Responses to 2022-2023 Grand Jury Report

Recommendations 3

• R1

  Page 71
  "The Grand July believes that the City of Hanford should make it a priority to invest in the development of quality parks and sports facilities in each quarter section of the City of Hanford. The Grand Jury concludes that there is a need for more basketball courts in the north side of Hanford. A full court is needed in Freedom Park, and Hidden Valley Park. The Grand Jury recommends that in the future, plans be made to add a basketball court to other parks that do not cunently have one, such as Earl F. Johnson Park." 70 City's Response to Recommendation 1: The City's Capital Improvement Plan budget for fiscal year 2024 includes the addition of an outdoor basketball court at Earl F. Johnson Park. The City may also consider the addition of one (1) or more basketball courts at Hidden Valley Park, depending on the current engagement eff01ts to identify the features and amenities that the public desires for a potential Hidden Valley Park expansion, The City has not planned for the addition of a basketball court at Freedom Park, but the City may consider changing the Earl F. Johnson Park basketball court project so that the court is constructed at Freedom Park since Earl F. Johnson Park is located south of Grangeville Boulevard. Funding of construction of new basketball courts at existing parks is a challenge. Impact fees collected from residential developers are legally limited to the creation of new park acreage, and, as a result, impact fees may not be utilized to improve existing parks, including Freedom Park. As a result, the construction of new basketball courts at existing parks must be funded with General Fund monies. Since the City's General Fund monies are limited, the City is forced to prioritize parks projects that will be funded by that source. For example, priority is given to parks that require renovation, like Earl F. Johnson Park. Grand Jury Finding 2: "While there are many basketball courts located in Hanford schools, they are unavailable for use to the public due to insurance and vandalism concerns. The lack of access to school basketball courts has contributed to the need for additional courts in the City of Hanford Parks." City's Response to Finding 2: The City concurs with Finding 2 to the extent that basketball courts located at Hanford Elementary School District (HESD) and Pioneer Union ElementalY School District (PUESD) sites are unavailable for public use. With respect to Finding 2's statement as to why school-controlled basketball courts are closed to the public, HESD previously informed the City that it is unwilling to open its outdoor basketball courts to the public due to concern over vandalism, graffiti, and theft. The City fuflher concurs with Finding 2 to the extent that the lack of access to schoolcontrolled basketball courts deprives the public of use of those facilities If school-controlled outdoor basketball courts were open to the public during non-school hours, the public would have many more options to play basketball at locations closer to their homes and would allow the City to utilize public funds on other parks and recreation opportunities.
• R2

  Page 72
  "The Grand Jury believes that a discussion should take place between the City of Hanford and its schools. An analysis should be done by the City of Hanford to see if it might be more cost effective to cover some of the insurance costs in lieu of adding basketball courts in multiple City parks, The City of Hanford should consider working with school districts to make the basketball couns that have been fenced off available to Hanford residents." City's Response to Recommendation 2: The City concurs with the Grand Jury Report's observation that Education Code Section 38131 announces the State Legislature's intent that "there is a civic center at each and every public school facility and grounds 71 The City has approached HESD on multiple occasions about allowing the public to utilize the district's outdoor recreational facilities in the spirit of Education Code Section 38131, but the district has not been receptive. Elementary schools, including HESD and PUESD, should follow the lead of Hanford Joint Unition High School District, which allows the public to utilize outdoor sports facilities during off hours, HESD voiced concerns over costs associated with vandalism, graffiti, and theft, but they are costs that school districts should bear. Every public agency should pay its fair share of costs so residents may utilize publicly owned facilities. For such reasons, the City is not inclined to "cover" a portion of a school district's insurance costs as the City is already paying its fair share of costs associated with City facilities that are available to the public. It is time for elementary schools to step up and bear their share of costs to allow the public to utilize outdoor recreational facilities that the public owns. Grand Jury Finding 3: "The Grand Jury found that there are many ponable basketball hoops in residential neighborhoods of Hanford. The City of Hanford is currently issuing wamings and citations to homeowners that have the portable courts on the street and sidewalks in front of their homes." City's Response to Finding 3: The City concurs with Finding 3 to the extent that there are basketball hoops in residential neighborhoods and that the City issues warnings and citations for right-of-way obstructions, including, but not limited to, basketball hoops.
• R3

  Page 73
  "The Grand Jury recommends that the City of Hanford consider relaxing its enforcement of its encroachment code dealing with the City's Right of Way, specifically Title 12 of the City's Municipal Code, Chapter 12.04. The residents that have basketball hoops should move them on garbage days/street sweeping days but be allowed to keep them by their curb the rest of the week." City's Response to Recommendation 3: The City is considering options, including a permit system, that would allow residents to erect portable basketball hoops within public rights-of-way. There are three possibilities with respect to basketball hoops in rights-oßway: (i) within roadways; (ii) on parking strips (area between the curb and sidewalk) in neighborhoods where parking strips exist; and (iii) on sidewalks in neighborhoods that do not have parking strips. When considering a permit program, the City will consider numerous factors, including, without limitation: Public safety and convenience. Children playing in a roadway give rise to a safety issue because it increases the risk that a child will be hit by a vehicle. Basketball hoops within rights-of-way and parties utilizing them will serve as additional obstacles that vehicles must avoid. The City will consider the safety of drivers of vehicles, including large delivety trucks, fire tmcks, refuse collection trucks, and streetsweepers; pedestrians; bicyclists; and parties who will play basketball within roadways. A basketball hoop in the roadway may be difficult to see at night, resulting in a heighted collision risk. A basketball hoop located close to a street corner may create a hazard for drivers who turn onto a residential street and unexpectedly encounter basketball players in the road. A falling basketball hoop may create a hazard. A hoop could, during windy conditions, fall into a travel lane causing a vehicular collision, or it could fall on a passing vehicle or pedestrian. Portable basketball hoops are often found on cul-de-sacs. On-street parking in such areas is limited, and basketball hoops in the roadway will further reduce on-street parking opportunities. Accessibility. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) will serve as a limiting factor with respect to the placement of portable basketball hoops. Per of the March 2018 edition of the California Department of Transportation's Permanent Pedestrian Facilities ADA Compliance Handbook, a minimum clearance of forty-eight inches (48") is required for sidewalks; provided however, clearance may be reduced to thirty-two inches (32") for a length of twenty-four inches (24") as long as reduced access segments are separated by full-access segments that are forty-eight inches (48") long and forty-eight inches (48") wide. In many of the City's residential subdivisions, no parking strip exists and the distance between curb face and back of sidewalk is only sixty inches (60"). Unless a basketball hoop can be placed within a sixty inch (60") wide space that leaves sufficient clearance for pedestrian access, it cannot be placed on a sidewalk without violating the ADA. Impacts to City Services Portable basketball hoops found on cul-de-sacs affect the placement of refuse cans due to the limited street frontage of each residence. Refuse containers are often placed very close to basketball hoops without adequately accommodating the width of the backboard. Refuse truck drivers attempt to account for such circumstances, but, occasionally during the refuse collection process, a refuse container contacts a basketball hoop 's backboard causing damage to the backboard and/or the refuse truck's arm. Portable basketball hoops in rights-ofpway also impact the City's street sweeping efforts. Due to the height of the City's street sweepers and portable basketball hoops, a street sweeper operator must swing wide around a hoop within a roadway to avoid contract. This practice leaves a wide section of the street un-swept and results in complaints by residents. If the City allows basketball hoops within rights-of-way, the City may require that hoops be temporarily moved on days that refuse is collected and streets are swept, but it is foreseeable that some residents will not observe the requirement, which may create a larger number of code violations than those existing today. Liability Potential liability to the City will be another important factor for the City to consider. The City could be exposed to liability, or at least additional claims, if it sanctions the use of its roadways for basketball activities and injuries arise from such activities. Defense of claims will result in the City's use of public funds that may otherwise be dedicated to the enhancement of the City's parks and recreational facilities. In Opinion No. 92-1004, the California Attorney General (AG) rendered an opinion that: "A city may authorize its residents to install basketball standards in the public rightof-way between the sidewalks and street curbs of residential neighborhoods so that the backboards face the streets and extend beyond the curbs, provided that the safety and convenience of the traveling public are protected." The AG evaluated a matter in which a city adopted a permit system for portable basketball hoops under which the city considered the following factors and implemented the following limitations and requirements: Location restrictions — cul-de-sacs and sh01t residential streets. Minimum specified distance from property lines. Adequate visibility for motorists. Adequate sidewalk and roadway clearances. Consent from residents of neighboring homes. Limitation on hours of use. Evidence that a permit recipient possesses public liability and propetty damage insurance. The City will, per Penal Code Section 93 further assess a basketball hoop permit program within six (6) months of the publication of the Report. COUNTY OF KINGS GARDEN BOARD OF SUPERVISORS wcr MAILING ADDREss: KINGS COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, HANFORD, ca 93230 OFFICES AT: 1400 W, LACEY nuvD., ADMINISTR ( A S T O I ) O 8 N 52 B -2 U 36 I 2 L r D ING N HANFORD S Web Site: 74 July 25, 2023 The Honorable Michael J. Reinhart, Presiding Judge Kings County Superior Court 1640 Kings County Drive Hanford, CA 932.30 RE: Grand Jury Repotl•: "Finance Department" Dear Judge Reinhart, The Kings County Board of Supervisors appreciates the opportunity to respond to the Kings County Grand Jury's report dated April 28, 2023 "Finance Department" received on May 22, 2023. The Grand Jury had identified the Kings County Board of Supervisors as a "Required Response". As such, this response is being submitted as required by California Penal Code Section 933 & 933.5.