officers. The RPD, through the use of a vigorous background investigation policy, has consistently hired extremely well-qualified officers and made it a priority to be one of the most highly trained departments in the state. Interviewees indicated that, in the past, RPD was viewed statewide as an ideal department in which to work. It had numerous applicants for every available position. Presently, inadequate staffing and a deteriorating facility result in poor working conditions, safety issues and an inability to be proactive in the community. Although RPD employee benefits are comparable to those offered by cities of similar size, its base wages are in the lowest quartile. Increasing housing costs now add to the difficulty of recruiting applicants from other cities. During the last police officer recruitment in 2005, while there were 32 applicants for an experienced police officer position, most were disqualified by background checks. Recruitment of qualified candidates is a statewide problem and other cities are raising both benefits and salaries. Some cities offer substantial bonuses to both successful applicants and those officers who refer them. The Grand Jury has learned that some agencies in the state are reducing qualification standards to broaden recruitment. RPD administrators have refused to lower qualification standards. At the end of March 2006, the City signed a negotiated contract with the police officers’ union, raising salaries by 4.5% per year over five years and slightly reducing health benefits. The Department indicates that this measure may improve recruiting. In fact, since the signing of the contract, applications have increased significantly. 177
• CM44
  RPD has other personnel shortages. During the last two budget sessions, RPD administrators have unsuccessfully requested funding for an additional network technician to maintain the Mobile Data System (in-car computers allowing officers’ access to RPD automated records). There remains a need for two record technicians to enter data into automated systems, one Community Service Officer to handle non- emergency calls for service, and a secretary for the Investigation Division.
• CM45
  The Grand Jury learned of two other deficiencies within RPD which are currently being addressed. Funding for upgrading the radio system was included in the most recent budget and the new system should be operational by the spring of 2006. An agreement has been entered into with Shasta County for formation of a bomb squad using personnel from both agencies and equipment from the County. Personnel have been identified and are scheduled for the next training session.
• CM46
  The total area of the two RPD facilities is 33,000 square feet. A Space Needs Assessment report commissioned by the Redding City Council and completed in December 2005, indicates that the minimum square footage required for current police operations is 51,169 square feet. Although this is 18,169 square feet larger than the space currently used by RPD, it allows for no growth. The report’s projection for growth in personnel from the current 187 to 337 dictates that, by the year 2030, the Department will need a facility of 66,013 square feet. The construction cost estimate for a new 66,000 square foot facility is $31.5 million 178
• CM47
  The Investigation Division currently has just enough space to meet its needs. The inadequacy of the main facility on California Street necessitates separation of the Investigation Division from the rest of the Department. This isolation negatively impacts the ability to exchange information needed to optimally perform the investigators’ duties. Patrol officers and investigators cite this difficulty in exchanging information as a major impediment to solving crimes. Some information is communicated by videos prepared and reviewed during patrol briefings, or by an investigator attending the briefings. These methods leave much to be desired because there is no direct dialogue between the investigators handling the case and the patrol officers on the street.
• CM48
  During a tour of the main police facility, the Grand Jury found a number of deficiencies including: inadequate public reception area and handicap access; cramped work cubicles; exposed wiring; insufficient rest room facilities; too few private interview rooms; congested locker rooms; insufficient personal equipment storage; limited desk space for report writing; an overcrowded lunch room; and no windows. The current facility lacks storage for items such as official records, evidence, property, and departmental equipment.
• CM49
  The current parking area of 1.16 acres is inadequate to accommodate and secure both city-owned and employee vehicles. The 2005 Space Needs Assessment recommended 1.88 acres for current parking and projected a need for 2.81 acres by 2030.
• CM50
  The firing range currently used by RPD is located almost four miles from the main facility, in an area now being encroached upon by residential development. Future 179 growth or an unfortunate incident may eventually force its closure. The current cost estimate for a new firing range is $3.3 million.
• CM51
  A review of the City of Redding 2005 Public Opinion Survey revealed that public safety is the top priority of residents and that approximately half would support an additional sales tax for funding police, fire, and street and park maintenance. The survey further revealed that a “sunset” clause on the tax would increase that support. It is estimated that a 0.5% sales tax would generate $5 million per year. Non-city residents would pay a significant portion of this tax.
• CM52
  The Grand Jury found the Main Jail to be a clean, orderly and well-run facility.
• CM53
  The State of California Board of Corrections, in its 2004/2006 Biennial inspection report, noted that fire and health inspections were conducted and that the facility was in compliance with the relevant standards. The Report also stated the sobering cells were often used as the intake area where inmates are received and held pending 195 housing or arranging for bail, and that this utilization does not comply with state regulations related to sobering cells. These cells should be used only for holding inmates who are a threat to their own safety or the safety of others due to their state of intoxication. That deficiency has been corrected.
• CM54
  The Shasta County Main Jail operates at near capacity on a daily basis. The number of inmates at the Main Jail must comply with the Shasta County Superior Court order. This order requires that a quarterly report be submitted to the Shasta County Court outlining both the number and types of inmates released pursuant to the order. Currently, the Main Jail houses the most dangerous inmates, who should not be released. Less dangerous inmates, both sentenced and awaiting sentence, are being released. This has become a common and accepted practice because of the lack of jail space. The fourth quarter court-ordered report for 2005 was: Bookings 2,931 Daily average 32.5 Daily Jail Population 374.5 Highest Daily Population 386 Jail Capacity Releases this Quarter 520 Jail Capacity Releases to date: 1,936 Males Released 378 Females Released 142 Sentenced Releases 76 Unsentenced Releases 444
• CM55
  The Main Jail is the only adult detention facility in Shasta County. Inmates from Shasta County, including the cities of Redding, Anderson, and City of Shasta Lake, are all housed in the Shasta County Main Jail. In 2005, there were 11,386 bookings, 66% of which were arrested in the City of Redding. Since1998, the Sheriff’s Department and the Board of Supervisors have been aware there is a need for a new security facility to house the County’s growing inmate population. Because of the chronic lack of capacity in the Main Jail, the Sheriff’s 196 Office submitted a request for a jail feasibility study to the Board of Supervisors. The study is to be completed by September, 2006. The lack of a separate facility to house the mentally ill and intoxicated individuals compounds the jail’s capacity problem because these individuals must be temporarily housed in the jail.
• CM56
  In December 2001, the Board of Supervisors approved the Sheriff’s proposal to replace 62 Shasta County deputy sheriffs in the Main Jail and Detention Annex with correctional officers, in order to reassign the deputies to the field. The replacement of deputy sheriffs by correctional officers results in annual savings due to reduced salaries (estimated up to $800,000 per year). However, the FY 2005/2006 personnel roster at the Main Jail indicates that only 27 of the 62 deputies have been replaced with correctional officers. Interviewees consistently related that the pay scale of correctional officers was inadequate for recruitment and retention. Indeed, one officer was noted to have separated to resume his job changing tires at a local tire shop where he could earn more money.
• CM57
  The Shasta County Jail is operating at minimum staffing level. Correctional officers and deputies must work overtime to meet required staffing levels. Personnel working at the Main Jail accumulated over 22,000 hours of overtime in 2005. Excessive overtime results in officer fatigue and inefficiency, safety concerns, and contributes to low morale. These factors, combined with a higher concentration of dangerous inmates, create a concern for the safety and security of both the Main Jail staff and inmates. Several interviewees indicated that one or more “disturbances” had occurred since January, 2006, requiring areas of the Jail to be under “lockdown.” Many of the correctional officers and deputies interviewed by the Grand Jury cited the need for the 197 County to hire additional correctional officers and/or deputies to relieve the understaffing and overtime problems.
• CM58
  The Main Jail release policy and the inability to hold work release inmates accountable by incarcerating them when they fail the program negatively affect the morale of many of the deputies.
• CM59
  352 The California Department of Corrections and the California Department of Forestry are commended for their cooperative efforts and team approach resulting in a very successful joint agency program. 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 And... Section 919 of the California Penal code requires the Grand Jury inquire into the condition and management of all public prisons located within the County. This inspection includes conditions, management, and operation of these facilities. Additionally, educational and addicted offender programs are two of many programs offered to eligible inmates to encourage rehabilitation. The 2005/2006 Grand Jury inspected the County Jail, Juvenile Hall, Work Release, Sugar Pine Conservation Camp and Crystal Creek Regional Boys’ Camp. At each facility, presentations were made affording the Grand Jury a better understanding of the facilities operation before beginning the tour. The staff, at each of the inspected facilities, demonstrated efficiency and pride in their work and the accomplishments and progress of the detainees. Juvenile Hall houses up to 60 minors (both male and female) and is managed by the Shasta County Probation Department. The facility is a secure detention facility for the confinement of pre- and post-adjudicated juvenile offenders. The Grand Jury toured the Juvenile hall facility which included sleeping quarters, classrooms, kitchen, intake area, and recreational facilities. Work has been completed on the intake door/sally port area which reduces the risk of escape at the time minors arrive at the facility. 528 While in custody, the minors must attend six hours of daily classroom instruction Monday through Friday. There are four classrooms on-site including the Phoenix Program facility. This program is for juveniles with serious substance abuse problems, who are unable to function in a normal school environment. These students receive extensive supervision and regular drug testing as well as counseling and tutorial assistance. The schools are operated under the direction of the Shasta County Office of Education. After school, there are recreation, counseling and group activities. Work Release Program – The Grand Jury toured the facility and observed offenders arriving for assignments including gardening and performing general work at the facility. The program is a partnership between the Shasta County Probation Department Community Service Unit and the Sheriff’s Department Home Confinement Program. It is an alternative to incarceration which allows qualified offenders to serve their court imposed sentences, thereby completing community service in lieu of fines. The sentenced individuals live at home and report to the work facility daily. This program saves the cost of in-custody housing. Fees are collected from the offenders which partially offset the cost of the program. Some of the services the offenders provide include road work, bicycle repair, construction, firewood cutting, and growing produce in the garden facility, The produce is used at the Main Jail and any surplus is donated to various nonprofit organizations for distribution to the needy. Offenders who fail the program are returned to court. The Grand Jury attended the Shasta County Sheriff’s first “Stakeholders Forum on Community Justice.” The forum was attended by leaders from law enforcement agencies, judicial systems, community support services, the business community and the Shasta 529 County Administrator. The primary focus of the forum was to define the problem of insufficient jail space and the need for programs to break the cycle of offender recidivism. The Addicted Offender Court Supervision Program was established in April 1995. A designated judge supervises a limited number of eligible addicted offenders who participate for approximately 22 months in a rehabilitation program as a condition of probation. During the first phase of the program, the supervising judge reviews the progress of each participant in court on a weekly basis. Violations of any term or condition of probation result in the imposition of immediate sanctions, including re-incarceration. The Addicted Offender program has the highest success rate of any rehabilitation program available to addicts. Members of the Grand Jury attended a graduation ceremony for several individuals who had successfully completed the program. Regarding this year’s reports....Some of the complaints received by the 2005/2006 Shasta County Grand Jury were related to on-going contract negotiations between union members and employers. The Grand Jury immediately became aware that there were subtle attempts to manipulate this panel to influence these negotiations. The Grand Jury found that some of the complaints were valid but others were exaggerated to promote a special interest or agenda. 530

No Responses Found 1

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