Napa County Grand Jury

2009-2010

10 reports

Additional Recommendations 4

Not linked to specific findings.

R8: - The City of Napa and NSD identify a process for, and develop an implementation plan to, integrate NSD and PWD into a single department. This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. This recommendation, rooted in concerns noted in the report about a loss of revenue to the City of Napa when customers transition to recycled water use, appears to conclude that this contributes to competition between the two agencies and acts as a barrier to recycled water expansion. As noted in the Grand Jury report in the Findings and above in this letter, the City of Napa and NSD have an agreement to manage the transition of City potable water customers to recycled water. This agreement addresses this concern straight on, providing for compensation to the City for lost revenues. NSD has been and continues to be in full support of this agreement. NSD has not seen any evidence that there is competition for customers, as the City supports conversion to recycled water and NSD supports the compensation agreement. In fact, City, County and NSD staff and elected officials meet regularly to discuss coordination and cooperation regarding the expansion of recycled water delivery. In addition, the City cites expansion of recycled water use as a way to manage City water demand in its 2005 Urban Water Management Plan update. We do not see NSD's status as an independent agency as an impediment to expanding the recycled water system. 2007 10/13/2010 10:19 FAX Mr. John K. Morris August 13, 2010 Additionally, it must be noted that the delivery of recycled water is only one part of NSD's operation, and that the majority of its budget and staff effort is related to the collection and treatment of wastewater.
R9: - The County and all municipalities continue development and expansion of recycled water projects to alleviate future water shortages. NSD agrees that development and expansion of recycled water delivery can improve the availability and reliability of potable water systems. Additionally, recycled water is itself a reliable source of water for the region that will be available even when there are potable water shortages. Promoting the expanded use of recycled water is sound public policy, which NSD supports. This recommendation has been implemented. NSD shares the desires of potential recycled water users to participate in the pursuit of opportunities to expand the recycled water system. In fact, since 1990, NSD has spent roughly $1.2 million on planning and environmental studies in support of expanding its recycled water distribution system. NSD has developed strategies and policies through its Recycled Water Strategic Plan and other policy documents that promote the continued development and expansion of recycled water projects with local partners. NSD stands ready to cooperate with local partners and potential end users to develop feasible recycled water projects.
R10: - The County, all municipalities, and NSD investigate the process and economics for the formation of a countywide utility district to benefit the County residents and holistically manage the availability, distribution, and economics of potable and recycled water. This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted at this time. NSD has a long history of working cooperatively with the area jurisdictions on issues related to potable and recycled water. As noted above, NSD has taken a very active role in investing in recycled water infrastructure and in pursuing partnerships to expand the recycled water distribution system. The combination of all potable and recycled water purveyors into one utility district would have significant hurdles to overcome. Rates and service levels are set at the local level based on infrastructure investments, outstanding debt levels, and local values. The combination of these systems into one utility district would create significant conflict and problems that, we believe, would be greater than any benefits derived from the consolidation. Being a separate district allows us to be responsive to local resident needs and priorities, and to set the levels of service and the rates for those services according to local resident desires. NSD is in sound financial condition and has a professional, competent management team that operates NSD efficiently and effectively. At this time, we do not believe that the formation of a utility district would provide sufficient additional benefits to the customers of NSD. Ø 008 10/13/2010 10:19 FAX Mr. John K. Morris August 13, 2010
R12: - NSD proactively and aggressively identify funding sources to accelerate expansion of recycled water service in Napa. This recommendation has been implemented. NSD is currently a member of the North Bay Water Reuse Authority, an organization committed to securing state and federal resources to promote the expansion of recycled water throughout Marin, Sonoma and Napa Counties. Through membership in this organization, which has been supported financially by Napa County, NSD has been awarded $1.5 million in federal grants to expand recycled water pipeline through the Napa State Hospital and into the MST area. If partnership agreements are reached with future beneficiaries of an expanded recycled water system to other areas, NSD will continue to develop projects and pursue external funding sources to expand the use of recycled water. Again, we would like to thank the Grand Jury for conducting the difficult work of research and reporting on this vitally important issue. Local governments and community organizations must do what we can to protect and improve the reliability of potable water, which includes expanding the use of recycled water. We hope that the comments provided here improve your and the community's understanding of the issues regarding the distribution of recycled water, and that they serve to promote the underlying goals of the Grand Jury report. Sincerely, Techel
Findings & Recommendations 1 findings
F2: NVUSD is not required to provide current course work, for minors incarcerated at Juvenile Hall in a timely matter.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: NVUSD, in conjunction with NCIH personnel, establish and implement a re-entry program for youth returning from Juvenile Hall. Response: Partial Agreement We are in agreement with the recommendation that a re-entry program would be valuable, but resources and logistics may present significant obstacles. NVUSD will work with NCOE and NCJW to research the feasibility of a re-entry program for students returning to their school from Napa County Juvenile Hall. Discussion, coordination and implementation of how the student will overcome not having been in his or her classes for the time they were in Juvenile Hall, as well as a scheme for credit recovery, make up, and extra support would be addressed. The NVUSD Child Welfare and Attendance Supervisor will facilitate the planning and feasibility discussion between NCJH, NCOE and NVUSD during the 2010-11 school year, with the intention of implementing a program by the beginning of the 2011-12 school year. Received Napa Superior Court Mark Womin OCT 1 3 2010 Mark Morrison, Director of Secondary Education Court Executive Office
Findings & Recommendations 25 findings
F1: The Napa Special Investigations Bureau (NSIB) was formally established on March 1, 1976, through a state grant funded by the California Office of Criminal Justice Planning.
F2: In 1988, the NSIB Governing Board entered into a MOU with the CDOJ, BNE.
F3: NSIB is one of thirty-three other county narcotic task forces participating in the BNE Statewide Regional Task Force program.
F4: NSIB’s primary focus is to conduct criminal investigations and enforcement activities aimed at combating illegal manufacturing, trafficking, and use of illegal controlled substances throughout Napa County.
F5: NSIB personnel are assigned by their participating parent agencies with input from the NSIB commander.
F6: CPD and SHPD contribute funding in lieu of personnel.
F7: In 2009 methamphetamine and marijuana were the most significant and predominant illegal drugs in Napa County.
F8: While NSIB directs its efforts and assets towards all levels of illegal drug trafficking in the County, an emphasis has been placed on methamphetamine because the drug is so prolific and dangerous.
F9: In most instances Napa County methamphetamine dealers obtain their drugs from sources in surrounding counties and the Central Valley.
F10: In FY 2008-2009 NSIB seized approximately 90,000 marijuana plants with a street value in excess of $266 million. 17
F11: Ninety percent of the large-scale growing operations in Napa County involving arrests are operated by Mexican nationals suspected of being members of MDTO.
F12: Much of the marijuana grown in Napa County is exported to other states including Illinois, New York, Ohio, and Texas.
F13: Methamphetamine is considered the single most dangerous health and safety threat to Napa County and continues to dominate NSIB resources and investigative time.
F14: Methamphetamine has been found in every municipality and unincorporated section of the County.
F15: In FY 2008-2009 all NSIB methamphetamine seizures have been of “crystal” or “ice” form. 16. “Pharm Parties” among teens in the community are a growing concern to NSIB and should be to the community in general.
F17: NSIB currently has only one bilingual agent.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: NSIB selection process emphasize bilingual competency.
F18: NSIB, in conjunction with the DA, Adult Probation Department, and the California Department of Corrections Parole Unit, is involved in a cooperative effort to coordinate and pursue intensive supervision of adult probationers and parolees (Parolee, Probation Offender Program).
F19: The DEC Protocol was implemented four years ago and is a collaborative effort by NSIB, CWS, Napa County DA, and QVMC.
F20: State and County budget cuts have reduced the number of NSIB agents as compared to past years.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3: NSIB Governing Board, CEO, and the BOS identify and implement additional NSIB investigative funding.
R4: NSIB Governing Board, the CEO, and the BOS bring NSIB staffing back to that in FY 2000 level. REQUEST FOR RESPONSES The 2009-2010 Grand Jury requests responses to recommendations from: • BOS: All re
F21: The PO attached to NSIB, like all Napa County POs, does not carry a firearm.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: The Napa County Probation Department Safety Committee, the County Executive Office (CEO), and the BOS, explore the option to arm the PO attached to NSIB, as well as other PO’s dealing with high risk probationers and parolees.
F22: NSIB has expressed the desire to have the County arm the PO attached to NSIB.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: The Napa County Probation Department Safety Committee, the County Executive Office (CEO), and the BOS, explore the option to arm the PO attached to NSIB, as well as other PO’s dealing with high risk probationers and parolees.
F23: The Probation Department Safety Committee currently has not recommended arming the PO attached to NSIB.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: The Napa County Probation Department Safety Committee, the County Executive Office (CEO), and the BOS, explore the option to arm the PO attached to NSIB, as well as other PO’s dealing with high risk probationers and parolees.
F24: Local law enforcement officials stated the California Supreme Court’s ruling in People v. Kelly (supra) has made the already murky situation surrounding medical marijuana worse and has created even more difficulties in the investigation, arrest, and prosecution of illegal marijuana cultivation and possession.
F25: Other than a list of “guidelines” provided by the California Attorney General in 2008, the State does not provide the County or NSIB with any clear regulation for the cultivation and/or distribution of medical marijuana.
F26: The law enforcement personnel the Grand Jury interviewed expressed concern that the legalization of marijuana in California will not make marijuana related problems, issues, and violence disappear. /// 18
Findings & Recommendations 18 findings
F1: Water quality testing in all municipalities in Napa meets current California Department of Public Health and EPA Clean Drinking Water Act requirements. Water Quality Reports are available annually from all Napa County municipalities.
F2: In the event of supply disruption from the NBA, the County and its municipalities will depend on water from municipal reservoirs and water storage facilities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: All County municipalities evaluate means to increase the capacity, and enhance the survivability, of municipal reservoirs and water storage facilities.
F3: The current County Emergency Response Plan (ERP) provides a general framework for a regional response to all emergencies. The Cities of American Canyon and Napa have their own ERPs; other municipalities do not.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: Calistoga, St. Helena, and Yountville prepare their own detailed plans that supplement and complement the County’s ERP.
F4: A major earthquake would likely cause a significant disruption to water delivery infrastructure throughout the County.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1: Municipalities within the County develop, expand, and formalize agreements to provide water allocations to address a catastrophic loss of water.
R4: Each County municipality prepare a plan to ensure rapid repair of the water delivery system and include procedures for emergency water delivery to facilities responsible for providing immediate health and safety aid to the community’s population, especially local hospitals, shelters, and emergency centers.
F5: State law requires the City of Napa and American Canyon to have UWMPs in place and to update them every five years. At present, these are current and are being updated to comply with current law and regulations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5: Cities of American Canyon and Napa are encouraged to complete their updated UWMP plans on schedule and train appropriate city and County officials to carry out their specific responsibilities. St. Helena is encouraged to update their UWMP plan on a periodic basis.
F6: Although not required, St. Helena voluntarily prepared a UWMP.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5: Cities of American Canyon and Napa are encouraged to complete their updated UWMP plans on schedule and train appropriate city and County officials to carry out their specific responsibilities. St. Helena is encouraged to update their UWMP plan on a periodic basis.
F7: Napa County has not completed a detailed hydro-geological study of its groundwater resources since 1973.
Related Recommendations (2)
R6: NCFCWCD conduct a countywide hydro-geologic groundwater survey and develop a management plan as a County priority.
R7: BOS develop regulations to ensure adequate groundwater supply for future needs.
F8: Recycled water is a non-potable supply option to alleviate demands on potable water programs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9: The County and all municipalities continue development and expansion of recycled water projects to alleviate future water shortages.
F9: In Yountville, eighty-five percent of wastewater is recycled.
F10: Calistoga uses 100 to 200 acre-feet per year of its wastewater and distributes it to about twenty locations.
F11: St. Helena is not currently using recycled water but is “looking into it.”
Related Recommendations (1)
R11: St. Helena accelerate its planning process and implementation of distribution and use recycled water.
F12: As more City of Napa water customers convert to using recycled water the revenues for Napa City Water Department decline since recycled water is delivered to customers at a lower rate than potable water.
Related Recommendations (3)
R8: The City of Napa and NSD identify a process for, and develop an implementation plan to, integrate NSD and PWD into a single department.
R10: The County, all municipalities, and NSD investigate the process and economics for the formation of a countywide utility district to benefit the County residents and holistically manage the availability, distribution, and economics of potable and recycled water.
R12: NSD proactively and aggressively identify funding sources to accelerate expansion of recycled water service in Napa.
F13: Napa Sanitation District and the City of Napa have agreements to manage transition from using potable to recycled water for new users.
F14: None of Napa County’s public water systems fluoridate their water supplies.
F15: Fluoridated water has a documented significant oral health benefit and fluoridating water in Napa County was recommended as a component for community dental health improvement.
Related Recommendations (1)
R13-20: 474 112.6 14.0 21and 1,575 409.2 50.9 older Total 3,613 804.7 100 It is likely much of these monies were spent to repair tooth decay. Perhaps if access to fluoridated water was available, using a 49 percent decline in cavities in baby teeth and 60 percent in permanent teeth from fluoridated water, in 2004 the County would have saved more than $150,000. Given the increase in the numbers treated and costs of dental care since 2004, today these savings would be greater. The potential health benefits of fluoridated water to County residents have been studied. In a November 2007 Napa County Community Health Needs Assessment Fact Sheet, dental services were identified as a recommended priority. At that time, based on projections from statewide statistics, a conservative estimate of about 6,680 Napa County residents, newborn to nineteen years of age, have decay requiring treatment, corresponding to about 5 percent of Napa County’s population. Epidemiological evidence suggests that this number would be markedly lower if there was access to fluoridated water. Napa County is significantly behind the curve with respect to fluoridation of its PWS. In 2006, 69 percent of the US population received fluoridated water from municipal water systems. In 2008, 60 percent of California residents received fluoridated water from municipal water systems. One goal of the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) “Healthy People 2010” initiative (www.healthypeople.gov) is to increase the percentage of the population receiving optimally fluoridated water to 75 percent from the current level of 69 percent by 2010. In 2006 the Council of State Governments adopted a resolution encouraging states to “support and adopt community water fluoridation standards.” The State of California has encouraged its counties to invest in fluoridation of its public water systems in various ways including initiatives through CDPH. In 1995 the California legislature passed AB 733, titled “Fluoridation Act,” which was signed into law by Governor Wilson. This bill was sponsored by the CDA. AB 733 mandates fluoridation of public water systems having 10,000 or more connections. Prior to passage of AB 733, California ranked close to the bottom, forty-eight out of fifty states plus the District of Columbia, in the percentage of its population receiving community fluoridated water. AB 733 was subsequently clarified in 2004 by Senate Bill (SB) 96, also sponsored by the CDA. Both AB 733 and SB 96 are unfunded mandates and stipulate exemptions and requirements for its implementation. CDPH is responsible for identifying funds to purchase and install fluoridation equipment for PWS. What Would be the Benefit of Fluoridation to Napa County’s Residents? One estimate suggests that across the state, California taxpayers could have saved about $385 million in dental care costs five years after introduction of fluoridation in community water systems. Aside from the capital costs to build the capability of adding fluoride to its municipal water systems, the cost of providing fluoridated water in community water systems is estimated to be about $0.68 to $0.72 per resident annually depending on the size of the community. With Napa County’s 2008 population estimated by the United States Census Bureau to be 133,400, this translates to a cost of operating a fluoridated water supply countywide at approximately $100,000 annually. This is less than the amount Denti-Cal is estimated to have spent on tooth decay treatment in 2004. Based on this information, the Grand Jury believes water fluoridation is the most economical and cost effective approach to implementing a major oral health preventive measure for the County’s residents. Further, using the above CDA estimate that each $1.00 invested in fluoridated water translates into $140 savings in bills for dental services, this $100,000 annual investment would yield some twelve or more million dollars in savings. Implementing Water Fluoridation in Napa County In 1998 the CDA, Dental Health Foundation, and CDPH formed a partnership to administer a multimillion dollar California Endowment grant for water fluoridation projects. CDPH has responsibility to identify monies for such purchases. It does not appear that any Napa County municipality has sought funding to provide this demonstrated public health benefit. Since the City of Napa has more than 10,000 water connections, it is mandated by AB733 to fluoridate its water. In a March 2, 2003, Napa Valley Register article Phil Brun, general manager for the Napa Water Department, was quoted “…Napa County ranks 17 out of 166 districts on the state’s priority list…” prepared by Department of Health Services. Despite this high ranking, the City of Napa has not applied for funds. This article was the last of a flurry of articles and letters, both for and against fluoridation, in the Napa Valley Register appearing during 2002 and 2003. The City of Napa PWD has estimated the capital costs to implement fluoridation at its three treatment plants to be $1.1 million. Even if the capital costs for the other treatment plants throughout the County were estimated at the highest of those for the City of Napa plants, the total cost for the County’s municipal water systems would be less than $3.5 million. FINDINGS The 2009-2010 Grand Jury finds: 1. Water quality testing in all municipalities in Napa meets current California Department of Public Health and EPA Clean Drinking Water Act requirements. Water Quality Reports are available annually from all Napa County municipalities. 2. In the event of supply disruption from the NBA, the County and its municipalities will depend on water from municipal reservoirs and water storage facilities. 3. The current County Emergency Response Plan (ERP) provides a general framework for a regional response to all emergencies. The Cities of American Canyon and Napa have their own ERPs; other municipalities do not. 4. A major earthquake would likely cause a significant disruption to water delivery infrastructure throughout the County. 5. State law requires the City of Napa and American Canyon to have UWMPs in place and to update them every five years. At present, these are current and are being updated to comply with current law and regulations. 6. Although not required, St. Helena voluntarily prepared a UWMP. 7. Napa County has not completed a detailed hydro-geological study of its groundwater resources since 1973. 8. Recycled water is a non-potable supply option to alleviate demands on potable water programs. 9. In Yountville, eighty-five percent of wastewater is recycled. 10. Calistoga uses 100 to 200 acre-feet per year of its wastewater and distributes it to about twenty locations. 11. St. Helena is not currently using recycled water but is “looking into it.” 12. As more City of Napa water customers convert to using recycled water the revenues for Napa City Water Department decline since recycled water is delivered to customers at a lower rate than potable water. 13. Napa Sanitation District and the City of Napa have agreements to manage transition from using potable to recycled water for new users. 14. None of Napa County’s public water systems fluoridate their water supplies. 15. Fluoridated water has a documented significant oral health benefit and fluoridating water in Napa County was recommended as a component for community dental health improvement. 16. AB 733 mandates fluoridation of public water systems having 10,000 or more connections. 17. Annual savings in oral healthcare to County residents is projected to exceed the estimated costs of operating water fluoridation systems at the County public water systems. 18. No County municipalities have applied for funding to fluoridate their public water systems. RECOMMENDATIONS The 2009-2010 Grand Jury recommends: 1. Municipalities within the County develop, expand, and formalize agreements to provide water allocations to address a catastrophic loss of water. 2. All County municipalities evaluate means to increase the capacity, and enhance the survivability, of municipal reservoirs and water storage facilities. 3. Calistoga, St. Helena, and Yountville prepare their own detailed plans that supplement and complement the County’s ERP. 4. Each County municipality prepare a plan to ensure rapid repair of the water delivery system and include procedures for emergency water delivery to facilities responsible for providing immediate health and safety aid to the community’s population, especially local hospitals, shelters, and emergency centers. 5. Cities of American Canyon and Napa are encouraged to complete their updated UWMP plans on schedule and train appropriate city and County officials to carry out their specific responsibilities. St. Helena is encouraged to update their UWMP plan on a periodic basis. 6. NCFCWCD conduct a countywide hydro-geologic groundwater survey and develop a management plan as a County priority. 7. BOS develop regulations to ensure adequate groundwater supply for future needs. 8. The City of Napa and NSD identify a process for, and develop an implementation plan to, integrate NSD and PWD into a single department. 9. The County and all municipalities continue development and expansion of recycled water projects to alleviate future water shortages. 10. The County, all municipalities, and NSD investigate the process and economics for the formation of a countywide utility district to benefit the County residents and holistically manage the availability, distribution, and economics of potable and recycled water. 11. St. Helena accelerate its planning process and implementation of distribution and use recycled water. 12. NSD proactively and aggressively identify funding sources to accelerate expansion of recycled water service in Napa. 13. That within six months the City of Napa apply for funding sources for capital improvements to fluoridate water supplies for its three treatment plants in compliance with AB 733. 14. That within six months American Canyon, Calistoga, St. Helena, and Yountville prepare capital cost proposals for fluoridation of their water supplies. COMMENDATIONS The 2009-2010 Grand Jury commends: • American Canyon for its plan to use recycled water to irrigate fields at its new high school and for building recycled water storage capability for other beneficial uses within the City. • Calistoga for its current uses of recycled water and showing forward thinking in seeking to expand recycled water distribution and use. • The Town of Yountville for being the first municipality in the County to recycle a large percentage of its wastewater. • The members of the Flood Control and Water Conservation District and all municipal Public Works departments who have assisted the Grand Jury with reports, maps, and other information sources. The personnel were helpful, efficient, and expert in their contributions. REQUEST FOR RESPONSES The 2009-2010 Grand Jury requests responses to recommendations from: • BOS Recommendations 1,6,7,8,9,10,12 • NCFCWCD Recommendations 1,6 • Napa Sanitation District Recommendations 8,9,0,12 • Public Works Department of American Canyon Recommendations 1,2,4,5,8,9,10,13 • Public Works Department of Calistoga Recommendations 1,2,4,9,10,14 • City of Napa Public Works Department, Water Division Recommendations 1,2,4,5,8,9,10,13 • City of St. Helena Public Works Department Recommendations 1,2,4,9,11,14 • Town of Yountville Public Works Department Recommendations 1,2,4,9,14 • Mayor, American Canyon Recommendations 3,5,9,10,14 • City Council, Calistoga Recommendation 14 • Mayor, St. Helena Recommendations 5,8,9,10,13 • City Council, St. Helena Recommendations 3,5,9,11,14 • Mayor, Yountville Recommendation 14 DEFINITION, GLOSSARY, RESOURCES REVIEWED,
F16: AB 733 mandates fluoridation of public water systems having 10,000 or more connections.
Related Recommendations (2)
R13: That within six months the City of Napa apply for funding sources for capital improvements to fluoridate water supplies for its three treatment plants in compliance with AB 733.
R14: That within six months American Canyon, Calistoga, St. Helena, and Yountville prepare capital cost proposals for fluoridation of their water supplies.
F17: Annual savings in oral healthcare to County residents is projected to exceed the estimated costs of operating water fluoridation systems at the County public water systems.
Related Recommendations (1)
R13-20: 474 112.6 14.0 21and 1,575 409.2 50.9 older Total 3,613 804.7 100 It is likely much of these monies were spent to repair tooth decay. Perhaps if access to fluoridated water was available, using a 49 percent decline in cavities in baby teeth and 60 percent in permanent teeth from fluoridated water, in 2004 the County would have saved more than $150,000. Given the increase in the numbers treated and costs of dental care since 2004, today these savings would be greater. The potential health benefits of fluoridated water to County residents have been studied. In a November 2007 Napa County Community Health Needs Assessment Fact Sheet, dental services were identified as a recommended priority. At that time, based on projections from statewide statistics, a conservative estimate of about 6,680 Napa County residents, newborn to nineteen years of age, have decay requiring treatment, corresponding to about 5 percent of Napa County’s population. Epidemiological evidence suggests that this number would be markedly lower if there was access to fluoridated water. Napa County is significantly behind the curve with respect to fluoridation of its PWS. In 2006, 69 percent of the US population received fluoridated water from municipal water systems. In 2008, 60 percent of California residents received fluoridated water from municipal water systems. One goal of the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) “Healthy People 2010” initiative (www.healthypeople.gov) is to increase the percentage of the population receiving optimally fluoridated water to 75 percent from the current level of 69 percent by 2010. In 2006 the Council of State Governments adopted a resolution encouraging states to “support and adopt community water fluoridation standards.” The State of California has encouraged its counties to invest in fluoridation of its public water systems in various ways including initiatives through CDPH. In 1995 the California legislature passed AB 733, titled “Fluoridation Act,” which was signed into law by Governor Wilson. This bill was sponsored by the CDA. AB 733 mandates fluoridation of public water systems having 10,000 or more connections. Prior to passage of AB 733, California ranked close to the bottom, forty-eight out of fifty states plus the District of Columbia, in the percentage of its population receiving community fluoridated water. AB 733 was subsequently clarified in 2004 by Senate Bill (SB) 96, also sponsored by the CDA. Both AB 733 and SB 96 are unfunded mandates and stipulate exemptions and requirements for its implementation. CDPH is responsible for identifying funds to purchase and install fluoridation equipment for PWS. What Would be the Benefit of Fluoridation to Napa County’s Residents? One estimate suggests that across the state, California taxpayers could have saved about $385 million in dental care costs five years after introduction of fluoridation in community water systems. Aside from the capital costs to build the capability of adding fluoride to its municipal water systems, the cost of providing fluoridated water in community water systems is estimated to be about $0.68 to $0.72 per resident annually depending on the size of the community. With Napa County’s 2008 population estimated by the United States Census Bureau to be 133,400, this translates to a cost of operating a fluoridated water supply countywide at approximately $100,000 annually. This is less than the amount Denti-Cal is estimated to have spent on tooth decay treatment in 2004. Based on this information, the Grand Jury believes water fluoridation is the most economical and cost effective approach to implementing a major oral health preventive measure for the County’s residents. Further, using the above CDA estimate that each $1.00 invested in fluoridated water translates into $140 savings in bills for dental services, this $100,000 annual investment would yield some twelve or more million dollars in savings. Implementing Water Fluoridation in Napa County In 1998 the CDA, Dental Health Foundation, and CDPH formed a partnership to administer a multimillion dollar California Endowment grant for water fluoridation projects. CDPH has responsibility to identify monies for such purchases. It does not appear that any Napa County municipality has sought funding to provide this demonstrated public health benefit. Since the City of Napa has more than 10,000 water connections, it is mandated by AB733 to fluoridate its water. In a March 2, 2003, Napa Valley Register article Phil Brun, general manager for the Napa Water Department, was quoted “…Napa County ranks 17 out of 166 districts on the state’s priority list…” prepared by Department of Health Services. Despite this high ranking, the City of Napa has not applied for funds. This article was the last of a flurry of articles and letters, both for and against fluoridation, in the Napa Valley Register appearing during 2002 and 2003. The City of Napa PWD has estimated the capital costs to implement fluoridation at its three treatment plants to be $1.1 million. Even if the capital costs for the other treatment plants throughout the County were estimated at the highest of those for the City of Napa plants, the total cost for the County’s municipal water systems would be less than $3.5 million. FINDINGS The 2009-2010 Grand Jury finds: 1. Water quality testing in all municipalities in Napa meets current California Department of Public Health and EPA Clean Drinking Water Act requirements. Water Quality Reports are available annually from all Napa County municipalities. 2. In the event of supply disruption from the NBA, the County and its municipalities will depend on water from municipal reservoirs and water storage facilities. 3. The current County Emergency Response Plan (ERP) provides a general framework for a regional response to all emergencies. The Cities of American Canyon and Napa have their own ERPs; other municipalities do not. 4. A major earthquake would likely cause a significant disruption to water delivery infrastructure throughout the County. 5. State law requires the City of Napa and American Canyon to have UWMPs in place and to update them every five years. At present, these are current and are being updated to comply with current law and regulations. 6. Although not required, St. Helena voluntarily prepared a UWMP. 7. Napa County has not completed a detailed hydro-geological study of its groundwater resources since 1973. 8. Recycled water is a non-potable supply option to alleviate demands on potable water programs. 9. In Yountville, eighty-five percent of wastewater is recycled. 10. Calistoga uses 100 to 200 acre-feet per year of its wastewater and distributes it to about twenty locations. 11. St. Helena is not currently using recycled water but is “looking into it.” 12. As more City of Napa water customers convert to using recycled water the revenues for Napa City Water Department decline since recycled water is delivered to customers at a lower rate than potable water. 13. Napa Sanitation District and the City of Napa have agreements to manage transition from using potable to recycled water for new users. 14. None of Napa County’s public water systems fluoridate their water supplies. 15. Fluoridated water has a documented significant oral health benefit and fluoridating water in Napa County was recommended as a component for community dental health improvement. 16. AB 733 mandates fluoridation of public water systems having 10,000 or more connections. 17. Annual savings in oral healthcare to County residents is projected to exceed the estimated costs of operating water fluoridation systems at the County public water systems. 18. No County municipalities have applied for funding to fluoridate their public water systems. RECOMMENDATIONS The 2009-2010 Grand Jury recommends: 1. Municipalities within the County develop, expand, and formalize agreements to provide water allocations to address a catastrophic loss of water. 2. All County municipalities evaluate means to increase the capacity, and enhance the survivability, of municipal reservoirs and water storage facilities. 3. Calistoga, St. Helena, and Yountville prepare their own detailed plans that supplement and complement the County’s ERP. 4. Each County municipality prepare a plan to ensure rapid repair of the water delivery system and include procedures for emergency water delivery to facilities responsible for providing immediate health and safety aid to the community’s population, especially local hospitals, shelters, and emergency centers. 5. Cities of American Canyon and Napa are encouraged to complete their updated UWMP plans on schedule and train appropriate city and County officials to carry out their specific responsibilities. St. Helena is encouraged to update their UWMP plan on a periodic basis. 6. NCFCWCD conduct a countywide hydro-geologic groundwater survey and develop a management plan as a County priority. 7. BOS develop regulations to ensure adequate groundwater supply for future needs. 8. The City of Napa and NSD identify a process for, and develop an implementation plan to, integrate NSD and PWD into a single department. 9. The County and all municipalities continue development and expansion of recycled water projects to alleviate future water shortages. 10. The County, all municipalities, and NSD investigate the process and economics for the formation of a countywide utility district to benefit the County residents and holistically manage the availability, distribution, and economics of potable and recycled water. 11. St. Helena accelerate its planning process and implementation of distribution and use recycled water. 12. NSD proactively and aggressively identify funding sources to accelerate expansion of recycled water service in Napa. 13. That within six months the City of Napa apply for funding sources for capital improvements to fluoridate water supplies for its three treatment plants in compliance with AB 733. 14. That within six months American Canyon, Calistoga, St. Helena, and Yountville prepare capital cost proposals for fluoridation of their water supplies. COMMENDATIONS The 2009-2010 Grand Jury commends: • American Canyon for its plan to use recycled water to irrigate fields at its new high school and for building recycled water storage capability for other beneficial uses within the City. • Calistoga for its current uses of recycled water and showing forward thinking in seeking to expand recycled water distribution and use. • The Town of Yountville for being the first municipality in the County to recycle a large percentage of its wastewater. • The members of the Flood Control and Water Conservation District and all municipal Public Works departments who have assisted the Grand Jury with reports, maps, and other information sources. The personnel were helpful, efficient, and expert in their contributions. REQUEST FOR RESPONSES The 2009-2010 Grand Jury requests responses to recommendations from: • BOS Recommendations 1,6,7,8,9,10,12 • NCFCWCD Recommendations 1,6 • Napa Sanitation District Recommendations 8,9,0,12 • Public Works Department of American Canyon Recommendations 1,2,4,5,8,9,10,13 • Public Works Department of Calistoga Recommendations 1,2,4,9,10,14 • City of Napa Public Works Department, Water Division Recommendations 1,2,4,5,8,9,10,13 • City of St. Helena Public Works Department Recommendations 1,2,4,9,11,14 • Town of Yountville Public Works Department Recommendations 1,2,4,9,14 • Mayor, American Canyon Recommendations 3,5,9,10,14 • City Council, Calistoga Recommendation 14 • Mayor, St. Helena Recommendations 5,8,9,10,13 • City Council, St. Helena Recommendations 3,5,9,11,14 • Mayor, Yountville Recommendation 14 DEFINITION, GLOSSARY, RESOURCES REVIEWED,
F18: No County municipalities have applied for funding to fluoridate their public water systems.
Related Recommendations (2)
R13: That within six months the City of Napa apply for funding sources for capital improvements to fluoridate water supplies for its three treatment plants in compliance with AB 733.
R14: That within six months American Canyon, Calistoga, St. Helena, and Yountville prepare capital cost proposals for fluoridation of their water supplies.
Findings & Recommendations 3 findings
F1: Napa County does not currently track juvenile recidivism with the exception of those minors participating in programs funded by the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: The County develop and implement a standardized program to track recidivism for all juvenile offenders.
F2: NVUSD is not required to provide current course work, for minors incarcerated at Juvenile Hall in a timely matter.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: NVUSD, in conjunction with NCJH personnel, establish and implement a re-entry program for youth returning from Juvenile Hall.
F3: There is no re-entry counseling for minors returning to NVUSD schools from NCJH.
Findings & Recommendations 6 findings
F1: The NCDC Policy and Procedures Manual does not require NCJ personnel to cooperate with outside investigative agencies including the Napa County Grand Jury without resorting to a subpoena process.
F2: Jail population at the time of the Grand Jury inspection was 265 in a facility built to house a maximum of 264 inmates. Jail population since the last Grand Jury inspection has at times exceeded 300 inmates.
F3: The NCDC website states: Various types of programs are offered to the inmates while in custody. They include: Adult Education, GED, Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous, Anger Management, Parenting, Bible Studies, Private Counseling, Group Discussion, Class Discussion, Independent Studies, Tutoring, Audio/Visual presentations, etc. An inmate in custody wanting to make positive changes in his/her life, will be given every opportunity to do so and will be reinforced by the staff members.
F4: No more than three of the programs listed in Finding No. 3 are regularly scheduled and/or conducted.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: NCDC make efforts to provide all programs described on its website.
F5: Inmates with mental health issues are a serious safety concern for NCDC staff.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: NCDC open discussions with NSH, HHS Mental Health Services, and the District Attorney’s office to identify safe and secure ways to house inmates with mental illness while still allowing active psychiatric treatment.
F6: Inmate recidivism is neither tracked nor documented in Napa County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: Napa County in cooperation with NCDC, the District Attorney's Office, and the Adult Probation Department develop methods to track recidivism and measure the effectiveness of evidence-based programs. 11
Findings & Recommendations 14 findings
F1: The original intent of the NCTPA was to provide transportation services for Napa County residents.
F2: Staffing and funding was increased to provide non-transportation services
F3: The NCTPA has become the de-facto forward planning agency for Napa County and its municipalities.
F4: Fare box collections account for approximately 15 percent of the 2009- 2010 VINE Operating Cost of $4,736,713.
F5: The current NCTPA budget is difficult to understand due to combining transportation and non-transportation revenue and expenses.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: Prepare and publish a budget summary each year with sufficient detail which can be easily understood by the public
F6: VINE ridership is trending downward increasing the cost per person trip
F7: Passenger subsidies have doubled in the past eight years.
F8: New state of the art vehicles have been purchased and more ordered while ridership is decreasing.
F9: Many activities of the NCTPA “Overall Work Program F/Y 2009-2010” are for non-transportation related activities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: Focus on NCTPA stated main purpose of providing for transportation planning and services delivery
F10: The BOD of the NCTPA has failed to follow up on certain audit findings and recommendations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: Create oversight committees, including an audit committee
F11: The BOD approves issues with potential policy and financial impact by consent agenda without discussion.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: Create oversight committees, including an audit committee
F12: The Agricultural Workers Vanpool Program started with a pilot program under a State grant and the program needs to be self-sufficient by June 2011.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5: Develop a plan for the Agricultural Worker Vanpool Program to be self sufficient after June 2011
F13: The Single Audit Report 2008-2009 indicates there were eight areas of deficiency, some of which had been brought to the attention of the BOD in previous audits.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: Correct the deficiencies listed in the latest outside audit and other regulatory agency reviews 14
F14: The NCTPA was able to secure ARRA funds for the repair/maintenance of local and county roadways. Continuation of funding for future repair and maintenance programs throughout the County is unclear.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6: Establish a plan to seek ongoing funding for street and roadway repair and maintenance REQUEST FOR RESPONSES The Grand Jury requests responses from: NCTPA Board of Directors for all re
Findings & Recommendations 11 findings
F1: No BOS or HHS documents relating to identification of facilities subsequent to 1996 were located. The list of facilities currently in use does not correspond to BOS actions in documents reviewed.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: The BOS update and issue the list of County personnel authorized to sign a 5150 hold.
F2: There is no documentation of BOS actions designating Napa County personnel having authority to administer a 5150 hold, although such action was mandated by the LPS Act.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: The BOS establish a procedure which requires periodic review and update of the list of County personnel authorized to issue a 5150 hold.
F3: ERP is a memorandum of understanding among the involved agencies and is not an adopted official policy of the participating government agencies or health care facilities. 9
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: The BOS update and issue the list of agencies authorized to perform a 5150 psychiatric evaluation.
F4: Among members of the ESORC, as well as other staff members of HHS Mental Health Department, there is an inconsistent understanding of the of the ERP and the roles of participating staff and organizations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: The BOS establish a procedure which requires periodic review and update of the list of agencies authorized to perform a 5150 psychiatric evaluation. 10
F5: Meetings of all participating County staff involved in the administration of the WIC Section 5150-5157 are held on an ad hoc basis.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5: HHS adopt the Mental Health Director’s protocol for a “Treatment Team” approach to coordinate delivery of mental health services to its clients, including those who are evaluated as 5150 candidates for further evaluation and treatment.
F6: There is no current signed contract between the County and NSH to receive individuals referred for a 5150 hold. The FY 2008-2009 contract was signed by the County on February 23, 2010, and is awaiting State signature; the FY 2009-2010 contract has not been received from the State, consequently services and payment are taking place under a “term sheet” and without an approved contract.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6: From the following governing bodies: • Napa County Board of Supervisors: Recommendation 1,2, 3, 4, 6, 7 11
F7: Although the City of Napa has 75 percent of the County’s population, it utilizes 87 percent of the County’s mental health services.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7: The BOS review the ERP and adopt it as a formal policy for the implementation of WIC Section 5150 in Napa County.
F8: The ESORC does not include any Calistoga or St. Helena public safety members or St. Helena Hospital staff members.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8: HHS establish satellite Centers to provide better access to services in the up valley communities and in American Canyon.
F9: HHS policies and procedures the Grand Jury reviewed are not consistently numbered nor is there a document history showing that annual reviews have been performed according to HHS policy. One policy dates from 2000 without evidence of review or updating.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9: HHS implement a procedure whereby all policies and procedures are numbered and their review and revision history becomes an integral part of the policy or procedure.
F10: HHS Involuntary Detention Data for fiscal years 2005-2006 and 2006- 2007 reported to DMH does not correspond to internal data for these involuntary detentions.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10: HHS modify the reporting of involuntary detentions statistics to Department of Mental Health to ensure these data accurately reflect the 5150 holds administered by the County.
F11: HHS has prepared a “Treatment Team” protocol to enhance coordination and delivery of mental services.
Findings & Recommendations 13 findings
F1: Napa County was awarded $10,628,707 in ARRA grants.
F2: ARRA tracking, grant compliance, and reporting procedures were implemented.
F3: Separate accounting mechanisms were set up within the General Fund that allow for accurate ARRA tracking and transparency.
F4: Napa County department representatives attended training workshops pertaining to fraud and misuse of funds and/or materials.
F5: Departments involved in fraud or misuse are subject to review by County Counsel.
F6: ARRA projects are reimbursement based; the County submits requests to the State for reimbursement. ARRA funds are transferred from the Federal government to the State and then to the County.
F7: California has forty-five calendar days from receipt of an undisputed claim to forward funds based on county reimbursement requests.
F8: Napa County employees keep current with changing State guidelines.
F9: Napa County employees have expressed concern about receiving vague information from the State and difficulty in receiving written information.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1: Formal reporting procedures to the BOS be instituted requiring that the Board receive quarterly ARRA expenditures updates from the Auditor- Controller and CEO at the first BOS meeting immediately after each report is submitted to the State.
R2: The CEO provide quarterly ARRA expenditures updates for residents via the County website immediately following the BOS review.
F10: ARRA grant information is posted on the County website (www.countyofnapa.org).
F11: ARRA updates and information will be presented for the first time to the BOS beginning in April 2010 and continue quarterly thereafter.
F12: All departments awarded ARRA funds are required to file reports with the Auditor-Controller’s department which are approved by the Auditor- Controller before being submitted to the State.
F13: County Policies and Procedures specific to ARRA have not been written. 8
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: The Auditor-Controller develop written policy and procedures that pertain specifically to ARRA.
Findings & Recommendations 13 findings
F1: The County’s intent was to provide funds for the initial operational support of the District.
F2: The BOS anticipated a base level of funding to the District of $350,000 per year (with adjustments for inflation, and adopted labor agreements) and an additional amount for election costs.
F3: In formation of the District, the BOS did not acknowledge any additional need for acquisition and capital improvement funding above the base level of funding.
F4: The BOS anticipated costs to the County in future years would be reduced as the District is successful in obtaining its own outside funds.
F5: All increased TOT taxes collected go to a SPF within the County’s General Fund and are allocated as directed by the BOS.
F6: In the most recent distribution of the SPF in FY 2008-2009, 60 percent was allocated to the District, 30 percent to the NVDC, and 10 percent to the Arts Council Napa Valley. The BOS Resolution No. 07-97 of July 18, 2009, providing principles for allocation of the SPF will expire June 30, 2010.
F8: District budgets do not differentiate between County and outside sources of funds for acquisitions and capital improvements.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1: The District present the annual budget to the public in such a way as to state clearly which funds are obtained from the County and which are from outside grants for operations, capital improvements, and acquisitions.
R2: The District disclose to the public, by notation, the SPAF funding and disbursements in both the District’s annual budget and audit report.
F9: The annual allocation of the SPF for the District’s operation and capital improvements, plus an additional $200,000 per year is designated in the SPF for use by the District for the anticipated future purchase of Skyline Park.
F10: The District has been operating within the limits of the SPF as currently allocated by the BOS.
F11: The District has the authority to raise revenues through some types of property assessments and taxes if approved by the voters.
F12: The FY 2009-2010 District Budget, dated May 11, 2009, indicates an increase in funding from the County.
F13: The County anticipates a reduction in the SPF available in the FY 2010- 2011 due to the decline in TOT collections.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: The District staff prepare a plan and timeline for a reduction in County funding and present it to the BOD.
F14: The District is currently considering whether to form its own non-profit foundation or join an existing community foundation. 11

* 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.