Received December 20, 2011 Jan 3 2012 The Honorable Vincent O'Neill, Jr. Ventura Countygrand Jury Presiding Judge of*

- There is a lack of information available to the public and to the City Council to demonstrate that the City carefully and adequately considered the appropriateness, safety, and potential liabilities of entering into a temporary firing range agreement. We agree that information was not included in the staff report to the City Council demonstrating the extent of due diligence conducted by staff. However, City staff conducted considerable research on all aspects of entering into a temporary firing range agreement. The in-depth information was not shared during City Council proceedings but was available upon request and would have been used in negotiating an agreement. .

- The introduction of the Agreement as a Consent Agenda item, the lack of a proposed agreement at the time of City Council approval, and the lack of any subsequent agreement executed through April 2011, demonstrates that the City Council and City staff considered this to be a casual action with little risk to the City. We strongly disagree with this Finding. As discussed further below, ordinarily the City Council is provided with the substantive deal points of a transaction rather than a copy of an agreement itself. The lack of an agreement in a staff report, therefore, does not provide any indication regarding whether an action is "casual" or otherwise. While City Council authorized an agreement to be negotiated by the City Manager, an agreement was not executed because the use of the range was discontinued.

- Whether using firing ranges leased from others or considering the construction and ownership of a permanent firing range, there are risks and potential liabilities associated with both actions that merit careful consideration. We agree with this Finding. As noted above, staff carefully considered the use of firing ranges within Ventura County.

- There is a pattern of the City entering into arrangements for the use of firing range facilities for which the City staff has not done its due diligence to verify that the facilities are appropriately permitted and legally operated. We strongly disagree with this Finding. The Grand Jury report did not provide any evidence demonstrating that the City engages in a "pattern" of action. As noted elsewhere, due diligence was done to verify the facilities could be legally operated. Staff informed the Grand Jury in great detail as to the steps taken. The Grand Jury was also informed of the legal disagreements between the land owners and the County in the interpretation of various County Codes. The owners of the temporary firing ranges withdrew this opportunity to the City because challenging the County would be too costly. Those property owners, however, did not agree with the County's assertions and continue to believe they were acting appropriately and legally. The City also wishes to point out that Grand Jury representatives failed to advise staff of the purpose of their investigation. If this had been done, City staff could have provided additional information regarding the City's actions.

- The City is now proceeding with due care and consideration in assessing whether or not the City should own and operate a permanent firing range and training facility. We disagree with this Finding in part. As noted throughout this letter, the City has and continues to exercise due diligence in selecting a firing range for training law enforcement personnel. Using the term "now" in the Grand Jury report suggests that the City did not, until the publication of the Report, take appropriate action to select firing ranges. That implication is improper and ignores clear evidence to the contrary.

- By not having a written Agreement in place, immediately upon City Council approval, the City is unnecessarily and carelessly exposing itself to liability in using a live firing range. All agreements presented or considered by the City are processed in accordance with Chapter 40 of the Santa Paula Municipal Code ("SPMC"). Agreements are invalid unless they are in writing, approved as to form by the City Attorney, and executed by the Mayor or other city officer (generally the City Manager). If the SPMC requires City Council approval, staff either (1) provides the actual agreement to the City Council for consideration; or (2) describes the substantive parts of an agreement and seeks City Council authorization for the City Manager to execute an agreement approved as to form by the City Attorney. This is a common practice for municipalities throughout the state. It allows for greater efficiency and the timely execution of agreements. The Grand Jury Report did not identify what alleged liability the City might incur for utilizing fire ranges and the City declines to speculate. The City of Santa Paula stands ready to work with the Grand Jury to ensure full disclosure of all issues of police training, including use of a firing range, to demonstrate transparency, full disclosure, and safety to the public. Respectfully submitted, Tuda Robinson Fred W. Robinson, Mayor City of Santa Paula 40 8-19-11 City of Santa Paula "Citrus Capital of the World" 970 Ventura Street • Santa Paula, California • Mailing Address: P.O. Box 569 • 93061 • Phone: (805) 525-4478 • Fax: (805) 525-6278 RECEIVED VENTURA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT August 17, 2011 AUG 1-9 2011 blice OFFICE OF THE PRESIDING JUDGE REICEIVE The Honorable Vincent O'Neill, Jr. Presiding Judge of the Superior Court NOV 10 2UT County of Ventura 800 S. Victoria Avenue Ventura, California 93009 RE: City of Santa Paula's Response Grand Jury Final Report - Santa Paula Police Firing Range Dear Judge O'Neil: This letter is submitted by the Santa Paula City Council in accordance with Penal Code § 933(c)(d) in response to the Final Report of the Ventura County Grand Jury entitled "Santa Paula Police Firing Range."