Administrative Office 14socourtst., Suitba

Recommendations 5

• R2

  Page 98
  Tfte Board ofS upen•lsors, tfte County Execut/J>e Officer 011d tire Director ofR esource 111mwge111e11t 11•ork toge/Ir er lo estabfisft specific ti111efi11es for i111pfe111e11t11tio11 of code e11force111e11f 111ei1sures, 1111d tftat this be acco111pfislretl by J11111111ry 1, 2015. Response: Actions to substantially improve the efficiency and timeliness of code enforcement have already been implemented for the current year. The Department will continue to work with the Board of Supervisors, County Executive Officer and County Counsel to address the backlog of cases and implement code enforcement procedures in an efficient and timely manner. S11ft.: JOI 9 Suil.i /02 9 Sid/,: /OJ 9 Sufle 101 ; S11/fe 100 AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT BUILOINO DIVISION PLANNING DIVISION l!NVIRONMENT AL IOOAL "I H DI VISION ADMINISTRATION & CO~L\IUhTIY EDUCATION (5]0) 225-$614 (5l0)22S·S161 (Sl0)22S-SS)2 (SJ0)2n-S787 (HO) 2lS·S7$9 FAX: (H0)225·S2H FAX: (SJO} 24S416'3 FAX: (SlO) 24S·6f6S" FAX:(Sl0)2H,HIJ FAX: (Sl0)·22S,S807 Toll Free Access \Vi thin Shasta County l-800-528-2850 The Honorable Grego1y Gaul Shasla County Superio,· Com! July 14, 2014 of3
• R3

  Page 94
  The Co1111ty assess the caprtbilitles of its current permit tmci11g system to determi11e if it is able to allow 111mtagerial oversight of t!,e code violatlo11 The Honorable Gregory Gaul Shasta County Superior Comi July 11, 2014 Page3 process. If it is fo1111tf inadequate, Resource i)1mwge111e11t staff submit to the Board of Supervisors a proposal to obtal11 rm appropriate permit tracking software system for co11sltferatio11 as part of the budget process. This software should i11clt11le the ability for staff i11 all affected departments to view outstm11li11g violatlo11s prior to building anti la11d use pel'mits bei11g issued. Response: The County Executive Officer plans to implement the recommendation in the future.
• R4

  Page 95
  A quarterly wrltte11 report be s11b111ittetf to the County Executive Office/' and the Board of Supen•lsom, begi1111i11g October J, 2014, showi11g the progress made 011 resofl1/11g the backlog of11lolat/011s. A11 r1111111al written l'eport be submitted to the County Board ofS upervisors anti County Executive Off/eel', prior to budget co11sltferatl011, classijj>ing the nature mul type of violations mul backlogs of cases. Respo11se: The County Executive Officer plans to implement the recommendation in the futme. RS. Begi1111i11g Fiscal Year 2014-2015, there be a separate cost accou11tl11g of both expenditures am/ revenues associated with code e11fol'ce111e11t so that the fl'lle cost to the geneml p11bllc anti Co1111ty may be calc11lated, i11cludl11g the costs from all departme11ts that al'e involved i11 code e11force111e11t activities. Response: The County Executive Officer will not implement the recommendation. Information regarding cost associated with a depmiment's activities is readily available. B. An Evolving Mission in a Changing County: Volunteer Fire Companies
• R5

  Page 105
  Staff-appointed committees do not duplicate the role of standing committees appointed by the City Council. Response: This recommendation is already in place. As noted above, the respondent rcspectfolly disagrees with F5 above.
• R6

  Page 102
  Any committee having input to the City Council regarding impact fees be fonnally aJipmved by City Coullcil and subject to the Brown Act to allow for public pmticipation and transpanmcy in local government. · Response: This recommendation will not be implemented because it is too broad and too rigid. The City of Redding is an advo.cate for public participation and transparency. The City of Redding has an excellent record in this area. It is not practical or advisable, however, for every ad hoc working group to adhere to this recommendation. The City of Redding will continue to fully comply with the provisions of the Brown Act. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Grand Jury's report. The City of Redding apprccfotes and respects the important function that the Shasta County Grand Jury serves in local government. Sincerely, ,r-:f}_d:Jl;~7</l}r" Rick Bosetti .Mayoi' RD:KS:ts N:\Or.mdJUl)\LOS,20·14Gr.too.lusyParkF<:t$CC.d..o.c c: Honorable Council Members Kurt Starman, City Manager Rick Duvemay, City Attomey Pam Mize, City Clerk Members of the Community Services Advisory Cominission Eleanor Townsend, Shasta County Grand Jmy Foreperson CITY C)F RED()JNC, 777 Cypress Avenue, Rerl;dlng, (A 96001 t',0, Box 496071,_Rcddlng, CA 96049·G071 530,225,4060 FAX 530,215.4325 Kurt Starnlan, City M.'111.tger B,,rry Tippin, Asslsti\nl City M,,ni\ger August 5, 2014 8,080,600·800 Greg Cl,11k, DeJ)uty Clly M,1nr1ger The Honorable Gregory Gaul Presiding Judge Shasta County Superior Court 1500 Court Street Redding, CA 96001 Dear Presiding Judge Gaul: The Shasta County Grand Jory published a report titled "Open Parks • Closed Meetings" in June 2014. The Grand Jury's report includes six findings and six recommendations. The Grand Jory requested that the City Man~ger of the City of Redding respond to the findings and the recommendations. Therefore, the purpose of this letter is to honor the Grand Jui'y's request: Fl. The cufrent City of Redding Park and Recreation Facilities Impact Fees will not financially suppo1t the LOS of7.04 acres per 1,000 residents in the future. Response: The respondent agrees that impact fees alone will not support the LOS referenced above. It is possible, however, that othei· funding sources, such as grants, could be utilized to maintain or enhance the LOS. ·