Issues (Opportunities for Improvement)

QUESTION:

I have noticed a number of items that need to be addressed:

• Service Now Tickets - where do the tickets get routed, how is work prioritized, and how to I follow up on the status of my requests?

• Systems, Permits and Maintenance - who is responsible for assuring systems (like fire systems) are maintained and tested and other permitted items (generators, water tanks, compression tanks, etc.) are maintained and permitted on time? How do we keep track of the status?

• Urgent Requests - is there a way to expedite the purchasing process to address urgent items, like repairing a non-working fire suppression system?

• Maintenance Efficiencies - a reported water leak took 3 months to fix. The delay cost the District $3k in excess water usage and the fix was only $400. How can we prioritize these repairs to improve efficiencies and save valuable resources?

Submitted by: Peter H.

ANSWER:

Thank you for speaking up and calling attention to these items. I appreciate you have the perspective of fixing what might not be working, instead of operating as status quo. We can improve with people like you on our team helping us get there.

• Service Now Tickets - Service Now Tickets are routed to a supervisor/manager or program lead depending on the type of ticket submitted. For example, Maintenance Tickets get routed based on the location selected. Some go to the designated Maintenance Supervisor or Ranger Supervisor, while others go to the District Maintenance Team to be prioritized and addressed. All tickets require a supervisor's approval before the work can be done.

Once your ticket is submitted and approved, you should receive an email notifying you of the status and periodic updates as the ticket is worked on or closed.

• Systems, Permits and Maintenance - The lead of each site is responsible for assuring all site assets are properly maintained. Depending on the site, it's either a Maintenance Supervisor, Park Ranger Supervisor (if there is not a Maintenance Supervisor at the site), Interpreter, or Park Facilities Coordinator. If you have specific concerns about a particular site, please start with speaking directly to the Chief in charge of that area to determine who is the responsible staff member.

In terms of tracking, each site has a maintenance Management Plan that identifies routine and episodic maintenance needs. When items are inspected, they are manually logged on the MMP or designated inspection sheet. In some cases, this is an excel spreadsheet, and in some cases it's through ArcGIS surveys.

• Urgent Requests - Yes, there are emergency procurement procedures for items of urgency. Our procurement team can assist you with determining the best/fastest way to address these items when they arise. The best way to plan for routine maintenance is to enter into agreements with vendors for multiple years to avoid the emergency situations.

• Maintenance Efficiencies - Communication is key to ensuring quick and efficient responses to urgent maintenance needs. Rather than just submitting a ticket, follow up with a phone call or email to you supervisor and the supervisor in charge of the fix to let them know what is happening. By giving them a "heads up" they can look for the ticket or start working on a repair right away. No response? Don't wait. Call the next person in the chain of command to get things moving if necessary.

Use of Protective Vests/Body Armor

QUESTION:

It's been noticed that some Rangers are allowed to wear protective vests while others are not.  If the safety of employees and especially Rangers are of paramount importance why aren't all Rangers allowed to utilize this safety protocol?  All Rangers are allowed to carry pepper spray and a bite stick yet not all of them are allowed to wear a vest.  This doesn't make sense and makes one set of Rangers safety seem more important than others.  All Rangers are routinely put into situations that could prove to be dangerous whether it's from intoxicated guests with knives and possibly guns close at hand to the unhoused who may be influenced by banned substances and as such should be offered the same amount of protection.  Can this be changed?  Can all of our Rangers receive the same safety measures across the board?

ANSWER:

Thank you for submitting your inquiry about the use of protective vests (body armor). Safety concerns are taken seriously and our solutions must remain calculated, objective, and supported with relevant data.

Mission and Values of RivCoParks:

Before I address your specific body armor question, I think it’s important to remember who we are and what our role is with the communities we serve. Our mission is to create spaces that are both accessible and enjoyable for everyone. Our core values - being community-centric, inclusive, providing exceptional service, and acting as responsible stewards - define who we are. While we deeply respect the role of law enforcement, our Park Ranger's focus is on enhancing the guest experience by fostering a warm and welcoming environment. To support this goal, we strive to provide guidance on how visitors can safely enjoy our spaces. The presence of body armor and defensive tools can sometimes create a different visual impression, potentially making guests feel uneasy and suggesting an atmosphere of concern rather than the safety and enjoyment we work hard to maintain.

History of Body Armor, Pepper Spray, and Batons:

To give you some historical background, when we first considered allowing rangers to utilize pepper spray and batons as defensive tools, then to wear body armor, our internal Ranger Safety Group had identified an uptick in interactions that included contact with animals (aggressive dogs off leash, wild boars, etc.),  contact with unauthorized target shooters (high powered rifles, semi-automatic rifles and side arms), and seasonal contact with hunters (deer, quail, pig, dove, and turkey) with the potential of errand shot, ricochet, or negligent discharge during hunting license check. There were also an increasing number of engagements with unhoused individuals in open-space areas and illegal marijuana grows where access was limited and response by law enforcement may be delayed.

The Ranger Safety Group presented their analysis of issues, similar agency best practices, and potential solutions to the RivCoParks executive team for review. After consultation with human resources, risk management, and legal counsel, it was determined use of pepper spray and batons could assist with defending against attacks by a dangerous animal or person, allowing employees an opportunity to retreat to safety and call for help. Several years later, body armor was added in limited situations/areas based on the objective risks present and type of work being done, though no documented incidents of attacks had occurred.

The overall goals in any of our defensive measures are to:  

1. Obtain willing compliance through calm communication (if it's not calm it's not effective)

2. Know when to engage further (if the person is intoxicated or combative, further discussion will probably not help)

3. Know when to pull back to our safety zones and contact local law enforcement for further support.

Fortunately, the above goals, combined with a focus on our mission and values, have greatly limited the number of actual incidents where use of a baton or pepper spray have been necessary. In fact, I can count on one hand the number of times they’ve even been deployed. In terms of body armor, no incidents have occurred where body armor was the determining factor in injury prevention. This is a good thing. It means that our training, engagement, and response methods are effective.

What Next?

I know I cannot cover all your concerns without mutual dialogue, but we remain committed to maintaining a safe environment for our employees and guests. Our monthly Supervisor meetings and Ranger Safety Group meetings are the intended forums for topics like this one. Please talk to your Area Manager to get your concern scheduled on the next agenda for further peer discussion and evaluation.   For further details on our policies, discussion about your concerns, and potential solutions, please reach out to Chief McLain anytime.

Who is Paying for Santa Ana River Trail Projects?

Question:

At the All-Staff you mentioned that we are contributing most of the funding towards the SART project.  Since the SART connects San Bernardino County, Riverside County and Orange County, are any of these counties and/or cities or both contributing funding towards this project too?

Submitted by: Loree Broderick

Answer:

Thank you for inquiring about the Santa Ana River Trail (SART). The SART is certainly a complex project that has been under development for over 40 years. The trail itself is National Recreation Trail and is approximately 110 miles long, starting in the San Bernardino Mountains and running along the Santa Ana River to the Pacific Ocean in Orange County (Huntington Beach). Our agency, RivCoParks, is the lead for development of the trail within Riverside County, which represents about 30 miles. Here is a brief breakdown of the segments, who is responsible, and where the funding comes from for development:

San Bernardino County

The SART starts at the Sand to Snow National Monument in San Bernardino National Forest. This segment crosses approximately 30 miles of National Forest and is primarily a dirt trail. This section is managed by the US Forest Service and is used by hikers and bikers. More information about this segment can be found on the US Forest Service website.

The County of San Bernardino, Regional Parks Department, manages the segment of SART that runs from the edge of the National Forest near Mentone to the Riverside County Line. They serve as the lead on this portion, which is a little over 20 miles long and is about 60% complete. SB County Parks has a segment currently under construction and more segments in the planning/design phase. SB County Parks SART Project updates are available on their website.

Riverside County

Riverside County's segment picks up at the San Bernardino County border and continues for roughly 30 miles to the Orange County border near Chino Hills State Park. Approximately 20 miles of trail are complete with an additional 10 miles in design or construction. While we serve as the lead on the project, we seek partnerships with incorporated cities to build or maintain the trail once completed. In fact, the majority of the trail in Eastvale was constructed by a developer and is maintained by Jurupa Community Services District (the local park and recreation provider). We seek grant funds from different sources to pay for the planning, design, and construction. Our most recent award is from the California Coastal Conservancy for over $9million.

For a complete list of our SART projects with funding information, grants we have applied for, and status, Chief Gaby Adame-Algrim recently put together a comprehensive update which can be viewed here.

Orange County

The Orange County segment of the SART is approximately 30 miles and is almost fully constructed. The remaining piece to be built is the segment that connects the OC segment to Riverside County at the Green River Golf Course (also referred to as the "pinch point." While most of the trail is built, enhancements continue to be planned using Coastal Conservancy grant funding and other sources, depending on the location. Many of the cities along the SART continue to work on their own development plans with a goal of maximizing the access and connecting to their communities for economic development, tourism, and commuter benefits. Here are some sources for more information on the OC segments:

• OC Parks

• City of Anaheim

All three counties, many of the cities along the SART, and many other partners are members of the Santa Ana River Conservancy advisory group, which shares information about funding, projects in each county, and other resources. In addition, groups like the Rivers and Lands Conservancy and The Wildlands Conservancy are partners in getting legislation passed and more funding secured for development of the SART and protection of the surrounding watershed.

I realize this is a lot of information to digest. The bottom line is that while we're leading the efforts in Riverside County, we are not alone. We need to be ready to support the SART projects with funding to keep them moving forward, but it is always our intent to find alternate funding (grants, partner support, etc.) before we utilize District funds. Our funds are a last resort.

I hope this provides you with a better understanding of who is responsible for development in each County and what our role is in Riverside County. Happy hiking, biking, or horse-riding on the SART from crest to coast!