Napa County Grand Jury
2007-2008
From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (23)
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
"Napa County youth are more likely that other California youth, as a whole, to be underage users of alcohol (59.4% vs. 45.9%)." with the state of the state of the Response to Finding 1: The Calistoga Joint Unified School District agrees with this finding. 3.3 （ Pade by Why Shirts - 其本 [第二][2] eregre carfo
F2:
"Drug use by youth in Napa County mirrors the statewide experience." Response to Finding 2: The Calistoga Joint Unified School District agrees with this finding.
F3:
"There are numerous prevention programs throughout the County, which are not uniformly coordinated and which until recently, have not been evidence-based." 15×. Response to Finding 3: The Calistoga Joint Unified School District agrees with this finding.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
"The County of Napa, through NCHHS, NCOE, NVUSD and other agencies and programs involved in developing the strategic plans commit to cooperate in fully implementing these plans." Response to Recommendation 1: The Calistoga Joint Unified School District looks forward to working positively to implement, to the extent applicable for our district, the strategic plans that are developed by this county wide effort. Calistoga Joint Unified School Response to Grand Jury Alcohol and Drug Prevention and Treatment Programs for Napa County Youth
R2:
"Local governmental agencies and other relevant districts commit to assure sufficient funding is available to fully implement the strategic plans for prevention programs." Response to Recommendation 2: The Calistoga Joint Unified School District will continue its practice of securing grants and/or allocating sufficient funds to implement our ongoing AOD prevention programs and to implement those portions of the strategic plan that are applicable to our district.
F4:
"NCHHS, NCOE, NVUSD and other governmental agencies have reviewed available local statistics regarding youth AOD use and have recently developed a plan for reducing substance use which incorporates evidence-based programs." Response to Finding 4: The Calistoga Joint Unified School District agrees with this finding. 等的数据数据数据数据数据数据数据数据数据数据数据数据数据数据数据数据数据数据数据 aranca - Colorada de Caralle de Caralle de Caralle de Caralle de Caralle de Caralle de Caralle de Caralle de C 1520 Lake Sreet ◆ Calistoga, CA 94515 (707) 942-4703 . Calistoga Joint Unified School Response to Grand Jury Alcohol and Drug Prevention and Treatment Programs for Napa County Youth
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
"The County of Napa, through NCHHS, NCOE, NVUSD and other agencies and programs involved in developing the strategic plans commit to cooperate in fully implementing these plans." Response to Recommendation 1: The Calistoga Joint Unified School District looks forward to working positively to implement, to the extent applicable for our district, the strategic plans that are developed by this county wide effort. Calistoga Joint Unified School Response to Grand Jury Alcohol and Drug Prevention and Treatment Programs for Napa County Youth
R2:
"Local governmental agencies and other relevant districts commit to assure sufficient funding is available to fully implement the strategic plans for prevention programs." Response to Recommendation 2: The Calistoga Joint Unified School District will continue its practice of securing grants and/or allocating sufficient funds to implement our ongoing AOD prevention programs and to implement those portions of the strategic plan that are applicable to our district.
F5:
"NCHHS and the Wolfe Center have recently implemented a strategic plan to address the challenges of providing quality substance abuse treatment for all Napa County youth." Response to Finding 5: The Calistoga Joint Unified School District agrees with this finding.
F6:
"The only outpatient treatment program in Napa County is contracted through the Wolfe Center." Response to Finding 6: The Calistoga Joint Unified School District agrees with this finding.
F7:
"NCHHS, NCOE, NVUSD and other governmental agencies have recognized the valuable work being done by charitable organizations and agencies and is including them in the development and implementation of prevention programs." Response to Finding 7: The Calistoga Joint Unified School District agrees with this finding.
F8:
"The true cost of publicly funded youth AOD prevention and treatment in Napa County could not be ascertained from the County and school district budgets reviewed." Response to Finding 8: The Calistoga Joint Unified School District agrees with this finding. Grand Jury Recommendations:
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
" All publically funded youth AOD prevention and treatment expenditures be separately itemized in each local government's budget by each category, youth AOD prevention and youth AOD treatment, so it is clear how much is being spent by each agency for each category." Response to Regommendation 3: As the Calistoga Joint Unified School District does not provide AOD treatment, all expenditures are for AOD prevention and these can be easily tracked. Respectfully submitted, W/Johnson Jeffiev Superintendent . •
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
13 findings
F1:
A shift to defined-contribution plans for all new employees of the City and the County be considered as a priority. RESPONSE: This recommendation requires further analysis in conjunction with other methods of containing labor costs. The City has identified containment of our labor cost as a top priority in our work plan. To accomplish this will require complex negotiations with our labor groups and development of programs that will reduce costs without impacting our ability to attract and retain quality employees. Implementation of a defined contribution program for new employees is one of many alternatives that may be considered in this effort. It should be noted that PERS does not provide a defined contribution option for member agencies at this time.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
A shift to defined-contribution plans for all new employees of the City and the County be considered as a priority. RESPONSE: This recommendation requires further analysis in conjunction with other methods of containing labor costs. The City has identified containment of our labor cost as a top priority in our work plan. To accomplish this will require complex negotiations with our labor groups and development of programs that will reduce costs without impacting our ability to attract and retain quality employees. Implementation of a defined contribution program for new employees is one of many alternatives that may be considered in this effort. It should be noted that PERS does not provide a defined contribution option for member agencies at this time.
F2:
The City of Napa: a. Retirement benefit for its employees (with limited exceptions) is a defined-benefit plan. RESPONSE: The City agrees with this finding. b. Plan for its non-safety employees and the Mayor and council members is a "2.7% at 55" plan. RESPONSE: The City agrees with agrees with this finding. c. The plan for its safety employees is at "3% at 55" plan. RESPONSE: The City disagrees with this finding. The retirement plan for safety employees is "3% at 50". d. Vesting period for the City of Napa employees is 5 years and for the Mayor and Council members 8 years. ٠, RESPONSE: The City agrees in part with this finding. The vesting periods for retiree medical benefits are determined by bargaining group. The vesting ranges from 5 years for Police, Fire, and Police Mid Management; 8 years for Council Members, 10 years for the Administrative, Management, Professional, Executive, and Fire Mid Management groups, and 15 years for all other employees. e. Current annual cost to provide medical benefits to retired employees is $1,400,000, a more than six-fold increase from $227,240 in 2002. RESPONSE: The City disagrees with this finding. In Fiscal Year 2001-02, the 'pay as you go' cost for retiree medical was $227,240. In Fiscal Year 2006-07, the 'pay as you go' cost for retiree medical was $615,080, approximately 2.7 times the original cost. The $1.4 million is the annual required contribution to fund both the 'pay as you go' annual cost plus funding for the accrued liability for future medical retiree costs. f. Estimates it will spend approximately $44,000,000 over the next six years to fund pension benefits, assuming a flat salary increase of 5%. RESPONSE: The City agrees with this finding and offers updated information. The City provided the estimated CalPERS pension cost of $44 million based on the January 2007 Long Term Financial Plan. The plan was updated in June 2008 with revisions including the 29 new positions restored during Fiscal Year 2007-08 and allowed for two new positions per year in order to address increasing service demands. These revisions increased the six year CalPERS pension cost estimate to $49 million.
F3:
OPEB: a. The County of Napa also provides OPEB for its retired employees and elected officials, some for their lifetime. RESPONSE: Not applicable to the City of Napa. b. The City of Napa also provides OPEB to its retired employees and elected officials, some for their lifetime. RESPONSE: The City agrees with this finding c. The cost of OPEB, particularly health insurance has experienced double-digit percentage increases in the past 5 years. RESPONSE: The City agrees in part with this finding. Health insurance premiums for those employees who retired or will retire under the contracts in effect in the early 1980s will continue to impact the City's OPEB costs. Health insurance premiums, for the public and private sectors, have routinely experienced double digit percentage increases. However, for the majority of City retirees who left City service after 1984 and future retirees, OPEB benefits are not tied to health insurance costs but are capped at a fixed rate. This cap greatly reduces the growth rate of the retiree medical benefit. d. Early retirement of City and County employees, allowed by the pension plans, obligates the City and County to provide OPEB for a longer period of time until a retiree becomes eligible for Medicare at age 65. RESPONSE: The City agrees in part with this finding and would like to note that the obligation to provide OPEB can continue beyond the age of 65. e. The unfunded OPEB for the County of Napa is between $37 and $51 million and the City $2.8 million. RESPONSE: The City disagrees with this finding. The City's unfunded OPEB estimate ranges from $12.7 to $18.0 million. f. The County has started reducing its unfunded OPEB liability and intends to be fully funded in 14 years. RESPONSE: Not applicable to the City of Napa. Pensions: 4. a. The costs to both the City and County for pension benefits are rising so rapidly that they can adversely impact the provision of other government services. RESPONSE: The City agrees in part with this finding. The rapid increase in CalPERS rates in the early 2000's due to the drastic market decline challenged all local governments to meet pension obligations while maintaining or enhancing services. During the 5 year period prior to the economic downturn government pension costs were non-existent since funding obligations were covered by significant PERS investment returns. These radical swings in funding obligations have been corrected with a 15 year actuarial smoothing model to avoid future volatility to the pension rates governments will need to pay. This will allow stability and provide for better fiscal planning. Further, excluding Police and Fire, employees retiring from the City receive a fixed medical benefit ranging from $226 a month to $347 a month. Therefore, the City has, to a large extent, insulated itself from the high OPEB costs other entities are experiencing. b. The unfunded liability by the County of Napa for pension benefits is $52.5 million. RESPONSE: Not applicable to the City of Napa. c. The unfunded liability by the City of Napa for pension benefits is $49.3 million. RESPONSE: The City agrees with this finding. By way of clarification, the June 2007 audited financial statements reported an unfunded CalPERS liability of $31.6 million. As previously indicated, the medical retiree unfunded liability estimate ranges from $12.7 to $18.0 million for a total of $44.3 million to $49.6 million: 5. The City needs to budget more funds to more rapidly reduce its unfunded pension liability. RESPONSE: The City partially agrees with this finding. Currently, the City fully funds its' CalPERS annual pension contribution. The City will also establish a trust fund for the retiree medical obligation. The City has fully funded the OPEB contribution for this budget cycle, and intends to fully fund the annual required contribution in the future.
F6:
The consequences of the failure to manage these unfunded liabilities can result in tax increases, reduced services and impaired borrowing ability. RESPONSE: The City agrees with this finding. Failure to manage these costs can result in serious consequences. Because the growth rate of benefit costs, particularly pension contributions, increased drastically a few years ago the City Council has established a high priority on identifying ways to contain the growth of labor cost. The City has been proactive in managing the medical retiree liability by achieving negotiated contracts with caps on medical retiree benefits for most of its bargaining groups and continues negotiations with the other groups in order to achieve Council's priority of fiscal stability and sustainability while providing competitive compensation in order to attract quality personnel.
F7:
GASB 45 government agencies providing retiree health care and other non-pension retirement benefits must disclose the future and accrued cost of those benefits to the public within the next four years RESPONSE: The City agrees with this finding. The City will be reporting its full cost and liability of retiree benefits in the June 2008 audited financial reports.
F8:
Government agencies pay more of their compensation in the form of benefits than in the private business sector. RESPONSE: The City agrees with this finding. However, it is important to note that as recently as five years ago, the City was paying much less to fund pensions than the private sector. This was the result of the 'super-funded' status of the CalPERS pension system which generated more investment income than necessary to fully fund retirement costs. When PERS investment income declined following the market collapse it became the responsibility of PERS member agencies to fund the gap required to maintain annual program requirements. This cyclical fluctuation, which has subsequently been addressed, has been the driving force behind the recent uncharacteristic growth of costs of public sector compensation.
F9:
Government entities do not need to provide these high levels of pension benefits to attract and retain employees. RESPONSE: The City agrees in part with this finding. The conclusion of the Grand Jury, while understandable is the result of a generalization which fails to recognize differences in the marketplace. It is a mistake to compare the labor pool and market for many private sector jobs with the public sector. The majority of most city budgets are dedicated to public safety personnel costs. These are not employees that can be selected from the market-place and put to work without a huge investment of training, time and resources. Competition for these individuals is extreme given the shrinking labor pool and high retirement rates in recent years. One need only look at the competition underway by all major cities for qualified police officer candidates. Many agencies have been forced to offer considerable bonuses in addition to rich pension and benefit programs to attract qualified and interested police officer candidates. Nonetheless, thousands of public safety jobs remain unfilled. Perhaps local government entities could attract and retain qualified new employees with reduced pension benefits, if the government labor market was subject to the same benefit caps established by state law. Absent a statewide limit on pension benefits to regulate this issue, competition for quality employees will make significant change for individual local government entities problematic.
F10:
Having the Board of Supervisors and the City Council negotiate or approve wages and benefits on behalf of themselves, although legally permissible, is a classic conflict of interest. RESPONSE: The City disagrees with this finding. As the Grand Jury suggests, the practice employed by the Council to adjust wages, pension and OPEB benefits for Council members is specifically authorized by State law, and represents the same method used by the majority of public jurisdictions in the state. The State law that authorizes such increases to compensation includes safeguards against potential conflicts of interest. The Council must review and approve any increase in compensation at a public meeting after considering public input, the amount of any annual increase is statutorily capped to not exceed 5 percent per calendar year, the Council is not authorized to approve any automatic future increases in compensation, and most importantly the Council may not approve an increase in compensation that applies to a Councilmember during his or her term in office. In other words, any increase in Council salary does not go into effect until after an election for a new term of Council.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
A commission or task force be established to recommend and/or to vote on any wage, pension or OPEB for the BOS or City Council. RESPONSE: The City will not implement this recommendation. As indicated by the Grand Jury Report the practice employed by the Council to adjust their wages, pension benefits or OPEB is neither illegal nor does it fall outside the standard practice employed by the vast majority of public ķ jurisdictions in this State. The State laws that regulate increases to Council compensation already include accountability for the Council's decision, and safeguards against potential conflicts of interest. Any time the City Council increases their pay, pension benefits or OPEB the increase in that compensation, by law does not go into effect for a councilmember until after he/she stands for re-election. All adjustments in compensation must be done formally during a regular City Council meeting in public, the amount of any increase is statutorily capped to not exceed 5 percent per calendar year, and the Council is not authorized to approve any automatic future increases in compensation. This system is designed to place responsibility for decisions on those that have been chosen by the public to represent their interests. To delegate responsibility to a separate task force or commission, that may also be subject to political influence, does not enhance accountability and does not represent progress or good public policy.
F11:
Private sector defined-benefit pensions are a thing of the past, retiree health care is virtually non-existent and wages, on average, are no greater than their public sector counter-parts. RESPONSE: The City partially agrees with this finding. It is true that the trend in the private sector has moved away from defined benefit pension programs and toward a defined contribution programs. The finding that retiree health programs are virtually non-existent and the conclusions that private sector wages are no greater than their public sector counter-parts represents a gross generalization that cannot accurately be applied across the many job categories and compensation plans in place through out the market place.
F12:
The average age at which current City of Napa employees retire is 57 years for miscellaneous employees and 52 for safety employees. RESPONSE: The City agrees with this finding.
F13:
The average age at which current Napa County employees retire is 62 for miscellaneous employees and 57 for safety employees. RESPONSE: Not applicable to the City of Napa.
F14:
A defined-contribution plan allows the plan to define the level of contribution the employer and the employee will make. RESPONSE: The City agrees with this finding.
F15:
A defined-contribution plan provides advantages to the employees and reduces the cost of retirement benefits over time. RESPONSE: The City partially agrees with this finding. A defined contribution plan has some advantages; for example, increased portability and more individual control over investments. It also has the potential to reduce costs for the City over time, although just a few years ago the annual costs would have been much higher to cities with defined contribution programs. Certainly the defined contribution approach provides entities with a fixed cost that makes fiscal planning easier and provides increased stability. On the other hand, as correctly indicated by the Grand Jury, with the defined contribution plan the risk lies squarely on the shoulders of the employee. Tens of thousands of workers on defined contribution programs lost a significant amount of their retirement savings as a result of the market downturn that also impacted PERS. The public policy implications resulting from people facing retirement age that are forced to keep working or the public implications of having large numbers of people entering retirement that can no longer afford their cost of living based on their new retirement income have yet to be determined.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
A shift to defined-contribution plans for all new employees of the City and the County be considered as a priority. RESPONSE: This recommendation requires further analysis in conjunction with other methods of containing labor costs. The City has identified containment of our labor cost as a top priority in our work plan. To accomplish this will require complex negotiations with our labor groups and development of programs that will reduce costs without impacting our ability to attract and retain quality employees. Implementation of a defined contribution program for new employees is one of many alternatives that may be considered in this effort. It should be noted that PERS does not provide a defined contribution option for member agencies at this time.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R2:
The City of Napa and County of Napa each adopt a resolution stating that it will participate in talks regarding health care reform. RESPONSE: The City will not implement this recommendation. The rising cost of health care is an issue affecting all public and private sector entities and individuals. While the City is interested in participating in any discussions that might contribute to a solution we have neither the power nor resources to significantly influence this issue. Adoption of a resolution indicating our commitment to address health care reform would not be a realistic nor fruitful exercise. The City has however, made a commitment to work with labor groups to contain the rising public cost of health care programs provided to City employees. These changes cannot lawfully be implemented unilaterally, they are subject to bargaining. Those negotiations are underway and will continue as the term of each current labor agreement expires.
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The County of Napa, through NCHHS, NCOE, NVUSD and other agencies and programs involved in developing the strategic plans commit to cooperate in fully implementing these plans. The Calistoga Police Department has participated in and is committed to working with other agencies to implement the strategic plan for prevention and treatment programs for Napa County's youth. As a law enforcement agency the Calistoga Police Department has conducted enforcement activities aimed at reducing youth's access to alcohol. The department has supplemented these activities with in school presentations and public meetings aimed at teaching prevention and raising awareness of drug and alcohol prevention programs. The Department has been achieving this through participating in the Catalyst Coalition and the Rural Enforcement of Underage Drinking Laws (REUDL) grant.
R2:
Local governmental agencies and other relevant districts commit to assure sufficient funding is available to fully implement the strategic plans for prevention and treatment.
R3:
All publicly funded youth AOD prevention and treatment expenditures be separately itemized in each local government's budget by each category, youth AOD prevention and youth AOD treatment, so it is clear how much is being spent by each agency for each category. The funding for the diversion program and the REUDL grant are itemized in the department's budget. Sincerely, Chief of Police .
Quick View
Full Details →
Additional Recommendations
7
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
NVC continue to support efforts at the State level to secure a more stable funding mechanism that is not tied to K- 14 funding. District staff continues to participate on various committees at the state level that focus on community college finance and funding issues. Proposition 92, the most significant recent effort to change community college funding, was defeated in the February, 2008 election. However, the proposition created a greater awareness regarding the funding problems faced by community colleges. The State Chancellor's Office and the Community College League are continuing their efforts to draw increased scrutiny to this issue. A member of the Board of Trustees is elected to the California Community College Trustees (CCCT) board that is continuing to advocate for legislation that separates community college funding from the K-12 funding.
R2:
NVC Board of Trustees proceeds expeditiously to convert the unfunded health care liabilities from a "pay-as-you-go" to an accrual basis. The Board of Trustees is reviewing numerous options regarding the unfunded retiree health care liability. At the Board's direction over the past five years, the college budget has included an increasing amount of set-aside beyond the pay-as-you-go amount. A subcommittee of the Board is currently reviewing options for generating additional funds to address this issue by utilizing allowable investment options and other financial methods. The subcommittee is planning to report back to the full Board in Fall, 2008.
R3:
NVC inform the public when promoting new bond issues, not only of what will be gained by the passage of the bond issue, but what will be lost if the bond issue does not pass. Napa Valley College appreciates the attention the Grand Jury brought to the importance of communicating effectively with the community—not only during a bond campaign, but on an ongoing basis. This recommendation also reaffirms what we heard from many members of the community subsequent to the failure of Measure L-that that were disappointed and regretful that they had not realized what projects would not go forward if the bond did not pass. Additionally, we believe that communicating needs, along with accomplishments, has the benefit of actually increasing community support for the college. The unique strength of the community college lies in an honest, open dialog between the college and the community, and the college is committed to finding new ways to increase opportunities for that dialog to flourish.
R4:
NVC take a more pro-active role in informing the public about its accomplishments and needs. Last year, the college hired a marketing strategist to assist the college in developing new marketing strategies to strengthen its ongoing communication with the community. The college will receive a final report from the marketing strategist early in the Fall semester and will incorporate those strategies into our existing efforts, which include: weekly press releases to local media (area newspapers, radio, college website); paid advertising campaign around each registration period; monthly cable TV show on Channel 27; a college DVD used at outreach events; community publications such as President's Report to the Community; brochures, posters, flyers about events and programs; active outreach to area high schools, including financial aid outreach; participation in community events in Napa County; highway signs; campus tours; staff participation in service clubs; hosting professional conferences; college president, staff, and Foundation members speak and represent college in the community.
R5:
NVC provide campus-wide wireless access to benefit the faculty, the students and Campus Security. College staff is currently gathering cost information regarding wireless access. The staff is very aware of the significant security issues involved with a wireless environment. Any further steps that the college takes regarding wireless access will be designed to protect the security of the administrative computing system as well as the security of the faculty, staff and students. The college must also carefully review the cost/benefit aspects of such an expensive undertaking. Any system for the Campus Police would need to be separated from a college-wide system. Options available for these purposes are also under review.
R6:
NVC provide computers with wireless capabilities be installed in campus police cars. The college is exploring the option of a mobile unit that is a tag-on to Verizon's wireless system, requiring no implementation from the college Information Technology Department. The upgrade would allow police officers in the field to access vital student records, warrant status, and other information that is routinely needed without the delay caused by contacting the department by phone or radio. Our police vehicles already have computer mounts, reducing the expense of installation. The power source to run this system is generated by the vehicle. The system can be used by college police staff assigned to the Upper Valley Campus in St. Helena to interact with the main campus. Having wireless capabilities in police vehicles is consistent with other County law enforcement.
R7:
NVC install a campus-wide alert/alarm system to inform those on campus of emergency situations and what actions/precautions be taken. The college is currently evaluating a computer-based system that would augment the current emergency alert systems (AlertU, emergency phones, and email). The LYNX system, a computer server that operates over the existing network, would bring new capabilities that would allow the college to "push" emergency information to computers, phones, pagers, cell phones, and public displays. The Napa Valley College Board of Trustees, faculty, and staff would again like to thank the members of the Grand Jury who served on the college review team. We will make every effort to fully respond to their insightful comments and recommendations. It was a pleasure to work with them, and we greatly appreciate their excellent service to our community. Sincerely, Wece Vi. nul on Dr. Chris McCarthy Bruce Ketron President, Board of Trustees Superintendent/President
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Criminal Justice Committee address and identify in the Adult Correctional System Master Plan the proper official or agency to provide the leadership necessary to carry out the plan's recommendations. Although a member of the committee, the Sheriff does not have the authority to implement this. I concur with the response submitted by the Criminal Justice Committee. Please refer to that document. However, I continue to believe that the operations of the corrections department would best be managed by the Sheriff's Department and the rehabilitative aspects overseen by the Probation Department in a collaborative effort.
R2:
The Criminal Justice Committee develop a proposed job description for the Director of the Department of Corrections that acknowledges the broad responsibility such a person will have for the jail and for community-based corrections efforts in cooperation with other agencies. Again I concur with the response submitted by the Criminal Justice Committee and I do not have the authority to implement this recommendation. Please refer to that document. Received Napa Superior Court JUL 1 6 2008 Court Executive Office
R3:
The selection of a new Director of the Department of Corrections be deferred until such time as the decision is made regarding the job description for this position, taking into account the new responsibilities described in the Adult Correctional System Master Plan. I strongly believe that deferring the new directors' selection would be detrimental to the operation of the jail; however it is not within my authority to make that selection or dictate its process. I concur with the response of the Criminal Justice Committee. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely: < Douglas E. Koford Sherriff-Coroner . .
Quick View
Full Details →
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
"C.E.R.T. training be implemented in Napa County high schools and middle schools." Response to Recommendation 1: The District agrees with the recommendation for students over 18 years of age and will encourage those students to take the training voluntarily on non-school days. To motivate these students to take the training, the District will allow these training hours to be counted toward the mandatory community service hours required for graduation from Calistoga High School. With regard to students under the age of 16, the current practice in Napa County is that no one under the age of 16 is allowed to take the training, so those students in middle school and the lower high school grades would not have C.E.R.T. as an option unless this practice is changed. Students over 16 and under the age of 18 are allowed to take the training but must attend with a parent/guardian. These students will be encouraged to take C.E.R.T. training with their parents on non-school days, just as those students over the age of 18. Given the academic demands of the State accountability program and our own curricular requirements, we have determined that such training should not replace 16 hours of classroom instruction. Respectfully submitted, Received Napa Superior Court who JUN 3 0 2008 Jeffrey W. Johnson Superintendent Court Executive Office 1520 Lake Sreet Calistoga, CA 94515 (707) 942-4703
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F3:
"The public schools in St. Helena and Calistoga have not utilized the D.A.R.E. program for several years." Response to Finding 3: The Calistoga Joint Unified School District agrees with this finding.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
"The public school districts of St. Helena and Calistoga re-institute the D.A.R.E. or similar program within the elementary school curriculum, beginning in the 2008-2009 academic school year." Response to Recommendation 3: The District agrees with this recommendation and D.A.R.E. has been replaced with a Juvenile Diversion Program. A Calistoga Police Department Memorandum, prepared by Calistoga Police Chief Jonathan Mills, is attached and provides history and an overview of the program focus. The most recent addition to the duties of the juvenile diversion officer has been the implementation of the Second Step Program at the 5th and 6th grade levels. This program has been recognized and recommended by the US Department of Education and numerous other agencies as an effective curriculum in preventing drug and alcohol use by youth. The school district and city have a long history of cooperative efforts and joint projects focused on drug and alcohol education and prevention and the diversion program has Received been a most successful replacement for D.A.R.E. Napa Superior Court JUN 3 0 2008 Court Executive Office 1520 Lake Sreet ◆ Calistoga, CA 94515 (707) 942-4703 . Calistoga Joint Unified SchoolResponse to Grand JuryD.A.R.E. Program CALISTOGA POLICE DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: April 22, 2008 TO: Jim McCann – City Manager FROM: Jonathan Mills – Chief of Police RE: 2008 Napa County Grand Jury Report on D.A.R.E. In response to the 2008 Napa County Grand Jury report on D.A.R.E., I have prepared this memorandum with information on the Calistoga Police Department's activity in regards to youth services. The Grand Jury report has stated that although there is no evidence to support that D.A.R.E. reduces drug, alcohol, or tobacco use, or that it prevents violence, the benefit of the program is that it increases familiarity and comfort between students and members of the police. Therefore the Grand Jury recommends that the public schools of Calistoga re-institute the D.A.R.E. program for the 2008-2009 school year. The City of Calistoga ran the D.A.R.E. program in the elementary school from approximately 1996 to 2003. During this time the traditional D.A.R.E. curriculum was presented to 6th grade children for 16 weeks during the school year by a uniformed police officer. Beginning in 2000 the City of Calistoga moved from following the D.A.R.E. program to implementing a Juvenile Diversion Program as a measure to improve outreach to youth. The Juvenile Diversion Program exists as an opportunity for the Police Department to intervene when a youth has been identified as being at risk of getting into trouble. A child so identified who has committed a minor offense can be put on diversion instead of formal probation. Diversion consists of a voluntary contract between the child, parents and the Police Department. The contract includes behavioral, academic and counseling components. The Juvenile Diversion Officer meets with the youth weekly throughout the 6 month term of the contract. When successful, the offense for which the youth was diverted is expunged. The Juvenile Diversion Officer spends on average 16 to 24 hours a week on Calistoga School campuses. The goal of the Juvenile Diversion Program is to help guide youth from making bad or wrong choices in future life and to develop within them the strength and life skills necessary to make good choices. The Juvenile Diversion Officer is a youth case manager from the Boys and Girls Club of Saint Helena and Calistoga. The Juvenile Diversion Officer is contracted from the Boys and Girls Club to work as a representative of the Calistoga Police Department at both the Calistoga Elementary School and the Calistoga Junior/Senior High School. The cost of this program is $25,000 annually. In the Elementary School the Juvenile Diversion Officer teaches the Second Step Program to 5th and 6th graders. This program is recognized by the Department of Education, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services - Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional Learning. The program focuses on teaching empathy, anger management, personal safety, and bullying. The Second Step program is consistent with the stated goals of the Juvenile Diversion Program. The Juvenile Diversion Officer visits the Junior/Senior High School to monitor youth on diversion contracts and to conduct intervention when referred by school officials, parents or other youth. Intervention issues range from classroom disruption, fighting/bullying, sexual inappropriateness and poor respect for parents and authority. So far this school year the Juvenile Diversion Officer has so served 41 children in Calistoga High School. In my opinion, the Juvenile Diversion Program successfully integrates the Police Department with educational and preventative programs in our Calistoga schools. The on-campus presence of a the Juvenile Diversion Officer, a representative of the Calistoga Police Department, for 16 to 24 hours a week is well beyond what a D.A.R.E. officer would spend at a school.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
15 findings
F1:
The County of Napa: a. pension benefit for employees is a defined-benefit plan. b. plan for its non-safety employees and the Board of Supervisors is a “2.5% at 55” plan. c. plan for safety employees is a “3% at 50” plan. d. vesting period for County employees is 5 years and for the Board of Supervisors 8 years. e. total cost to Napa County taxpayers to fund employee retirement benefits over the next two years will be $39,377,900. f. BOS monthly salary is currently $7,017, with full medical and dental coverage for themselves and their family. They also enjoy a defined- benefit pension that includes a monthly annuity.
F2:
The City of Napa: a. retirement benefit for its employees (with limited exceptions) is a defined-benefit plan. b. plan for its non-safety employees and the Mayor and Council members is a “2.7% at 55” plan. c. plan for its safety employees is a “3% at 55” plan. d. vesting period for the City of Napa employees is 5 years and for the Mayor and City Council members 8 years. e. current annual cost to provide medical benefits to retired employees is $1,400,000, a more than six-fold increase from $227,240 in 2002. f. estimates it will spend approximately $44,000,000 over the next six years to fund pension benefits, assuming a flat salary increase of 5%.
F3:
OPEB: a. The County of Napa also provides OPEB for its retired employees and elected officials, some for their lifetime. b. The City of Napa also provides OPEB to its retired employees and elected officials, some for their lifetime. 10 c. The costs of OPEB, particularly health insurance have experienced double-digit percentage increases in the past 5 years. d. Early retirement of City and County employees, allowed by the pension plans, obligates the City and County to provide OPEB for a longer period of time until a retiree becomes eligible for Medicare at age 65. e. The unfunded OPEB for the County of Napa is between $37 and $51 million and the City $2.8 million. f. The County has started reducing its unfunded OPEB liability and intends to be fully funded in 14 years.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
The City of Napa and County of Napa each adopt a resolution stating that it will participate in talks regarding health care reform. 11
R4:
Both the City of Napa and Napa County review the time period of the OPEB coverage to determine if it could be reduced, e.g. by adjusting the retirement age percent formulas to reflect a 2.5% at 62 instead of age 55 for miscellaneous employees, or to reflect 3% at 55 instead of age 50 for safety employees, the OPEB liability could be significantly reduced. REQUEST FOR RESPONSES 2007-2008 Napa County Grand jury requests responses from: • County Executive Officer • Napa County Auditor-Controller • Napa County Board of Supervisors • City Council of Napa • Mayor of the City of Napa • City of Napa Finance Director
F4:
Pensions: a. The costs to both the City and County for pension benefits are rising so rapidly that they can adversely impact the provision of other governmental services. b. The unfunded liability by the County of Napa for pension benefits is $52.5 million. c. The unfunded liability by the City of Napa for pension benefits is $49.3 million.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Both the City of Napa and Napa County review the time period of the OPEB coverage to determine if it could be reduced, e.g. by adjusting the retirement age percent formulas to reflect a 2.5% at 62 instead of age 55 for miscellaneous employees, or to reflect 3% at 55 instead of age 50 for safety employees, the OPEB liability could be significantly reduced. REQUEST FOR RESPONSES 2007-2008 Napa County Grand jury requests responses from: • County Executive Officer • Napa County Auditor-Controller • Napa County Board of Supervisors • City Council of Napa • Mayor of the City of Napa • City of Napa Finance Director
F5:
The City needs to budget more funds to more rapidly reduce its unfunded pension liability.
F6:
The consequences of the failure to manage these unfunded liabilities can result in tax increases, reduced services and impaired borrowing ability.
F7:
GASB 45 government agencies providing retiree health care and other non-pension retirement benefits must disclose the future and accrued cost of those benefits to the public within the next four years.
F8:
Government agencies pay more of their compensation in the form of benefits than in the private business sector.
F9:
Government entities do not need to provide these high levels of pension benefits to attract and retain employees.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
A shift to defined-contribution plans for all new employees of the City and the County be considered as a priority.
F10:
Having the Board of Supervisors and the City Council negotiate or approve wages and benefits on behalf of themselves, although legally permissible, is a classic conflict of interest.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
A commission or task force be established to recommend and/or to vote on any wage, pension or OPEB for the BOS or City Council.
F11:
Private sector defined-benefit pensions are a thing of the past, retiree health care is virtually non-existent and wages, on average, are no greater than their public sector counter-parts.
F12:
The average age at which current City of Napa employees retire is 57 years for miscellaneous employees and 52 for safety employees.
F13:
The average age at which current Napa County employees retire is 62 for miscellaneous employees and 57 for safety employees.
F14:
A defined-contribution plan allows the plan to define the level of contribution the employer and the employee will make.
F15:
A defined-contribution plan provides advantages to the employees and reduces the cost of retirement benefits over time.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
A shift to defined-contribution plans for all new employees of the City and the County be considered as a priority.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R6:
The Grand Jury recommends that: "Agreements to which local government agencies are parties not contain false statements in the recitals." Response: The Town of Yountville wholeheartedly agrees with this statement and recommendation. It should be noted however that the Town's action to authorize the Settlement Agreement containing the recital to which the Grand Jury refers was based upon the Town Council's understanding that the facts contained in the recital were true. Please note that the Town of Yountville, its elected officials and its staff strive for the highest level of integrity and we endeavor to accurately reflect the basis for decisions and facts accurately through Staff Reports, Resolutions, Recitals, Agreements and Statements. The Town of Yountville thanks the Grand Jury for its good efforts in investigation and constructive observations and recommendations for improving local government operations and integrity. Sincerely, Steven R. Rogers, Town Manager Cynthià Saucerman, Mayor Received Napa Superior Court File CC: MAY 3 0 2008 Correspondence Court Executive Office Town of Yountville • 6550 Yount Street • Yountville • California • 94599 Telephone (707) 944-8851 • FAX (707) 944-9619
Findings & Recommendations
13 findings
F2:
NCCDPD and the County Fire Marshal, there were major costs incurred in excess of the original contract prices on both projects; $1,020,118 for Calistoga and $742,264 for Mondavi, resulting in a total overrun of $1,762.382. Response to Finding #2: The NVHA Board of Commissioners ("NVHA Board") generally agrees with this finding. The Board of Commissioners of the NVHA failed to exercise control over the
F3:
Calistoga and Mondavi projects when, based on the information available to them during the projects, they knew, or should have known, that the cost of these renovations was far exceeding contract amounts. Response to Finding #3: The NVHA Board agrees with this finding, but notes that whenever the Board was informed of cost increases it was also assured, until after the work had been performed and obligations incurred at the end of the summer of 2006, that the funds to cover the costs were being sought and were likely to be received from the State and the County, although the time for such receipt was not specified. The NVHA Board was aware that this had occurred early in the project successfully when new funds were secured for the initial cost increases and therefore had no reason to doubt the accuracy of the Executive Director's statements in regard to subsequent cost increases. The Commissioners of the NVHA and the members of the FWHOC failed to
F6:
inquire into who was providing the cash to cover the shortfall so the renovations could be completed. Response to Finding #6: The staff reports to the NVHA Board repeatedly emphasized that the cost overruns were caused by County actions in large part and that the County was receptive to providing the funds from the County's Affordable Housing Trust Fund as had occurred in the past. The NVHA Board was not informed by its Executive Director that his requests for new funding had already been rejected by Trust Fund staff due to constraints placed on such additional funding by the settlement of a housing lawsuit to which the NVHA was not a party. The NVHA and the FWHOC were more focused on having the renovations of the
F7:
Calistoga and Mondavi Farmworker Housing Centers completed by the fall harvest of 2006, than how they were being financed. Response to Finding #7: The NVHA Board cannot speak to the focus of the FWHOC. This statement is generally true in regard to the NVHA Board, in light of the assurances from its Executive Director that the necessary new funding would be forthcoming from other agencies. During construction of these projects, many of the NVHA Commissioners and
F8:
FWHOC members did not regularly attend meetings and many meetings had to be canceled for lack of a quorum. Response to Finding #8: The NVHA Board agrees with this finding but notes that when meetings were cancelled during the period of construction for lack of a quorum, the proposed agendas for the cancelled meetings generally did not include items requesting Board action relating to cost overruns or change order authorization or reports informing the Board that outside funding of cost increases as earlier suggested by the Executive Director would not be forthcoming. The Executive Director of the NVHA and HACN, without informing the NVHA
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Members of these County agencies and advisory groups attend the meetings, read the agenda material before they vote and remain vigilant. As a matter of policy, they not simply rely upon staff but rather follow the precept outlined in Ordinance 05-01, to read and understand what comes before them. Response to Recommendation #3: While the NVHA Board agrees with the general sentiment expressed in this recommendation, it should be noted that the NVHA is a joint powers entity comprised of one general law city and the housing authorities of the County of Napa and three other cities, and as such is not a "County agency" or County "advisory group". Ordinance 05-01 is a county ordinance adopted by initiative whose procedures apply by its terms only to the Napa County Board of Supervisors acting in that capacity, and then only to approval of resolutions and ordinances, not contracts or other actions. Under the 12th Amendment of its joint powers agreement approved in 2007, the NVHA will cease to exist on June 8, 2008, having transferred all of its responsibilities to one or more of its members or to other city or county agencies. The NVHA Board therefore believes that adoption of the precepts in County Ordinance No. 05-01 as a matter of NVHA policy would be an idle act at this time.
F9:
Board of Commissioners or the FWHOC and without authorization from the City of Napa and HACN, used City of Napa and HACN funds in excess of $2,000,000. The ability to manipulate funds was due, in part, to the same incumbent occupying management roles for two distinct organizations (NVHA and HACN) whose funds had been commingled by the managing agency (HACN). Response to Finding #9: The NVHA Board agrees with this finding.
F14:
The NVHA sent the Mondavi project out to bid before the building permits were issued, resulting in many change orders. Response to Finding #14: The NVHA Board agrees with this finding.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The NCCDPD assure that thorough plan checks are done and that permits are issued on a timely basis. Response to Recommendation #7: This recommendation does not relate to any matter that is within the jurisdiction of the NVHA to implement. However, having been a landowner engaged in construction projects requiring building permits, the NVHA would support, like all landowners, implementation of this recommendation by the NCCDPD or any other regulatory agency charged by law with checking plans and issuing permits.
F15:
The NVHA undertook to manage the Calistoga and Mondavi projects without sufficient prior experience in construction management. Response to Finding #15: The NVHA Board agrees with this finding.
F16:
The NVHA Executive Director had both actual and implied authority from the NVHA Board to authorize and approve the change orders on the two projects. Response to Finding #16: The NVHA Board agrees that its Executive Director may have appeared to the construction contractors to have authority to authorize and approve change orders on the two projects due to the wording in the industry form contracts put together by the Executive Director and the project architect. However, these contracts were not attached to the authorizing resolution or included in the agenda packet prior to approval of the authorizing resolutions. The authorizing resolutions themselves are silent on the subject of change orders and only speak of authorization to execute the contract documents for the amount stated in the resolutions, which did not include any change order amounts. See Response to
F19:
County Counsel's memorandum to the Board of Supervisors dated December 18, 2006, criticizing the NVHA's Executive Director, is based on an incomplete, insufficient investigation. Response to Finding #19: The NVHA Board has no direct knowledge of the completeness or sufficiency of a memorandum not drafted by its staff or approved by the NVHA Board prior to issuance of the memorandum by the County Counsel to the Board of Supervisors, or of an investigation not conducted by its staff, the NVHA Board or the NVHA legal counsel. RESPONSES OF THE NAPA VALLEY HOUSING AUTHORITY TO ADDITIONAL FINDINGS:
F22:
The NVHA Commissioners agreed with most of the audit findings in a response to the auditors which was apparently never made public. Response to Finding #22: The NVHA Board disagrees with the portion of this finding that states, "which was apparently never made public", but agrees with the remainder of the finding. According to the agendas and minutes of the NVHA Board, on June 11, 2007 in open session of a regular meeting of the NVHA Board, the Board accepted the audit report and management letter issued by its special independent auditors Caporicci and Larson, and asked Pam Kindig and Carole Wilson to prepare a response to the management letter recommendations. In open session of a special meeting of the NVHA Board held on June 25, 2007, the NVHA Board reviewed the proposed responses prepared by Pam Kindig and Carole Wilson, which were distributed to the Board members and made available to the public in written form at the meeting. By a 4-0 vote, the members present approved the responses and authorized the Chair to sign and NVHA staff to deliver the written responses to Caporicci and Larson, which the NVHA Board believes then occurred.
F23:
The NVHA does not yet have a capital improvements budget. Response to Finding #23: The NVHA Board disagrees with this finding to the extent that it suggests that no capital improvement budget has ever been adopted by the NVHA Board for the projects examined in the report. When the fund balance numbers were made available to the NVHA from the financial system of the Housing Authority of the City of Napa ("HACN"), who provided financial management to the NVHA under a support services agreement, allowing the NVHA to determine what funds were actually available at the beginning of each of the fiscal years in question, the NVHA Board acted on March 12, 2007 to ratify and confirm the capital improvement (Fund 41) budgets for fiscal years 2004-2005 and 2005-2006, and adopted the Fund 41 budget for fiscal year 2006-2007. Prior to the time of this Response, final audits including this Fund have been completed and filed for each of these fiscal years. At its special meeting on June 25, 2007, the NVHA Board adopted its overall operational budget for fiscal year 2007-2008 which included certain carryover construction items necessary to complete the water system at the Mondavi Farmworker Housing Center, for this purpose showing revenues and expenditures for Fund 41 expected to occur in 2007-2008 to finish up these construction projects authorized by the Board following and in consequence of acquisition of title to the property. In all other respects, all revenues and expenditures relating to real property owned by the NVHA in 2007-2008 were handled directly by the NCHA to whom sole administrative management (including revenue collection) of the three farmworker housing centers was transferred by agreement effective as of July 1, 2007. Such other revenues and expenditures are therefore included in the NCHA budget for fiscal year 2007-2008, not in the NVHA budget.
F25:
on the issue of whether the Executive Director had or could have been given actual authority to authorize and approve change orders on the two projects.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Agreements to which local governmental agencies are parties not contain false statements in the recitals. Response to Recommendation #6: While the NVHA Board agrees with the general sentiment of this Recommendation, it disagrees with the implication that NVHA agreements reviewed by the Grand Jury contained false statements in the recitals. The NVHA does not believe that any of the contracts reviewed in the report contained any false statements in the agreement recitals. The construction contracts relevant to the cost overruns for the two farmworker housing centers were form contracts that generally did not contain recitals. The authorizing resolutions for those contracts did not contain statements which were known or reasonably could have been known to the NVHA Board to be untrue at the time the resolutions were approved. The NVHA Board further contends that the recital in the Settlement Agreement which the Grand Jury states was erroneous (See Response to Finding #25) was in fact a true statement, both under the law known to the parties to the Settlement Agreement agreement at the time of signing and in effect up to the present date.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R4:
The Board of Supervisors, acting as the NCHA, take steps to restore the public's trust in the management of farmworker housing. Response to Recommendation #4: This recommendation is not within the purview of the NVHA, which will cease to exist on or before June 30, 2008 under the terms of the 12th amendment of its Joint Powers Agreement . The NVHA Board notes, however, that between the Fall of 2006 and the issuance of the Grand Jury Report, the NVHA Board took a number of steps designed to restore such public trust, including securing of an independent audit and intensified financial and other oversight of the contract operators of the farmworker housing centers. In addition, in cooperation with its member agencies, the City of Napa, City of Napa Housing Authority, and the County of Napa, the NVHA Board simplified the organizational system of the various committees and agencies having oversight responsibility for farmworker housing development within Napa County.
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
the condition of the streets and roads in Napa County has been judged to be among the worst in the nine Bay Area counties.
F2:
the local governments in Napa County have little to no control over the sources of funding for road maintenance and improvements.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
the Board of Supervisors place on the ballot at the next scheduled election or at any subsequent election which takes place prior to the end of the year 2008, a ballot measure calling for a dedicated sales tax for the express and sole purpose of providing street and road maintenance and related street and road improvements in the County of Napa and its local municipalities.
R2:
the County of Napa join with other jurisdictions to seek action by the State Legislature to index the gasoline tax to an inflation factor.
F3:
the existing revenue sources are not sufficient to improve the deteriorating streets and roads in Napa County.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
the Board of Supervisors place on the ballot at the next scheduled election or at any subsequent election which takes place prior to the end of the year 2008, a ballot measure calling for a dedicated sales tax for the express and sole purpose of providing street and road maintenance and related street and road improvements in the County of Napa and its local municipalities.
R2:
the County of Napa join with other jurisdictions to seek action by the State Legislature to index the gasoline tax to an inflation factor.
F4:
County Roads Department Budget a. the current annual budget of the County Roads Department is approximately $7,000,000, which barely covers minimum maintenance standards. b. to bring the condition of the roads up to the PCI “good” level, an additional $11,700,000 per year would be needed above the current annual budgeted amount. c. an investment of more than $200,000,000 is needed over a 25-year period to bring all Napa County paved roads into a “good” PCI level.
F5:
the imbalance in the County of Napa and its local municipalities between the roads maintenance and capital improvements needs and the existing revenue sources can not be remedied by increased efficiencies or by reducing programs and services.
F6:
new sources of revenues to fund streets and roads maintenance needs and related capital improvement projects must be found in order to maintain a safe and reliable transportation system for local citizens and visitors to the County and its cities.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
the Board of Supervisors place on the ballot at the next scheduled election or at any subsequent election which takes place prior to the end of the year 2008, a ballot measure calling for a dedicated sales tax for the express and sole purpose of providing street and road maintenance and related street and road improvements in the County of Napa and its local municipalities.
R2:
the County of Napa join with other jurisdictions to seek action by the State Legislature to index the gasoline tax to an inflation factor.
F7:
the County of Napa receives no matching funding from the Federal or State governments because it has no “self-help” tax such as a dedicated sales tax, thereby losing access to millions of dollars in matching funds from the federal and state governments.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
the Board of Supervisors place on the ballot at the next scheduled election or at any subsequent election which takes place prior to the end of the year 2008, a ballot measure calling for a dedicated sales tax for the express and sole purpose of providing street and road maintenance and related street and road improvements in the County of Napa and its local municipalities.
F8:
there is a need to establish a formal standard for repair of road damage and to fill the vacant Assistant Road Coordinator position.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
formal standards be adopted and implemented for road repairs of potholes and after-construction cuts and a qualified person be hired to inspect and approve these repairs.
F9:
FEMA reimbursement is often delayed because of improper recordkeeping in emergency situations and because of incomplete or improperly produced requests for reimbursement. 10
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
an employee of Public Works be FEMA trained, assigned to the task of recordkeeping in emergency situations, and responsible for the completion of requests for reimbursement of emergency repairs.
F10:
the County of Napa Public Works Safety manual is out of date and requires revision to come into compliance with current safety standards.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
the County Public Works Safety Manual be brought up to date with current safety regulations. REQUEST FOR RESPONSES The 2007-2008 Grand Jury requests responses from:
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
14 findings
F1:
Through the implementation of a communications repeater voting system and the implementation of simulcast broadcasting the Napa County Public Safety Radio System has been significantly enhanced.
F2:
The Berryessa Peak radio repeater station is not equipped with a microwave relay system.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Berryessa Peak public safety radio repeater be equipped with a microwave relay system.
F3:
The Public Notification System soon to be implemented will provide emergency response agencies with a powerful communications tool.
F4:
The only Napa County PSAP with Emergency Medical Dispatch qualified personnel is the Napa Central Dispatch PSAP.
F5:
Napa County PSAPs have elected not to receive wireless 911 calls directly from the caller.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
County PSAP organizations initiate action to receive wireless 911 calls directly.
F6:
Napa Central Dispatch places a separate landline call to CAL FIRE ECC rather than conferencing the call with 911 callers. This action precludes the ECC from receiving E- 911 Called ID information without resorting to additional hardware or software modifications.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
As an interim policy, the Napa Central Dispatch PSAP immediately begin to “conference” the CAL FIRE ECC on fire dispatch or medical/fire dispatch calls.
F7:
It is essential that VoIP users fully understand how their particular telephone company routes 911 calls.
F8:
The American Canyon Fire Department has “Rip and Run” communications equipment to receive E-911 Caller ID information from the Napa Central Dispatch.
F9:
The Napa Central Dispatch policies and procedures appear to be out of date and generally in a state of neglect.
F10:
The Napa Central Dispatch training materials appear to be inadequate and seem to consist, in a large part, of vendor manuals.
F11:
CAL FIRE ECC dispatch personnel appear to be unaware of the Napa County Fire Department dispatch policies.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
CAL FIRE ECC dispatchers be made aware of the requirements of the Napa County Fire Department dispatch related procedures.
F12:
The CAL FIRE ECC does maintain communications records, but no formal records of dispatch errors are maintained.
F13:
None of the PSAP organizations investigated by the Grand Jury have quality assurance programs, or even the basic elements of such a program, in place.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
On an urgent basis the Napa County PSAPs institute formal quality assurance programs, preferably audited by outside third party organizations qualified in the area of emergency communications.
F14:
Combining existing primary PSAP functions into a single consolidated PSAP would appear to better serve the citizens of Napa County than the current system.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The Master Plan be modified to include a consolidated Napa County PSAP and planning be initiated to establish the facility. REQUEST FOR RESPONSES The 2007/2008 Grand Jury requests responses from:
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R03-03:
Attempted Child Abduction 19
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F9:
The Executive Director of the NVHA and HACN used City of Napa and HACN funds in excess of $2,000,000. The ability to thus manipulate funds was due, in part, to the same incumbent occupying management roles for two distinct organizations (NVHA and HACN) where their funds had been commingled. HACN Response to Finding 9: The HACN disagrees with this finding. Using a single professional to manage two entities with comparable roles and responsibilities can serve the public interest by improving efficiency and effectiveness through improved coordination and avoidance of duplication of costs and services. In fact, the former Executive Director did not draw resources from "commingled" funds from two agencies. The failure in the system was found in the ability of the former Executive Director to expend funds for the projects in excess of those available, which drove the NVHA into a significant deficit position without detection. This situation then triggered the need for the City and HACN to transfer funds to cover that deficit. The fact that the Executive Director was able to obligate City and HACN funds without authorization was due to weak financial systems and inadequate oversight, not the shared responsibilities of the Executive Director. As noted below, the HACN and the City moved immediately to address these issues.
Related Recommendations (1)
R12:
Governmental entities must avoid having one individual serve in an executive position with access to financial resources for two organizations. Such a policy will significantly reduce the opportunity for conflict of interest and commingling or misallocation of funds. HACN Response to Recommendation 12: While the HACN understands and agrees with the underlying goal of this recommendation, the HACN respectfully disagrees with the particular implementation as written since it is not a reasonable method to achieve the goal. The HACN understands the Grand Jury's goal to be to ensure that governmental entities establish appropriate financial controls to significantly reduce the opportunity for conflict of interest and commingling or misallocation of funds. The HACN shares this goal, not only for the separation of funds that are held by the City for the benefit of separate legal entities (such as the City of Napa, the Housing Authority of the City of Napa, and the Napa Community Redevelopment Agency), but also for the separation of dozens of segregated funds that are held by the City for separate (but similar) purposes due to their separate funding source (such as the separation of "Citywide" Street Improvement Fees from "Big Ranch Road Area" Development Impact Fees from Gas Tax revenues from CDBG grants). Just as City staff has an obligation to ensure that revenue from separate funding sources are separately accounted and utilized in accordance with their particular purposes, City staff also has an obligation to ensure that revenue held for separate legal entities is properly accounted and utilized to achieve the goals of that entity. Similarly, just as it is infeasible to establish a separate executive to monitor each separate funding source, it is also infeasible to establish a separate executive to monitor each separate legal entity for which the City provides financial services. However, the HACN has taken steps to establish checks and balances for the utilization of any funds managed by the City (whether separate legal entities or separate funding sources) to minimize the opportunity for conflicts of interest and commingling or misallocation of funds. FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None. CEQA: The Executive Director has determined that the recommended action described in this report is not subject to CEQA, pursuant to CEQA guidelines. DOCUMENTS ATTACHED: None - A copy of the Grand Jury Report is available at the City Clerks office for public review. NOTIFICATION: RECOMMENDED ACTION: HACN staff recommends that the Housing Authority move, second and approve each of the actions set forth below, in the form of the following motion stated as: Move to approve the HACN's response to the findings and recommendations of -2008 Final Report on Renovation of Farmworker Housing Centers by the Napa Valley Housing Authority (as outlined above, and incorporating any changes made to the responses by the HACN Board of Directors during the meeting), and direct the Executive Director to submit the response on behalf of the HACN Board, the Executive Director, Legal Counsel and other HACN officials as required, to the presiding judge of the Superjor Court. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
F10:
The NVHA Board, the FWHOC and the City of Napa were informed of the unauthorized use of the funds after all of the charges for the renovations were incurred. HACN Response to Finding 10: The HACN agrees with this finding.
F11:
While the Executive Director's intentions may have been to complete the renovations prior to the 2006 fall harvest, this does not excuse use of City of Napa and HACN funds without authorization of the City of Napa and the HACN. HACN Response to Finding 11: The HACN agrees with this finding.
F12:
The City of Napa Finance Department had an outdated and inadequate financial/accounting system, operated by an insufficient and under trained staff. The Finance Department was not aware of the unauthorized use of City of Napa and HACN funds to pay for the NVHA Calistoga and Mondavi projects until after the projects were completed and all costs were paid. HACN Response to Finding 12: The HACN agrees with this finding.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
professional and have sufficient trained staff to maintain operations. HACN Response to Recommendation 9: The City has already implemented this recommendation. The Finance Director is a State of California licensed Certified Public Accountant. The Finance Manager is a State of Missouri licensed Certified Public Accountant. A newly created position of Finance Analyst was filled effective April 16, 2008 with an experienced professional accountant. Management is working closely and continually with existing staff providing training on the job and allows and encourages staff to obtain the appropriate formal training when opportunities arise.
F18:
In the aftermath of these projects, there had been an effort by some government officials to focus blame solely on the former NVHA Executive Director. HACN Response to Finding 18: In the case of the HACN, the Authority has not focused all blame on the former NVHA Executive Director. The HACN and the City have accepted responsibility for inadequate systems of financial control, and the HACN and City have accordingly taken immediate steps to minimize future problems.
F24:
The settlement agreement between the County of Napa and the Cities of Napa, American Canyon, St. Helena and Calistoga and the Town of Yountville and their respective Housing Authorities allocating the repayment of the City of Napa Funds used by the NVHA, was a reasonable way to resolve the financial issue. HACN Response to Finding 24: The HACN agrees with this finding.
F25:
The first sentence of Recital L to the Settlement Agreement erroneously states that the Executive Director did not have authority to sign change orders. This Recital was drafted by the County Counsel. HACN Response to Finding 25: The HACN partially agrees with this finding. Recital L does indicate that the "Executive Director did not obtain approval of the NVHA Board of Commissioners to execute any of the additional work which resulted in the Total Cost Overages." However, it is important to note that the full text of Recital L (quoted below) actually indicates that the intent of this statement is to identify one of several issues that comprise the "Disputes" that are resolved by the Settlement Agreement. Thus, from the perspective of the HACN, this portion of Recital L (which was inserted by the office of the County Counsel, in the course of negotiating the terms of the Settlement Agreement between the respective offices of the City Attorney and the County Counsel) is a representation of the County's position of an issue in dispute. The full text of Recital L provides: The NVHA Executive Director did not obtain the approval of the “L. NVHA Board of Commissioners to execute any of the additional work which resulted in the Total Cost Overages. Nor did the NVHA Executive Director obtain authority from the City Council of Napa or the Board of Commissioners of HACN to commit the revenues of the Napa Entities to cover the Total Cost Overages. Upon learning of the Total Cost Overages, representatives of the governing boards of NVHA, the member agencies of NVHA, and the Napa Entities each disputed responsibility for payment of all or some portion of the Total Cost Overages. The reasons for the additional work and the cost overages and a determination of the parties responsible for payment of the cost overages are currently in dispute ("the Disputes")."
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R6:
Agreements to which local governmental agencies are parties not contain false statements in the recitals. HACN Response to Recommendation 6: As to the HACN, this recommendation has already been implemented. As a matter of practice, the HACN includes in recitals background information that will assist in the interpretation of contracts. The HACN commonly uses recitals to define terms used throughout a contract. As one example, in the case of the Settlement Agreement, the HACN (in negotiations with the County, and as approved by all parties) defined the term "Disputes" in Recital L, and used that defined term in the body of the Settlement Agreement.
R8:
The City of Napa continue to take steps to improve the operation of its Finance Department and install systems to allow it to have current and accurate financial information. HACN Response to Recommendation 8: The HACN and City have already taken steps to begin implementation of this recommendation, and the HACN and City will continue to implement this recommendation over the next several years. The City Finance Department has been working to establish its new financial system. The core financial system including the General Ledger, Accounts Payable and Receivable, Purchasing, and Budgeting modules are scheduled to begin operating July 1, 2008. This will complete Phase 1 of the project. Phase 2 will commence and the auxiliary financial modules are expected to begin operating January 1, 2009. Phase 3 of the payroll, position budgeting, and human resource modules which are expected to begin operating January 1, 2010. Further, the accounting records have been brought current in the old accounting system which is allowing staff to review the HACN and City's fiscal condition and individual project information in a timelier manner. The Finance Department be headed by an accounting
Quick View
Full Details →
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R6:
The Grand Jury recommends that: "Agreements to which local government agencies are parties not contain false statements in the recitals." Response: The City of Calistoga agrees with this statement and recommendation. It should be noted however that the City's action to authorize the Settlement Agreement containing the recital to which the Grand Jury refers was based upon the City Council's understanding that the facts contained in the recital were true. Please note that the City of Calistoga, its staff, and decision makers strive for the highest level of integrity and we endeavor to accurately reflect the basis for decisions and facts accurately through Staff Reports, Resolutions, Recitals, Agreements and Statements. The City of Calistoga thanks the Grand Jury for its good efforts in investigation and constructive observations and recommendations for improvement in our government affairs Sincerely, r C. Myan James C. McCann, City Manager Jack Gingles, Mayor Received File CC: Napa Superior Court Correspondence MAY - 9 2008 Court Executive Office
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
18 findings
F1:
Lack of Authority. a. the MOU between the County of Napa and Volunteer Departments does appear to give authority to the Napa County Fire Chief to establish and enforce volunteer department hiring, training/operating policies and procedures, however subsequent provisions within the MOU take that authority away. b. the County has not evaluated the operation of all Napa County fire departments.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
the County Board of Supervisors establish a commission to review the overall operation of all Napa County fire departments with respect to the establishment of a central Napa County Fire Department.
F2:
Training Problems: a. Based on Federal, State, Cal OSHA, and County requirements, Napa County has not defined the minimum acceptable level of training for new 29 volunteer firefighters and continued training for all volunteer firefighters as County employees. b. procedural requirements impacting the safety of firefighters and the public alike, dating at least to 1996, have not been fully developed and enforced. c. the hiring and training policies of the nine Volunteer Fire Departments vary significantly and it is unclear whether specific hiring and training requirements exist. d. some Napa County Volunteer firefighters do not possess the basic EMT qualifications although 80-85% of fire department emergency calls are medical in nature. e. firefighter instructors assigned to Napa County volunteer firefighters have no specific experience qualifications in their job descriptions. f. the NCFD budget for current year includes $83,143 for one fulltime training fire captain.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
the County Board of Supervisors consider the hire of a dedicated Napa County employee whose primary responsibility would be to focus on the coordination and support of the County Volunteer firefighters.
F3:
the Board of Supervisors has not insured that the provisions of the County/NCFD were fully implemented.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
the MOU between the County of Napa and Volunteer Departments be amended to grant the Napa County Fire Chief clear authority to establish and enforce volunteer department training and operating policies and procedures.
F4:
the NCFD has apparently not always maintained the training certificates and other records that were submitted to it by the Volunteer Fire Departments.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
recognizing that volunteer firefighters are effectively county employees while engaged in fire department activities, Napa County establish a level of training that meets all applicable Federal, State, Cal OSHA and County requirements. Non-compliance with the law is not a viable option and places the County at risk.
F5:
there is broad support among County firefighters for an integrated County fire department that includes all the fire departments in the County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
all Volunteer firefighters be trained and certified as Firefighter I/EMTs, and the training be provided and paid for by the County.
F6:
of the authorized 250, there are now less than 200 Volunteer firefighters, a decline of 20% over the past five years. Napa County cannot afford to replace Volunteer firefighters with paid firefighters, nor would this be desirable.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
all training of volunteer firefighters be provided by fully qualified instructors meeting all applicable standards.
F7:
the volunteer stipend system neither reflects the number of response calls which a volunteer makes nor rewards volunteers for advanced qualifications.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
the upgrading of the Napa County Fire Department Policies and Procedures Manual be addressed as a high priority with specific timeline goals established and monitored. Specific policies which must be implemented immediately are: a. A grievance procedure which provides a mechanism for the department personnel to raise and address issues which adversely affect their abilities to perform duties, personnel problems, and accusation of wrongdoing. b. Volunteer Firefighter Driver/Operator requirements be formally defined. Existing drivers should be given adequate time to complete the requirements, but not “grandfathered.” c. minimum emergency response driver training standards for AEV drivers be established. d. all new AEV drivers be required to complete the training prior to operating their vehicles in a Code 3 response. e. existing AEV drivers be given a reasonable time to complete the requisite training, but not be “grandfathered.” f. the County require that the owners of private vehicles operating as an AEV provide written evidence that they either have an appropriate AEV rider on their vehicle insurance or written documentation from their insurance company that the vehicle is covered while operating as an AEV. 32 g. the County establish a policy that details equal accommodations for Volunteer firefighters who are part of a County deployed strike team to that of their paid counterparts.
F8:
NCFD Policies and Procedures: a. the upgrading of the NCFD Policies and Procedures Manual, which was to have been completed by 1998, has not been addressed, the Manual does not contain a grievance procedure, nor does it define volunteer Firefighter Driver/Operator requirements.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
the volunteer stipend be based on the number of emergency responses made by the volunteer while retaining the training requirement as an eligibility criteria. In addition, a tiered compensation system which rewards advanced qualifications be implemented.
F9:
Strike Teams: a. Volunteer firefighters who are part of a County deployed strike team are not provided accommodations equal to their paid counterparts. b. it takes several months for Volunteer firefighters who were part of a County deployed strike team to be paid for their time. c. the NCFD has a fund to permit timely payment of strike team volunteer firefighters.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
the County fund the required emergency response driver training for volunteer firefighters.
F10:
AEV: a. no training/qualifications requirements exist for AEV drivers. b. there is no system to verify if AEV drivers have their vehicles properly insured. c. the County does not reimburse individual volunteer firefighters for any additional insurance premium costs incurred for the operation of authorized AEVs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
the County reimburse individual volunteer firefighters for any additional insurance premium costs incurred for the operation of properly authorized AEVs.
F11:
Fire Stations: 30 a. the current location of Station #10 imposes significant travel requirements for responding volunteers. b. there is no sign or street light on the road to indicate the entrance to the Capell Valley Volunteer Fire Department. c. the Carneros Volunteer Fire Department, Milton Road station is old, sits in the flood plain and is in need of upgrading. d. the Carneros satellite building leaks profusely when it rains and paved parking is limited for responding Volunteer firefighters. e. the Dry Creek-Lokoya Volunteer Fire Department station needs running water, a septic system, a flush toilet and an exhaust system. f. the Soda Canyon Volunteer Fire station needs potable water and a water system upgrade. g. the Soda Canyon Volunteer Fire station has no usable apparatus at this fire station, so responds from the Monticello Fire station. Response time has been extended to an unacceptable 30+ minutes to some areas within the Soda Canyon service area. h. the Soda Canyon Volunteer Fire station driveway/volunteer parking is currently restricted by new neighbor entrance/gate in noncompliance with Napa County Code, Title 18.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
the funds to pay a Volunteer firefighter who was part of a County deployed strike team be made available on a routine basis and in a timely manner to insure that they are promptly compensated for their time.
F12:
Apparatus: a. three NCFD engines and one water tender predate 1985, and eleven engines and one rescue vehicle predate 1991. b. the above stated vehicles do not meet current NCFD 1901 safety standards for fire apparatus. c. the Gordon Valley Volunteer Fire Department needs a water tender. d. the Soda Canyon Volunteer Fire Department needs a smaller Type IV unit (suitable for the smaller country roads, dirt roads, smaller driveways and bridges characteristic of the area) to be housed at the Soda Canyon station. e. the Soda Canyon Volunteer Fire Department needs a rescue truck with defibrillator housed at the Soda Canyon station.
Related Recommendations (1)
R12:
Fire Stations: a. relocate the Station #10 to a combined Napa City/County fire station in Browns Valley. b. the County install a road sign and light on the road at the entrance to the Capell Valley Volunteer Fire Station. c. the County rectify the restricted access/parking issue at the Soda Canyon Fire Station regarding new neighbor entrance gate.
F13:
Fundraising: a. many of the nine Volunteer Fire Departments do annual fundraising for capital improvements and other department needs. b. proceeds from the Carneros Run 2008, are to benefit the Carneros Volunteer Fire Department new building fund. c. proceeds from the Winemakers Classic are to benefit the Dry Creek- Lokoya capital campaign for expanded station construction.
Related Recommendations (1)
R13:
Apparatus: a. the County replace as soon as possible, all firefighting vehicles that predate 1991, with vehicles that are appropriate for the individual service area requirements. b. the County provide as soon as possible, a water tender to Gordon Valley Volunteer Fire Department. c. the County provide as soon as possible, a Type IV unit and a rescue vehicle with defibrillator that will fit into and be housed at Soda Canyon station.
F14:
the Soda Canyon Volunteer Fire Department service area has the second highest number of emergency incidents in Napa County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R14:
the NCFD continue the policy of consulting the Volunteer Chief or appointed representative from a given volunteer fire department when equipment is being selected for their use.
F15:
the NCFD has modified the makeup of the selection committee charged with specifying the purchase of “appropriate sized emergency response vehicles” to the area of service.
Related Recommendations (1)
R15:
all fire departments within Napa County have the same rapid entry system locks with a “universal” Key.
F16:
California Fire Code requires that an approved rapid emergency entry gate switch or padlock be installed where access to or within a structure or area is restricted because of secured openings or where immediate access is necessary for life- saving or fire-fighting purposes. 31
Related Recommendations (1)
R16:
Volunteer fire departments receive greater support from the County and in return, relinquish some of their long held independence. REQUEST FOR RESPONSES The 2007-2008 Grand Jury requests responses from: o The Napa County Board of Supervisors to all the above. o The Napa County Fire Chief to all of the above, except #12. o Chiefs: City of Napa, and Calistoga Fire Departments to Recommendation #15 33 o All Volunteer Napa County Fire Chiefs (optional response as per discretion of each)
F17:
much of Napa County is considered a high fire hazard environment.
F18:
Napa County residents who live in rural areas can expect an emergency response time of 14 minutes; Napa County residents who live in remote (travel distance of > 8 miles) can expect emergency response time of 14+ minutes or more.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F5:
(Safely Surrendered Baby Law) That the Safely Surrendered Baby Law program has saved the lives of many infants, one in Napa, and can save the lives of many more. Fire District / City Response to Finding 5: We agree that this law can save lives.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
That all municipal Fire Departments continue to actively provide information about the Safely Surrendered Baby Law program to the public, including all middle and high schools in Napa County, as a part of their public education programs. Fire District / City Response to Recommendation 5: Presently, the Fire District / City does not have the resources to expand the public education program to include the Safely Surrendered Baby Law program to middle and high school students. The Fire District will begin to implement this educational program to the extent that it can in the future. We will obtain public information materials regarding this program to provide to the public. We will provide access to the informational materials by displaying them in public areas of all Fire District and City facilities. We will also make the materials available during public education displays throughout the community. Received APR - 4 2008 Maria de Como
F6:
(Emergency Operations Plan) That the City of American Canyon, currently operating under the Napa County Emergency Plan, has not established or adopted a disaster response plan specific to American Canyon. Fire District / City Response to Finding 6 We agree that the City of American Canyon should have an Emergency Operations Plan specific to American Canyon.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
That the American Canyon City Council adopt an emergency plan specific to the City of American Canyon and the American Canyon Fire District. Fire District / City Response to Recommendation 6 An Emergency Operations Plan specific to American Canyon is in the process of being drafted. Our goal is to have the plan adopted by the council prior to the August 2008 County-wide Earthquake scenario functional exercise. As a part of the overall Emergency Operations plan, the Fire Chief is also in the process of developing Priority and Mass Medication plans and Flu Pandemic plans specific to the community of American Canyon. With the opening of the new Public Safety Facility in July 2007, the community has its first dedicated Emergency Operations Center (EOC) designed for that function located in an essential services building. The American Canyon Fire and Police Chief's are also participating in a County-wide shared mass emergency notification system.
F8:
(NFPA 1710) That while the National Fire Protection Association 1710 recommends each engine responding to a fire call be staffed with four firefighting personnel, Napa Fire Department, American Canyon Fire District, and Calistoga Fire Department frequently respond with three firefighting personnel on each engine. Fire District / City Response to Finding 8: We agree with this finding.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
That all Municipal Fire Departments conform to the recommendation of the National Fire Protection Association regarding the number of firefighting personnel on engines responding to a fire call. Fire District / City Response to Recommendation 8: NFPA 1710 is a standard established in 2001 that sets minimum criteria for effectiveness and efficiency of emergency operations to protect the safety of the Public and Fire Department employees. The services covered in 1710 include, but are not limited to, fire suppression and emergency medical operations. The standard describes requirements for delivery of services, response capabilities, incident management, and strategy. . * • Key points identified in NFPA 1710 are as follows: minimum engine and truck staffing staffing for BLS response and staffing for ALS response Fire departments must be capable of establishing a Rapid Intervention Team (RIT) at all incidents. Fire departments must staff chief's aide positions. Response times of 4 minutes for the first arriving fire unit and/or the arrival of the full alarm assignment in 8 minutes. Fire departments must be capable of establishing incident command, water supply, attacks line(s), backup line(s), search and rescue team(s), ventilation team(s) and RIT at all structural fires; these "benchmark" requirements are based upon a 2000 square foot detached single family dwelling. Urban FD's will have to increase the requirements according to the occupancies & hazards in their community. minimum requirements for health and safety, incident management, training, communications and pre-incident planning. Fire departments must inform the public about their response capabilities and the consequences of not meeting this specified deployment criteria. The American Canyon Fire Protection District recognizes the value of complying with NFPA 1710 guidelines and is making efforts to reach all of the benchmarks created by the standard for measuring career fire department performance and staffing levels. One of the biggest misconceptions about NFPA 1710 is that it requires four-person staffing of every apparatus. In fact, NFPA 1710's definition of company in section 3.8.1 indicates that the engine-company complement may arrive on different pieces of apparatus as long as they are dispatched and arrive at the same time, continuously operate together and are managed by one company officer. For example, a two-person engine and two-person medic dispatched at the same time and arriving together would be in compliance. Mutual aid and automatic-aid agreements also may be used to comply. Due to budget limitations, it is currently necessary to utilize available staffing in a way that enhances our capability to respond to a second simultaneous call in District (72% medical aids) by staffing more than one apparatus. . . . The following are corrections to the 2007-2008 Grand Jury Report: - American Canyon Fire District Personnel Fire Chief • Assistant Fire Chief "A" Shift 1 Captain 1 Engineer 3 Firefighters 1 Captain "B" Shift 1 Engineer 4 Firefighters 2 Captains "C" Shift 3 Firefighters Reserve Firefighters available as needed ٠ Corrections Fire Chief Assistant Fire Chief "A" Shift 2 Captains 3 Firefighters (Driver-operator qualified) "B" Shift 2 Captains 3 Firefighters (Driver-operator qualified) 2 Captains "C" Shift 3 Firefighters (Driver-operator qualified) Reserve Firefighters - maximum of 20 . . . . . . /10 Paragraph 1 One Administrative Assistant supports the firefighter personnel. Firefighter assignments are one to two Fire Captains per shift, 48 hours on, 96 hours off; five to six firefighters per shift 48 hours on, 96 hours off. A plan is in place to increase to six captains, two per shift. This change would allow for two responding vehicles with three firefighter personnel per vehicle. At the same time, there is a plan to consolidate the firefighter and engineer positions. There is also a plan to increase shift personnel to six firefighters per shift in 2009. Long-range plans call for a second fire facility to be constricted in an area west of Highway 29 in American Canyon. Corrections One Administrative Assistant supports the firefighter personnel. Firefighter assignments are 2 Fire Captains and 3 firefighter/driver-operators per shift 48 hours on, 96 hours off. Five personnel are assigned to each shift with a minimum staffing of four. The engineer classification has been eliminated. Long-range plans could call for a second fire facility to be constructed in an area west of Highway 29 in American Canyon. A plan to increase shift personnel to six firefighters in 2009 has not been adopted by the Board of Directors. Paragraph 2 - Residency requirement There is a residency requirement for firefighters to live within 50 miles and be available for callbacks. Correction There is no residency and/or callback requirement. Paragraph 2 - Automatic Aid Automatic aid response from Vallejo and Napa provides eight more firefighting personnel and additional equipment in response to an emergency incident. Correction The Fire District has separate automatic aid agreements with Vallejo and Cal Fire / Napa County that provide additional staffing and equipment in the event of structure fires or major vehicle accidents. - Equipment 2 swiftwater rescue boats with diving team
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F5:
That the Safely Surrendered Baby Law program has saved the lives of many infants, one in Napa, and can save the lives of many more. Grand Jury Recommendations 5: That all Municipal Fire Departments continue to actively provide information about the Safely Surrendered Baby Law program to the public, including all middle and high schools in Napa County, as part of their public education programs and that the Calistoga Fire Department investigate a method of offering this program to the residents of Calistoga. The City of Calistoga response to Finding 5 and Recommendation 5: The City of Calistoga agrees with these findings. The recommendation has been implemented. On April 1st, 2008 the Safe Surrender Program was adopted by the Calistoga City Council. On Tuesday March 25th 2008 training was provided to Calistoga Fire Department staff for the Safely Surrendered Baby Law and the public education section of this program is being introduced to the Calistoga Family Center, Clinic Ole and to the local high school through the "life skills" class which is a general sex, and life education course and through the City's local public information television channel 28.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The City of Calistoga agrees with these
F8:
That while the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1710 recommends each engine responding to fire call be staffed with four firefighting Received APR - 3 2008 Negation - Pers Response to 2007/2008 Napa County Grand Jury Municipal Fire Services Report April 1, 2008 personnel, Napa Fire Department, American Canyon Fire District, and Calistoga Fire Department frequently respond with three firefighting personnel on each engine. Grand Jury recommendation 8: That all Municipal Fire Departments conform to the
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
That all Municipal Fire Departments conform to the recommendations of the National Fire Protection Association regarding the number of firefighting personnel on engines responding to a fire call. The City of Calistoga response to
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
(Browns Valley Response Times) That a response time of eight to ten minutes to an incident in the Browns Valley area is unsatisfactory. City Response to Finding 1: The City agrees with the apparent intent of this finding that improvements are warranted to the City's response times for calls for service in the Browns Valley Area, and in fact the City is undertaking efforts to make these improvements. However, it is important to keep in mind that the City's goals for response time to calls for emergency services are to provide a 4-minute travel time 90% of the time.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
That the Napa City Council vote to approve the construction of a fifth fire station to be located in Browns Valley; and with the Board of Supervisors, establish a plan to relocate the Edgerly Island Station to Browns Valley. The establishment of this fire station is considered by this Grand Jury as a priority issue. City Response to Recommendation 1: This recommendation has been implemented in part, and will continue to be implemented in the future. The City Council has directed the Fire Chief to conduct a technical analysis to determine if the portion of the Westwood Hills Park site west of the parking lot is a suitable location for Fire Station No. 5, and it is anticipated that a report will be brought to City Council for consideration within the next three months. In addition, the . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . City Council has directed the Fire Chief to establish a funding strategy for the costs of capital construction, equipment and a fire engine. It is anticipated that a proposed impact fee for capital funding will be brought to City Council for consideration within the next two months. The City Council has directed the Fire Chief to study a possible joint Napa City/County fire station.
F2:
(Station #1 Expansion) That Station #1, built in 1962, needs more space for administrative offices. City Response to Finding 2: The City agrees that there is a need for additional administrative office space at Fire Station No. 1; however, the greater community need is improved response times by the development of Fire Station No. 5.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
That the Napa City Council approve the enlargement of Station #1. City Response to Recommendation 2: This recommendation will not be implemented in the short-term based on insufficient budget resources and conflicting priorities. The expansion of Fire Station No.1 has been a proposed Capital Improvement Project for a number of years. Because of the limited resources to fund a large number of city-wide capital projects, this proposal has not been funded. In addition, since the City's system-wide focus for emergency response is on moving forward towards the construction, equipping and staffing of Fire Station No. 5 as a priority, coupled with other critical infrastructure needs in the City, the City will not be able to move forward on the expansion of Fire Station No. 1 anytime soon.
F3:
(Disaster Management) That a half-time Disaster Management position is necessary for the Napa Fire Department disaster-training program to insure public safety. The Disaster Management position is necessary to fully City Response to Finding 3: implement the City's goals for the Disaster Training Program.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
That a half-time Disaster Management position be placed in the Napa Fire Department 2008- 2009 budget. City Response to Recommendation 3: The City agrees that adding a part-time position to assist with disaster management and training would benefit the Department and the community. The City has a two-year budget cycle and the 2008-2009 budget has already been adopted. The addition of a part-time position will be considered during future budget considerations. Funding approval will depend on the resource/need priority analysis that occurs as part of the budget review.
F4:
(Firefighter Positions) That Napa Fire Department firefighter positions eliminated in the 2007-2008 budget negotiations have created a shortage of personnel, which places both the firefighters and the Napa population at risk. . A second City Response to Finding 4: The City agrees with the need to restore eliminated firefighter positions, but disagrees that the elimination has placed both firefighters and the Napa population at risk. The Fire Department has been able to maintain the daily minimum staffing level following recent budget reductions.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
That the Napa Fire Department positions eliminated in 2007 be restored and the number of firefighters per shift increased. City Response to Recommendation 4: This recommendation has been implemented in part, and will continue to be implemented in the future. The City Council has restored two of the three eliminated firefighter positions. The remaining firefighter position will be requested to be restored as soon as current budget constraints allow. The number of firefighters per shift may increase, at least temporarily, with the City Council's direction to move forward with Fire Station No. 5, which will require the City to hire an additional nine (9) firefighters.
F5:
(Safely Surrendered Baby Law) That the Safely Surrendered Baby Law program has saved the lives of many infants, one in Napa, and can save the lives of many more. City Response to Finding 5: The City agrees that this law can save lives.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
That all Municipal Fire Departments continue to actively provide information about the Safely Surrendered Baby Law program to the public, including all middle and high schools in Napa County, as a part of their public education programs. City Response to Recommendation 5: This recommendation will be implemented in part in the future. The Fire Department does not have the resources to expand the public education program to include the Safely Surrendered Baby Law Program to middle and high school students. The Fire Department does have public information materials regarding this program at all four Fire Stations. In addition, the materials are available during public education displays throughout the community and can be provided to the middle and high schools.
F8:
(NFPA 1710) That while the National Fire Protection Association 1710 recommends each engine responding to a fire call be staffed with four firefighting personnel, Napa Fire Department, American Canyon Fire District, and Calistoga Fire Department frequently respond with three firefighting personnel on each engine. City Response to Finding 8: The City agrees with the finding.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
That all Municipal Fire Departments conform to the recommendation of the National Fire Protection Association regarding the number of firefighting personnel on engines responding to a fire call. City Response to Recommendation 8: This recommendation will not be implemented. While the City Council recognizes the value of complying with NFPA 1710 guidelines regarding the number of firefighting personnel on each engine or truck, it would require the hiring of 15 additional firefighters to implement this recommendation. From an economic perspective this is not possible especially with the City Council's direction to move forward with Fire Station No. 5 which will require the City to hire an additional nine (9) firefighters. The engine company assigned to Station No. 5 will respond to calls and provide additional resources at critical incidents, which is also the intent of NFPA 1710. The following are corrections to the 2007-2008 Grand Jury Report: - Appointment of Fire Chief The Napa Fire Department Fire Chief is appointed by the Napa City Council and is responsible to the City Manager. Correction The Napa Fire Department Fire Chief is appointed by the City Manager. - Napa Fire Department Personnel Paragraph 1 The Napa Fire Department, serving the public safety needs of a population of 74,966, currently staffs 59 sworn firefighters. Correction The Napa Fire Department, serving the public safety needs of a population of 74,966, currently staffs 63 sworn firefighters (which includes command personnel). - Napa Fire Department Personnel Paragraph 1 There is a residency requirement that all firefighters must live within 1-1/2 hours of their station. Correction There is a residency requirement that all firefighters must live within 45 minutes of the closest City fire station. – Napa Fire Department Budget Paragraph 1 The Napa Fire Department budget for 2007-2008 is 11.5 million dollars. Included in this allocation is 3 million dollars for emergency or disaster situations. Correction The Fire Department does not have a 3 million dollar allocation within the budget for emergency or disaster situations. - Napa Fire Department Budget Paragraph 2 Other source of funding include Homeland Security, which provided $300,000 for the upgrade of the Napa Communications Center. The Governor's Office of Emergency Services provided funding in the amount of 1.3 million dollars for the Bioterrorism Working Group and Hazardous Materials training. Other grants provided for a new Jaws of Life, new breathing apparatus, the repair of Station #2's roof damaged in the 2000 earthquake and the seismic retrofit of this Station. Correction The Governor's Office of Emergency Services provided funding in the amount of 1.3 million dollars of which provided $300,000 towards the upgrade of the Napa Emergency Communications Center. In addition, the grant amount of 1.3 million dollars is the total amount to be utilized by all jurisdictions in Napa County not just by the City of Napa. Disaster training for City employees is currently provided by City of Napa Fire Department personnel. - Napa Fire Department Browns Valley Paragraph 1 To this end the construction company involved in the Hussey Development in Browns Valley has agreed to pay a fire development fee of $281 per single-family residence. The Fire Chief would like to keep the development fee, which is currently being used to pay for Station #4, to pay for the construction of this new station. In 6 years the debt on Station #4 will be paid. Correction The developer of both the Hussey Project and the Carmel Project offered (as a voluntary mitigation measure) to pay $3,000 per lot, at the issuance of each building permit, to be used exclusively towards studying and/or improving the fire and emergency response time serving the Browns Valley area. This payment is in addition to all of the other fees. In addition, the debt for Fire Station No. 4 is close to being paid. City staff plans to present a recommendation to City Council in the next two months for the adoption of a new development impact fee to cover the costs of designing and constructing a new Fire Station No. 5, to be located in the Browns Valley area. FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None. CEQA: The Fire Chief has determined that the Recommended Action described in this Agenda Report is not subject to CEQA, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c). DOCUMENTS ATTACHED: None. RECOMMENDED ACTION: City staff recommends that the City Council move, second and approve each of the actions set forth below, in the form of the following motion stated as: Move to approve the City's responses to the 2007-08 Grand Jury Report findings and recommendations (as outlined above, and incorporating any changes made to the responses by City Council during the meeting), and direct the City Manager to prepare the formal response to the Grand Jury on behalf of the City Council and the City Manager, and submit the formal response to the presiding judge of the superior court. My funes by ward CITY MANAGER
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
29 findings
F1:
The oversight of the renovations of the Calistoga and Mondavi Farmworker Housing Centers was the responsibility of the Board of Commissioners of the NVHA with advisory input from the FWHOC.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
All Joint Powers Authorities (JPA) have a clear, defined set of rules for its members as they come from different municipalities with different operating procedures. The JPA members must know which rules are to be followed. It is the responsibility of the JPA Counsel to update members as rules change.
F2:
Due to a number of post contract changes in the projects required by the NCCDPD and the County Fire Marshall, there were major costs incurred in excess of the original contract prices on both projects; $1,020,118 for Calistoga and $ 742,264 for Mondavi, resulting in a total overrun of $1,762,382.
F3:
The Board of Commissioners of the NVHA failed to exercise control over the Calistoga and Mondavi projects when, based on the information available to them during the projects, they knew, or should have known, that the cost of these renovations was far exceeding contract amounts.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Members of these County agencies and advisory groups attend the meetings, read the agenda material before they vote and remain vigilant. As a matter of policy, they not simply rely upon staff but rather follow the precept outlined in Ordinance 05-01, to read and understand what comes before them.
F4:
The FWHOC failed in its designated responsibilities to discuss and make recommendations to the NVHA and the Supervisors with regard to the progress, the costs incurred and the availability of funds to pay for the renovations. The Committee members knew, or should have known, that the costs were exceeding contract amounts.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Members of these County agencies and advisory groups attend the meetings, read the agenda material before they vote and remain vigilant. As a matter of policy, they not simply rely upon staff but rather follow the precept outlined in Ordinance 05-01, to read and understand what comes before them.
F5:
The problem of cash shortfalls surfaced in April 2006, when all of the Grant funds were expended to pay for charges. The deficit continued to grow to the end of the projects resulting in a cash shortfall of $1,453,711.
F6:
The Commissioners of the NVHA and the members of the FWHOC failed to inquire into who was providing the cash to cover the shortfall so the renovations could be completed.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Members of these County agencies and advisory groups attend the meetings, read the agenda material before they vote and remain vigilant. As a matter of policy, they not simply rely upon staff but rather follow the precept outlined in Ordinance 05-01, to read and understand what comes before them.
F7:
The NVHA and the FWHOC were more focused on having the renovations of the Calistoga and Mondavi Farmworker Housing Centers completed by the fall harvest of 2006, than how they were being financed.
F8:
During construction of these projects, many of the NVHA Commissioners and FWHOC members did not regularly attend meetings and many meetings had to be canceled for lack of a quorum.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Members of these County agencies and advisory groups attend the meetings, read the agenda material before they vote and remain vigilant. As a matter of policy, they not simply rely upon staff but rather follow the precept outlined in Ordinance 05-01, to read and understand what comes before them.
F9:
The Executive Director of the NVHA and HACN, without informing the NVHA Board of Commissioners or the FWHOC and without authorization from the City of Napa and HACN, used City of Napa and HACN funds in excess of $2,000,000. The ability to thus manipulate funds was due, in part, to the same incumbent occupying 32 management roles for two distinct organizations (NVHA and HACN) where their funds had been commingled.
Related Recommendations (1)
R12:
Governmental entities must avoid having one individual serve in an executive position with access to financial resources for two organizations. Such a policy will significantly reduce the opportunity for conflict of interest and commingling or misallocation of funds. REQUEST FOR RESPONSES The 2007-2008 Grand Jury requests responses from: • Napa County Board of Supervisors on Recommendations: 1-4, 5, 6, 10,
F10:
The NVHA Board, the FWHOC and the City of Napa were informed of the unauthorized use of funds after all the charges for the renovations were incurred.
F11:
While the Executive Director’s intentions may have been to complete the renovations prior to the 2006 fall harvest, this does not excuse use of City of Napa funds and HACN funds without authorization of the City of Napa and the HACN.
F12:
The City of Napa Finance Department had an outdated and inadequate financial/accounting system, operated by an insufficient and under trained staff. The Finance Department was not aware of the unauthorized use of City of Napa and HACN funds to pay for the NVHA Calistoga and Mondavi projects until after the projects were completed and all costs were paid.
Related Recommendations (2)
R8:
The City of Napa continue to take steps to improve the operation of its Finance Department and install systems to allow it to have current and accurate financial information.
R9:
The Finance Department be headed by an accounting professional and have sufficient trained staff to maintain operations.
F13:
The NCCDPD issued a building permit for the Calistoga renovations based on an inadequate plan review. In addition, the NCCDPD delayed the Calistoga project by taking three months to issue a building permit after it had signed-off on the submitted plans.
Related Recommendations (2)
R5:
For any future capital improvement project of NCHA, a professional project manager or the Public Works Department be retained and the project be sent out for bid after a building permit is issued and the financing for the project is in place.
R7:
The NCCDPD assure that thorough plan checks are done and that permits are issued on a timely basis.
F14:
The NVHA sent the Mondavi project out to bid before the building permits were issued, resulting in many change orders.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
For any future capital improvement project of NCHA, a professional project manager or the Public Works Department be retained and the project be sent out for bid after a building permit is issued and the financing for the project is in place.
F15:
The NVHA undertook to manage the Calistoga and Mondavi projects without sufficient prior experience in construction management.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
For any future capital improvement project of NCHA, a professional project manager or the Public Works Department be retained and the project be sent out for bid after a building permit is issued and the financing for the project is in place.
F16:
The NVHA Executive Director had both actual and implied authority from the NVHA Board to authorize and approve the change orders on the two projects.
F17:
The NVHA Board of Commissioners and the FWHOC members had contemporaneous knowledge that the Executive Director was approving and signing change orders but none of them objected.
F18:
In the aftermath of these projects, there had been an effort by some government officials to focus blame solely on the former NVHA Executive Director.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Board of Supervisors, acting as the NCHA, take steps to restore the public’s trust in the management of farmworker housing.
F19:
County Counsel’s memorandum to the Board of Supervisors dated December 18, 2006, criticizing the NVHA Executive Director, is based on an incomplete, insufficient investigation.
F20:
Documents supplied to meeting agendas do not always list the author(s) of the document(s).
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
All supporting documents for the Agenda for public agency meetings in Napa County list the name of the author(s).
F21:
An independent accounting firm reported numerous problems with the controls and oversight of NVHA in a Management Report to the NVHA Commissioners.
F22:
The NVHA Commissioners agreed with most of the audit findings in a response to the auditors which was apparently never made public.
F23:
The NVHA does not yet have a capital improvements budget. 33
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
The NCHA establish a capital improvement fund for the farmworker housing centers.
F24:
The Settlement Agreement between the County of Napa and the Cities of Napa, American Canyon, St. Helena and Calistoga and the town of Yountville and their respective housing authorities allocating the repayment of the City of Napa funds used by the NVHA, was a reasonable way to resolve this financial issue.
F25:
The first sentence of Recital L to the Settlement Agreement erroneously states that the Executive Director did not have authority to sign change orders. This Recital was drafted by the County Counsel.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Agreements to which local governmental agencies are parties not contain false statements in the recitals. 34
F26:
There was no formal training or orientation program for people appointed to, or who volunteered to be on, the FWHOC or the NVHA.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
A training manual be developed and training provided for new members of any County agency and advisory group. The training must include the legal basis for that entity and other regulations that are important to know in carrying out their role and the requirements of the Brown Act.
F27:
From the Grand Jury’s own investigation and the audit of NVHA’s books by the independent auditor, it appears that all of the funds were expended on the project and that no one appeared to profit individually.
F28:
The renovations to the Calistoga and Mondavi Farmworkers Housing Centers provide a safe, clean and habitable abode for the farmworkers.
F2006:
In preparing the Mondavi plans, the architect used the same building codes that were earlier used in the Calistoga project as the plans for that project had been so readily approved by the initial plan checker and the then Fire Marshall. The Mondavi plans were submitted to the NCCDPD on October 5, 2005, shortly before the building inspectors started to raise issues with the Calistoga project. In light of the problems incurred with the Calistoga plans, the architect warned NVHA against starting the bidding process until the Mondavi plans were finally approved. NVHA, in its desire to begin the Mondavi project as soon as possible, disregarded the architect’s warning and sent out the plans for public bid on October 24, 2005. NVHA awarded the job on December 6, 2005, and signed the construction contract for $1,170,535 on February 6, 2006. However, on the first review of the Mondavi plans on December 22, 2005, the plan checker insisted that the plans conform to the R1 occupancy definition, a different occupancy level than the architect had used in preparation of the plans. This plan checker also noted that the Building Code used by the architect did not have the current supplement. The marked up plans were returned to the architect who made the necessary changes and resubmitted the plans. On January 20, 2006, the plan checker completed a second check of the plans and required further changes. During this time period, the architect was meeting with the Director of the NCCDPD to resolve the corrections occurring with the Calistoga project. It was then decided, by the Director of the NCCDPD, that the Mondavi plans should be reviewed taking into account the many changes to the Calistoga project. This resulted in a third and fourth plan checker review of the Mondavi plans on February 13, 2006, and on March 6, 2006. The changes from these reviews are referred to as DELTA 4 changes and ultimately cost $309,663. A building permit for the Mondavi project was issued on March 28, 2006, and construction began shortly thereafter. Final inspection of the Mondavi Farmworker Center and approval for occupancy was conducted on September 21, 2006, some six months after construction began. Unlike the Calistoga project, the corrections to the plans were done in a timely fashion and resulted in a R1 code compliant set of plans upon which a building permit was issued. The additional expenses on this project are set forth in Appendix 4. The major faults on the Mondavi Project are the NVHA did not have a budget for the Mondavi project against which the actual cost could be measured so that appropriate steps could be taken to secure proper funding; and the NVHA did not follow the advice of the architect not to send out the project for bid until the building permit was issued. Had NVHA done so, the bid price would have included the changes and the cost of the project could have been addressed. On November 21, 2005, NVHA signed a contract for the renovation of a mobile home to house the Mondavi Center’s manager and cook. The renovation included placing the mobile home on a permanent foundation. The contract price was $60,744. This phase of the project was completed on February 20, 2006, two weeks after the contract was signed with the general contractor. The final cost for the mobile home renovation was $76,936. In the final analysis, it is difficult to identify what items were overruns and what items would have been required if a thorough plan check had been performed. What is clear is that the NVHA did not have any idea of what needed to be done and what would be the total cost for these projects. This lack of foresight set into motion a series of events, which, once started, were difficult to stop. c) Facility Review During the course of this investigation, the Grand Jury toured the Calistoga and Mondavi Centers and noted significant construction deficiencies and deferred maintenance. The overall impression was that the facilities were safe, clean and a considerable improvement over the facilities before the renovations. The NVHA did not prepare a capital improvement or maintenance plan. d) Project Time Line In order to further show the interaction between the construction phase (explained above) and the financial phase (to be addressed in the next Section) for both projects, the Grand Jury constructed a time line which is set forth in Appendix 5. 4) Overview of the Projects: What Caused the Lack of Adequate Financing? a) City of Napa Finance Department Accepted Practice for Funding Capital Improvement Projects As previously noted, the finances of the NVHA were managed by the City of Napa Finance Department and the HACN pursuant to a contract for those services. The HACN had its own cash account within the Finance Department 13 until July 2005. It was an accepted practice of the Finance Department to allow a Napa City or HACN capital account to go negative if there were sufficient accounts receivable to cover the negative amount. However, neither the City Council nor the Board of the HACN authorized or gave permission to the Executive Director of the HACN to advance Napa City funds or HACN funds against NVHA approved Grants (NVHA accounts receivable) for the NVHA construction and renovation expenses incurred for the Calistoga and Mondavi Farmworker Housing Centers. In this case, the NVHA accounts receivable included the approved Joe Serna Jr. Grants which the Finance Department knew, or should have known about. Also included were the committed funds from the Napa County Low Income Housing Trust Fund and part of the reserve fund of the CSA#4 Funds. It is uncertain whether or not the Finance Department knew of the existence of these additional funds. As funds were actually received from the above sources and from private donations, these funds would be credited to the NVHA Capital Fund (Fund 41). Prior to July 2005, the amount of funding, if authorized, that could have been advanced to cover a negative balance in NVHA Capital Fund (Fund 41), would have been limited to the amount of funding in the HACN separate cash account within the Finance Department. This limiting factor was removed when the separate cash account was merged into the Napa City cash account which had sufficient monies, if authorized, to cover any negative balance within the NVHA Capital Fund (Fund 41). b) NVHA Funding for These Projects The Joe Serna Jr. Grant required 100% matching funds, with up to 50% in real estate and the remainder in cash. Ten percent of the grant was withheld until a final inspection was completed and a Certificate of Occupancy was issued for the project. As can be seen from Table 2, NVHA needed to raise an additional $ 1,250,754 above the $1,170,523 in matching funds. This fact was not recognized by the NVHA when the renovation projects of the farmworker housing were undertaken. The time line in Appendix 5 sets forth when the various grants were applied for, granted and paid out by the State of California. TABLE 2. GRANTS PRIOR TO JANUARY 1, 2007 Funding Grant Matching Source Funding Funds Final cost Funds Needed Calistoga Joe Serna #1 $1,066,046.00 $533,023.00 Joe Serna #3 $ 500,000.00 $250,000.00 Total $1,566,046.00 $783,023.00 $2,624,875.00 $1,058,829.00 Mondavi Joe Serna #2 $ 775,000.00 $387,500.00 $2,137,448.00 $1,362,448.00 Total $2,341,046.00 $1,170,523.00 $4,762,323.00 $2,421,277.00 NVHA received an anonymous donation of $250,000 of which $218,611 was used. NVHA had a commitment from the Napa County Affordable Housing Trust of $500,000 which was received in June 2006. As a further funding source, NVHA planned to use up to $250,000 but instead used only $220,152 from the CSA#4 reserve funds that were received in December of 2006. The NVHA also received other donations and income during this time in the amount of $28,803. The total money raised and received prior to January 1, 2007, was $967,566 which was $202,957 short of the required matching funds. The total shortfall was $1,453,711 the sum of $1,250,754 ($2,421,277 - $1,170,523) and $202,957. By the end of December 2006, it was clear that the program had serious financial problems. The question is, when should the responsible governmental agencies have ascertained the lack of available funds? Using the information obtained during its investigation, the Grand Jury was able to document what the balance of the NVHA capital account (Fund 41) should have been at the end of each month (Figure 1). FIGURE 1. NVHA CAPITAL ACCOUNT BALANCE BY MONTH NVHA Capital Account (Fund 41) Month End Balance 1300000 1100000 900000 700000 500000 300000 100000 -100000 -300000 -500000 -700000 -900000 -1100000 -1300000 -1500000 -1700000 -1900000 -2100000 -2300000 -2500000 -2700000 -2900000 -3100000 16 Sep-04 Oct-04 Nov-04 Dec-04 Jan-05 Feb-05 Mar-05 Apr-05 May-05 Jun-05 Jul-05 Aug-05 Sep-05 Oct-05 Nov-05 Dec-05 Jan-06 Feb-06 Mar-06 Apr-06 May-06 Jun-06 Jul-06 Aug-06 Sep-06 Oct-06 Nov-06 Dec-06 Jan-07 Finance Dept Cash View NVHA Acct. Rec. View The Finance Department line is strictly a cash balance which accounts for charges as they were paid and money as deposited. The NVHA line includes the three Joe Serna Jr. Grants when they were approved as being accounts receivable, all other money when deposited and all charges when paid. From the NVHA line, it is clear that as of the end of April 2006, all the funds had been used to cover expenses. It appears from the Finance Department line, that if the Finance Department had balanced and then reviewed Fund 41, at the end of each month, they would have been alerted of a potential problem in October 2005. However, if at that time the Finance Department contacted NVHA, they would have been told that the negative amount was covered by approved Grants. The matter of the use of City of Napa or HACN funds for the NVHA projects would have been evident at that time and could have been addressed and resolved. By the end of April 2006, all the Grant funds were designated to pay pending charges and Fund 41, went negative as illustrated by the NVHA line. At this time, April, 2006, the Finance Department’s line would have indicated a deficit of approximately $1,500,000 most of which was not covered by any Grant funding. The unfunded deficit would have continued to grow and at the end of the projects would have been approximately $1,400,000 as shown by the NVHA line. According to the Finance Department line, the deficit was over $3,000,000 which was reduced to approximately $2,200,000 by December 2006. The difference between the two lines in December 2006, is the $775,000 from Joe Serna Jr. Grant #2. Although this Grant was approved, it could not be drawn against until the title to the Mondavi project was transferred into the NVHA name, which occurred in 2007. The Executive Director knew that unauthorized funds were being advanced against NVHA accounts receivables and that at least by mid 2006, knew there were not enough committed funds to cover the expenses being accrued. While he did make an attempt to obtain additional funds from the Napa County Affordable Housing Trust, he failed to provide an estimate of what funds were required and therefore no further funding was granted. While the Executive Director did not know the exact amount, there was enough information to give an estimate. Further the Executive Director stated many times that due to the inadequate plan check on the Calistoga Farmworker Housing Center, the Executive Director looked to Napa County to supply funding. The Grand Jury has not been able to ascertain whether the Executive Director made such a request to the County. In any event, this source of funding did not materialize. It is not known why the Executive Director did not apply for another Joe Serna Jr. Grant for the Mondavi Farmworker Housing Center in mid 2006, as was done later in 2007. The Executive Director of the NVHA and HACN did not seek permission from the City of Napa to draw against their cash fund without having a confirmed source of funds to cover the advancement. It was not until late October 2006, that the Executive Director brought the unfunded expenditures (then stated as $1,613,904) to the attention of the FWHOC and the Board of Commissioners of the NVHA. The unfunded expenditures were then brought to the attention of the City of Napa Attorney in November 2006. As previously noted, the Executive Director resigned in December 2006. The negative balance of Fund 41, as of January 1, 2007, had two components, a funded portion and an unfunded portion as shown in TABLE 3. TABLE 3. CITY OF NAPA FUNDS ADVANCED AS OF JANUARY, 2007 Advanced $2,228,711.00 Joe Serna #3 Funded $775,000.00 Unfunded $1,453,711.00 17 The unfunded amount of $1,453,711 was eventually funded. The Joe Serna Jr. Grant #4 was approved in May 2007, for $691,000 which left an unfunded shortfall of $762,711. After a donation of $205,000 was made by the Napa Valley Vintners (NVV) for these projects, the remaining unfunded amount was $555,771 owed to the City of Napa Housing Authority. This $555,771 was finally covered by a settlement agreement between the NVHA, the City of Napa, the HACN, the City of American Canyon, the County of Napa and the Housing Authorities of the Cities of Calistoga and St. Helena and the Town of Yountville. TABLE 4. SOURCES FOR UNFUNDED OBLIGATIONS POST JANUARY, 2007 (AS SHOWN IN TABLE 3) Joe Serna #4 $691,000.00 Auction Napa Valley 2007 $205,000.00 Settlement Agreement $557,711.00 Total $1,453,711.00 What is disturbing to the Grand Jury about this scenario is although the Executive Director told at least the Board of the NVHA and the FWHOC that there were ongoing increases in costs and that funds were being sought, no one, not the Board of NVHA, the FWHOC, nor the Deputy County Counsel, acting as counsel for the NVHA, asked the simple obvious question: “Where are the funds coming from to pay the contractor’s charges?” The Grand Jury posed this question to the above-mentioned representatives: “Since you knew that a Joe Serna Jr. grant in the amount of $775,000 for the Mondavi project could not be drawn against until the title to the land was transferred to the NVHA and that the NVHA approved and signed two Mondavi contracts for $60,744 and $1,170,532 respectively, where did you think the cash would come from to pay the contractor until the title to the land was transferred?” No meaningful response was given. DISCUSSION 1) The Blame Game The Executive Director of the NVHA appeared at a Special Meeting of the NVHA on December 20, 2006. The meeting minutes only report that he read a public statement. It is not clear why the minutes do not describe his statement of apology and concerns about the role of others given the magnitude of the overruns. The Grand Jury has obtained a copy of the statement9 which reads in part: The situation created by my decision to cover the cost overruns and funding the project deficit of NVHA with HACN reserve funds has caused me one of my greatest personal and professional challenges of my life... At the time, based upon my ongoing communication with both the FWOC and NVHA, I believed that my decision was necessary... I feel relieved that I can now respond in public. I have already in private session apologized and taken responsibility for my actions with the NVHA and HACN Board of Directors... I was attempting to provide to all of you the most updated information on the problems we were experience[ing], why we were experiencing them, the cost impacts and that the NVHA was going to need to identify and raise funds to cover the cost overruns. Hindsight is always 20/20. Looking back I wish I could have found a better way to communicate the problem... I must also bring to the attention of my two boards and the community that there were several other mistakes made by other public employees of the County of Napa throughout this construction project…These mistakes were a direct cause of a major portion of the cost overruns and had nothing to do with the actions of the NVHA. The report put together by County Counsel, is an attempt to explain away a number of these mistakes made by several county departments, including his own which is responsible for providing legal services to the NVHA since I became Executive Director. The Executive Director wrote a letter to the Napa Valley Register10 in which he stated: 19 On December 20, 2006…I publicly apologized to my two boards, the Farmworker Oversight committee, industry organizations…and the general public for actions I was responsible for that played a major role in creating a funding crisis... The most glaring omission from this report is the identification of what agency provided legal counsel to both the [FWHOC] and the [NVHA], reviewed and approved the bid documents and construction contracts for both projects and also reviewed all staff reports and change order logs that were provided...I know that an independent investigation and audit of the public documents will show the truth on this matter. Following the public awareness of the overruns, the Director of Napa Valley Grapegrowers Association wrote a letter11 to the Board of Supervisors, members of the NVHA, the County Executive and the Mayor of Napa publicly acknowledging that he did not know of the extraordinary cost overruns for a period of one year since they were first reported to the FWHOC. It reads in part, As you know, I represent the NVG on the Napa County Farmworker Housing Oversight Committee [FWHOC], and in that capacity became aware of the extraordinary cost overruns for the renovation of the Calistoga and Mondavi camps at the October 27, 2006 meeting of that committee. The NVG has discussed this issue …and would like to express our deep concern about these expenditures and the process that went into approving costs related to renovating the camps. Similarly, the President of the NVV wrote a letter12 to the NVHA Board of Directors, its Executive Director, the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors and the Mayor of Napa. It stated in part, It has come to the NVV’s attention, however, that the recent renovations of the Calistoga and Mondavi farmworker housing centers, which were budgeted at $3 million, have over-run by $1.5 million, … The NVV understands that none of these over-runs were approved by the Housing Authority Board of Directors. Furthermore, the size of the overruns was a surprise to the Napa County Farmworker Oversight Committee. Frankly, the NVV is deeply concerned at this level of financial mismanagement on the part of the Housing Authority staff. …we can no longer support these programs unless the following actions are taken: • A full accounting, by an outside auditor,… • Development of an approved plan to pay for the over-runs… 20 • Assurance that the Housing Authority staff responsible for expenditure of unauthorized funds are held accountable. • New policies and procedures are established to prevent recurrence of this type of situation in the future. The letter concluded by noting that the self-assessed fees paid by the grape- growing community were to be renewed early in 2007, and the approval would be strongly influenced by the confidence they have in the integrity of the system for administering these funds. Here too, it is troublesome that an organization which had membership on the FWHOC implies that they did not know of the overruns and suggest that none of the overruns were accepted by the NVHA. It suggests that they had no idea that the Board of Commissioners had adopted a resolution granting such authority to the Executive Director. 2) The Written Record of the Contemporaneous Knowledge of the Overruns As can be seen in the previous section, the public response of members of the NVHA and the FWHOC was to deny any knowledge of the overruns and to suggest that the Executive Director acted on his own. The Grand Jury has reviewed the meeting minutes for the NVHA and the FWHOC and presents an abridged version of the relevant sections from the public record in Appendix 6, to allow the reader to judge what was said and when it was said. Many meetings were cancelled, usually because of a lack of a quorum, but an agenda and staff reports had been prepared in advance and distributed to members. The Grand Jury found the same statements repeated in the minutes, month after month, of how funds were to be requested from the County Board of Supervisors and other sources without substantive discussion of when the request would be submitted and how much money would be required. It is important to note that in October 2005, the FWHOC was told of a $500,000 overrun. The NVHA was aware of the overrun by at least February, 2006, as they were voting to request an additional grant from the State. They also knew in April and May of 2006, of over $1,500,000 in change orders and unexpected costs. Throughout this time frame both entities were made aware of the series of problems in obtaining approved, workable plans from the NCCDPD and the necessity to lease a private farmworker camp due to the closure of the camps under prolonged renovation. An email dated February 2006, written by a member of the FWHOC to the chairs of the NVHA and the FWHOC and others questioned 21 the overruns and the economic feasibility of renovations. The Grand Jury found that none of the email recipients took any substantive action. In addition to membership on the FWHOC or the NVHA, many members also attended meetings of an ad hoc farmworker advocacy and farmworker committee which met regularly to discuss issues such as the renovations. At the March 6, 2006, meeting of the Farmworker Committee, with members from the NVV present, an extensive discussion of “costly and time-consuming additions, some unanticipated and some required by the county have occurred at Calistoga.” It was reported that the additions were then at $600,000 above budget. Various committee members expressed their concern about this situation and decided they wanted a meeting with Supervisors to discuss the county’s role. A meeting was subsequently held with two County Supervisors “to discuss the permit problems and subsequent cost overruns that have occurred with the renovations”. Both Supervisors expressed concern about the situation and were aware of similar complaints. They also agreed that “all county departments should be on the same page with NVHA and others involved in farmworker issues”.13 In June 2006, the minutes mention that a Supervisor had called a meeting of all county departments to discuss how to expedite the project. These minutes show that many grapegrowers, vintners and others were knowledgeable about the renovation overruns from different sources. 3) The Lack of Management and Oversight by the Governmental Entities Previous Background Sections have described the planning process, funding sources for the farmworker housing renovations and the oral and written record of these government entities. In this Section, the emphasis is on the management role played by members of numerous organizations. It should be noted that several people held membership on both the FWHOC and the Board of Commissioners of the NVHA and that, by statute, two members of the NVHA were County Supervisors. It is therefore reasonable to expect that news of problems reported at one entity would be known to members of all entities. The Editors of the Napa Valley Register ended 2006, by noting that, “The buck doesn’t stop with Dreier.” 14 They outlined the role played by the Executive Director and then found fault with the NVHA Board of Commissioners, the advisory Farmworker Oversight Committee and the County planners for their role in the overruns. The Grand Jury presents its findings on these, and additional, parties below. a) NVHA Board of Commissioners and FWHOC The Grand Jury looked at how the NVHA Board of Commissioners and the FWHOC managed the information provided by staff. Although these people are 22 finance professionals, career management consultants, career public servants and very interested parties (Farm Bureau, Napa Grapegrowers, Napa Vintners), we detected little oversight for these projects. The record reveals that members of these entities missed many meetings. In fact, numerous meetings were cancelled during the summer of 2006, due to lack of a quorum when the renovation projects were going full bore. A staff administrative assistant often called members prior to meetings to remind them to attend. Data packages were prepared prior to each meeting by the NVHA staff and sent to the Deputy County Counsel for review and approval before being sent to the Boards. There is no evidence in the meeting minutes that any member suggested that the projects be slowed or halted. There is no evidence that anyone asked where the funds were coming from to cover the increased project needs or what funds were being used for the current costs paid to the contractor. The Grand Jury has evaluated the cash flow for the two construction projects and noted a serious, prolonged shortfall that was not dealt with by management. When the overruns became public knowledge, many members of the FWHOC voiced their “deep concern at this level of financial mismanagement on the part of the Housing Authority Staff” and wanted “assurance that the Housing Authority staff responsible for expenditure of unauthorized funds are held accountable.” The Grand Jury found no accountability has been forthcoming from any of these individuals, who had advisory or leadership roles. The Grand Jury found that people trusted the Executive Director and accepted the Executive Director’s version of the problems and efforts to find financing, “there was no reason not to believe him, never any reason to doubt him.” Packages of information were provided by staff for meetings; those reading the information thought the budget was covered as presented, “I assumed that everything [the Executive Director] did was according to Hoyle, as did others around the table.” While the Grand Jury recognizes that written staff reports do not reveal a sense of urgency, or a clear budget overview of the financial situation, the Grand Jury questions why the NVHA Board did not engage in any analysis of the situation. It is interesting to note that the operating budget for the farmworker centers was presented in great detail each month while the capital budget was remarkably devoid of details. One person indicated that, “This was not rocket science, you listen and read and make decisions—it was disgusting that deeper analysis was not done”. Further evidence of a lack of vigilance can be observed in the fact that the NVHA was found to have operated without an approved budget.15 Due to the need for plan modifications and hence, project delays, the NVHA Board voted16 to lease a farmworker center from a vintner, first for two months and then, as problems persisted, for additional time. Therefore, one might 23 conclude that they were cognizant of the construction delays even if not of the costs. Several people offered, as an excuse for not asking a lot of questions, the fact that people of good will and intentions join committees and boards to perform a service to the community. While they are anxious to serve, they may not have the necessary experience with construction projects, finance or applicable ordinances and thus, there is a tendency to accept reports by staff without much in-depth probing, to act as a rubber stamp, trusting the integrity of the staff. While this lack of comprehension may well be the norm, Napa County voters approved Measure Z17 in 2006, which requires the Supervisors to certify that they have read and approve a particular motion before them because there was evidence that they were “not always reading and aware of what they were passing into law.” By extension, what is important for the Supervisors is important for all who serve the public—to take responsibility for their actions and to act in the best interests of the citizens of Napa County. While it is understandable that it is difficult for many members to develop accounting skills and management skills on the job as volunteers, the Grand Jury does think that life-experience, common sense and intuition need to be used. Members should be provided with training on best practices for committees and an understanding of the framework in which their entity operates as they assume membership. When the news of the overspending became public in December 2006, the County Auditor-Controller recommended that an outside auditing firm without prior commitments with the NVHA or the County, be hired to review the books of the NVHA. This firm made observations and recommendations to management on the following topics in a presentation (June 11, 2007) and report to the NVHA which are annotated below. The accounting firm noted: • That the NVHA did not have formal budget policies and procedures and did not formally adopt an annual operating budget. There was no accounts receivable system in place. The NVHA did not prepare a capital improvement budget. It is essential to have a budget based on projects length to ensure that all capital expenditures are properly authorized by the board and to provide the board control over capital expenditures. • That NVHA did not have its own bank accounts; all funds were commingled with HACN funds. Bank reconciliations were not reviewed by anyone other than the preparer which allowed errors to go undetected. • That the City of Napa and the HACN advanced approximately $2,000,000 to NVHA without approval of the NVHA Board or the City of Napa and the HACN. 24 • That the NVHA did not comply with the Joe Serna Grant agreement by not submitting an annual certified report to the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development nor were some operating and capital reserves maintained in a separate bank account. • That the financial position of the NVHA did not appear healthy due to the significant amount owed to the City of Napa and the HACN which was advanced to the NVHA to cover the significant cost overrun on the Calistoga and Mondavi center renovation projects. During the Grand Jury’s investigation, one person stated, “The report was a big black-eye for anyone in public office, a big embarrassment.” At their June 11, 2007, meeting, the NVHA Board of Commissioners accepted the filing of the independent audits and requested staff to prepare a response to the Management Recommendations. This response of the NVHA, prepared by the staff, does not appear in the public record. The Grand Jury has obtained a copy of the NVHA Management Letter responses issued under the signature of the Chair of the NVHA dated June 26, 2007. The NVHA Management Letter responses concurred with most findings except a few deemed not applicable. The Grand Jury notes that the NVHA Board of Commissioners which had earlier promised the public transparency and a full accounting of what allowed the overruns to take place, essentially buried this letter and the response which explained that they were responsible due to a lack of operating controls. They did not dispute this in their acceptance of the report. b) NVHA Executive Director The Executive Director of the NVHA, with concurrence of the Board, set the stage for all of the untoward events to take place by sending the plans for the Mondavi Center out to bid without having approved plans. This added to the financial problems initiated by the NCCDPD’s inadequate review of the Calistoga Center plans. It is not clear why the Executive Director did not obtain experienced personnel to manage these construction projects as was done to build the River Ranch camp. Apparently, the NVHA had solicited assistance from the County Public Works Department but was turned down due to lack of time. The Grand Jury was told that an external manager was not sought in order to keep the budget low. Thus, a staff person, with no formal training or experience in the management of construction projects and without an appropriate knowledge base, was put in a position by the Executive Director where numerous decisions had to be made. As noted previously, the Executive Director of the NVHA failed to inform the Boards of the NVHA or HACN, or the FWHOC, that he had been using City of Napa funds to pay for the overruns until late in October 2006. c) County Counsel Legal services to the NVHA were furnished under contract by the County Counsel’s office. These attorneys prepared and approved NVHA resolutions, agenda, minutes and documents relating to the bidding and contracting process. On December 18, 2006, after the overruns had become public, the County Counsel issued a memorandum18 to the Board of Supervisors, portions of which are presented in Appendix 7. The memorandum attempted to dissect the by-laws and actions taken by the NVHA Board of Commissioners regarding who had responsibility to sign the construction contracts and any change orders. The Grand Jury found it troubling that this memorandum by the County Counsel is at odds with the written documents by which the Executive Director was given the authority to enter into construction contracts and change orders by motions of the NVHA Board of Commissioners. A thorough review of the housing renovation projects by the Grand Jury has not revealed any evidence that anyone ever told the Executive Director not to sign change orders, not to pay bills, or to stop the projects until sufficient money was obtained. Indeed, members of the NVHA Board of Commissioners confirmed that “[the Executive Director] functioned as the project director and it was his job to sign for payment.” The memorandum never questions the role and actions of the NVHA Board of Commissioners or other parties; all of its emphasis was on the possible unauthorized actions by the Executive Director. Parenthetically, it must be mentioned that the County Counsel had responsibility for NVHA legal matters and that a Deputy County Counsel reviewed all contracts and reports and attended, or was supposed to attend, all NVHA Board meetings. The County Counsel’s December 18, 2006, Memorandum states that: The NVHA’s only authorization of its Executive Director to act as its representative in relation to both contracts is contained in the NVHA resolutions (05-03 and 05-13) which initially approved each contract. After approving award of the construction contract, each of these resolutions states only that: “Section 2. Authorizes the Executive Director to execute the contract documents as necessary.” 26 As discussed above, it is doubtful whether the Executive Director had the discretionary authority to approve and bind the NVHA as Owner to post- award changes in the contract price or plans and specifications affecting the contract price. The Grand Jury finds this last sentence to be disingenuous as County Counsel has the responsibility to insure that the operation of the NVHA proceeds within the law and, in fact, the County Counsel’s office drafted these resolutions for adoption by the Board. Further, the record is replete with references to change orders being signed by the Executive Director. The NVHA Board of Commissioners acquiesced in the signing of change orders by the Executive Director, which is evidence of how they interpreted this Resolution. The NVHA Board either granted explicit authority or implicit authority to allow the Executive Director to sign change orders. The memorandum goes on to promise investigations that were never completed. The County Counsel’s office initiated an investigation to determine culpability but it was terminated when the Settlement Agreement19 was signed. During that investigation, no members of the NVHA or the FWHOC were interviewed by the County Counsel’s office. Five months after this memorandum was written, a Settlement Agreement was drafted and approved by all member entities of the NVHA and the City of Napa. The Agreement has a series of paragraphs, Recitals, which describe key items that led to the drafting of the document. It is important to highlight one of these Recitals, as it was intended to be the last, official word on the overrun saga: Recital L. The NVHA Executive Director did not obtain the approval of the NVHA Board of Commissioners to execute any of the additional work which resulted in the Total Cost Overages…Upon learning of the Total Cost Overages, representatives of the governing boards NVHA, the member agencies of NVHA, and the Napa Entities each disputed responsibility for payment of all or some portion of the Total Cost Overages. The Grand Jury takes exception with the portion of Recital L that states the Executive Director did not obtain approval from the NVHA Board of Commissioners to execute the additional work. The NVHA Board of Commissioner resolutions and meeting minutes and our investigations, belie this notion. Recital L also implies that these organizations only recently learned of the overages, which, as we have already discussed above, is not what the NVHA and FWHOC minutes reflect. Prior to a Board vote, staff typically prepares an explanatory document that describes the requested action, financial impact and background information. It is intriguing to read the supportive documentation prepared for the NVHA20 and for the City of Napa21 for the Settlement Agreement, which was drafted by a Deputy County Counsel and the City of Napa Attorney. What makes these documents of such interest, is that they mirror each of the Recitals (E-R) of the Settlement Agreement in most every detail except that they fail to mention the Executive Director and any actions he is alleged to have taken that is otherwise noted in Recital L. The Grand Jury understands that this portion of Recital L was insisted upon by County Counsel. The City of Napa Attorney did not want it in the Agreement. Thus the Grand Jury wonders what the motivation of the County Counsel was in singling out the Executive Director from all those involved, and reporting him guilty of signing change orders without authorization, first in the County Counsel Memorandum and then in Recital L of the Settlement Agreement, when the record reveals otherwise. After reviewing these and numerous other documents relating to the farmworker housing issues, the Grand Jury has reluctantly concluded that the services provided by the County Counsel’s office were occasionally performed in a careless manner. d) City of Napa Finance Department The City of Napa Finance Department allowed the overruns to proceed without check due to the commingling of accounts and general accounting inadequacies. The independent accounting firm brought in after the overruns became public, reviewed all contracts, change orders and financial statements and almost all of the receipts and invoices. While there were weaknesses in the system, it did not find any suspicious financial dealing. All revenues and expenses were properly documented and were related to the project. The City had significant turnover in the Finance Department between 2001, and 2005. Key people left or were let go, resulting in a situation with no knowledgeable leaders and a dysfunctional finance system. The then Finance Director was not an accounting professional and was not focused on the needs of the Department. The computer system used by the City was created in 1976. There is no documentation of the software, which made it difficult to make changes. Approximately 2 years ago, the City began to consider the purchase of a new system. Installation of the new system is said to be progressing satisfactorily and should be operational in July 2008. The culture of the Finance Department allowed the HACN to stand apart and they were not required to follow the City’s policies and procedures. Thus, the staff in Finance did not feel that they had any authority over the HACN finances. During the period of time from 2004-2005, one accounting technician handled the Housing Authority funds. This position was eliminated due to budget cuts resulting in the loss of the Finance Department person who was primarily responsible for handling the Housing Accounts. This resulted in the loss of institutional knowledge. Starting in November 2006, the staff was finally empowered to question the management of the Housing finances. In October 2006, the then Finance Manager who was preparing a State Controller Report for the NVHA, discovered a negative cash balance, called Housing to question this finding and was told that they knew about it. The NVHA Executive Director informed the City Attorney of the situation on November 15, 2006. The Finance Director retired in February 2007. The current Finance Director is prioritizing the department needs to correct the years of benign neglect. Among the recent activities are completion of 3 years of back audits, a budgeting process, the hiring of experienced personnel and the implementation of the new accounting software. e) Napa County Conservation, Development & Planning Department The NCCDPD admits it performed an inadequate review of the Calistoga Center plans that resulted in the need for numerous change orders to the original contract. There was also an excessive, unexplained delay between approval of the plan by the checker and the issuance of a permit. f) County Executive Staff After the Calistoga Center permit was received and construction begun, field inspectors from NCCDPD and the Fire Marshall began to request numerous changes to the plans. A meeting was held with the NVHA staff, a Supervisor, the County Executive Officer and the Director of the NCCDPD to see if a clear plan could be developed. It is, therefore, fair to assume that at least these County leaders were aware of the issues in April 2006. As reported in the NVHA and FWHOC minutes, the Executive Director discussed with the Manager of the Community Partnership Department the possibility of attaining additional funds from the County Affordable Housing Trust Fund to cover the project needs. While there was correspondence on this subject, the Executive Director did not respond to repeated requests from this Manager for an estimate of the total overruns and the amount of the additional funds required. 29 2) The Aftermath: The Key Events of 2007 How did the governmental agencies respond to this crisis in governmental stewardship of public funds? The responses varied among the officials involved in trying to restore the public’s trust. Some can be severely criticized for disclaiming prior knowledge of the overruns, which they clearly had to have had, and some for deflecting responsibility or failing to immediately disclose that unauthorized funds had been taken from one entity to cover costs of another. As both the NVHA and NCHA Board minutes reflect, there were several closed sessions which obviously dealt with this matter. The Grand Jury reminds all of the public stewards of section 54,950 of the California Government Code (the Brown Act) which provides in part: The people do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is good for them not to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created. When the County’s Auditor-Controller learned of financial problems with these projects in November 2006, the Auditor-Controller immediately insisted that the NVHA retain an independent accounting firm to audit NVHA’s finances over the 18-month period during which these problems occurred. This Auditor-Controller recommended an independent accounting firm that had never done any business with the County, the City of Napa, the NVHA or any of the agencies involved in this matter. The NVHA was prohibited from paying any more bills without the prior review and authorization of the County Auditor-Controller. In the spring of 2007, action was taken to have the County regain control of the farmworker housing centers. With the NCHA set to take over operational responsibility for the farmworker centers from NVHA on July 1, 2007, the County Auditor-Controller requested the adoption of a resolution whereby the NCHA would adopt the County budgetary and purchase procedures as its own set procedures. This was approved by the NCHA on March 27, 2007. The Auditor- Controller then started the budgetary process for the NCHA’s fiscal year 2007- 2008 continuing to insure that controls would be maintained. At their March 27, 2007, meeting, the NCHA voted to create the Napa County Housing Commission (NCHC). The main purpose of the NCHC would be to provide input to the NCHA regarding operations of the farmworker housing centers and advise the Board of Supervisors on the allocation of annual assessments imposed within CSA#4. Once the present assessment renewal was 30 completed on or about June 30, 2007, there was no longer a need for a CSA#4 Advisory Committee. Likewise, the creation of NCHC eliminated the need for the FWHOC. On April 24, 2007, the ordinance creating the NCHC was adopted and the FWHOC was dissolved. The CSA#4 Advisory Committee was dissolved effective July 1, 2007. The functions of the two separate committees under the old NVHA, the FWHOC and the CSA#4 Advisory Committee, were then consolidated into a single Commission. The County expects this change to streamline the advisory process and at the same time, “address and resolve the public perception that oversight of the farm labor camps was so diffused among existing committees, that a less than desirable level of accountability exists.” The Grand Jury believes that the County’s first expectation should be realized but believes that the public’s perception will not be so easily altered merely by this change, as some of the same people who served on the NVHA and the FWHOC during the events described in this report, were appointed to serve on the NCHC. The Grand Jury expects that appropriate oversight is now in place to prevent any recurrence of financial mismanagement. While the foregoing changes were being made, the various governmental entities involved were negotiating a resolution of the NVHA debt to the City of Napa, a result of the unauthorized use of the City’s money. This was principally done out of public view. The public learned the results of these negotiations when a NVHA Farmworker Housing Settlement Agreement to cover a portion of the total cost overages of $2,228,711, for renovation of the Calistoga and Mondavi Farmworker Centers, was presented to the NCHA and the Board of Supervisors at their meetings on May 22, 2007. The settlement agreement was approved by all parties with the County of Napa paying $185,904, the City of Napa paying $185,904 and the Cities of American Canyon, Calistoga, St. Helena and Yountville, each paying $46,476. As noted above, the rest of the overage was covered by various sources, principally the State of California Joe Serna, Jr. Farmworker Grants and the NVV contributions. This was indeed an expensive occurrence, not only financially, but also in the loss of public trust. Unfortunately the questions asked by those working to resolve the problem and to restore the public trust, “When it’s the public’s money, you don’t spend without funds or a budget” or “How can you spend money that is not there?”, were not asked by those responsible for the farmworker housing projects in 2005 and 2006. The Grand Jury concludes that it may have spent more time trying to understand the events surrounding the renovation and financing of the two farmworker housing centers than those charged with the responsibility to carry out the original projects. The Grand Jury hopes that these findings will give the public a better understanding of this breakdown of governmental stewardship and are used 31 constructively to improve the governance of future authorities, boards and committees in Napa County. FINDINGS The 2007-2008 Grand Jury finds that: 1. The oversight of the renovations of the Calistoga and Mondavi Farmworker Housing Centers was the responsibility of the Board of Commissioners of the NVHA with advisory input from the FWHOC.
* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.