Napa County Grand Jury
2001-2002
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The Grand Jury found no evidence of any significant, repetitive or extensive violation of agricultural pesticide use in the county. Where appropriate, it appears that violators have been assessed warnings, penalties and/or fines and corrected their misuse.
F2:
Other counties in California have had devastating agricultural problems with the introduction of the Glassy-winged Sharpshooter (GWSS) as a vector for Pierce’s Disease in certain crops. At this time, there is no evidence of GWSS infestation in Napa County. While there are other pests that have already introduced Pierce’s Disease into Napa County, the introduction of the GWSS would create an exponentially more serious problem. The AC and staff created the current GWSS work plan. The GWSS work plan for Napa County has evolved following much citizen task force input. Initially, some citizen groups felt that the work plan was premature and unsatisfactory, in that it did not adequately include options for using alternatives to traditional pesticides. What has resulted is a work plan that offers property owners options of traditional or alternative pesticides in the event of an infestation. The Grand Jury review found that the Napa County Agricultural Commissioner is knowledgeable and responsive to community concerns regarding agricultural pesticide issues. He continues to regularly meet with several citizen and vintner groups on this matter. He appears to be one of the leaders in the State on the GWSS issue. There has been a continuing attempt by the AC to educate the general public, vintners, agricultural workers, and health care providers on this topic. COMMENDATION The Grand Jury commends the Napa County Agricultural Commissioner for his leadership on the GWSS issue and his efforts at appointing qualified Napa County citizens to task forces on this important pesticide related matter.
F3:
Traditional agricultural practices involving the application of toxic chemicals to soil can lead to cumulative chemical effects that contaminate the environment, threaten human health and compromise ecosystems. There is a growing trend among some County farmers that is resulting in a movement away from traditional chemical pesticides and towards a safer pest management approach. This concept of “Sustainable Agriculture” can provide agricultural product in a profitable way without creating pollution or risks to human health or environment. Sustainable Agriculture is "an integrated system of plant production practices that meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs" according to the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program at the University of California, Davis. This Program was created in 1986 by CA legislature in response to concern about: • Protecting human health and wildlife in rural communities; • The environmental impacts of traditional agricultural techniques; • Profitability and success of small and family farming operations; and • Ensuring abundant, affordable and healthy farming product.
F4:
Last year, more than 2,120,000 pounds of pesticide were used in Napa County, which ranked 22nd highest in pesticide use out of California's 58 counties. This represents a 10% decrease from the prior year. This is the third straight year that Napa County has experienced decreased conventional agricultural pesticide use. Three of the top five most-used pesticides or herbicides in Napa County: sulfur, glyphosate salt and copper hydroxide, are considered relatively safe to humans. The most commonly used chemical is elemental sulfur, which many believe is relatively safe for human contact and the environment. In fact, elemental sulfur is authorized for use by certified organic farmers. However, some observers still feel that there may be long-term health risks even with elemental sulfur use. Two others in the top five, methyl bromide and simazine, are among chemicals that most concern citizen activists: • Methyl bromide is a soil sterilant in gas form used prior to planting. It has been associated with human birth defects at low doses, and its use is closely regulated under the terms of Proposition 65: the State’s Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1984. • Simazine is a common herbicide used on grapes. It is categorized as a possible human carcinogen and endocrine disrupting chemical. It is a frequent ground water contaminant throughout the U.S. Some vineyard managers believe that most of the useful information on effective pesticide or herbicide choices comes from local dealers, marketing agents or word of mouth from other vineyard managers, rather than from our local government agencies.
F5:
Watershed testing for ground and surface water contamination in Napa County done by State agencies over the past twelve years has shown undetectable levels of pesticide or herbicide. These tests are done on a random, unscheduled basis throughout high-risk areas in the county. State requirements vary from one time testing, annual testing or every three-year testing, depending on the chemical. Water is also tested for other contaminants, including pathogens, nutrients and sediment by these random tests. Currently the Department of Environmental Management (DEM) receives State funds of $26,000 per year plus additional tax revenues from local water districts for implementing these environmental health and safety regulations. However, neither DEM nor any other local Napa County agency is testing ground or river water for pesticide contamination at this time. According to the Director, this is in part due to DEM staffing shortages over the past several years. The State may take over the required testing in Napa County if DEM does not comply, and DEM could lose State and water district revenues for this testing. Currently, neither Sonoma nor Solano County agencies are doing local ground water testing; it is being done by the State.
F6:
The Agriculture Commissioner, the Director of DEM and the Napa County Public Health Officer have investigated and found that there are no reports of any serious illnesses or injuries related to pesticide use in Napa County. There have been some mild eye and skin irritations or allergic reactions of a temporary nature in some pesticide workers. The Grand Jury finds that there is no data or evidence to link pesticide exposure with any chronic or long-term illness or injury affecting Napa County residents. Specifically, the Grand Jury finds that there is no evidence to indicate a clustering of cancer or higher incidences of cancer among residents in agricultural areas of the county or among agricultural workers.
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Napa County Agricultural Commissioner’s Office should remain vigilant and continue to vigorously investigate violations of pesticide regulations as detected. The current system of inspection every four years should not be routine and should be done more frequently. Penalties for repeat or large-scale violations should be greater than $700 fines. Response Requested From Napa County Agricultural Commissioner Napa County Board of Supervisors
R3:
The AC Office should take the lead in encouraging Napa County farmers to learn about and implement Sustainable Agricultural concepts and techniques. Research and data available suggest that Sustainable Agricultural techniques are an important means towards prevention of the adverse effects of traditional chemical pesticides and fertilizers, while still operating profitable and productive farms. Sustainable Agriculture should be one of the subjects for the Public Awareness Week in Recommendation #4. Response Requested From Napa County Agricultural Commissioner Napa County Board of Supervisors
R4:
The Grand Jury acknowledges and applauds County farmers’ efforts at reducing traditional pesticide and herbicide use. The Department of Environmental Management and The Office of the Agriculture Commissioner should consider a “Public Awareness Week” for increased dissemination of information regarding pesticide, health and clean water issues in Napa County. The Napa Board of Supervisors needs to be kept abreast of recent changes in State and Federal laws regarding use and monitoring of pesticides in our county. Response Requested From Napa County Agricultural Commissioner Napa County Director of Environmental Management Napa County Public Health Officer Napa County Board of Supervisors
R5:
Napa County DEM should comply with State requirements for chemical contaminant testing in ground and surface water at this time, and make use of the funds received for this task. Napa County DEM needs to comply or the testing should be turned over to State regulators. Response Requested From Napa County Director of Environmental Management Napa County Board of Supervisors
R6:
The Public Health Officer, Agriculture Commissioner, and DEM should maintain public education programs which encourage reporting and detection of both acute and chronic illness related to pesticide exposure. All reasonable requests for investigation of illness or injury caused by pesticides should be fully investigated and tracked by a joint database and good communication between all three agencies. Property owners’ requests for no pesticide use on their property should be honored. No forced spraying should be considered for areas around schools, daycare centers, hospitals, retirement homes, parks, tourist areas, medical and vet facilities, creeks and other bodies of water. Chemically sensitive persons, such as cancer patients, AIDS patients, asthmatics, and others with compromised immune systems should be notified prior to any spraying. Response Requested From Napa County Agricultural Commissioner Napa County Director of Environmental Management Napa County Public Health Officer Napa County Board of Supervisors
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
The Grand Jury finds it repugnant that an entity of Napa County sued the County itself. The taxpayers of the County and of American Canyon funded this litigation; American Canyon residents were taxed twice, both as citizens of the City and citizens of the County. Both bodies should have instructed staff to meet and consult until the need for litigation was resolved. The Napa County Board of Supervisors (“the Board”) and the American Canyon City Council (“the Council”) should have given way to the common good.
F2:
The Board seem to be content to operate on a "status quo" basis with an invalid Housing Element, an invalid General Plan, and an invalid 1998 Airport Specific Plan (see October 26, 1992 letter from Deputy Director of Department of Housing and Community Development in Attachment). BACKGROUND The participants in this lawsuit seem to have had various reasons for filing suit. Citizens for Honest Government was a small organization unhappy with the Napa County Board of Supervisors; the Sierra Club was concerned about environmental issues near the Airport; and the City of American Canyon was embroiled in a long-standing dispute with Napa County. This dispute arose as a result of the incorporation of American Canyon in the early 1990's. When the City incorporated, it resulted in a net loss of revenue to the County's tax base. The incorporation greatly reduced Napa County's intended new housing base which was part of the Housing Element of the 1983 General Plan as amended in 1986. The County had planned to authorize the construction of new houses in south Napa County to meet its state and regional obligations for housing, including low-cost housing. American Canyon's incorporation resulted in a loss of new housing area to meet the County's housing obligation. Throughout the years following the incorporation, there had been additional skirmishes between American Canyon and Napa County. American Canyon has been unable to obtain a Rural-Urban Limit for growth purposes. There has been little cooperation from the County in responding to legitimate requests from American Canyon. The City's joining in the suit against the County regarding the Airport plan was a further attempt to get the County's attention. In 1999, the Napa Superior Court (the "NSC") ruled that the County’s 1998 Airport Industrial Area Specific Plan (the “Plan”) was invalid because the Environmental Impact Report (the "EIR") that had been prepared to assess the Plan's impact was deficient in its consideration of the Plan’s impacts after buildout upon traffic, housing and steelhead trout. The 1998 Plan was an updated version of the County’s 1986 Plan for the airport area, with more specific and comprehensive “industrial park” design, improvement and density standards. The NSC also held that the 1986 Plan, which the 1998 Plan superceded, remained valid and that the County could continue to process and approve projects in the airport area which complied with the earlier standards, while the County worked to correct deficiencies in the 1998 Plan and its EIR. This latter portion of the NSC’s decision was not appealed. The County appealed the invalidation of the Plan. The appeals court in San Francisco (the “Court”) in a published opinion, affirmed the NSC’s decision. The County asked the Court to reconsider its decision and was denied. The California Supreme Court declined to hear the County’s appeal. Several significant issues of “first impression,” not previously ruled upon in California environmental law, were decided by the Court. First, the County could properly decide to delete certain traffic mitigation measures adopted as part of the 1986 Plan, which the passage of time proved were infeasible. The 1986 Plan called for traffic interchanges to be build at the intersection of highways 29 and 221 at the south end of the Southern Crossing bridge and at the intersection of highways 29 and 12 at Airport Boulevard and Jamison Canyon Road. The 1998 Plan deleted these improvements as a required element of Plan buildout because: (1) the contribution of project traffic to congestion problems caused by other traffic using these roadways was “minor”; (2) the County lacked the funds to implement these very costly improvements (perhaps $70 million); and, (3) the County did not control the design, approval and construction of these State highway improvements; Caltrans did. These were legitimate reasons for County to conclude these improvements were “infeasible.” Evidence supported these reasons. Changed circumstances over time allow a county to delete or modify project mitigation measures previously adopted. They are not cast in stone. Mitigation measures to minimize significant environmental effects, such as traffic, are “infeasible” if they cannot be accomplished within a reasonable time, taking into account economic, environmental, social and technological factors. Secondly, the Court concluded that the 1998 Plan EIR adequately identified traffic impacts from the airport industrial area and mitigation measures, even though the only mitigation it required was funding an area traffic study, not funding the actual improvements if the study concluded they were necessary. Mitigation measures must be roughly proportional to the impacts of a project. Since there was evidence that project traffic impacts were a “minor” contributor to area traffic problems, funding the costly improvements was not proportional and therefore did not require mitigation. The County will continue to impose a traffic mitigation fee on plans for area development, which so far has raised more than $2 million for internal roadway improvements. Third, the Court held that the EIR contained an adequate discussion of housing impacts and mitigation, but that its discussion of significant impacts due to water availability and wastewater treatment was not adequate. Since preparation of the EIR American Canyon has constructed its own sewer plant and there is capacity to service the Plan area (American Canyon south of Fagan Creek and Napa Sanitation District north of Fagan Creek). American Canyon has also contracted with Vallejo for extra water and, according to the Napa Flood Control and Water Conservation District, is in good shape for both short and long-term water supply. Finally, the EIR failed to adequately consider project impacts on steelhead trout in the Napa River. The County unwisely elected not to amend the Plan EIR to discuss this and incorporate necessary mitigation (stream setbacks, riparian cover, prevention of siltation/sedimentation). Aside from finding these deficiencies in the EIR, the Court also held that the 1998 Plan was invalid because it was in conflict with the County’s General Plan. The General Plan is the highest and most authoritative document in the hierarchy of County plans and ordinances. All specific plans or zoning ordinances are subordinate to it and must be consistent with the dictates of the General Plan. What is particularly significant about the Court’s ruling is that the 1998 Plan was inconsistent because it frustrated the general “Goals” of reducing congestion and implementing a comprehensive circulation system set forth in the General Plan. The County argued these Goals were advisory only, but the Court concluded they were mandatory. The Court found the 1998 Plan failed to implement these Goals, contained no specific improvements to reduce congestion and to handle the increase in traffic from the project area without increasing congestion. This will be a challenge to the County, since it has concluded it lacks the funds and authority to make congestion-reducing improvements on adjacent State highways 221, 29 and 12. It may be that the County will have to amend its General Plan Goals to recognize this reality before it can approve a “consistent” Specific Plan for the airport area. The Court also concluded any new Specific Plan must include affirmative steps to mitigate project impacts on housing and growth in order to be consistent with the General Plan. The result of the decision is that no pending projects may be approved under the 1998 Plan, as it is invalid and will remain so until properly adopted after certification of an adequate EIR. Processing of all project applications in the airport area by the County under the 1998 Plan have been processed under the 1986 plan. Each project must comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and several are required to prepare their own EIRs. The 1986 Plan remains valid and in force. There appears to be a lack of concern by the Napa County Board of Supervisors regarding the invalidity of the 1998 Plan, the invalidity of the General Plan, and, most importantly, the invalidity of the Housing Element of the General Plan. The monies spent on the 1998 Airport Specific Plan appear to be largely wasted. It appears to the Grand Jury that the resolution of the Housing Element has the highest priority. If the General Plan is to be updated, the Airport Specific Plan can be part of the General Plan update. Because of the invalidity of the Housing Element, and the General Plan and the Court’s determination of the invalidity of the Airport Specific Plan, property rights of owners county-wide are in great jeopardy. The Grand Jury is informed that a court could prohibit all building permits in the county until a lawful Housing Element of the General Plan is adopted and the General Plan is updated. The Grand Jury determined that the City of American Canyon spent $173,000 on attorney’s fees and that the County of Napa spent over $380,000 on attorney’s fees and consultants on the litigation in addition to the substantial cost of preparation of the 1998 Airport Specific Plan The Grand Jury is unable to determine the cost of lost staff time for either entity. PROCEDURES The Grand Jury interviewed members of the Napa County Board of Supervisors, members of the American Canyon City Council, members of Citizens for Honest Government, the Napa County Planning Director and staff, the American Canyon City Manager, Napa City Council members and members of the public.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Future litigation between the County and its cities or other governmental bodies should be avoided at almost any cost. In the future, staff should be directed to find a solution short of litigation. Mediation between the staff of the County and the staff of the City should be required before resorting to litigation. Response Requested from American Canyon City Council Board of Supervisors County Executive Officer County Planning Director
R2:
Napa County's Board of Supervisors and its responsible agencies need to urgently address the issues raised by the invalidity of the Housing Element, and the invalidity of the General Plan. The County has hard choices to make regarding growth, development and housing and it is up to the elected officials to take stands and make policy rather than maintain their current "wait and see" attitude. Response Requested from Board of Supervisors County Executive Officer County Planning Director
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
The County renewed the independent audit contract with B.B.&R.
F2:
The exclusion from the Balance Sheet of physical assets valued at less than $5,000 will understate the actual value of property, plant and equipment held by the County. Such an exclusion may be material. Furthermore, expensing physical assets that have a useful life of more than one year presents an unclear picture of current year operating expenses and makes it difficult to analyze the government’s financial performance.
F3:
The County of Napa contracts with B.B. & R. to provide independent audit services. Due to the required implementation of GASB-34, the County sought additional outside professional services (accounting services) to assist with the work associated with this endeavor. The County of Napa enlisted the services of B.B. & R. to establish Pro-Forma Financial Statements for the FYE 2001.
F4:
It is apparent that Trust Fund accounting needs further attention. As of June 30, 2001 total cash and investments in the county treasury per financial statements are $286,540,045. Even small errors or incomplete work by the Auditor-Controller’s office may have significant impact upon the accounting of public funds. The Grand Jury notes that the independent auditor did not include any comments on the accounting of Trust Funds in its prior two Management Reports (Year Ended June 30, 2000 and Year Ended June 30, 2001).
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
While the Grand Jury finds no material fault with the services provided by Bartig, Basler & Ray, the Grand Jury believes that it would be prudent for the county to contract with a different accounting firm to provide its annual independent audit after the current contract with Bartig, Basler & Ray is completed. While such a change may cause the county to pay more for the required auditing services, the Grand Jury believes that such a change is warranted in order to ensure a freshness in the opinion formed by the independent auditor with regards to the county’s financial statements and as well, its consideration of the County of Napa’s internal control over financial reporting. Response Requested From County Board of Supervisors County Executive Officer County Auditor-Controller
R2:
The Board of Supervisors should review the accounting decision made by its adoption of Resolution 01-83, Policy For Budgetary Controls. The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors reduce the value of those physical assets to be included in the County’s Balance Sheet to $750 with a useful life of more than one year for an individual item, or, $500 with a useful life of more than one year for items purchased in bulk, such as road signs, office fixtures and furnishings and similar items. Physical assets purchased by the county with a useful life of less than one year should be expensed. The adoption of such a modification in policy would better reflect the County of Napa’s actual assets when identified separately from infrastructure assets such as roads, buildings and bridges. Such a policy modification would better reflect the current year expenditures in the County of Napa Annual Financial Report, provide easier analysis of original budget and revised budget figures, increase the usefulness of prior budget year comparisons to current and future years budgets, and also allow users (including the public) to assess the government’s ability to estimate and manage its general resources. Response Requested From County Board of Supervisors
R3:
The Grand Jury believes that undetected potential problems could occur when the accounting firm providing the independent audit is also conducting other accounting or consulting services. This is a basic separation of duties issue, and the above-described situation should not be repeated. In the future, the County of Napa should segregate accounting and independent audit services performed by outside companies. Response Requested From County Board of Supervisors County Executive Officer County Auditor-Controller
R4:
The Board of Supervisors, County Executive Officer, and the citizens of Napa County should expect that the Trust Funds held by the County of Napa be accounted for in a thorough, timely and accurate manner. Work not done at the close of accounting periods is work done poorly. The Board of Supervisors and County Executive Officer should instruct the independent auditor to review the Trust Fund accounting system, its internal control structure and procedures, and report to the Board of Supervisors those matters which it considers to be material or worthy of consideration. Response Requested From County Board of Supervisors County Executive Officer County Auditor-Controller
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
The Grand Jury found there to be widespread dissatisfaction in the construction community with the Napa City Building Department in its Building Permit Activities. The Grand Jury heard the comment several times that contractors, engineers, and designers refuse to do business in Napa because of the City of Napa Building Department.
F2:
The dissatisfaction results from the Building Department changing its procedures to more rigorously enforce the Building Codes.
F3:
In spite of the dissatisfaction, the Grand Jury found that the City of Napa Building Department is performing its duties in an appropriate manner.
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The City Council should instruct the Napa Building Department to take specific steps to promote better customer relations.
R2:
Professionals in the building community should take the classes offered by the Building Department to learn about updated Building Codes.
R3:
None. Response Requested From Chief Building Inspector Department of Public Works Napa City Council
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
The Grand Jury found no evidence that the CEO and the Fire Department’s activities pertaining to the CEO were negligent in performing their duties. BACKGROUND The CEO handles the building codes, smoking ordinances, and noise ordinances for commercial and construction activity. The CEO works in conjunction with the Fire Department and Police Department. The jurisdiction for code enforcement is private property and businesses located within the City of Napa. The CEO works on complaints only. The average complaint results in a letter being sent to the violator and this takes 15 to 30 days. Additional staffing and a larger facility are necessary to expedite this process. As of now, there is one full-time assistant and one part-time retired California Highway Patrol Officer who works 3 ½ days a week. The CEO strictly follows the Code Manual, which is updated at different times. But when it comes to enforcing fines due to violations, the CEO takes into account that not all violators have the financial means to pay the fines. A financial plan is worked out for the violator. The fees are adjusted annually. On the “smoking ordinance,” violators receive a courtesy letter with guidelines. If the smoking ordinance is not posted, the CEO will turn the situation over to Cal OSHA and there could be a fine imposed on the establishment owner. Fees collected from inspections go back to the City of Napa for inspection costs and other time incurred expenses. If a violation is found while inspecting a business, the business owner is given the opportunity to fix the violation. The business will be inspected again at no charge and at that time, if the violation has not been corrected, a third inspection is scheduled, but there is a charge. If the violation has not been corrected, the business owner can be fined $1000 per day until the violation has been corrected. A complaint regarding a vehicle that had not been moved for seven months was referred to the City Police Department. The situation has been corrected. An ordinance is being reviewed now that would make it illegal to have a boat, trailer, or motor home parked on any public street for more than 72 hours. The following fees were collected as fines in the year 2000-2001 and are paid into the General Fund: Code Enforcement Violations $2,150.44 Weed Abatement Program $9,575.43 PROCEDURES The Grand Jury interviewed the following officials: Fire Marshal Code Enforcement Officer Employees of the Fire Department Chief of Police City Manager The Grand Jury reviewed the following published reports regarding code enforcement and the Fire Department: City of Napa – Logs of Maintenance Violations City of Napa Complaint Guidelines –1999 Finding l The Code Enforcement Section of the Fire Department is understaffed, underfunded and has inadequate office space.
F2:
At the time of the Grand Jury inquiry, the Code Enforcement Department had a backlog of 52 complaints.
F3:
There are insufficient funds raised from fines to pay for the cost of code enforcement.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The City Council should provide the staff and space for the CEO to function properly.
R3:
The fines should be increased to provide proper funding for code enforcement. Response Requested From City of Napa Code Enforcement Officer City of Napa Fire Chief Napa City Manager Napa City Council
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
The NCFD Volunteers consist of approximately 250 dedicated and hard- working men and women who spend many unpaid hours training and working for their local communities in fire prevention programs, fire protection and medical emergency calls. COMMENDATION The Grand Jury commends the volunteers in the NCFD for their long hours of service and training dedicated to the safety and support of our communities. The value of this currently unpaid work force is significant and should be acknowledged by our community.
F2:
There are problems with volunteer firefighter recruitment and retention in Napa County. Several volunteer stations are short on numbers of volunteers. In recent years, the number of persons interested in volunteer firefighting has been decreasing. Each year, as our County population increases, the volunteer stations in NCFD are called upon to increase their workload. Data confirm that most stations are making more calls each year. The annually increasing call- out rate is wearing on many of the volunteers. Recruiting and staffing of volunteer stations has become more difficult for most of the chiefs (there are a couple of exceptions to this where local community support is very strong). This difficulty is due to a combination of factors, including the rigorous training and certification required by the State, the time commitment necessary, problems with access to affordable housing in Napa County, and the fact that volunteer firefighters are not paid. At some stations, high volunteer turnover rate keeps training sessions to basics. Many younger volunteers eventually quit volunteer work to join paid fire departments or to pursue other paying jobs. Emergency calls during Monday-Friday daytime hours are the most challenging for most volunteer fire stations. Most of the volunteers are not readily available during those hours because they are working at their regular jobs, sometimes located out of area. Evenings and weekends are generally easier to staff.
F3:
Central Dispatch located in the City of Napa initially receives most emergency “911” calls. For the unincorporated areas of Napa County, medical emergency and fire calls are then relayed to CDF Dispatch in St Helena. These calls are then relayed again to the appropriate volunteer firefighters via pagers or local community sirens. There have been delays of 8 minutes and longer from when a County resident dials 911 until the call is relayed to the volunteer station staff. A response time of 5 minutes or less to arrive on scene in order to initiate CPR or defibrillation is the goal generally accepted by most rescue agencies. CDF Dispatch is a complex system. When CDF initiated dispatching for the combined six-county CDF Ranger Unit, many observers felt that NCFD dispatching decreased in quality. Dispatchers have made errors when dispatching some NCFD Volunteer station fire engines. This has been either the result of inexperienced CDF Dispatch personnel, or from faulty information listed in the CAD (Computer Assisted Dispatch). There have been incidents of dispatchers sending the wrong fire engines to County fires or medical emergencies because they do not know all the proper dispatch tones or areas of responsibility for the volunteer stations. Some volunteer chiefs have had difficulty getting CDF dispatch administrators or supervisors to acknowledge and address these dispatch errors.
F4:
CDF training for volunteers has been inconsistent, partly due to the fact that the CDF Training Officers have been transferred or promoted every two years on average. This constant turnover has created prolonged vacancies in the position at times and has led to poor continuity in volunteer training sessions provided by CDF. Many volunteer chiefs describe the CDF Training Officer position as a “stepping stone” where qualified personnel are moved or promoted to other jobs after a short period of time. Some volunteer chiefs complained that CDF training personnel do not always show up when they are scheduled and do not seem to give much priority to volunteer training sessions. Some volunteer chiefs have been told that CDF cannot give training to volunteers in summer months, due to their own CDF staffing needs. One volunteer chief has learned to rely more on neighboring CDF fire station personnel for training than on the CDF administration. He arranges training directly with the CDF stations rather than using the CDF Training Officer. Other chiefs rely mostly on their own local volunteer training programs. The recent appointment of a volunteer firefighter to the CDF County Training Officer position may help alleviate these training problems. This will likely depend on how long he is kept in that position by CDF, and the quality of the volunteer training the CDF allows him to implement. County unincorporated area station volunteers are not paid for either CDF training sessions or local training sessions.
F5:
For most of fiscal year 2000-01, there was only one full-time employee at the CDF Maintenance Station in St. Helena providing all NCFD fire engine, emergency and routine equipment maintenance. Most of the volunteer chiefs think that this employee performs very well and does an excellent job, but he needs more help. There have been incidents of long waits (months) for routine maintenance service due to this staffing shortage. Some chiefs are waiting long periods for equipment testing and having to make do without equipment due to these delays. One full-time person staffs the CDF/NCFD warehouse and on occasion supply needs are slow to be filled. Usually there is no staffing of the warehouse on weekends. No data are published regarding the distribution of supplies to individual volunteer stations.
F6:
The concept outlined by the MOU where the volunteer chiefs act as a meaningful Volunteer Chief Advisory Board is not working well. The volunteer chiefs that are content with the current system are content because they are favored by receiving equipment requests and other CDF resources. Other volunteer chiefs are less content and believe that CDF has no interest in volunteer chief participation in running NCFD.
F7:
In last year’s NCFD Budget, there was a large surplus of revenue available at the end of the fiscal year. This is money that was not disbursed, but was “rolled over” into this year’s budget and is kept in an interest bearing Fire Protection Fund (1080). The amount of money in this fund was $3,278,727 as of 1/31/2002 according to the County Auditor.
Additional Recommendations
7
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
NCFD has approximately 250 volunteer firefighters who deserve special recognition for providing a high level of dedicated and unpaid service to our community. The Grand Jury commends the volunteer firefighters in the NCFD.
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the County initiate a paid weekday full-time staff of firefighters at certain volunteer stations where necessary. This could include a paid chief and one or two full-time paid firefighters. Calistoga initiated a system like this three years ago with good results; the City of St. Helena Fire Department also has a part-time paid chief. Some volunteer stations may not require this where staff is always readily available. This paid staff would facilitate Monday-Friday daytime calls, do local administrative work, keep up the facilities at the station, organize training/recruiting and most importantly, have a permanent staffing voice that could be more effectively heard by the NCFD administration. This system would decrease response times for emergency calls Monday-Friday daytime at some stations, as weekday staff would be available immediately at the volunteer stations. The NCFD should supplement the proposed full-time paid County fire station staff with a pay-per-call system where other on-call volunteers could handle evening and weekend calls, and would be paid on an hourly basis for all calls. Response Requested From CDF Napa County Board of Supervisors Napa County Executive Officer
R3:
The Grand Jury recognizes that it is a demanding task for CDF Dispatch to handle the six-county CDF Ranger Unit as well as NCFD dispatching. Nonetheless, all dispatchers need to be proficient in their knowledge of NCFD and required to perform this task at the highest level. Dispatchers need to know the proper tones, stations, roadways and volunteer areas of responsibility for all of Napa County. Dispatch Command needs to assure that Computer Assisted Dispatch (CAD) information is up to date and accurate for NCFD dispatch purposes. As problems arise with unsatisfactory CDF Dispatch performance, NCFD Volunteer chiefs need to be able to communicate effectively with CDF supervisors and get responses and honest efforts at problem solving from these administrators without delay. Response Requested From CDF Napa County Board of Supervisors Napa County Executive Officer
R4:
An improved and more reliable CDF training system should be implemented to make sure CDF fulfills its training agreements with the County for the volunteers. It may be necessary to reconsider the policy of changing the CDF Training Officer position every two years. One solution would be to create a specific County Training Officer position only for NCFD Volunteers, instead of relying on the CDF Training Officer. NCFD Volunteers should get the same high quality of training in a reliable and consistent manner, as do paid firefighters. Paid volunteer training sessions would likely improve County Volunteer participation, morale and performance. The Grand Jury recommends that NCFD pay the volunteers for training sessions. Response Requested From CDF Napa County Board of Supervisors County Executive Officer
R5:
A delay of months in some instances for routine maintenance seems excessive. There should be adequate maintenance staff persons available to address NCFD needs for timely equipment routine service. The CDF/NCFD warehouse should be adequately staffed and supplies readily available to the volunteer stations whenever necessary, including on weekends. There should be records available regarding distribution of supplies to individual NCFD Volunteer stations and tracking for the costs of these disbursements. Response Requested From CDF Napa County Board of Supervisors County Executive Officer
R6:
The Napa County Board of Supervisors (BOS) should reconsider its decision to have CDF administer the NCFD rather than the County. If the BOS chooses to maintain the current CDF administrated system for NCFD, the BOS should have at least one high level County administrator assigned exclusively to work with all of the NCFD Volunteer chiefs. This person should be readily available to the volunteer chiefs, and should communicate with all nine chiefs on an equal basis. This person would act as a liaison between CDF and the volunteer stations and would speak on behalf of the volunteer stations to the County Administrator and BOS in dealing with all the different segments of the NCFD system. This person should also see that funds for equipment are distributed fairly. Response Requested From CDF Napa County Board of Supervisors Napa County Executive Officer
R7:
This Grand Jury does not have the resources to examine the reasons for this surplus or to recommend a resolution to the question of excess funding in Fund 1080. The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors appoint a team of County staff including an auditor to look into the issue and make recommendations to the Board including changes to the MOU if necessary. Response Requested From CDF Napa County Auditor/Controller Napa County Board of Supervisors Napa County Executive Officer
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
Income from the sales tax is running ahead of projections by 7.1 million dollars in three years.
F2:
In the acquisition files examined by the Grand Jury there was no instance in which the original offer was less than the appraised value. In only one instance was there an appraisal with a range of value and in that instance the initial offer was at the highest of the range.
F3:
The antagonism and bitterness that resulted from condemnation is the fault of the process and not the fault of FCD personnel. The better the process is understood by the property owner, the less the bitterness.
F4:
Negotiations for the acquisition of property and relocation expenses are conducted by consultants hired by the FCD and only rarely by FCD personnel.
F5:
FCD personnel have conducted themselves honorably and with integrity in the land acquisition process, and the grand jury commends them for their conduct.
F6:
The Grand Jury finds that, other than going permanently out of business, one of the worst things that can happen to a business that is located on property needed for the Project is to be closed from the time of the order of possession until a new location can be found. Temporary closure is devastating to most businesses.
F7:
In several instances the appraisal identified a property as having no value because the cost of toxic clean up exceeded the value of the property. In each instance if the FCD found that the current owner had not placed the contamination on the property it offered the full appraised value without deduction of any clean up cost.
F8:
The FCD has proceeded to attempt to collect the cost of contamination clean up from the original polluter where possible.
F9:
If the Federal share and the State share are not forthcoming, and in fact pay only that which is now budgeted by the FCD, there will be a short fall of revenues that will increase the cost of the project beyond the amount of the shortfall.
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R2:
The Flood Control District should continue to make its original offer at the highest appraised price.
R3:
While the antagonism and bitterness are not going to go away, a better effort should be made by FCD to educate the property owner about the process and about how the property owner might go about determining the value of the property.
R4:
FCD personnel should not be involved in original negotiations nor in every negotiation, but should be able to step in when the situation appears hopeless.
R6:
The Board of Supervisors of the County and the Planning Commission and Planning Staff of the County and the City Councils of the County’s Cities and their Planning Commissions and their Staffs should make every effort to accommodate applications for relocation of businesses closed by the Project, including but not limited to giving priority to such applications over other applications.
R9:
The FCD staff should report to the Financial Oversight Committee, the Board of Supervisors, the various City Councils and the public through the media the nature and extent of the shortfall and the contingency plans to meet it. Response Requested From (to Findings 2, 3, 4, 6 and 9) Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Board
R04-05:
8.1M Revenues have exceeded estimates by $7.1 million in three years. The original assumptions included reimbursement from the State of California of $75,000,000 and $30,000,000 from the Corps of Engineers for
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
The JPA has no staff of its own and is operated by the Napa County Department of Environmental Health staff in a very efficient manner. No single person is assigned full time to the JPA. Two or three of the Department’s staff are assigned to the JPA along with their regular duties.
F2:
The County made a decision in 1993 to build the transfer station to avoid the liability for closure of another landfill. The JPA made a decision in 1997 to switch from truck to rail to truck to truck, because liability for closure of another landfill was no longer a problem.
F3:
The JPA is paying Allied Waste Inc. (Allied) $54 a ton. It includes the cost of operation of the transfer station, transporting the waste to Keller Canyon and the fees charged by an Allied subsidiary to dispose of the waste at Keller Canyon. Because the $54 per ton is not broken down, it is not possible to tell if Allied is making more than it should on the cost of the operation of the transfer station, the transportation of the waste and the cost of disposal. The actual cost of burying the waste should be $8 to $9 per ton.
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The JPA should continue to be operated without a staff of its own.
R2:
None. The County made the correct decision in each case.
R3:
The JPA should allow no further extensions of Allied’s contract, and when the contract expires in 2007 the JPA should open Allied’s contract to competitive bidding. The Request for Proposals should require each bidder to itemize the various elements of the bid: 1. Operation of the transfer station 2. Transportation from the transfer station to the landfill 3. Disposal of the waste at the landfill The JPA could then award the low bid on operation to the lowest bidder for operation. If the low bid for transportation was from a different bidder the low bidder on the operation could be allowed to meet the transportation bid, or there could be bids awarded to different entities to take advantage of the low bid. The low bid for disposal at the landfill could come from yet another bidder. In any event it will be possible to issue a contract at a price which combines the lowest bid for the cost of operation of the transfer station, the cost of transportation and the cost of disposal at a landfill.
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The Measure Y Oversight Committee was designed as a committee without authority. Its Mission Statement admitted that its sole activity was to wait to see if the School District reported itself for violation of state law. The committee was so powerless that members no longer showed up for meetings and were surprised to learn that the committee had not been disbanded.
F2:
There are numerous violations of Health and Safety codes, building codes, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and continued non-compliance with annual Fire and Life Safety Reports.
F3:
Student drop-off areas are dangerous. One principal stated that drop- offs and pick-ups were the scariest parts the day. These areas are too small and not configured for modern traffic.
F4:
School facilities are too small. Lunchrooms, teachers’ meeting rooms and auditoriums are all inadequate for the present student population.
F5:
There seems to be unwarranted delay in responding to and completing work orders from the schools to the District.
F6:
The District’s maintenance department was not aware of a number of problems found by the Grand Jury during its site visits. When advised of the problems, the Department responded quickly and appropriately. The lack of knowledge of the conditions at some schools or perhaps the lack of concern is indicative of a breakdown in communications.
Additional Recommendations
7
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Oversight Committees are recommended for future bond measures. These committees must have more right to participate in bond projects, including the right to be present for interviews with architects/consultants/contractors, the right to review all documents and the prerogative to write their own Interim Report. Oversight Committee members should be appointed by the Napa County Board of Supervisors and/or city councils of schools within the District. Response Requested from Superintendent of Schools Napa Valley Unified School District Board of Trustees
R2a:
NVUSD should improve awareness of the condition of the schools. There are existing parent-teacher organizations at each school which should be encouraged to take a more active role in inspecting the school and reporting safety hazards or other substandard conditions to the District. Response Requested from Superintendent of Schools Napa Valley Unified School District Board of Trustees
R2b:
NVUSD must find ways to provide adequate facilities for all of the students. The Board of Trustees should reorder its priorities in apportioning the limited funds it controls to improve the physical plant of the District. Response Requested from Superintendent of Schools Napa Valley Unified School District Board of Trustees
R3:
The drop-off areas must be reconfigured and enlarged. The schools have more than adequate acreage to accomplish this. Response Requested from Superintendent of Schools Napa Valley Unified School District Board of Trustees Napa Police Department Napa County Sheriff’s Department
R4:
See Recommendation 2b. Response Requested from Superintendent of Schools Napa Valley Unified School District Board of Trustees
R5:
See Recommendation 4. Response Requested from Superintendent of Schools Napa Valley Unified School District Board of Trustees
R6:
NVUSD should have further staffing and an employee whose primary duty is to conduct frequent school inspections and meet on a regular basis with school principals to inquire about conditions. This employee should also be knowledgeable about lead-based paint in the school buildings and the presence of asbestos. Response Requested from Superintendent of Schools Napa Valley Unified School District Board of Trustees
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
The Napa County Planning Director has undertaken a Herculean task to correct as serious a problem as Napa County has faced. He has replaced lost staff, reinstated process and made excellent progress. The County Executive Officer and the Board of Supervisor (while probably late) have given him the support and funds to do the job. The NCCDPD is once again a part of the team serving all of Napa County’s residents. Commendation The Planning Director is commended by the Grand Jury for his leadership in the Department.
F2:
The Board of Supervisors is acting responsibly in refusing to allow housing on prime agricultural soils or in environmentally unacceptable locations.
F3:
The process of environmental review of projects with the potential of causing harmful erosion (in part, new vineyards and replants) should continue to be improved so that critics are comfortable that the process ensures protection of the environment and property owners are assured that there is a process. The recent agreement for the Suscol Springs Vineyard Conversion Project (March) between critics of the process, property owners, and the Department is a foundation for putting this problem behind the County. BACKGROUND In March 2001 the Napa County Planning Director resigned, having held the office for 14 years and was replaced by first an interim Planning Director on March 27, 2001 and then a permanent Planning Director on June 12, 2001. When the outgoing Planning Director left the office: 1. There were a great number of applications for use permits on file, many of which were more than six months old and had not even had a planner assigned to process them. 2. There were a great number of applications for certificates of compliance which had been on file for more than two years, had not been acted upon, and were not being processed. 3. There were a great number of applications for lot line adjustments referred by the Department of Public Works which had not been acted upon and were not being processed. 4. There were 140 applications pending for agricultural erosion control plans which had not been acted upon, the majority of which had been pending for 12-24 months, and of which 41 were not even on the Planning Department’s list. Very few were being processed. 5. There were 63 applications pending for structural erosion control plans which had not been acted upon, the majority of which had been pending for 12-18 months. 6. Before the change in Planning Directors, the Conservation, Development and Planning Department was divided into two divisions, Planning and Building Inspection. The Planning Division was authorized 13 Planning positions including the Deputy Planning Director, of which 4 were not filled. In April 2001, 2 planners terminated employment. In May 2001, the Deputy Planning Director announced his decision to retire affective August 3rd bringing the total number of vacant positions to be filled to 7. Of the 7 vacant positions, 6 were staff planners, which left 6 planners to do the work. 7. Napa County was in litigation over the adequacy of the Environmental Impact Report for the 1998 Airport Specific Plan. The County lost in the trial court and lost in the District Court of Appeal. The County was also in litigations with the Sierra Club over the alleged lack of environmental review of vineyards requiring Erosion Control permits. 8. There was a lack of co-operation between the Department and the rest of the departments of the County. 9. The morale of the Planning Department staff was poor. The Napa County General Plan Housing Element does not comply with housing requirements established by the State Department of Housing and Community Development and its Councils of Government (in our case the Association of Bay Area Governments more commonly known as ABAG). The State Office of Planning and Research (more commonly known as OPR) lists the Napa County General Plan as “not comprehensively updated”, which means that 5 of the 7 mandatory elements of the General Plan have not been updated in the last 10 years. As of March 11, 2002, 12 months later, the Planning Division of the Conservation, Development and Planning Director was reorganized into two divisions, the Planning Division and the Conservation Division with the allocation of a new Deputy Planning Director position to head the Conservation Division. In addition, the Board approved the Planning Director's request to add two Principal Planner positions, and a Planning Tech position as part of Final Budget Actions in June 2001. All vacant position were subsequently filled by the end of 2001. The added position of Planning Technician now allows the public counter to be staffed for the entire business day, rather than the previous limitation of noon-5 p.m. Perhaps the greatest problem facing the people of Napa County in generations is the conflict between two desirable goals, both recognized state wide and nationally. One is the preservation of prime agricultural lands and the other is the zoning for, and construction of, housing. Both goals must be met in an environmentally satisfactory manner. The Housing Element of the Napa County General Plan is inadequate and cannot be made adequate without jeopardizing prime agricultural lands. The Board of Supervisors and the City Councils of the City of Napa and the City of American Canyon know the problem and have told the public they intend to deal with the problem. If they do not, they will subject the County (and its taxpayers which are mostly residents of the Cities) to litigation which the County cannot win, and to sanctions from the State of California which will work to the detriment of all of Napa County’s citizens. Napa County must meet its share of California’s housing need. Napa County must preserve its prime agricultural lands and protect the environment. Lands that are not prime agricultural lands need to be annexed to the City of Napa and the City of American Canyon for housing. State legislation is needed to allow Napa County credit for past and future annexations for housing to the City of American Canyon and future annexations to the City of Napa. The County should be looked at by the State as “one” with its cities and not as an entity required to provide housing. Another serious problem facing the people of Napa County is the planting of new vineyards only after compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The Conservation, Development and Planning Department, the Conservation, Development and Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors need to identify which new plantings are entitled to categorical exemptions, which are entitled to negative declarations or mitigated negative declarations, and which will be required to prepare environmental impact reports. Critics of previous County activities need to be satisfied with the process. PROCEDURES The Grand Jury committees interviewed the Planning Director, planners, Napa County Supervisors, Napa City Council members and staff, City of American Canyon Council members and staff, and applicants for use permits, certificates of compliance, lot line adjustments, structural erosion control plans, and agricultural erosion control plans.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R2:
The Board of Supervisors must subordinate past differences with the Cities and direct staff to come up with a housing solution that is reasonable and avoids State imposed sanctions. The Board should enlist the assistance of its representatives in the State Assembly and State Senate with legislation that enables the County to comply with State housing requirements and preserves prime agricultural lands. Response Requested From Napa County Board of Supervisors City Council City of American Canyon City Council City of Napa
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
The current economy is placing ever more individuals and families at risk of losing their shelter. Without some intervention, the rolls of the homeless may significantly increase.
F2:
The City of Napa has established an objective to provide permanent emergency shelters for 35 single men, 20 single women and 20 families.
F3:
The Sullivan Shelter is slated for imminent closure and needs to be replaced immediately.
F4:
The winter homeless shelter located on the grounds of the former California Department of Forestry (CDF) facility on Jefferson Street is no longer available because a senior housing project is slated to be built on that site.
F5:
A significant amount of General Assistance money (over $400,000) is spent on temporary lodging for homeless individuals and families each year.
F6:
A number of homeless individuals prefer their street existence and refuse to participate in shelter and treatment programs. Some of these individuals are involved in criminal behavior directed against our community.
F7:
The committee noted that there is available grant monies on both the state and federal level which is not being obtained by Napa County agencies, both public and non-profit. Substantial sums may be acquired by the county to address the needs of the homeless population which could substantially ameliorate the problem. It appears that there is a lack of persons with the knowledge and aptitude required to apply for these specific grants.
F8:
There is an ongoing problem with the homeless which requires several man-hours of city police involvement each month. Private property owners are requiring police assistance in evicting mobilehomes from their parking lots.
Additional Recommendations
8
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Redouble efforts to prevent families and individuals from losing housing. Sustain and increase funding for the Rental Assistance Program and continue landlord-tenant mediation. Publish more widely the hotline phone number for those in immediate danger of losing shelter. Response Requested From Napa County Health and Human Services Napa City Council Napa County Board of Supervisors Napa Housing Authority
R2:
The current numbers of homeless individuals and families exceed the City of Napa’s five-year goal for permanent emergency shelters and a review of this projection should be undertaken. Response Requested From Napa County Health and Human Services Napa City Council
R3:
A replacement facility for the Sullivan Shelter needs to be located. The new shelter should provide space for at least twice the number currently able to be housed at the Sullivan building. The appropriate city/county agencies should set aside sufficient funds to qualify for state/federal matching funds. Response Requested From Napa County Health and Human Services Napa City Council Napa County Board of Supervisors
R4:
A new site needs to be located for the winter shelter prior to the onset of inclement weather in 2002. The appropriate city/county agencies should set aside sufficient funds to qualify for state/federal matching funds. Response Requested From Napa County Health and Human Services Napa City Council Napa County Board of Supervisors
R5:
The money expended for temporary lodging of homeless individuals and families might be better spent on the expansion of existing facilities and the lease/purchase of more permanent facilities. Napa County should explore the possibility of site control either through long term leases or real estate acquisition. Response Requested From Napa County Health and Human Services Napa City Council Napa County Board of Supervisors
R6:
Many homeless individuals refusing shelter or treatment still require assistance in obtaining basic food and clothing needs. However, if their lifestyle choice includes criminal activities, our community should be protected from these individuals. County services should be designed to help support their basic needs while also providing for the safety and rights of the rest of our community. Response Requested From Napa County Health and Human Services Napa Police Department
R7:
Health and Human Services should ensure that at least one employee has sufficient training and experience in grant-writing to be able to assist the various members of the Continuum of Care in order to facilitate the receipt of additional grant monies to fund the necessary projects. Response Requested From Napa County Health and Human Services Napa City Council Napa County Board of Supervisors
R8:
County and City agencies should undertake an investigation into the possibility of setting aside some public land where the homeless could legally park their vehicles overnight, together with the provision of rudimentary services such as bathroom facilities. Response Requested From Napa County Health and Human Services Napa City Council Napa County Board of Supervisors Napa Police Department