Shasta County Grand Jury
2005-2006
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
19 findings
F1:
The Cities of Anderson, Shasta Lake and Redding and the County of Shasta currently operate RDA’s. In total there are six redevelopment project areas in the county: Shasta Dam (Shasta Lake City); Southwest (Anderson); and Market Street, Canby-Hilltop- Cypress, Buckeye and Shastec (Redding). In 1993, section 33216.5 of the California Health and Safety Code was enacted and authorized the transfer of the Shasta Dam Area Redevelopment Project from Shasta County to the City of Shasta Lake. The City of Anderson and Shasta County cooperate with the Redding RDA as a multi-jurisdictional agency in the Shastec Project Area. The County also partners with the City of Redding in controlling the Buckeye Project Area. Currently, these partnerships generate no income for Shasta County. As of June 2004, the total indebtedness for all RDA’s in Shasta County approached $50 million, with the City of Redding’s Redevelopment Agency (RRA) issuing more than 90 percent of that debt.
F2:
Table I shows financial data which demonstrates the significant growth of the RRA over the past decade. Both the property tax increment and the administrative cost to run the agency have nearly tripled since 1995 and total agency bond indebtedness has ballooned 63 to over $40 million. The 2004/2005 total assessed property value of the RRA project areas was $1.75 billion. Table 1: Economic data for the Redding Redevelopment Agency 1995-1996 2001-2002 2004-2005 Tax Increment Income $3,714,000 $5,591,000 $11,720,000 Total Bond Debt $25,200,000 $22,550,000 $41,425,000 Administrative Costs $428,000 $1,208,000 $1,477,000
F3:
The 2005 RRA tax increment income of $11.7 million represents the amount of money (less set asides and pass-through funds) that must, by law, be reinvested in the redevelopment project areas within RRA, or debt service. This tax increment results from increased value, usually created by the redevelopment. Critics of redevelopment have claimed that the tax increment diversion deprives a city’s general fund of needed cash. It is true that increases in property taxes from outside the project area are deposited directly into the General Fund, but the City retains only about 10 percent of these property tax dollars (due to the 90 percent diversion to the state and county). In contrast, the RDA receives approximately 60 percent of each tax increment dollar and only 40 percent is diverted to the state and county. Additionally, a commercially successful project area, like the Canby-Hilltop-Cypress development, also generates significant sales tax revenue for the City. Proponents of RDA’s further argue that, without redevelopment, blighted areas may generate little, if any, future property tax revenue. Redding City officials interviewed agreed that the Downtown Mall is an example of a redevelopment project area that actually resulted in blight while attempting to reverse it. The mall’s high vacancy rate, lack of economic productivity, and deteriorating physical structure are prime components of blight. Instead of accepting a redevelopment failure 64 and terminating this project, the RRA board decided, in 1990, to rename and expand this zone from its initial 10 acres to over 2600 acres. This decision has stimulated revitalization of the City’s core.
F4:
Redevelopment agencies commonly allocate 10 to 20 percent of their income for administrative costs, primarily staff salaries. In 2005, the RRA spent nearly $1.5 million on administrative costs, which was 16 percent of the tax increment after set-asides and pass-throughs are deducted. The RRA contributes $4,000 annually to the California Redevelopment Association. Although the RRA has a dedicated core staff, the total number of city staff supported by agency funding at any time fluctuates. Employees of various city departments track their hours devoted to RRA business and the agency is charged accordingly. For example, the Executive Redevelopment Director for the City of Redding draws half his salary from redevelopment funds. Redevelopment funding affords the City of Redding a means of creating staff positions not entirely devoted to redevelopment functions. City officials could not supply the Grand Jury with a formal accounting of job-sharing costs between agency and non-agency staff.
F5:
The RRA is required, by law, to pass-through some of its incremental property tax revenues to local schools and community colleges. This amount was $782,553 for 2004/2005 and is estimated to be $811,961 for 2005/2006. After housing, pass-through and administrative funds are deducted, the remaining revenue is reinvested in the redevelopment project areas. The RRA has adopted a Capital Improvements Program (CIP) to spend in excess of $20 million over the next five years. Some CIP funding is dedicated to the partial removal of the roof on the Downtown Mall. The remainder of the CIP funds will be invested throughout the city’s four project areas. In addition to CIP 65 spending, the RRA will contribute $3 million towards the Cypress Avenue bridge replacement and $5.2 million for the widening and realignment of Churn Creek Road.
F6:
The RRA must, by law, set aside 20 percent of its tax increment to preserve and improve low- and moderate-income housing. This currently amounts to $1.4 million per year. The housing fund has a current balance of $4 - 5 million. In the past, over $8 million in RRA funding has been appropriated to provide affordable housing in the Martin Luther King area. According to its Director, the RRA is exceeding its five-year goal for affordable housing. The RRA added over 100 housing units (predominantly rental) in 2004/2005. The RRA board also proposed changes to its Downpayment Assistance Program (DAP) which will make it easier for low-income citizens to purchase a home.
F7:
In most instances, funding needed to begin a redevelopment project is generated by issuing tax allocation bonds. These are repaid using the property tax increment revenue described above (Finding #3). Repayment of these bonds is the responsibility of the RDA, not its sponsoring city or county. However, because the credit-worthiness of these bonds is critical to any city’s or county’s overall credit rating, it is highly unlikely a city or county would let a redevelopment bond default. Indeed, RRA staffers and each Redding City Council member interviewed by the Grand Jury indicated that the City of Redding would never permit any RRA bond default. City officials told the Grand Jury that the City, on two occasions, saved the downtown redevelopment project area from default. In 1972, the Redding City Council authorized a $550,000 loan from its Electric Utility Fund to the RRA for the construction of the mall parking garage in its Downtown project area. Currently, the outstanding loan balance is $539,183, which includes principle of $308,105 and interest of $231,078. Also, during the 1970s, the City made an “advance” (not a loan) of an indeterminate amount of money 66 from its Parking Fund to the RRA to support construction of the garage. During FY 2004/2005, the RRA made a $250,000 payment on this advance, and the outstanding balance is $734,162.
F8:
Redevelopment funding is approved by a simple majority vote of the five-member RRA board which also serves as Redding’s City Council. No vote of the public is required to authorize the issuance of tax allocation bonds. The RRA board (City Council) is the sole check-and-balance over redevelopment decision-making and the commitment of tens of millions of dollars of redevelopment spending. Newly elected City Council members receive redevelopment orientation by RRA staff. They are also offered an opportunity to attend a formal training seminar provided by the California Redevelopment Association. RRA staff stated that none of the current City Council members have availed themselves of this opportunity. The City Council/RRA board members who were interviewed rated themselves between “somewhat” and “very” knowledgeable regarding redevelopment law and policy. However, they agreed they depend heavily on RRA staff for input and explanations of pending RRA decisions. The four RRA board members were asked seven basic questions regarding redevelopment. Only one scored greater than 30 percent, and another was able to answer only one of the seven questions correctly. Only three votes (a board majority) are required to commit millions of future tax dollars for decades of debt service. The California Community Redevelopment Law Reform Act of 1993 (AB1290) removed the requirement of citizen oversight committees for redevelopment project areas. When queried about reinstating this citizen safeguard, RRA staff unanimously opposed reinstating it and the RRA board agreed, stating that citizen committees are ineffective. Instead, City Council members stated elections are a 67 sufficient curb on redevelopment abuses. (The Grand Jury notes that two of the current five RRA board members were not actually elected to the Council, but were appointed by the other members.) Additionally, Redding city officials stated that they believe input from the city attorney, yearly agency audits, and the periodic public review of project area implementation plans provide adequate RRA oversight. Because of the significant amount and complexity of funding ($50 million), the Grand Jury is concerned that this is not adequate oversight and that this “unknown government” operates beneath the radar screen of public scrutiny.
F9:
As stated in the above findings, the RRA board is comprised of the same individuals who serve as Redding City Council members. These individuals are also board members of the Redding Housing Authority, Redding Joint Powers Financing Authority, and Redding Capital Services Corporation. These agencies control the flow of significant amounts of money and the Grand Jury is concerned that City Council members “wear too many hats” while performing these agencies’ various functions. Indeed, at the October 18, 2005 Council meeting, the Grand Jury observed that all council members were unaware they were directors of the Redding Capital Services Corporation. The RRA board meetings are often held concurrently and interchangeably with City Council meetings. And, although the City Council shares similar interests with its redevelopment agency, potential conflicts may arise because each agency has different legal powers, responsibilities and functions. However, this does not represent a true, legal, “conflict of interest” because the board members do not directly benefit financially from their decisions. Nevertheless, these multiple roles afford city leaders a mechanism to bypass procedural hurdles that can impede costly projects from moving forward. For example, 68 the City Council can exercise eminent domain only for public use and must gain voter approval to issue general obligation bonds. However, acting as the RRA board, the City Council members can create a redevelopment zone (or annex land into an existing zone) and then employ eminent domain for public or private use, or issue bonds without voter approval. A proposed auto mall and a business park are excellent examples of expensive projects unlikely to garner voter approval for financing, but readily accomplished with the aid of the city’s multiple financing mechanisms. At the October 18, 2005, City Council meeting the City signed a letter of intent to partner with its RRA and a private entity to begin development of an auto mall on State Route 44. Similarly, over $16 million from the city’s Capital Services Corporation and $10 million from the RRA have been proposed by City staff to support infrastructure improvements for the Stillwater Business Park.
F10:
After a declaration of blight, eminent domain law allows RDA’s to acquire private land and/or property within a redevelopment project area. Blight is broadly defined by statute. It is usually categorized as physical, such as a dilapidated or unsafe building or structure, but may also be socio-economic, such as a stagnant area with low property values or a high crime rate. Even vacant, undeveloped land can be designated blighted, usually on an economic basis. All redevelopment staff interviewed by the Grand Jury agreed that vacant land might fit the definition of blight. Although most RRA staff members considered the undeveloped areas of Park Marina blighted, each of the four RRA board members interviewed did not. The vague, legal definition of economic blight can even be applied to Redding’s recently completed City Hall – if replaced by a shopping mall, the 69 property and sales tax generated could be of greater economic benefit to the city than the current, non-taxable building. Recently, California state legislators from this area co-sponsored two constitutional amendments that would further restrict the use of eminent domain. While the Shasta County Board of Supervisors unanimously supported both proposals, the RDA staffs of Anderson, Redding and Shasta Lake City, and all RRA board members interviewed by the Grand Jury opposed the amendments. This difference in opinion is possibly explained by the significant funding ($50 million) the cities have invested in redevelopment.
F11:
Usually RDA’s are able to negotiate real property purchases from private property owners by offering “just compensation” for their property. Often, simply the threat of eminent domain proceedings is sufficient to convince reluctant property owners to negotiate. All those interviewed recognized the unpopularity of eminent domain and preferred to avoid it. Although used rarely, the RRA has resorted to eminent domain to seize private property in the past. Examples include: o The Dana Drive freeway ramp o Completion of the Court Street extension north to the Sacramento River The Park Marina Drive area along the Sacramento River has a huge potential impact on Redding’s future downtown development. This area is situated between RRA’s Market Street and Canby-Hilltop-Cypress project areas. There has been a spirited and sometimes contentious debate as to exactly how and when this privately owned property should be developed. The Grand Jury has learned that City of Redding staff has recently discussed the possible use of eminent domain proceedings if development of this property is indefinitely delayed. However, four members of the RRA board assured the 70 Grand Jury that the City currently has no plans to either incorporate Park Marina into a redevelopment project area or utilize eminent domain to acquire this property. The four RRA board members interviewed also stated they would not apply eminent domain proceedings to the Parkview Market, but some were less certain about using eminent domain for the Stillwater Business Park. All Grand Jury interviewees expressed reluctance regarding the use of eminent domain, and some pledged never to utilize it. In some jurisdictions, however, it appears eminent domain becomes more acceptable when large amounts of money are involved. The mayor of Dunsmuir in Siskiyou County was quoted as saying, “I’m the guy who came on council and said, ‘I have a problem with eminent domain’ and I do.” However, he subsequently reversed his position when the city stood to forfeit a $140,000 federal grant and in March 2006, The Dunsmuir City Council decided to implement eminent domain to seize private property around its airport.
F12:
California redevelopment law limits the amount of vacant land within a redevelopment area to 20 percent. However, there is no limit to how much of a city’s developed land can be placed into redevelopment zones. The law also requires a determination be made that only a redevelopment agency, and not private development, can revitalize a blighted area, but the law does not specify any objective standards for this determination. Therefore, a RDA board has autonomy in making this determination. In the past 10 years, the amount of land within RRA’s project areas has more than doubled. Twenty-five percent, or 15.34 square miles, of Redding’s total geographic area is now located within redevelopment project zones. The City Council, acting as the RRA board, designated this land as blighted and determined that only redevelopment could 71 revitalize it. Obviously, as more land is placed into redevelopment areas, less land will be available for private development not specified in the project plan.
F13:
This Grand Jury’s review of Shasta County RDA’s did not reveal any illegalities. It has, however, made us acutely aware of the large sums of money involved with redevelopment and the potential for abuses to occur without proper scrutiny. The total bonded indebtedness of the RRA is approaching 10 percent of the City of Redding’s total assets (estimated at $500 million) and one quarter of the city is now included within redevelopment areas. A highly professional staff with sophisticated knowledge of redevelopment law and policy manages the RRA. It has successfully utilized this funding tool to make many infrastructure improvements, develop capital projects, and provide economic recovery and affordable housing. In most instances, areas designated as “blighted” have been improved. We applaud the RRA’s efforts, but at the same time, we encourage increased public scrutiny and transparency to ensure that abuses do not occur.
F14:
During its last ISO evaluation in 2004, the ISO indicated the City of Redding’s fire rating would be changed from 3 to 4 (that is, the City’s ability to combat fire worsened). In a last minute effort to maintain its prior rating, the RFD was able to make improvements by purchasing additional equipment and upgrading communication equipment at the SHASCOM dispatch center. These actions allowed the City to narrowly retain its rating of 3 and prevented both commercial and residential fire premiums from rising. According to the Fire Chief, two major deficiencies continue to prevent the City from improving its ISO rating: insufficient RFD staffing levels and the lack of a second ladder truck to serve the eastern half of the City. 45 143
F15:
Rank and file support for RFD administration is negligible. Some fire personnel view RFD administrators and the City Council and its staff as “the same enemy.” Several fire personnel thought their union did not represent all members, and others believe being active in the union limits their ability for promotion. A long-standing “history of distrust” between the fire department and the City of Redding regarding staffing levels was reported. Several RFD administrators labeled a few of the firefighters as troublemakers (the “five percenters”) who create dissension within the ranks. The Grand Jury confirmed the existence of such a group. Some City Council members felt the union “goes overboard in its demands.” It was apparent to the Grand Jury that there were significant issues between all investigated public agency personnel (RFD, SHASCOM, Redding Police Department and Shasta County Sheriff’s Office) and their respective management staffs and governing boards. No interviewee could offer an easy resolution to the above problems. Despite this seemingly insurmountable degree of distrust, firefighters overall felt satisfied with their jobs and City Council members felt satisfied with the level of RFD service. It was universally agreed that, “when the bay doors open, they become firefighters who do their job.”
F16:
The end result of RFD understaffing is a greater risk to citizen’s lives and homes. The Grand Jury finds that, at current staffing levels, when the RFD responds to a structure fire, its main objective, after the protection of human life, is the prevention of the fire’s spread to adjacent structures. In most cases the burning structure itself will incur significant damage or be a total loss. Fire department personnel and City staff substantiated that Redding’s ex-city manager stated he would rather pay a homeowner for the loss of a home from fire than have any fire department at all. Perhaps this statement shouldn’t be taken literally as the Grand 46 144 Jury notes that, without a fire department, not only would a home be lost, but the unchecked fire would immediately spread to adjacent homes. However, the statement further emphasizes the distrust between firefighters and City Hall. Of greater concern to the Grand Jury are statements, heard from all fire personnel interviewed, predicting the inevitability that a devastating wildland fire sweeping through western Redding. All fire personnel agreed that it is not a matter of if, but when this catastrophe will occur. The topography of the west side, our hot and dry summers, and a triggering act (natural or human carelessness) are the ingredients of a “perfect storm” for fire. When queried about this potential danger, City Council members pointed to mutual aid agreements with CDF and Shasta County Fire Department; seasonal firefighters; fire sprinklers in new Westside housing divisions; and weed abatement programs, all as mitigating factors for this catastrophe. However, all fire personnel assured the Grand Jury that these factors would have little impact on an out-of-control wildland fire.
F17:
Fire protection services in Redding could be enhanced if the general public applied sufficient pressure on the City Council. As an example, once residents in the northeast area of Redding became convinced of a need for increased fire protection, they lobbied the City Council and Station No. 8 was constructed well ahead of schedule. There are other examples of pressure producing results. As this Grand Jury investigation proceeded: 1) Fire Station No. 2, which had been observed by Grand Jurors to be frequently unoccupied, now is usually occupied. 2) The Fire Chief, when informed by the Grand Jury that it was in his job description to do so, now regularly attends Redding City Council meetings. 47 145 3) A RFD training log for 2005 was submitted to the Grand Jury after it was informed that there was no such log. RFD training has also intensified during the last four months. 4) After initial Grand Jury interviews called attention to communication deficiencies within the Department, morning briefings between RFD administrators and firefighters were instituted in January. Fire protection is similar to an insurance policy: the premiums seem costly upfront, but the coverage is always appreciated once an emergency occurs. The citizens of Redding must decide what level of fire protection they want to pay for, and then lobby City Council members to allocate the appropriate funds.
F18:
Despite its staffing and facility deficiencies, RPD continues to provide a high level of safety and security to the community. The Department works to develop proactive programs that continue to enhance the well-being of the community. Notably, the lack of significant gang activity is attributable to the aggressive actions of RPD in collaboration with other law enforcement agencies within Shasta County.
F19:
Due to allegations of excessive use of force in other jurisdictions, RPD has provided additional training in this area. RPD officers began a study in October 2005 regarding the use of force during contacts with the public. It revealed that force over and above control holds was used in only 18 of 1,742 arrests during the last quarter of 2005, and in only 17 in 2,500 arrests in the first quarter of 2006. This demonstrates maturity and restraint in dangerous situations.
Additional Recommendations
18
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The current police response time jeopardizes public and officer safety. The Grand Jury recommends that the Redding City Council augment staffing levels within the 180 RPD Operations Division as a top priority. Staffing growth should be commensurate with increasing population, coverage area, and the number of service calls.
R2:
Redding’s daytime population increases significantly because the majority of Shasta County’s retail establishments, government agencies, and health care providers are located within the city limits. Additionally, Redding’s priority on development of cultural and recreational opportunities has succeeded, thus attracting many temporary visitors. These factors further increase the daily service demands on RPD.
R3:
Staffing within the Investigation Division is adequate at this time. As the number of service calls continues to increase, the workload will exceed capacity and necessitate the assignment of additional officers.
R4:
According to the 2002 Redding Police Department 10-Year Plan, the average response time for priority calls (e.g., homicide, rape, robbery) was 10.5 minutes in 2002. In the past four years, this response time has dramatically increased to more than 16 minutes, a result of the City’s failure to increase hiring in proportion to population growth. Due to the size of Redding and its population growth, RPD administrators repeatedly recommended to City staff that two patrol beats be added. (A patrol beat is a 172 geographic area assigned to specific officers for patrol.) RPD administrators estimated that this increase would reduce the response time to an acceptable six to eight minutes for priority calls. Staffing one patrol beat 24 hours a day, seven days a week with allowance for time off and court time, requires seven officers. These two patrol beats would require adding 14 new officers, increasing coverage to 1.43 sworn officers per thousand residents. This is still significantly below the Western States’ average ratio of 1.9. However, the RPD Chief of Police informed the Grand Jury that coverage should reflect a combination of factors, including geographic size, population density, crime rate, response time and existence of neighborhood revitalization programs. He stated that a ratio of 1.4 to 1.45 officers per 1000 population is adequate for Redding. On February 13, 2006, the Redding City Council approved a RPD proposal to add one new police beat and four new officers. Currently the annual average cost for a new officer, including benefits, is $98,000. The four new officers will be funded by the General Fund. The beat will be staffed by utilizing the four new officers; two officers hired through a U.S. Department of Justice grant; one officer hired in partnership with Shasta College for additional services to the college; and by reassigning an officer from dedicated traffic detail. The additional beat is expected to reduce the priority response time by as much as two to three minutes. Utilizing the General Fund to increase the number of safety personnel must be continued if Redding is to revitalize its police force and keep up with crime and traffic incidents.
R5:
Redding has taken steps to reduce crime within the city. For example, inclusion of the Parkview Neighborhood within a redevelopment area and the utilization of all available resources transformed that crime-ridden neighborhood into a safe and productive one. In 173 2001, the Redding Redevelopment Agency (RRA) began buying property and tearing down the most seedy apartment complexes in the Parkview Neighborhood. The City Housing Division provided grants to low-income Parkview Neighborhood homeowners for home and yard improvements and the RRA contracted with a developer to build single family homes within the area. The Parkview Neighborhood has progressed from being the area with the highest number of police calls for service into a neighborhood with one of the lowest.
R6:
RPD public surveys consistently reveal that traffic is perceived to be the most important public safety issue in Redding. That perception is supported by collision statistics. Speeding and red-light violations are seen by the public as everyday occurrences. Due in part to citizens’ complaints regarding traffic, the Redding City Council is considering installation of “red-light cameras” at critical intersections. The 2004 California Office of Traffic Safety Report compared traffic collisions in 97 California cities with populations between 50,001-100,000. Redding was ranked number one in both fatal and injury accidents as well as number one in overall accident rates. In the same study, the City of Redding ranked fifth in “driving under the influence” (DUI) of drugs or alcohol-associated collisions. However, Redding ranked only 76th of 97 cities in DUI arrests, suggesting to the Grand Jury that increased DUI enforcement is needed.
R7:
Faced with lack of resources to add more traffic units, RPD administration now requires all patrol officers to emphasize enforcement of traffic laws. A guideline developed with the police officers’ union has been implemented to hold officers accountable for this policy. Traffic performance standards, which include citations and arrest rates, are now emphasized in officer evaluations. 174
R8:
RPD personnel interviewed by the Grand Jury state that the morale of patrol officers is lower than it has been in many years. Multiple factors contribute to low morale, but the primary cause is the ongoing staffing shortage. As the City has grown in both population and area, there has not been a corresponding increase in the number of staff. Officers interviewed relate that they believe this shortage prevents them from accomplishing their basic goal of “… protecting the safety of the community.” A moderate amount of overtime is unavoidable to cover court appearances, training and emergency situations; however, according to RPD staff interviewed, overtime is currently being used to compensate for chronic shortages in personnel. Staffing shortages contribute to excessive mandatory overtime which interferes with family life, personal time and the ability to engage in outside activities. It may be less expensive to pay overtime than to hire additional staff, but it is detrimental to the morale of the Department and to public and officer safety. Temporary staffing shortages have traditionally been managed by redistribution of personnel, reprioritization of duties and a commitment to “get through the crisis.” These strategies become ineffective in the face of chronic personnel shortages. Personnel look to their administration for long- term solutions and report doubts about the effectiveness of attempting to deal with the personnel crisis without treating underlying problems. The officers interviewed by the Grand Jury indicate that they lack confidence in the ability of RPD administration to adequately address these issues. They acknowledge that many of the problems associated with the lack of personnel are not within the control of RPD administrators. Officers consider both unresponsiveness and 175 lack of financial support by the Redding City Council and city staff as the fundamental factor underlying these problems. Another factor adversely affecting morale is the traffic enforcement policy and its relationship to evaluations. This is a major point of dissension because the officers interviewed by the Grand Jury perceive the emphasis on traffic control impedes their ability to conduct crime investigations, community policing and problem resolution - areas that officers see as priorities. Many officers dislike the current policy, and this contributes to their basic mistrust of their administration. A committee of officers and RPD administrators is revising the Police Officer Performance Evaluation policy to clarify the evaluation process and to reflect the concerns of both administration and the patrol officers. Underlying some of the morale issues is the officers’ perception of the Police Chief. They recognize the many problems and obligations facing him and that he is under cross-pressure from the police rank-and-file and the City Council. They acknowledge his expertise in planning and budget analysis. However, they report that a lack of personal contact compromises his popularity and diminishes the full support and confidence of his department’s police officers. During the Grand Jury’s interview, the Chief indicated that he does not disagree with that criticism. He states that more personal contact with his officers is one of his goals and that he recognizes how important this is to the morale of the department. All personnel interviewed have high praise for the leadership skills and resource management of RPD’s mid-managers.
R9:
RPD administrators state that the Department has experienced difficulty recruiting and retaining quality police personnel. The rural nature of Shasta County, its abundant 176 recreational opportunities, positive family environment and the reputation of RPD are positive factors attracting outstanding officers. The RPD, through the use of a vigorous
R10:
RPD has other personnel shortages. During the last two budget sessions, RPD administrators have unsuccessfully requested funding for an additional network technician to maintain the Mobile Data System (in-car computers allowing officers’ access to RPD automated records). There remains a need for two record technicians to enter data into automated systems, one Community Service Officer to handle non- emergency calls for service, and a secretary for the Investigation Division.
R11:
The Grand Jury learned of two other deficiencies within RPD which are currently being addressed. Funding for upgrading the radio system was included in the most recent budget and the new system should be operational by the spring of 2006. An agreement has been entered into with Shasta County for formation of a bomb squad using personnel from both agencies and equipment from the County. Personnel have been identified and are scheduled for the next training session.
R12:
The total area of the two RPD facilities is 33,000 square feet. A Space Needs Assessment report commissioned by the Redding City Council and completed in December 2005, indicates that the minimum square footage required for current police operations is 51,169 square feet. Although this is 18,169 square feet larger than the space currently used by RPD, it allows for no growth. The report’s projection for growth in personnel from the current 187 to 337 dictates that, by the year 2030, the Department will need a facility of 66,013 square feet. The construction cost estimate for a new 66,000 square foot facility is $31.5 million 178
R13:
The Investigation Division currently has just enough space to meet its needs. The inadequacy of the main facility on California Street necessitates separation of the Investigation Division from the rest of the Department. This isolation negatively impacts the ability to exchange information needed to optimally perform the investigators’ duties. Patrol officers and investigators cite this difficulty in exchanging information as a major impediment to solving crimes. Some information is communicated by videos prepared and reviewed during patrol briefings, or by an investigator attending the briefings. These methods leave much to be desired because there is no direct dialogue between the investigators handling the case and the patrol officers on the street.
R14:
During a tour of the main police facility, the Grand Jury found a number of deficiencies including: inadequate public reception area and handicap access; cramped work cubicles; exposed wiring; insufficient rest room facilities; too few private interview rooms; congested locker rooms; insufficient personal equipment storage; limited desk space for report writing; an overcrowded lunch room; and no windows. The current facility lacks storage for items such as official records, evidence, property, and departmental equipment.
R15:
The current parking area of 1.16 acres is inadequate to accommodate and secure both city-owned and employee vehicles. The 2005 Space Needs Assessment recommended 1.88 acres for current parking and projected a need for 2.81 acres by
R17:
A review of the City of Redding 2005 Public Opinion Survey revealed that public safety is the top priority of residents and that approximately half would support an additional sales tax for funding police, fire, and street and park maintenance. The survey further revealed that a “sunset” clause on the tax would increase that support. It is estimated that a 0.5% sales tax would generate $5 million per year. Non-city residents would pay a significant portion of this tax.
R18:
Despite its staffing and facility deficiencies, RPD continues to provide a high level of safety and security to the community. The Department works to develop proactive programs that continue to enhance the well-being of the community. Notably, the lack of significant gang activity is attributable to the aggressive actions of RPD in collaboration with other law enforcement agencies within Shasta County.
R19:
Due to allegations of excessive use of force in other jurisdictions, RPD has provided additional training in this area. RPD officers began a study in October 2005 regarding the use of force during contacts with the public. It revealed that force over and above control holds was used in only 18 of 1,742 arrests during the last quarter of 2005, and in only 17 in 2,500 arrests in the first quarter of 2006. This demonstrates maturity and restraint in dangerous situations. RECOMMENDATIONS:
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The current Assessor-Recorder has been elected to three consecutive four-year terms since 1994 and has chosen to retire at the end of his current term. Three persons are running for the Assessor-Recorder position, including a Deputy Assessor-Recorder, a current Auditor/Appraiser employed by the office, and a Public Works Department Senior Planner.
F2:
When asked to rate the overall effectiveness of the office, administrators interviewed by the Grand Jury gave it 9.5 on a scale of 1 (worst) to 10 (best). They cited a lack of complaints received by their office as one reason for giving it a high rating. When further questioned, however, they were unable to quantify the number of citizen complaints received over the past year. Employees of the office and citizens interviewed by the Grand Jury rated the overall effectiveness of the office much lower because of alleged rudeness and an inability to obtain information from the office. The Grand Jury found that the Office lacks a functional mechanism for compiling and tabulating citizen complaints. Heads of other County departments interviewed were also unable to provide the Grand Jury with a log of citizens’ complaints received by their offices. The Grand Jury finds that current County policy does not contain a requirement for a departmental complaint log to supplement County Administrative Policy 1-116, which provides procedures to be followed when the Board of Supervisors receives a written complaint from the public. The Grand Jury believes establishment and maintenance of such logs would assist in quality control within each County department.
F3:
Property Detail forms, which contain most of the characteristics of each property, are available on the Internet for all parcels in Shasta County. However, approximately one-third 4 5 of the electronic forms are incomplete. The Assessor-Recorder told the Grand Jury that continual progress is being made to complete the remaining forms.
F4:
Some employees interviewed by the Grand Jury stated that the work environment within the office is characterized by bullying and conflict between management and employees. There were allegations of gender, religious and age discrimination and complaints of “divide and conquer” tactics, micromanagement, and “untouchable” employees. Employees further stated that their complaints and suggestions are often unaddressed. Employees and administrators agreed that intradepartmental communication is in need of improvement. The County Personnel Department is currently conducting an investigation of those allegations. This complaint, therefore, is outside the jurisdiction of the Grand Jury.
F5:
Training programs for all office supervisory personnel should emphasize team-building and a positive work environment. 5 6 RESPONSES REQUIRED:
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
The 80-acre camp includes a dormitory, kitchen/dining area, laundry room, administration building, fire fighting equipment storage building, maintenance building, and inmate hobby shop. All facilities were found to be clean and in good operating order.
F2:
SPCC provides the labor (fire or hand crews) that assists the CDF in achieving the Department’s primary mission to “reduce loss of life, property, and natural resources through the implementation of balanced fire prevention, fire protection, pre- suppression and suppression activities.” SPCC has six crews, each consisting of 15 well-trained inmates.
F3:
Inmates are responsible for meal preparation and serving. The average cost for meals per day, per inmate, is $2.56. Breakfast and dinner are served in the dining hall, and lunch is packaged for consumption at the crew work sites. Because SPCC inmates are low-risk, the cost of housing each man is significantly lower than for those housed in regular prisons. 351
F4:
Drug-related offenders make up 95% of the inmate population. Inmates at SPCC cannot have a record of arson offenses, sex-related offenses, or previous escapes from other CDC facilities, nor be potentially violent.
F5:
Eligible inmates serve the last nine months of their prison sentence at SPCC. Inmates have telephone and visitation privileges, and may earn the privilege of spending a weekend with their families at a house located on the property.
F6:
Inmates provide a labor force to the CDF. Overall, the California Conservation Camp fire crews average more than eight million hours of labor on work projects for CDF and for federal, state, and local agencies each year.
F7:
SPCC has 10 correctional officers and 12 fire captains. A supervisor and two correctional officers are on duty each day. At night, one supervisor and one correctional officer are on duty.
F8:
There are no medical facilities at SPCC. Only basic first-aid is available to inmates. Those needing emergency medical help are transported to Redding or the nearest healthcare facility if the crew is away from the camp. Non-emergency care is provided at the state prison in Susanville.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
On June 6, 2005, a petition in support of the Referendum Against An Ordinance passed by the Burney Fire Board, containing 271 signatures (123 required) was submitted to the BFPD board. The petition asked the Board to repeal its ordinance to increase fees for BFPD services. California Elections Code sections 9145 and 9350 require the governing boards of districts to either repeal the ordinance against which a petition was filed, or submit it to the voters. Rather than do either, the BFPD Board forwarded the petition to an attorney recommended by the District’s Chief. The attorney declared the petition to be “fatally flawed,” and on the attorney’s advice, the Board did not submit the petition to the Registrar of Voters for inclusion on the ballot. This appears to be a violation of California Elections Code section 9145.
F2:
An alleyway separates the BFPD Fire Department building from a commercial building and a house behind it. BFPD has its own parking lot; however, when responding to emergency calls for service, firefighters often park their cars in the alleyway, blocking it. Additionally, a padlocked vehicle belonging to the district obstructed the rear portion of the alleyway, thus denying the neighbor access to his building. According to one of the complainants, the Fire Chief told the adjacent building owner that BFPD held title to the alleyway. The Grand Jury learned that the alleyway is actually an easement for the California Department of 9 25 Transportation. The Shasta County Sheriff’s Office branch in Burney ordered the Fire Department to remove the padlocked vehicle.
F3:
Several complainants notified the Grand Jury that the District Board may have violated the Brown Act (government codes sections 54950-54962), which governs meetings conducted by local legislative bodies, on two occasions. First, upon the recommendation of the Fire Chief, the BFPD Board hired an outside attorney to evaluate the referendum petition. Neither the BFPD meeting agendas nor its minutes speak to the hiring, cost, or outcome of the attorney’s legal analysis, or whether the Board took formal action to accept or reject the petition. In spite of two requests, the district did not supply the Grand Jury with documentation of their relationship with the outside attorney. Second, the BFPD Board amended the Fire Chief’s contract in closed session. The Brown Act requires that action taken in a closed session to appoint or employ an individual must be reported in the next open session immediately following the closed session. Any amendment to the Chief’s contract should have been presented during an open session of a District’s Board. However, the Grand Jury did find documentation of the Fire Chief’s contract changes in the minutes of the meeting of June 28, 2005. The report of the closed session stated that any amendment or termination of the Fire Chief’s contract require a 4/5 (80%) vote, instead of a simple majority. This recommendation was approved by the Board. Therefore, the Grand Jury determines that there was not violation of the Brown Act in connection with the changes made to the Chief’s contract..
F4:
Grand Jury interviews with City of Redding firefighters (many with CDF experience) consistently demonstrate a negative regard for the BFPD Fire Chief’s fire management decision-making, management style, and personality. Citizen complaints to the Grand Jury 10 26 during the past two years also criticize the Chief, describing him as “abrasive,” “controlling” and “bullying.” However, two BFPD Board members stated that despite some written negative comments received during the Chief’s application, they have been satisfied with his leadership of the Fire Department. They acknowledge his abrasive management style, but claim that style was “just what the department was lacking in the past.”
F5:
A review of the District’s credit card usage revealed: • Not all vehicle fuel purchases are thoroughly documented on receipts. • Not all expenditures are thoroughly documented on receipts. 46
F6:
CCSD has adopted a Code of Safe Practices and an Injury/Illness Prevention Program and appears to adhere to all of its requirements.
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The total FY 2005/2006 budget for the Crystal Creek Regional Boy’s Camp is $1.7 million of which $1.2 million is allocated to salaries and benefits
R2:
The average cost per cadet at the camp is $2,280 per month compared to foster home care cost of $4,800 to $6,300 per month.
R3:
All miscellaneous expenditures should be documented, noting the purpose of each expenditure. Copies of receipts should be included with the claim. RESPONSES REQUIRED: The CCSD Board of Directors must respond to Findings 1 through 6 and Recommendations 1 through 3 COMMENDATIONS: The Grand Jury commends the General Manager and members of the Board of Directors of CCSD for doing an exceptional job of managing the operation of the District. They provide and maintain outstanding water delivery service to their customers. The Grand Jury was impressed with the cooperation between the CCSD staff, the Board of Directors, and the District’s consumers. 47 48 49 50 51 Crystal Creek Regional Boy’s Camp Doing it Right Crystal Creek Regional Boys’ Camp P.O. Box 578 Shasta, Ca 96087 (530) 245.6685 REASON FOR INQUIRY: Section 919 of the California Penal Code requires the Grand Jury to inquire annually into the condition and management of all public prisons located within the County.
R4:
In 2005, the cadets performed 10,116 hours of community service work for public agencies throughout Shasta County.
R5:
The Grand Jury observed that the kitchen/dining hall, barracks, workshops and campgrounds were clean, and well maintained and organized. During a classroom tour, several cadets demonstrated their computer skills and briefed the Grand Jury about their classroom activities. The cadets have the opportunity of 54 obtaining their General Education Diploma. During the Grand Jury visit, the cadets were polite, courteous and considerate at all times.
R6:
It appears that the Camp Director and staff are committed, dedicated and loyal to the cadets and to the camp program. RECOMMENDATIONS: None RESPONSES REQUIRED: None 55
Findings & Recommendations
25 findings
F1:
The Grand Jury found the Main Jail to be a clean, orderly and well-run facility.
F2:
The State of California Board of Corrections, in its 2004/2006 Biennial inspection report, noted that fire and health inspections were conducted and that the facility was in compliance with the relevant standards. The Report also stated the sobering cells were often used as the intake area where inmates are received and held pending 195 housing or arranging for bail, and that this utilization does not comply with state regulations related to sobering cells. These cells should be used only for holding inmates who are a threat to their own safety or the safety of others due to their state of intoxication. That deficiency has been corrected.
F3:
The Shasta County Main Jail operates at near capacity on a daily basis. The number of inmates at the Main Jail must comply with the Shasta County Superior Court order. This order requires that a quarterly report be submitted to the Shasta County Court outlining both the number and types of inmates released pursuant to the order. Currently, the Main Jail houses the most dangerous inmates, who should not be released. Less dangerous inmates, both sentenced and awaiting sentence, are being released. This has become a common and accepted practice because of the lack of jail space. The fourth quarter court-ordered report for 2005 was: Bookings 2,931 Daily average 32.5 Daily Jail Population 374.5 Highest Daily Population 386 Jail Capacity Releases this Quarter 520 Jail Capacity Releases to date: 1,936 Males Released 378 Females Released 142 Sentenced Releases 76 Unsentenced Releases 444
F4:
and Recommendation 3 (a). 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 CONSOLIDATION/UNIFICATION OF SHASTA COUNTY SCHOOLS Is Bigger Always Better? Shasta County Office of Education 1644 Magnolia Street Redding, CA 96001 REASON FOR INQUIRY: 530.225.0200 Section 933.5 of the California Penal Code provides that the Grand Jury may investigate and report on the operations of any special-purpose assessing or taxing district located wholly or partly within the county. The Grand Jury received a request to investigate the feasibility of combining Shasta County school districts. BACKGROUND: School districts may exist independently or may be combined into either of two arrangements: consolidation or unification. Consolidation is the combining of two or more elementary or high school districts with adjoining borders to form a single district. Unification is the joining together of all, or part of, an elementary school district (grades K-8) with a high school district (grades 9-12) to form a new district encompassing grades K-12. Both consolidated and unified districts have single governing boards. . School districts in California operate with their own governing boards and appointed superintendents. Each district incurs costs for salaries, retirement contributions and insurance benefits for employees. Most districts pay trustees for board meeting attendance. Some also pay trustees’ retirement and insurance benefits, association memberships, and conference attendance costs. The Shasta County Office of Education (SCOE) is, in effect, a service organization that acts as an intermediary between local school districts and the California State Department of Education. With regard to local school districts, SCOE is more administrative 279 than educational in that it offers limited curricular support to the districts. SCOE also ensures that each district operates in a financially responsible manner and that all required State report deadlines are met. SCOE receives operating funds from the State for all of the public school districts in Shasta County. The amount SCOE receives is based on the Average Daily Attendance (ADA) of each school district in the County. ADA is a state-adopted formula used to determine per student revenue. ADA funding provides most of the revenue for local school districts, and is disbursed by SCOE to each district at pre-set times throughout the year. For each public school student the 2005/2006 ADA formula provides $5,059 for elementary districts, $6,294 for high school districts, and $5,917 for unified districts. School enrollment is declining, both locally and statewide. Therefore, ADA financing for local school operations is also declining. METHOD OF INQUIRY: The Grand Jury reviewed the following documents: • Shasta County Board of Education web-site, www.shastacoe.org. • California State Master Plan for Education, 2002 • Declining Enrollment in California, Fall 2003, California County Superintendents of Educational Services Association • Fingertip Facts on Education in Shasta County, 2005/06, Shasta County Office of Education • Shasta County School Districts’ 2005/2006 School Year Schedule, Shasta County Office of Education 280 • School Administration – Is the Cost Too High? Report by the 2004 Marin County Grand Jury The Grand Jury conducted the following interviews: • Sixteen private citizens • Shasta County Registrar of Voters • Two elementary school board members • A high school superintendent • An elementary school superintendent • A high school principal FINDINGS 1. In Shasta County there are 25 elementary, high school and unified public school districts: • Elementary districts 21 • High school districts 2 • Unified districts 2 2. These 25 districts are comprised of 69 schools: • Elementary schools 32 • Middle/Junior high schools 9 • High schools 8 • Charter schools 14 • Continuation high schools 5 • Regional occupational school 1 3. Total enrollment in Shasta County public schools in 2005/2006 is 27,274: • Kindergarten-Grade 3 5,907 281 • Grades 4-6 6,449 • Grades 7-8 4,656 • Grades 9-12 10,145 • Alternative schools 67 4. The enrollment figures for Shasta County schools show a loss of 3,021 students (10%) from 2001/2002 to 2002/2003. Between the years 2000/2001 and 2005/2006 private school enrollment also declined, from 2,812 to 2,447, or 365 students (13%). 5. According to school officials, reasons for declining enrollment include: • Reduction in family size due to advancements in birth control. During the past ten years the average number of children per family declined from 2.5 to 1.5. • Lack of affordable housing for families with children. During the past five years the average cost of a home in Shasta County increased from $174,500 in the year 2000 to $315,049 in 2005. • Loss of employment opportunities in the forestry and agriculture industries, which has caused young families to leave the area and reduced the influx of young families into the county. 6. The decline in enrollment during the past three years resulted in a reduction in ADA revenue to Shasta County school districts in excess of $15 million. The effects of diminished ADA revenue include elimination or reduction of: • extracurricular activities including athletic, drama, art, and music programs • remedial programs • programs for high-functioning students • classroom aide positions 282 • school nurse and psychological service positions • staff development opportunities 7. School district calendars vary significantly. For example, there are six different school year opening dates, five different winter and spring breaks, and five different closing dates. This can adversely impact schedules for families with children enrolled in more than one district. Unification or consolidation could minimize this impact. 8. Costs of school board elections in Shasta County depend on the number of board vacancies. For example, in 2003 this cost was $149,670. A cost saving would be realized by reducing the total number of board members through consolidation/unification. 9. A local elementary school administrator reported that eight eastern Shasta County elementary school districts recently joined forces for state-mandated training. This example of cooperation, sometimes called a consortium, resulted in a combined savings of $56,000 to the districts. 10. Unification and consolidation have additional positives and negatives. A significant issue is the loss of component district independence and autonomy. School officials report some parents perceive that unification or consolidation diminishes the quality of education. Other factors cited include a less responsive school board; decreased parental involvement; and increased class size. However, coordination of the curriculum throughout a unified district could ensure that students receive the same educational opportunities no matter which school they attend. Unification would permit a seamless transfer of students between schools within the district. Increased 283 opportunities for extracurricular activities such as athletic programs, drama, arts and music might also be realized. 11. Supporters of unification/consolidation claim that costs would be reduced due to a reduction in the number of school administrators. Also, district support services can be combined to realize savings. However, a 2004 Marin County study concluded that unification in that county would result in an overall saving of only 3%, and that any administrative savings would be offset by other costs of unification such as making all salaries uniform at the highest rate. The study concludes that, “While the likelihood of significant savings from district reorganization is questionable and the hurdles to achievement are high, understanding how individual district funds are used seems to be the best way to ensure that education monies are used effectively.”
F5:
In December 2001, the Board of Supervisors approved the Sheriff’s proposal to replace 62 Shasta County deputy sheriffs in the Main Jail and Detention Annex with correctional officers, in order to reassign the deputies to the field. The replacement of deputy sheriffs by correctional officers results in annual savings due to reduced salaries (estimated up to $800,000 per year). However, the FY 2005/2006 personnel roster at the Main Jail indicates that only 27 of the 62 deputies have been replaced with correctional officers. Interviewees consistently related that the pay scale of correctional officers was inadequate for recruitment and retention. Indeed, one officer was noted to have separated to resume his job changing tires at a local tire shop where he could earn more money.
F6:
The Shasta County Jail is operating at minimum staffing level. Correctional officers and deputies must work overtime to meet required staffing levels. Personnel working at the Main Jail accumulated over 22,000 hours of overtime in 2005. Excessive overtime results in officer fatigue and inefficiency, safety concerns, and contributes to low morale. These factors, combined with a higher concentration of dangerous inmates, create a concern for the safety and security of both the Main Jail staff and inmates. Several interviewees indicated that one or more “disturbances” had occurred since January, 2006, requiring areas of the Jail to be under “lockdown.” Many of the correctional officers and deputies interviewed by the Grand Jury cited the need for the 197 County to hire additional correctional officers and/or deputies to relieve the understaffing and overtime problems.
F7:
The Main Jail release policy and the inability to hold work release inmates accountable by incarcerating them when they fail the program negatively affect the morale of many of the deputies.
F8:
Costs of school board elections in Shasta County depend on the number of board vacancies. For example, in 2003 this cost was $149,670. A cost saving would be realized by reducing the total number of board members through consolidation/unification.
F9:
A local elementary school administrator reported that eight eastern Shasta County elementary school districts recently joined forces for state-mandated training. This example of cooperation, sometimes called a consortium, resulted in a combined savings of $56,000 to the districts.
F10:
Unification and consolidation have additional positives and negatives. A significant issue is the loss of component district independence and autonomy. School officials report some parents perceive that unification or consolidation diminishes the quality of education. Other factors cited include a less responsive school board; decreased parental involvement; and increased class size. However, coordination of the curriculum throughout a unified district could ensure that students receive the same educational opportunities no matter which school they attend. Unification would permit a seamless transfer of students between schools within the district. Increased 283 opportunities for extracurricular activities such as athletic programs, drama, arts and music might also be realized.
F11:
Supporters of unification/consolidation claim that costs would be reduced due to a reduction in the number of school administrators. Also, district support services can be combined to realize savings. However, a 2004 Marin County study concluded that unification in that county would result in an overall saving of only 3%, and that any administrative savings would be offset by other costs of unification such as making all salaries uniform at the highest rate. The study concludes that, “While the likelihood of significant savings from district reorganization is questionable and the hurdles to achievement are high, understanding how individual district funds are used seems to be the best way to ensure that education monies are used effectively.”
F12:
Management of employee grievances is specified in detail in the Policies and Procedures manual. Grievances or complaints are first presented to the employee’s supervisor and may be passed up the chain of command to achieve resolution. It is not so stated in the manual, but employees relate that they may contact a supervisor other than their own if appropriate.
F13:
Employee suggestions for improvement of SHASCOM are passed up the chain of command, beginning with the employee’s supervisor, but some employees feel this mechanism is ineffective. An existing anonymous “Employee Suggestion Box” provides a direct line to management, bypassing supervisors. However, SHASCOM management informed the Grand Jury that very few suggestions have been submitted in recent years.
F14:
Employees relate that there is a small “disgruntled group” within SHASCOM. Most 297 employees interviewed stated that such persons exist in virtually all organizations and that they did not adversely affect operations or morale in SHASCOM.
F15:
The ultimate training goal of SHASCOM dispatchers is to become competent in 9-1-1 call-taking and in management of all four radio pods: SCSD, RPD, RFD and EMS. Employees must also learn to liaison with the California Highway Patrol, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF), and Anderson Police Department. Typically, about three months’ training is necessary to achieve adequate proficiency in the first employment task, that of call-taker. Considerably more training is required before the dispatcher is proficient enough to operate a radio pod. Competency across all sectors is typically achieved only after two to five years of employment and training. Most training is one-on-one and is primarily provided by other dispatchers and supervisors, which takes these trainers away from their regular duties. Thus, training is costly and places an added burden on all shift workers. Obviously, when a current employee terminates, his or her replacement must be trained for the job. Employee turnover is, therefore, costly to the agency.
F16:
The most common reason for employees to terminate employment at SHASCOM is to spend more time starting families and raising children. Retaining these trained employees, even on a part time basis, might be advantageous for SHASCOM. Many of these persons might wish to continue working on a reduced-time schedule. Part-time status is currently available, but it offers no retirement or health care benefits. There is no provision for an arrangement such as job-sharing, in which two or more persons share one full-time position and divide wages and benefits between them. Other reasons given for employee turnover include incompatibility with the shift schedule, which requires working at night; and discovering that the employee really does 298 not like the job for one reason or another. Multitasking is an integral part of every dispatcher’s job and some persons do this better than others. The dispatchers who were interviewed also reported intermittent episodes of severe stress. Not everyone is able to adapt to these conditions.
F17:
Employees report some “squabbling” and micromanagement in the work environment, but not serious enough to cause problems. In fact, micromanagement during episodes of crisis and high volume was welcomed by some of those interviewed. They also noted that supervisors are (sometimes) more harsh than necessary and have been known to deliver reprimands in the presence of other employees, causing embarrassment, which is undesirable and usually unnecessary.
F18:
There is close cooperation between the Anderson Police Department (APD) dispatch center and SHASCOM. Equipment, software and procedures are standardized; operators may be exchanged in times of need; and SHASCOM may even provide dispatch services to APD during a major incident. An example occurred recently when an APD officer was assaulted on duty. SHASCOM notified appropriate agencies and assumed routine APD calls while APD dispatch managed the incident.
F19:
Several law enforcement agency personnel indicated that, at times, SHASCOM was “the tail wagging the dog,” directing the conduct of the agencies. SHASCOM personnel relate that this may well appear to be the case since they are often better informed of available resources than are units in the field. Public safety personnel stated that SHASCOM seemed, at times, to ignore suggestions about SHASCOM communication procedures and take the attitude that “SHASCOM knows best.”
F20:
Redding firefighters interviewed by the Grand Jury consistently indicated that dispatch through SHASCOM, while adequate, could be improved. They noted that, during some 299 major emergencies within the city (e.g., during the December, 2005, Jewell Lane flood), a battalion chief stationed himself in the fire pod at SHASCOM to guide dispatch, and that this noticeably improved the efficiency of operations. CDF has jurisdiction over fires in the County and State. Its dispatch center is operated by a fire captain, who has fire management expertise. The CDF dispatcher is given authority to prioritize calls and to manage some situations on his or her own. A simple example is the proverbial “cat in the tree.” RFD would not deny service and would have a unit respond to this call. A CDF dispatcher, on the other hand, has the option of suggesting the caller place a bowl of cat food at the base of the tree and call back if the cat doesn’t come down. This could save the cost of sending a unit. In any major wildfire incident, RFD units immediately sign over to CDF for dispatch. The Redding firefighters interviewed by the Grand Jury stated they believe it would be less expensive and they would receive better service if all of their dispatching were switched to CDF. Whether the net effect would be a cost savings has not actually been determined. Redding currently spends $1.8 million annually for SHASCOM services. It allocates $900,000 of that expenditure through RPD and $900,000 through RFD. However, the current allocation is simply a matter of budgetary convenience and makes no allowance for user volume. In 2005, RPD used nearly seven times as much SHASCOM service as does RFD. If allocated by dispatch volume, RFD’s share would be $230,000, which would more accurately reflect the percentage of General Fund money allocated to both departments. It would be clearer to managers as well as concerned citizens if Redding were to allocate SHASCOM police and fire payments proportionately.
F21:
At SHASCOM’s inception, meetings called “Law Ops” and “Fire Ops” were initiated to 300 resolve operational problems and disputes among member agencies. These meetings were originally held monthly but the number of issues declined and they are now scheduled in alternate months. Several interviewees reported that some of the agencies have not sent representatives to recent meetings. SHASCOM management indicated that, although they always attend the meetings, they prefer to resolve complaints and suggestions promptly by telephone. Issue resolution is not addressed in the Policies and Procedures manual.
F22:
In response to a 2003/2004 Shasta County Grand Jury Recommendation, SHASCOM now posts announcements and agendas of its Board of Directors’ meetings in publicly accessible locations, namely on a bulletin board located outside the SHASCOM security fence, and on the SHASCOM Internet web site. The latter location is readily available to the public. A regular meeting of the SHASCOM Board was scheduled for Monday May 8, 2006, and the agenda was duly posted to the web site. However, the Grand Jury found that, as of Friday, May 5th, it was known to SHASCOM that the meeting had been rescheduled to May 22nd. The website did not reflect this change until May 10th, when the agenda for a special meeting, to be held on May 22nd, was posted.
F23:
Staffing has consistently been near authorized levels. SHASCOM’s personnel consist of 52 authorized paid positions and two volunteers, as shown in the table below. SHASCOM Staffing, April 2006 Position Authorized Funded Frozen Filled Vacant Female General Manager 1 1 0 0 1 NA Public Safety Manager - Ops 1 1 0 1 0 1 Public Safety Manager - Training 1 1 0 1 0 1 Public Safety Manager - Systems 1 1 0 1 0 1 Supervisor 5 5 0 4 1 1 Public Safety Dispatcher I & II 34 34 2 31 1 27 Administrative Assistant 1 1 0 1 0 1 301 Accountant (no benefits) 1 1 0 1 0 1 Secretary (no benefits) 1 1 0 1 0 1 Extra Help Dispatchers (no benefits) 5 5 0 5 0 5 Mapper/Background/Maintenance (no benefits) 1 1 0 1 0 0 Volunteer NA NA NA 2 NA 1
F24:
Since its inception in 1990, SHASCOM has had three General Managers. All have been male. Two came from the ranks of sworn law enforcement officers (one police, one sheriff). The most recent retired in October 2005. The agency is now headed by an Interim General Manager (female) who is also the Public Safety Manager ~ Operations. Her experience and training are in public safety dispatching. This interim General Manager has strong support from her staff.
F25:
In spite of widespread recruitment efforts, the position of permanent General Manager has been vacant for approximately 18 months. The Grand Jury finds that recruiting and appointing a competent and dedicated General Manager is the most pressing of SHASCOM’s current needs. A lack of response by qualified applicants for this position is attributed by SHASCOM personnel to an inadequate pay and benefits package and the fact that few persons are qualified to manage centralized dispatch centers. Because the demand for qualified candidates exceeds the supply, the compensation package for this position must be reviewed. Combining the Training and Systems Manager positions is one option suggested by a SHASCOM Board member for freeing up funds to increase salary and benefits of the General Manager. Training and systems management are both crucial to maintaining the competence of dispatchers and the high quality and volume of SHASCOM operations. The feasibility of this option depends on the amount of time and effort these positions 302 require, and warrants further review.
Additional Recommendations
11
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Flexible tubing connections should be changed when signs of deterioration are noted, or no less than annually.
R2:
Safety Issues: 317 A. Chlorine leaks at the water treatment plant, due to defective regulators and connections, were reported on June 29, 2005; July 1, 2005; and July 5, 2005. During 2005, unreported minor leaks were resolved by SCSD personnel. Evacuation of homes and a dispatch notification to various agencies (Hazmat- CDF, Shasta County Public Health, Shasta Fire Department, Shasta County Sheriff, Redding City Fire Department, Shasta Lake Fire District, Redding Public Works Department, SHASCOM, California Office of Emergency Services, and Environmental Health) were necessary due to the reported chlorine leaks. The notification of agencies and reports resulted in $5,113.76 billed by CDF and additional unbilled costs from other agencies who chose not to or were not required to bill. B. Because SCSD personnel do not have the specifications and procedures manual provided by the chlorine regulator manufacturer, they do not adhere to the following maintenance recommendations:
R3:
“The SCSD Board should consider making bi-monthly rather than monthly, salary payments to its employees.”
R4:
“The SCSD Board should review, modify if necessary, and adopt the proposed Policy and Procedures Manual ....” Drafting of the Policy and Procedure Manual is in progress but has not been completed. The SCSD Board considered a number of other recommendations of the 2003/2004 Grand Jury, most of which it chose not to adopt. A review of all minutes from July 2004 to present confirmed that these recommendations were not implemented.
R5:
“The SCSD Board should request its Independent Auditor to recommend petty cash procedure.”
R6:
“The SCSD Board should direct staff to devise a better format for bill paying to speed up the approval process.”
R7:
“The SCSD Board should review the need for credit cards.”
R8:
The Grand Jury obtained documents showing that the activity of the SO’s canine unit was curtailed in 2005. The 2005 Sheriff’s Office Annual Statistical report for the K-9 unit shows: K-9 Narcotic Find K-9 Unit Statistics Methamphetamine 36 lbs Felony Arrests 346 Cocaine 3.2 oz. Misdemeanor Arrests 102 Heroin 19.5 gm. Apprehensions 19 Marijuana Plants 150,000 Outside Agency Assists 60 Processed Marijuana 24 lbs. Cash seized $88,648 329
R9:
Training in the Sheriff’s department conformed to a new Peace Officer Standards Training (POST) requirement, which added approximately 400 training domains. According to the Acting Sheriff, the SO was the fourth law enforcement agency in the state to successfully certify their Field Training Manual, meeting POST standards.
R10:
All SO interviewees expressed loyalty to the department, pride in their accomplishments and the desire to continue to serve the citizens of Shasta County. RECOMMENDATIONS:
R12:
“The SCSD Board and employees should attend training sessions offered by the California Special Districts Association. They should also send representatives to appropriate seminars, workshops, conferences and professional organization meetings when offered.” 2. Safety Issues: 317 A. Chlorine leaks at the water treatment plant, due to defective regulators and connections, were reported on June 29, 2005; July 1, 2005; and July 5, 2005. During 2005, unreported minor leaks were resolved by SCSD personnel. Evacuation of homes and a dispatch notification to various agencies (Hazmat- CDF, Shasta County Public Health, Shasta Fire Department, Shasta County Sheriff, Redding City Fire Department, Shasta Lake Fire District, Redding Public Works Department, SHASCOM, California Office of Emergency Services, and Environmental Health) were necessary due to the reported chlorine leaks. The notification of agencies and reports resulted in $5,113.76 billed by CDF and additional unbilled costs from other agencies who chose not to or were not required to bill. B. Because SCSD personnel do not have the specifications and procedures manual provided by the chlorine regulator manufacturer, they do not adhere to the following maintenance recommendations: 1. Flexible tubing connections should be changed when signs of deterioration are noted, or no less than annually. 2. Chlorine regulators need to be inspected and maintained no less than annually. 3. The district needs to maintain a written preventative maintenance log showing scheduled and completed work. C. Ladders and cages were installed on the District’s reservoirs but not on two concrete fire suppression tanks at Highland Park III. 3. Insurance Service Office (ISO) Numerical Rating: 318 The ISO supplies a wide array of information that underwriters use to evaluate and price particular risks. ISO ratings range from 1 (best) to 10 (worst). Services include evaluations of fire protection capabilities of individual cities, towns and service districts. A. On November 1, 1985, SCSD received an overall ISO Public Protection Class rating of 5 (57.93% credit earned). B. On April 8, 2005, SCSD received an overall ISO Rating of 5 (52.07% credit earned). The SCSD Fire Department earned 20.02% out of a possible 50.00%, with a relative ISO rating of 6. SCSD received higher ratings for receiving and handling fire alarms and for its water supply. SCSD was penalized for the lack of on-duty fire fighters and training facilities. The best opportunity to improve the ISO numerical rating falls within the Fire Department. Due to current budget restraints, the Fire Chief has been unable to make significant improvements in equipment or provide a local training facility. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Implement recommendations #3, 5, 6, 7 and 12 of the 2003/2004 Grand Jury report that SCSD chose not to change or adopt. 2. Safety Issues: • Chlorine: a) The district should purchase replacement regulators and maintenance kits. Staff should be trained to perform these routine maintenance activities. 319 b) The district must follow the manufacturer’s recommended preventative maintenance procedures for chlorine regulators and associated parts. c) The district should develop and post maintenance logs showing scheduled and completed work. • Ladders and Cages a) Install safety devices on the two fire suppression reservoirs at Highland Park III. 3. ISO Ratings: The Grand Jury recommends that the SCSD Board initiate a Fire Department Master Plan to improve its effectiveness and allocate funds that allow the SCSD to maintain its ISO numerical rating. RESPONSES REQUIRED: 1. The SCSD Board of Directors must respond to Findings 1 through 3. 2. The SCSD Board of Directors must respond to Recommendations 1 through 3. 320 321 322 323 324 OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF/PATROL DIVISION Under the watchful eye of the Sheriff Shasta County Sheriff’s Department 1525 Court Street Redding, Ca. 96001 REASON FOR INQUIRY: (530) 245-6165 Penal Code Section 925 of the California Penal Code requires the Grand Jury to investigate and report upon the operations, accounts, and records of the officers, departments, or functions of the county. BACKGROUND: The Mission Statement of the Shasta County Sheriff’s Office (SO) is: “...improving the quality of life, in partnership with the community we serve, through fair and ethical enforcement services.” The SO is organized into five divisions: Patrol, Services, Investigations, Custody and the Coroner’s Office. The department employs a total of 258 persons. A total of 2,241 major crimes (against a person or property) and 248 violent crimes (homicide, rape, robbery and aggravated assault were reported in Shasta County in 2005. The Patrol Division is staffed by 62 sworn officers. This division patrols all unincorporated areas of Shasta County. In addition, by contract, the SO provides law enforcement services to the City of Shasta Lake. The County encompasses 3,850 square miles and has an estimated population of 185,700. The SO operates the South County, North County/City of Shasta Lake and Lakehead stations, and the Intermountain (Burney) and Shingletown substations. Several areas of the county are staffed by only one deputy per 325 shift. In addition to patrolling 18 beats, officers may be assigned to Shasta Anti-Gang Enforcement (SAGE), Youth Services/DARE, Explorers, Field Training and SWAT programs. The Youth Services unit was formed in 2001 with five deputies and a Sheriff’s Service Officer (SSO) supervised by a sergeant. Each deputy and SSO is assigned to a County school district. The Services Division consists of 17 Reserve Deputies organized into three squads, a reserve commander and the reserve coordinator. The reserves volunteered 3,143 hours in 2005 for special events and incidents. The Investigations Division is responsible for primary investigating of homicides, sex crimes, elder abuse and property crimes. This division also includes the crime lab, staff assigned to marijuana eradication team and the Cal-MMET (California Methamphetamine Mitigation Enforcement Team) units as well as detectives who investigate major crimes (445 cases in 2005). The Custody Division includes staff assigned to the County’s detention facilities. The Coroner’s Office investigates unexplained or unexpected deaths. Each fiscal year the Sheriff submits the Department budget to the Board of Supervisors (BOS) for approval. The approved FY 2005/2006 budget is $33 million, not including grants. Allocation of these funds within each division of the SO is the sole responsibility of the Sheriff. By law, the BOS cannot dictate how the Sheriff, an elected official, administers these funds. . METHOD OF INQUIRY: The Grand Jury reviewed the following documents: • Shasta County SO 2005 Annual Report and Statistical Analysis 326 • Shasta County Sheriff’s website www.co.shasta.so.ca.us • Shasta County FY 2005/2006 Final Budget • 1998 Community Corrections General Plan, Shasta County Citizen’s Committee • Shasta County Sheriff’s Office Separator Report 2004/2005 • Shasta County Sheriff’s Performance Standards (Patrol Deputy) • City of Redding Profile 2000, Greater Redding Chamber of Commerce The Grand Jury conducted the following interviews: • The Shasta County Undersheriff/Acting Sheriff • Five SO Captains • Three SO Lieutenants • One SO Sergeant • Five SO Deputies • The former Shasta County Chief Financial Officer • The Shasta County Administrative Officer • Five Members of the Shasta County Board of Supervisors