Shasta County Grand Jury
2016-2017
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
23 findings
F1:
The $23 million cited cost for Stillwater Business Park does not accurately represent the true cost to citizens, because it does not include all expenses associated with the Park which currently total $40,835,789. Additional infrastructure development costs at Stillwater Business Park will likely be incurred by the City, depending upon future occupancy. 11
F2:
City residents, via the General Fund, have contributed $6,458,454 so far in interest and principal repayment on the 2007 Series A Lease Revenue Bond. An additional $13,664,689 will be contributed over the next twenty years unless the property is sold and parcel proceeds are used to pay off debt. These payments represent an ongoing drain on the City’s General Fund without providing any service to residents other than debt repayment.
F3:
REU customers, via utility bills, have contributed $10,269,831 to fund infrastructure development for Stillwater Business Park and will pay more than $4.9 million in future debt repayment. Since no electrical revenue has been generated from Stillwater Business Park, REU customers pay these expenses with little or no benefit.
F4:
Ten years of planning and developing and seven years of marketing have failed to create any new jobs or industry at Stillwater Business Park. Nevertheless, the City has never comprehensively re-evaluated the viability of Stillwater Business Park to determine whether additional funds should continue to be invested.
F5:
The Redding City Council does not, by policy or practice, direct all funds from lot sales back to Stillwater Business Park or the Stillwater Lease Revenue Bond debt, even though retiring the debt early would lead to significant cost savings to citizens.
F6:
The Redding City Council has no comprehensive, objective method, other than design elements, by which to guide its decisions on sales at Stillwater Business Park, contributing to lost time and money for both the City and potential buyers during sales negotiations.
F7:
There is no single City staff member tasked with oversight of the administration, finances, marketing, and evaluations of Stillwater Business Park, which may contribute to the lack of awareness of the cost and strategic evaluation of the future viability of Stillwater Business Park.
F8:
Redding City Council Members, City administrators, and other staff are not aware of the true cost of Stillwater Business Park, leaving them unable to make informed decisions about the project.
F9:
The Elk Trail Water Improvement Project demonstrates the great costs involved with designing and constructing a complex water distribution system.
F10:
The efforts of both Public Works staff and Elk Trail residents to secure grant funding for the Elk Trail Water Improvement Project resulted in a lower property tax assessment than originally projected. Water Transfer between CSAs
F11:
Public Works staff gave Elk Trail residents conflicting information about what water sources were available, how much water was required, and from what entities the County was willing to purchase water. This resulted in the residents unnecessarily paying $10,900 to ACID to reserve water they would never receive. 30
F12:
The Water Agency Board of Directors adopted Shasta County Water Agency Resolution No: 2008-01, Resolution of Intent to Transfer Water from County Service Area #25 – Keswick Water to County Service Area #6 – Jones Valley Water, resulting in Jones Valley CSA incorrectly compensating Keswick CSA $13,090.11 to date.
F13:
This incorrect compensation will continue until Water Agency Resolution No: 2008-01 is rescinded or expires, whichever comes first, potentially costing Jones Valley CSA an additional $39,000.
F14:
Because all CVP water purchased by the Water Agency goes into a “common pool”, Jones Valley CSA did not and cannot enter into a long-term water transfer agreement with Keswick CSA. Rural Community Assistance Corporation
F15:
Public Works fails to take advantage of all available assistance resources due to a mutually adversarial relationship existing between Public Works staff and the Rural Communities Assistance Corporation. This results in a loss of potential aid to the entire County for future improvement projects. Jones Valley Community Advisory Board
F16:
Jones Valley CSA CAB’s requests for monthly interaction with Public Works staff have gone unheeded by the Board of Supervisors. Grand Jury Investigation Charges
F17:
The Grand Jury found no legal authority by which Public Works may charge a CSA for staff time spent on a Grand Jury investigation.
F18:
It appears Jones Valley CSA was improperly charged for Public Works staff time spent on a Grand Jury investigation under “CSA #6 Jones Valley Grand Jury Investigation” for an investigation about Public Works’ administration of all the water CSAs and the Water Agency.
F19:
Without the County conducting an analysis, CSA residents cannot know how much they have been charged for any Grand Jury investigations.
F20:
The Grand Jury questions if Public Works charging CSA residents for staff time spent on a Grand Jury investigation is in compliance with Proposition 218.
F21:
The Grand Jury questions if Public Works charging CSA residents for staff time spent on a Grand Jury investigation is in compliance with Shasta County Code 13.12.120.
F22:
Charging small County district residents for resources spent on Grand Jury investigations will likely have a chilling effect on both the public and future grand juries throughout the State. Grand Jury Admonishments
F23:
The Grand Jury questions if a high-ranking Public Works engineer may have violated a signed confidentiality agreement.
Additional Recommendations
17
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
By December 31, 2017, the Redding City Council contract for an external audit of all funding and expenditures related to Stillwater Business Park. This audit can be paid for by existing funds allocated to Stillwater Business Park.
R2:
By September 30, 2017, the Redding City Council request Colliers International and the EDC to jointly determine the continued market demand for existing Stillwater Business Park parcels and present their findings to the City Council by November 30, 2017.
R3:
By September 30, 2017, the Redding City Council direct staff to identify alternative uses of the Stillwater Business Park property and report their findings to the City Council by November 30, 2017. 12
R4:
By December 31, 2017, the Redding City Council establish a formal procedure for comprehensively evaluating the viability of the Stillwater Business Park project.
R5:
By September 30, 2017, the Redding City Council establish a policy directing funds received from any future parcel sales be utilized only for Stillwater Business Park debt repayment or infrastructure.
R6:
By September 30, 2017, the Redding City Council establish a formal, documented procedure for comprehensively evaluating potential Stillwater Business Park sales using criteria such as financial viability, estimated wage rates, and number of jobs to be created.
R7:
By September 30, 2017, the Redding City Council appoint an existing City staff member to manage the Stillwater Business Park Project. This person would be responsible for routine evaluation of Stillwater, including supervising marketing coordination, sales negotiations, and fiscal accountability. Further, this City staff member will report on a quarterly basis to the City Council on these Stillwater Business Park evaluations.
R8:
By September 30, 2017, the Water Agency Board of Directors direct staff to immediately reimburse Jones Valley Water Fund – 0377 all monies paid to Keswick CSA under Shasta County Water Agency Resolution No: 2008-01, Resolution of Intent to Transfer Water from County Service Area #25 – Keswick Water to County Service Area #6 – Jones Valley Water.
R9:
By September 30, 2017, the Board of Supervisors direct Public Works staff to open the lines of communication with the Rural Communities Assistance Corporation and report back to the Board of Supervisors on the Corporation’s response. 32
R10:
By September 30, 2017, the Board of Supervisors direct Public Works staff to work with the Jones Valley CSA CAB to establish a mutually agreed upon CAB meeting schedule.
R11:
By September 30, 2017, the Board of Supervisors direct staff to determine and report back what specific legal authority exists to allow Public Works to charge CSAs for time spent on a Grand Jury investigation.
R12:
By September 30, 2017, the Board of Supervisors direct staff to provide a public report outlining legal justification for the charges under Project Number 111029 “CSA #6 Jones Valley Grand Jury Investigation” by December 31, 2017, or to refund Jones Valley CSA any and all charges under this project title.
R13:
By September 30, 2017, the Board of Supervisors direct staff to conduct an investigation to determine how much each CSA has been charged for Public Works staff time spent on any Grand Jury investigation. By December 31, 2017, staff publicly report on their findings and the legal justification for the charges, or refund the amounts charged.
R14:
By September 30, 2017, the Board of Supervisors direct Public Works staff to ensure and report back that they are in compliance with California Proposition 218.
R15:
By September 30, 2017, the Board of Supervisors direct Public Works staff to ensure and report back that they are in compliance with Shasta County Code 13.12.120.
R16:
By September 30, 2017, the Board of Supervisors direct County Administrative staff to either publicly report the legal justification for charging the CSAs, or create and present a policy ensuring CSAs are not charged for Public Works staff time spent on any Grand Jury investigations.
R17:
By September 30, 2017, the Board of Supervisors direct Public Works staff to comply with Grand Jury confidentiality agreements.