📋
Extracted from Consolidated Report

This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.

Shasta County Grand Jury • 2008-2009

Redding Police Department Facility

14 pages
View PDF View Full Original

Findings 8 findings

F1 Page 57
Everyone the 2008/2009 Grand Jury interviewed or contacted about the Redding Police Department California Street facility agreed that a new building is needed. The need fo r a new building has been apparent for more than 21 years and is well documented in city files.
F2 Page 57
The RPD building was constructed 61 years ago and is not in accordance with modern building and safety standards. The buil ding was not designed to withstand a significant earthquake or any other major disaster, as is now required by the state’s the Essential Services Building Seismic Safety Act of 1986 (Health & Safety Code, §16000 et seq.) for new police facilities. The defi ciencies found by the 2005/2006 Grand Jury still exist today. Indeed, the problems with the building have been compounded by four more years of use and exacerbated by the need for a new roof and by recent problems with the sewer system.
F3 Page 57
The RPD building is n ot protected by an automatic fire protection sprinkler system. Although the building does have a m odern fire and smoke detection alarm system and someone is present in the building at all times, there are numerous concealed spaces where a fire could start and burn undetected.
F4 Page 57
On September 9, 2008, the City of Redding’s Safety Inspection Team (S.I.T.) comprised of risk management, fire and building maintenance personnel completed an inspection of the RPD building. The S.I.T.’s report identified potential general safety and Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) violations, general liabilit y exposures and buildi ng maintenance and fire co de issues. T he report concluded: 57 The potential for an employee complaint or incident as a result of unsafe working conditions is heightened by the lack of workspace. The City could face substantial fines and penalties if an OSHA investigation were to occur. However, when interviewed by the Grand Jury, only one of the current five city council members claimed to have seen the S .I.T. report, and even th at member of the city council could not recall the report’s contents.
F5 Page 58
The Grand Jury re-visited the RPD facili ty on April 29, 2009, to follow-up on the items identified in the S.I.T. report. The Grand Jury was particularly concerned about the fire code violations and structural and egress deficiencies that could hamper fire control or obstruct a safe, quick exit from the building. The Grand Jur y found that many of the item s identified in th e S.I.T. report had been corrected, including fire extinguisher mountings and signage, so me wiring issues and a bulging partition. A sagging ceiling in the property and evidence storage area also had been partially repaired, althoug h the support beam holding up the ceiling is still not attached to one wall on the so uth side of the room. However, many other identified code violations were not, or could not be, corrected. For several years the city has minimized or not even undertaken repairs to the police station, because there was a belief that a new building would be constructed soon. The result is that unacceptable and, in some cases, unsafe workspace conditions continue to exist, such as in the property and evidence storage area, briefing room and locker room. The roof continues to leak; electrical power strips and extension cords are overloaded; dry-rot is present in the roof fascia in the front of the building and portions of the building flood during heavy rains. Based upon the deficiencies of the RPD building that have existed for many years, and upon the conclusions of the city’s own S.I.T. report, the Grand Jury finds that RPD employees are working i n an unsafe environm ent. For example, there is not enough space in the property and evidence storage areas to allow for proper lifting, for maneuvering between aisles or for safe egress in the event of an emergency.
F6 Page 58
The estimated cost to buil d a new RPD facility has ranged from approximately $15 million for a retrofitted structure to more than $40 million for a new building with a shooti ng range and a separate storage building. So many cost figures have been given over such a long period that there is no clarity about how much a new or retrofitted building would cost. The present poor economy also has altered cost escalation trends. At one point in 2008 the city council decided on the construction of a new building rather than the retrofitting of an existing structure. However, afte r elections and the seating of a new council mem ber the current city council changed course and, ba sed on statemen ts made during council meetings, appears to be considering a retrofitted building. Since the city council has not made a decision on what size or type of facility it is willing to construct or retrofit, it has not yet been able to det ermine the ultimate cost of a police facility.
F7 Page 58
The most prevalent answer heard by the Grand Jury to the question of why a new RPD building has not been built or an existing building retrofitted is that there is no money to do it. The Grand Jury does 58 not accept this answer. Over the past 21 years there have been numerous opportunities to designate or set aside sufficient funds to build a new RPD facility or to retrofit an existing structure, as evidenced by the many improvements in city infrastructure that ha ve occurred in that time. The City of Redding’s overall budget for Fiscal Year 2008-09 is approxi mately $360 m illion. The am ount encompasses various types of funds that make up the city’s annu al budget, including enterprise funds (utilities such as water, wastewater and the Redding Electric Utility); internal service funds (in-house services such as information technology or fleet maintenance); special revenue funds (targeted revenue such as gas tax or federal block grants) and the general fund. Each of the funds is managed separately with revenues and expendit ures unique to each. The general fund, as its name i mplies, pays for m ost general government services, including police and fire protec tion, street and park maintenance, recreation programs, development services and city facilities. The city’s budgeted gene ral fund for fiscal year 2008-09 was $76.7 million before any reductions were made because of the weak economy. In 2008 the city council established a citizens’ committee to explore the issues surro unding the construction and financing of a new RPD facility . One of the charges given to the committ ee was to identify and recommend funding sources for construction. The committee fulfilled its responsibility and identified numerous funds that could be used for a new building. Despite the identified fun ds, all city council members still maintain that there is no money to build a RPD facility.
F8 Page 59
Ultimately, it is the city council that is res ponsible for seeing that the faciliti es used by RPD are safe, modern and efficient. In the past 21 years, the various city councils have failed in meeting that responsibility.

Recommendations 4