Shasta County Grand Jury
2013-2014
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
The Grand Jury finds that:
because 52% of the regular Board meetings are cancelled, the public’s ability to monitor RABA Board activity is compromised;
F2:
The Grand Jury finds that:
RABA does not have broad based citizen input to reflect the community as a whole;
F3:
The Grand Jury finds that:
the on-time tracking of buses is done by the bus operator and is not verified by RABA;
F4:
The Grand Jury finds that:
there is potential for greater coordination of Demand Response type services within Shasta County and potential for partnerships with buses running along state highways from out of county;
F5:
The Grand Jury finds that:
bus schedules and route maps were not available to the extent stated on the RABA website which inhibits casual ridership and ability of riders to use the system;
F6:
The Grand Jury finds that:
RABA cannot keep pace with operating cost increases without increasing ridership, raising rates, cutting service or a combination of these actions; and
F7:
The Grand Jury finds that:
RABA continues to look for efficiencies in operating its Fixed Routes.
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
RABA change its by-laws to hold bi-monthly or quarterly meetings;
R2:
whenever route changes are proposed, or at least every two or three years, RABA appoint an ad hoc committee representing business, social service agencies, riders, non-riders, and governmental agencies to review community issues related to RABA over a set time period. This committee’s membership should reflect the divergent views of the community as a whole, not just riders and social service agencies, and provide a public forum for discussion of RABA issues and possible changes;
R3:
RABA incorporate GPS technology to track buses for on-time performance before the next bus operator contract extension;
R4:
RABA develop partnerships that benefit RABA and its customers in the areas of Demand Response and regional bus service with SRTA that could help reduce operating costs;
R5:
within one year, RABA needs to have bus arrival times posted at locations used by its riders and update the information on locations stated on the website where schedules and maps are available and insure distribution of and post schedules and maps at service agencies, schools, high volume rider destinations and transit stops; and
R6:
RABA explore partnerships to help increase ridership. REQUIRED RESPONSE The RABA Board as to F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6 and R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, and R6 32 CALLS FOR POLICE SERVICE AND RESPONSE
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F2:
11zere is a lack of specific tl111eli11es fo1• the steps withht the corfe e11force111e11t process (Fig11re 1). As a result, the Co1111ty does 1101 co11d11ct timely follow-11p act/011 to move cases to co11cl11slo11. Respo11se: The County Executive Officer disagrees with the finding. The difficulty in conducting timely follow-up is a direct consequence of limited resources. The Honorable Gregory Gaul Shasta County Superior Court July 11, 2014 Page2
F3:
The Co1111ty's permit track/ug system (Permits Plus) is i,ot provirling enough informat/011 to cleal'!y 111ulerstall(f the type and the 11111/tre of the violations occurrhtg within the County 01· wltlch open cases still 11eed re111ediatio11. · Response: TI1e County Executive Officer agrees with the finding.
F4:
The Board of Supervisors camtot provide effective oversight of the code e11force111e11t process because It does not receive written reports regarding code e11force111e11t activities a11d statistics. Respo11se: The County Executive Officer partially disagrees with the finding. There are other methods of receiving results from code enforcement activities. FS. The total cost ofc ode enforcement Is 1101 clearji·om the County Budget, Response: The County Executive Officer disagrees with the finding. Infonnation regarding cost associated with a depaiiment's activities is reaclily available.
F5:
Bus schedules and route maps were not available to the extent stated on the RABA website which inhibits casual ridership and ability ofriders to use the system. Response: The respondent agrees with this fmding
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R2:
The Board of Supervisors, the Co1111ty Executive Officer and the Directo1· of Resource Ma11ageme11t work together to establish specific ti111ell11es for l111ple111e11tatio11 of code e11force111e11t measwes, and that tltis be accomplished by Jmmmy 1, 2015. Response: The County Executive Officer will forther analyze and evaluate current imjilementation of the recommendation.
R3:
The Co1111ty assess the capabilities of its c11rre11t permit tracing system to .deter111l11e If it is able to allow ma11agel'!al oversight of the code violat/011 The Honorable Gregory Gaul , Shasta County Superior Coutt July 11, 2014 Page3 process. If it Is found lll(ufequ«te, Resource Mmwge111e11t 'st«ff submit to the B 011rd of Supervisors « propos«l to obt«l11 mi «pproprl«te permit tmckl11g softw«re system for co11sidemt/011 «s pm·t of the budget process. This software should /11clude the ability for st«ff 111 all «ffected depart111e11ts to view outstmuflng violatlo11s prior to b11ildl11g a11d ((md use permits being Issued. Respo11se: The County Executive Officer plans to implement the recommendation in the future. 'R4. A quarterly ivrltte11 report be submitted to the Co1111tj, Executive Officer mid the Board of S11perv/sor~, begh111/11g October I, 2014; showing the progress made 011 resolvi11g the b«cklog ofviol«t/ons. An m11111«l writte11 repo1•t be submitted to the County Board ofS upervisors am! Cou11ty Executive Office,; prior to budget co11sirlerat/011, classifying the. nature and type of v/olatio11s and backlogs of cases. Response: The County Executive Officer plans to implement the reconunendation in the foture. RS. Beginning Fiscal Yem• 2014-2015, there be a separate cost acco1111ti11g of both expenditures and reve1111es associated with code e11forceme11t so that the true cost to the ge11eral public mu! Co1111ty may be calculated, l11cl11dlllg the costs from all departments that are involved in code e11force111e11t activities: Response: The County Executive Officer will not implement the recommendation. Information regarding cost associated with a depai1ment's activities is readily available. B. An Evolving Mission in a Changing County: Volunteer Fire Companies
R4:
The Grand Jury reconunends that RABA develop paitnerships that benefit RABA and its customers in the areas ofD emand Response and regional bus service with SRTA that could help reduce operating costs. Response: RABA agrees with this recommendation. SRT A is currently contracting with a consultant to provide recommendations on how to efficiently utilize the Consolidated Transportation Services Agency (CTSA) and other transportation providers to best serve the co1nn1uuily needs. RABA staff will work closely with SRTA to develop options to coordinate and consolidate transpo1tation services by multiple providers to ensure duplication of se1vices is minimized and resources are shared to provide the most efficient and convenient service to the conununity. However, regional bus se1vice outside the RABA service area is the responsibility of other jurisdiction providers and involvement is limited to c01mnunication and coordination of se1vices. RS. The Grand Jmy recommends that within one year, RABA needs to have bus arrival tinles posted at locations used by its riders and update the infonnation on locations stated on the website where schedules and maps are available and insure distribution ofand post schedules and maps at se1vice agencies, schools, high volume rider destinations and transit stops. Response: RABA intends to implement this recommendation. The RABA Board recently approved the SRTP. The SRTP proposes improvements to the fixed route system and includes recouunendations on how the information is c01mnunicated to customers. This will include updated stop and schedule information at transit stops, transfer centers, and the RABA website. Staff will also update ·the Ride Guide distribution list to reflect current agencies and outlets. In addition, RABA intends to update its GPS teclmology and Intelligent Transportation Systems that will likely include real time bus monitoring and text messaging of anival times and delays.
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F2:
There ls a lack of specific ti111eli11es for the steps JVlth/11 the code e11fo1'ce111e11t process (Figure 1). As a result, the Co1111ty does 110( co11d11ct timely folfoJV·llJJ act/011 to mm•e cases to co11cf11sio11. Respouse: The County Executive Officer disagrees with the finding. The difficulty in conducting timely follow-up is a direct consequence of limited resomces. The Honorable Gregory Gaul Shasta County Superior Conti July 11, 2014 Page2
F3:
Tfte Co1111ty's pel'mil ll'llcki11g system (Pel'lllits Plus) is 1101 providiug e11011gft i11fonm1tio11 to clearly 1111dersla111! tfte type autl tfte 1111/ure oftfte violatio11s occul'ri11g 1vitft/11 tfte Co1111/y or ll'hicft ope11 cases still need re111ediatio11. Response: The Resource Management Department agrees with the finding.
F4:
Tl,e Board of Supervisors ca1111ot prm>lde effective overslgl,t of tl,e code e11force111e11t process because it does not receil>e wl'itten repol'fs regarding code enforcement activities mu/ statistics. Response: The County Executive Officer partially disagrees with the finding. There are other methods of receiving results from code enforcement activities.
F5:
The Community Service Advisory Committee (sic) has specific powers established in the Redding Municipal Code for making recommendations regarding city park funding. City staff selected an additional volunteer conunitiee (the ad hoc Advisory Group) which duplicated a function o·f CSAC and resulted in different input and recommendations to the City Council. Response: The respondent partially disagrees with the finding. The Redding Municipal Code does not designate CSAC as the only commission or committee that has the ability to review City-wide impact fees. The Advisory Group did not duplicate a function of the Conununity Services Advisory Commission (CSAC).
F6:
City staff appointed an ad hoc Advisory Group that was not subject to the Brown Act to review five development impact fees that affect City residents. Response: The City Council partially disagrees with this finding. The primaty purpose of the Advisory Group was to work with staff and the City of Redding's consultants on the background information and analysis that was needed in order to update the City of Redding's impact fees and provide community input during that stage of the process. The primary purpose was not to simply review final impact fees. RI. The City Council adopt fees to support the City's cmTent LOS of 7.04 acres per 1,000 residents. Response: The City Council does not intend to implement this recommendation. The City Council reviewed this issue in detail in 2013 and detennined that the existing Park Development Fee should not be increased at this time. It is the City Council's responsibility to consider all of the relevant facts and make the final public policy . decision.
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R2:
Tfte Board ofS upen•lsors, tfte County Execut/J>e Officer 011d tire Director ofR esource 111mwge111e11t 11•ork toge/Ir er lo estabfisft specific ti111efi11es for i111pfe111e11t11tio11 of code e11force111e11f 111ei1sures, 1111d tftat this be acco111pfislretl by J11111111ry 1, 2015. Response: Actions to substantially improve the efficiency and timeliness of code enforcement have already been implemented for the current year. The Department will continue to work with the Board of Supervisors, County Executive Officer and County Counsel to address the backlog of cases and implement code enforcement procedures in an efficient and timely manner. S11ft.: JOI 9 Suil.i /02 9 Sid/,: /OJ 9 Sufle 101 ; S11/fe 100 AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT BUILOINO DIVISION PLANNING DIVISION l!NVIRONMENT AL IOOAL "I H DI VISION ADMINISTRATION & CO~L\IUhTIY EDUCATION (5]0) 225-$614 (5l0)22S·S161 (Sl0)22S-SS)2 (SJ0)2n-S787 (HO) 2lS·S7$9 FAX: (H0)225·S2H FAX: (SJO} 24S416'3 FAX: (SlO) 24S·6f6S" FAX:(Sl0)2H,HIJ FAX: (Sl0)·22S,S807 Toll Free Access \Vi thin Shasta County l-800-528-2850 The Honorable Grego1y Gaul Shasla County Superio,· Com! July 14, 2014 of3
R3:
The Co1111ty assess the caprtbilitles of its current permit tmci11g system to determi11e if it is able to allow 111mtagerial oversight of t!,e code violatlo11 The Honorable Gregory Gaul Shasta County Superior Comi July 11, 2014 Page3 process. If it is fo1111tf inadequate, Resource i)1mwge111e11t staff submit to the Board of Supervisors a proposal to obtal11 rm appropriate permit tracking software system for co11sltferatio11 as part of the budget process. This software should i11clt11le the ability for staff i11 all affected departments to view outstm11li11g violatlo11s prior to building anti la11d use pel'mits bei11g issued. Response: The County Executive Officer plans to implement the recommendation in the future.
R4:
A quarterly wrltte11 report be s11b111ittetf to the County Executive Office/' and the Board of Supen•lsom, begi1111i11g October J, 2014, showi11g the progress made 011 resofl1/11g the backlog of11lolat/011s. A11 r1111111al written l'eport be submitted to the County Board ofS upervisors anti County Executive Off/eel', prior to budget co11sltferatl011, classijj>ing the nature mul type of violations mul backlogs of cases. Respo11se: The County Executive Officer plans to implement the recommendation in the futme. RS. Begi1111i11g Fiscal Year 2014-2015, there be a separate cost accou11tl11g of both expenditures am/ revenues associated with code e11fol'ce111e11t so that the fl'lle cost to the geneml p11bllc anti Co1111ty may be calc11lated, i11cludl11g the costs from all departme11ts that al'e involved i11 code e11force111e11t activities. Response: The County Executive Officer will not implement the recommendation. Information regarding cost associated with a depmiment's activities is readily available. B. An Evolving Mission in a Changing County: Volunteer Fire Companies
R5:
Staff-appointed committees do not duplicate the role of standing committees appointed by the City Council. Response: This recommendation is already in place. As noted above, the respondent rcspectfolly disagrees with F5 above.
R6:
Any committee having input to the City Council regarding impact fees be fonnally aJipmved by City Coullcil and subject to the Brown Act to allow for public pmticipation and transpanmcy in local government. · Response: This recommendation will not be implemented because it is too broad and too rigid. The City of Redding is an advo.cate for public participation and transparency. The City of Redding has an excellent record in this area. It is not practical or advisable, however, for every ad hoc working group to adhere to this recommendation. The City of Redding will continue to fully comply with the provisions of the Brown Act. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Grand Jury's report. The City of Redding apprccfotes and respects the important function that the Shasta County Grand Jury serves in local government. Sincerely, ,r-:f}_d:Jl;~7</l}r" Rick Bosetti .Mayoi' RD:KS:ts N:\Or.mdJUl)\LOS,20·14Gr.too.lusyParkF<:t$CC.d..o.c c: Honorable Council Members Kurt Starman, City Manager Rick Duvemay, City Attomey Pam Mize, City Clerk Members of the Community Services Advisory Cominission Eleanor Townsend, Shasta County Grand Jmy Foreperson CITY C)F RED()JNC, 777 Cypress Avenue, Rerl;dlng, (A 96001 t',0, Box 496071,_Rcddlng, CA 96049·G071 530,225,4060 FAX 530,215.4325 Kurt Starnlan, City M.'111.tger B,,rry Tippin, Asslsti\nl City M,,ni\ger August 5, 2014 8,080,600·800 Greg Cl,11k, DeJ)uty Clly M,1nr1ger The Honorable Gregory Gaul Presiding Judge Shasta County Superior Court 1500 Court Street Redding, CA 96001 Dear Presiding Judge Gaul: The Shasta County Grand Jory published a report titled "Open Parks • Closed Meetings" in June 2014. The Grand Jury's report includes six findings and six recommendations. The Grand Jory requested that the City Man~ger of the City of Redding respond to the findings and the recommendations. Therefore, the purpose of this letter is to honor the Grand Jui'y's request: Fl. The cufrent City of Redding Park and Recreation Facilities Impact Fees will not financially suppo1t the LOS of7.04 acres per 1,000 residents in the future. Response: The respondent agrees that impact fees alone will not support the LOS referenced above. It is possible, however, that othei· funding sources, such as grants, could be utilized to maintain or enhance the LOS. ·