Of Simi Vai Home of The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library Receiver May 15, 2012 Venturagrantania The Honorable Vincent*

R02

and R-03. Findings FI-04. Vehicle release fees across the County for violations of Vehicle Code sections 12500 and 14601 vary from $11 in unincorporated areas, to $300 in Thousand Oaks. The average (mean) vehicle release fee for the County is $137.79. Response to FI-04: The City of Simi Valley concurs with this finding. The City's Vehicle Release Fee is $77.70 and is the second lowest in the County. FI-05. Six cities (Camarillo, Fillmore, Moorpark, Ojai, Santa Paula, and Simi Valley) and the Sheriff (unincorporated County areas) do not identify any additional tasks or any extra hours required to process the impoundment of a DUI vehicle versus the cost of other types of impoundments. This transfers extra costs from the DUI violator to the general public. Response to FI-05: The City of Simi Valley does not concur with this finding. Existing law already holds the violator liable for the costs incurred by public agencies when an emergency response is required due to his/her impairment from the consumption of an alcoholic beverage or any drug while driving a vehicle. Other procedures currently followed by the City of Simi Valley, are in place to recover these costs. These procedures are separate and apart from the administrative fees authorized by California Vehicle Code 22850.5. Therefore, there are no additional costs associated with a DUI violator to transfer to the general public. - 1 Barbra Williamson, Mayor Pro Tem Glen T. Becerra, Council Member Steven T. Sojka, Council Member Mike Judge, Council Member Bob Huber, Mayor 2929 Tapo Canyon Road, Simi Valley, CA 93063-2199 805.583.6700 www.simivalley.org May 15, 2012 Honorable Vincent O'Neill, Jr. FI-06. There is no standardized list of allowable categories of impound costs used to calculate the vehicle release fees across the County. Some cities base fees on costs that occur after a traffic stop transitions to the impound process. This cost basis also includes the vehicle release paperwork. Other cities and the Sheriff collect fees based only on the cost of paperwork generated at the end of the impound process. This disparity in the services included in the fee allocations for violations of Vehicle Code sections 12500, 14601, and 23152 is a major factor in the fee variations. Response to FI-06: The City of Simi Valley concurs with this finding. The City's Vehicle Release Fee is based on recovering the staff and materials costs associated with processing the vehicle release. Recommendations

R03

All Cities should apply their local rates and factors and their targeted cost recovery goals to calculate their individual release fees using the standardized cost category list from Recommendation R-02. It should be recognized that categories not included in the cost basis from approved fees represent costs to be borne by the general public and not the violator at a time of reduced public safety budgets. As necessary, new resolutions authorizing any revised vehicle release fees should be passed and the basis for the fees should be available to the public. Response to R-03: After the above scheduled study session with all Ventura County law enforcement agencies, City staff will review the City's current schedule of vehicle release fees, revise them as appropriate, and present them to the City Council for approval if changes are warranted. The City Council considered the Grand Jury report at its May 14, 2012 meeting and authorized this response. We appreciate the efforts of the Grand Jury in looking at this matter and this opportunity to comment. Sincerely. Tobert O. Huber<br>Tayor Mayor Foreman, Ventura Grand Jury cc: City Council City Manager Interim City Attorney Interim Chief of Police Assistant City Manager, Government Affairs Response to Grand Jury Report Form Report Title: VCHICLE Impaural Fession Ventura Country Report Date: March 11, 2012 Title: Mayor, City of Sim. Valley Response by: ROBERT O. HUBER <b>FINDINGS</b> I (we) agree with the findings numbered: <math>FI-O4</math>, <math>FI-O6</math> B I (we) disagree wholly or partially with the findings numbered: C (Attach a statement specifying any portions of the findings that are disputed; include an explanation of the reasons therefor.) RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations numbered ______ have been implemented. 2 (Attach a summary describing the implemented actions.) Recommendations numbered 2-02 have not yet been implemented, but 123 will be implemented in the future. (Attach a timeframe for the implementation.) require further analysis. Recommendations numbered u (Attach an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or director of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report.) will not be implemented because they Recommendations numbered п are not warranted or are not reasonable. ĸ, (Attach an explanation.) Date: Signed: Number of pages attached t ITY OF SIMI VALLEY Home of The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library September 27, 2012 Ronald L. Cameron, Chair, Grand Jury Review Committee Jay Whitney, Forman, 2012-2013 Grand S. Victoria Ave. Ventura, CA 93009 Dear Messrs Cameron and Whitney: The City of Simi Valley is in receipt of your letter dated September 18, 2012 regarding the City's response to the 2011-2012 Grand Jury report, "Graffiti in Ventura County Cities," and in accordance with Penal Code Section 933, the response was submitted to your office on July 3, 2012. The response is re-attached to this correspondence for your review. The City Council appreciates the efforts of the Grand Jury in examining governmental duties and operations so we may continue to deliver services to the communities we serve in a cost effective and appropriate manner. Thank you for looking at this matter and the opportunity to comment. Sincerely 4/duller Robert O. Huber Mayor Attachment Presiding Judge Vincent O'Neill, Jr. cc: City Council City Manager City Attorney Chief of Police RECEIVED Director of Public Works Assistant City Manager, Government Affairs OCT 4 2012 VENTURA COUNTY<br>GRAND JURY Bob Huber, Mayor Barbra Williamson, Mayor Pro Tem Glen T. Becerra, Council Member Steven T. Sojka, Council Member Mike Judge, Council Member 2929 Tapo Canyon Road, Simi Valley, CA 93063-2199 805.583.6700 www.simivalley.org Y OF SIMI VALI Home of The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library July 3, 2012 The Honorable Vincent O'Neill, Jr. Presiding Judge of the Superior Court County of Ventura 800 S. Victoria Ave. Ventura, CA 93009 Dear Judge O'Neill: The City of Simi Valley has received the 2011-2012 Grand Jury report, "Graffiti in Ventura County Cities," and in accordance with Penal Code Section 933.05, we submit this response to the Grand Jury findings. The City Council appreciates the efforts of the Grand Jury in examining governmental duties and operations so we may continue to deliver services to the communities we serve in a cost effective and appropriate manner. The Grand Jury requires a response to findings FI-02, FI-03, FI-06, and FI-07 and recommendations R-01, R-04, and R-05. Findings FI-02. With the exception of Ojai, graffiti represents a significant financial impact in all other Cities. Response to FI-02: The City concurs with this Finding. In the 2011-12 Fiscal Year, the City's Public Works Department's total budget for graffiti abatement, including two staff members and contract services, was $269,200. As of June 25, 2012, the actual amount expended for graffiti abatement was $237,025. It should be noted that these costs do not reflect the staff time the Police Department dedicates to enforcement, recording, and documenting graffiti related offenses; the staff time of the City Attorney's Office that is required to prepare graffiti-related cases and prosecute on the City's behalf; or the staff time of the Administrative Services Department required to track the fines and penalties collected for graffiti-related offenses. FI-03. The eight cities reporting direct costs for abatement programs reported total costs in excess of $1.5 million in FY 2010/11. Response to FI-03: The City concurs with this Finding, as to the cost impact to the City of Simi Valley for the 2010-11 Fiscal Year. FI-06. There is no "one size fits all" graffiti abatement program for the Cities. The Cities' abatement plans vary. Response to FI-06: The City concurs with this finding. The City Council's policy is that graffiti must be abated within 24 hours of receiving a report, but recognizes that each City's program will be uniquely suited to fit the needs of its own community. Bob Huber, Mayor 🛮 Barbra Williamson, Mayor Pro Tem 🔝 Glen T. Becerra, Council Member 🔝 Steven T. Sojka, Council Member Mike Judge, Council Member 2929 Tapo Canyon Road, Simi Valley, CA 93063-2199 805.583.6700 www.simivalley.org 3 July 3, 2012 The Honorable Vincent O'Neill, Jr. FI-07. Only the city ordinances for the cities of Port Hueneme and Santa Paula contain provisions for the city to petition the sentencing court for the delay or suspension of driving privileges for those convicted of graffiti vandalism, as allowed for in the state vehicle code. Response to FI-07: The City concurs with this finding. The City's ordinance does not contain provisions for the City to petition the sentencing court for the delay or suspension of driving privileges for those convicted of graffiti vandalism. The ordinance is focused on cost recovery and imposing civil fines on those convicted of graffiti vandalism. Recommendations

R04

The Cities should enlist the assistance of volunteer groups within the County for graffiti abatement. Such groups might include: Sheriff's and Youth Graffiti Removal Incident Team; Keep America Beautiful; and various civic groups. Response to R-04: The City Council has a policy that graffiti must be abated within 24 hours of receiving a report. Coordinating with an outside entity, such as a volunteer group, for the day-to-day needs of graffiti abatement could compromise the City's ability to abate graffiti within 24 hours.

R05

The Cities, with the exception of Port Hueneme and Santa Paula, should amend their city codes regarding graffiti vandalism to include provisions for the city to petition the sentencing court for the delay or suspension of driving privileges for those convicted of graffiti vandalism, as allowed for in the state vehicle code. Response to R-05: The City Attorney's office will work with the Police Department to evaluate this recommendation. Should the City Attorney's office and Police Department determine that this recommendation should be implemented, an amendment to the City's Municipal Code will be recommended to the City Council within the next six months. The City Council considered the Grand Jury report at its July 2, 2012 meeting and authorized this response. We appreciate the efforts of the Grand Jury in looking at this matter and this opportunity to comment. . . / Sincei obert of Huber Mayor cc: Foreman, Ventura County Grand Jury City Council City Manager City Attorney Interim Chief of Police Director of Public Works Assistant City Manager, Government Affairs