Napa County Grand Jury
2009-2010
Quick View
Full Details →
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
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
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
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. Response, County Auditor-Controller. The recommendation has been implemented. At the April 13, 2010 BOS meeting, the Auditor-Controller and CEO presented a fiscal summary of each award to date. The summary included information on each award as follows: the program name, the project description, the amount awarded, the payments received and the project status. This report is also uploaded on the County's website for public viewing and will be updated quarterly, corresponding with the State reporting requirements.
R3:
The Auditor-Controller develop written policy and procedures that pertain specifically to ARRA. Response, County Auditor-Controller. This recommendation has been implemented. The Auditor-Controller does not set County policies. However, she has established internal County-wide accounting procedures specifically regarding ARRA. As a new grant is awarded, a meeting is set between staff of the Auditor-Controller and key fiscal and program staff of the department receiving the award. The accounting procedures are disseminated and the award deadlines, reporting requirements and expectations are understood. Monthly reviews are completed and quarterly reports are reconciled prior to submission to the State.
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.
Quick View
Full Details →
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.
Quick View
Full Details →
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
Quick View
Full Details →
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
15 findings
F3:
One of the thirteen lawyers carried on the staff of the County Counsel serves as an executive administrator for another County agency. Response, County Counsel. County Counsel disagrees with this finding since no member of the staff of the County Counsel serves as an executive administrator for another County agency.
F4:
Within the County Counsel's Office there is concern that a comprehensive list of primary and secondary lawyer assignments is not kept current. Response, County Counsel. County Counsel agrees with the finding although due to the small size of the office and constant interaction between the various attorneys this is not viewed by County Counsel as a significant problem. Typically updates occur every other year, or when new attorneys join the office. To address the concern updates will occur more frequently. See response to Recommendation #3.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
A procedure be established to maintain an up-to-date listing of primary and secondary lawyer assignments. Response, County Counsel. The recommendation will be implemented in the near future. A written policy will be developed requiring that the attorney assignment lists be reviewed, revised if necessary, and distributed not later than 90 days following the end of each fiscal year. Additionally the policy will require an evaluation of the need for a possible redistribution of work load within 60 days of a new attorney joining the office.
F5:
Face-to-face annual evaluation discussions between the supervisor and employee do not always take place. 2008-09 Grand Jury Report Response 1 County of Napa Office of the County Counsel Response, County Counsel. County Counsel mostly disagrees with this finding. Face to face evaluations always occur following the completion of an evaluation and before it is submitted to Human Resources for processing. That being said, there may have been a rare situation involving a senior employee of the office where a face to face meeting did not occur. However, the County Counsel cannot recall any such instance.
F6:
Paralegal and administrative evaluations are timely; lawyer evaluations are generally delinquent by several months. Response, County Counsel. County Counsel partially agrees and partially disagrees with this finding. Paralegal and administrative evaluations have been timely for many years. Attorney evaluations were current for several years but beginning at some point in 2007 some of the evaluations of attorneys who have been with the office for extended periods of time have not been completed in a timely manner. However, evaluations of new attorneys have always been completed in a timely manner. The delinquent evaluations are being brought up to date and all are expected to be current by the end of July 2009. Finding #7. Staff meetings are infrequent. Response, County Counsel. County Counsel agrees with this finding to the extent meetings of the entire 21 person staff is being referenced. In response to the Grand Jury's finding, bimonthly meetings of the entire staff are being scheduled rather than the two or three meetings a year that have been historically scheduled. Meetings with smaller divisions within the office, which presently occur more frequently than meetings of the entire staff, will also be increased in frequency. One-on-one meetings with staff to discuss specific legal issues, which are frequent, will continue. See response to
F8:
The County Counsel's office does not have a formal conflict of interest policy. Response, County Counsel. County Counsel agrees with this finding. Representational conflict of interest issues are presently addressed on a case by case basis. Although this office does not have a formal conflict of interest policy, the County as a whole has a formal conflict of interest policy that is followed. A conflict of interest policy focused on conflicts of interest that develop when multiple departments or agencies with competing adverse interests request representation by the Office of the County Counsel will be developed on a priority basis. See response to Recommendation #8.
F9:
The County Counsel's office is well run; employees are not micro-managed. Response, County Counsel. County Counsel agrees with the finding.
F10:
County Counsel lawyers generally stay out of client policy issues. 2 2008-09 Grand Jury Report Response County of Napa Office of the County Counsel Response, County Counsel. County Counsel agrees with the finding.
F11:
The quality of some written documents to clients needs improvement. Response, County Counsel. County Counsel agrees with this finding due to the inclusion of the word "some" in the finding. Client Satisfaction surveys which have regularly been conducted since 1995 have consistently evaluated the office at the high "4" to mid "5" levels in the areas of providing decisive and understandable written legal advice as well as providing a high quality work product (Scale is 6=Exceptional; 5=Excellent; 4=Fair; 3=Poor; 2=Unacceptable). Nonetheless there is always room for improvement particularly in the area of the dozens of written agreements that are reviewed and approved each year by the office.
F12:
Personnel within the County Counsel's office have been briefed on the current County Counsel succession plan and, although concerned about who the next County Counsel may be, are supportive of the plan. Response, County Counsel. County Counsel agrees with the finding. Finding #13. There is very low turnover in County Counsel personnel. Response, County Counsel. County Counsel agrees that historically this has been the case.
F14:
County Counsel's lawyers and staff personnel are located in three separate rooms. Response, County Counsel. County Counsel agrees with the finding. This separation is required. A "firewall" exit is required by fire regulations due to the presence of a large meeting room on the same floor on which County Counsel is located (i.e. the room where the Board of Supervisors meets). That firewall hallway exit and the overall layout of the building requires that the main office of the County Counsel be separated from the two smaller offices and prevents the two smaller offices from being merged. See response to
F15:
Workload assignments are changed in an attempt to level the hours, but this leveling action generally occurs only on a one to two-year basis. Response, County Counsel. County Counsel agrees with the finding. See response to
F16:
The archaic time/billing system wastes lawyer and administrative staff time, impedes accurate client billing and makes workload leveling more difficult. Response, County Counsel. County Counsel agrees with the finding and routinely asks in its annual budget submittal that a more modern time and billing system be funded. The 3 2008-09 Grand Jury Report Response County of Napa Office of the County Counsel current time and billing system has been in use for approximately 15 years and is badly in need of an upgrade. See response to Recommendation #7. Response, County Executive Officer. County Executive Officer agrees with the Grand Jury finding that the time/billing system is archaic. However, as stated in County Executive Officer's response to Recommendation #7, it appears that the two-step process of inputting time is what is causing most inefficiency. Unless that issue is resolved, there may not be improved efficiency by procuring a new system. County Executive Officer disagrees with the finding that the existing system impedes accurate client billing. Based on the data received from the County Counsel's office, it appears that the existing system is capturing all billable hours.
F17:
Small Claims advice to the public is provided by the County Counsel's office. Response, County Counsel. County Counsel agrees with the finding.
F18:
The Grand Jury was recently denied County Counsel legal representation in a dispute with a County agency over records release. Response, County Counsel. County Counsel agrees with this finding. The Office of the County Counsel has historically not represented the Grand Jury where both the Grand Jury and a county department are taking adverse positions and both seek representation. In such a case the office cannot ethically represent each side. The Office of the County Counsel does represent the Grand Jury when non-county agencies are involved. The formal conflict of interest policy the office will be developing on a priority basis will address this issue after discussing the matter with the Court Executive Officer and, if the Court Executive Officer deems it appropriate, the Presiding Judge of the Napa Courts - Grand Jury. See response to Finding #8. Finding #19. The Grand Jury does not have a vehicle to provide timely independent counsel services if County Counsel refuses to provide legal representation. Response, County Counsel. County Counsel partially agrees and partially disagrees with this finding. Various sections of the Penal Code provide that if the Office of the County Counsel has a conflict the Grand Jury may seek representation from the District Attorney (§935), Attorney General (§936) or special counsel (§936.5). However, securing special counsel is subject to two preconditions. First, the approval of the presiding judge of the superior court must be secured after a noticed evidentiary hearing on the conflict issue. Second, the presiding judge of the superior court cannot approve a request for special counsel unless the County Auditor-Controller certifies that the Grand Jury has funds appropriated to it that are sufficient to compensate the special counsel. Whether the Attorney General would support the Grand Jury in a local non criminal investigation is an unknown. Thus County Counsel agrees with the Grand Jury that in the absence of the District Attorney providing representation in the event the County Counsel has an ethical 2008-09 Grand Jury Report Response 4 County of Napa Office of the County Counsel conflict the process of retaining securing counsel may not be timely considering the time pressures under which Grand Juries typically operate.
F20:
The County Counsel's staff has available to it adequate and updated legal reference sources. Response, County Counsel. County Counsel agrees with the finding.
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
There is currently an estimated 80 percent recidivism rate among inmates. Response, Director of Corrections: The Director of Corrections disagrees with this finding. There are different standards by which various jurisdictions measure recidivism rates. Some are based upon arrests only while others rely on conviction within a certain period of time. The timeframe is also varied by jurisdiction as some agencies consider three years as the relevant period for determining recidivism while others have lower timeframes. Napa County has not specified a timeframe by which recidivism rates will be tracked nor has the definition for measuring recidivism in Napa County been determined, thus the County of Napa has not yet stated an actual recidivism rate. It is unclear how the Grand Jury estimated the above-mentioned recidivism rate as there is no data provided to support this claim, nor does the Grand Jury define what it means by "recidivism."
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Implement Evidence Based Programs in an effort to reduce the recidivism rate. Response, Director of Corrections: This recommendation has not been fully implemented, but will be implemented in the future. At the present time, the Community Corrections Service Center (CCSC) program has been expanded to include in-custody inmates. The Department has also created an Evidence Based Practices Jail Committee to identify programs and practices to implement in the jail. We hope to expand from just the CCSC program to include other programs by December 2009. Response, Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors concurs with the response of the Director of Corrections.
F2:
The NCJ does not have the staff or capacity to house pre-sentenced mentally ill patients who commit violent crimes at Napa State Hospital. Response, Director of Corrections. The Director of Corrections agrees with this finding. The Napa County Department of Corrections does house pre-sentenced, seriously mentally ill patients accused of committing crimes at Napa State Hospital. Over the past two years, the Department of Corrections has seen an increase in the number of incidents related to this population. The Department of Corrections is not a mental health facility and therefore is not required to provide the same level of support and services that this population receives when housed at the Napa State Hospital. The intensive level of mental health support provided to this population is drastically reduced once Napa State Hospital patients are housed at the jail. The Department of Corrections meets the mental health provision standards for jail facilities as defined in Title 15 and 24 of the California Code of Regulations. County staff has been diligent in providing the needed services to the extent possible. Nevertheless, the jail will most certainly lack the level of service that the mental health hospital can provide. Please see the Department's response to
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
for additional information. Response, Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors concurs with the response of the Director of Corrections. Additionally, the Board of Supervisors believes that in most cases, Napa State Hospital patients are better served by and should remain at Napa State Hospital or another relevant State facility pending the adjudication process. County staff, lead by the Director of Health and Human Services, continues to work with Napa State Hospital to discuss these issues. I 2008-09 Grand Jury Report Response Napa County Criminal Justice Facilities: County Jail and Juvenile Hall
F3:
Ten percent of the staff is bi-lingual; however, many inmates speak Spanish only. Response, Director of Corrections: The Director of Corrections agrees with this finding. The Department of Corrections always recruits in an attempt to create a diverse staff that meet the demographics of the population. We have a number of staff that are bi-lingual and able to address the needs of the inmate population. In addition to the line staff, we also have support staff and supervisors that are bi-lingual. This has not been an issue of concern to the Department. The Department of Corrections will continue to attract highly capable staff with specialized skills including the ability to communicate in Spanish as positions become vacant. Please see the Department's response to Recommendation 3 for additional information.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Make an effort to recruit more bi-lingual staff. Response, Director of Corrections: This recommendation will not been implemented because it is not warranted. The Director of Corrections believes that there are currently a sufficient number of bi-lingual officers and support staff and that communication with bi- lingual inmates is not an issue of concern. The Department of Corrections currently has no vacancies for fulltime Correctional Officers and this recommendation cannot even be considered until a vacancy exists. Although it is acknowledged that having additional bi- lingual staff is always beneficial, the fact remains that we have not experienced any delay in service with the number of staff we currently have that are bi-lingual. Response, Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors concurs with the response of the Director of Corrections.
F4:
There are currently no pre-release programs to integrate inmates into the community. Response, Director of Corrections: The Director of Corrections disagrees with this finding. The Community Corrections Service Center (CCSC) opened on March 1, 2009 and now includes a program for in-custody inmates and has the ability to serve pre- sentenced inmates as part of a pre-release program. Additionally, as part of the Fiscal Year 2009-2010 budget, the Department of Corrections has made the recommendation to reclassify positions in order to create a classification team that would be instrumental in providing evidence based assessments to assist with making decisions about which pre- trial inmates could safely be integrated in the community pending the adjudication process. The Director of Corrections does agree that additional pre-release programs are needed and the Department of Corrections is working with the Criminal Justice Committee on improving this area.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Relocate the jail and CCSC out of downtown Napa. Response, Director of Corrections: This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not reasonable. The Board of Supervisors has agreed that the jail should remain in the downtown area for a variety of logistical reasons. This is not a recommendation that can be implemented without a considerable fiscal impact to the County. Moving the jail out of the downtown area creates several issues related to inmate transportation, access to courts, attorneys, cost of land and buildings, as well as adoption of new California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation regulations concerning facility design. The Community Corrections Service Center (CCSC) provides services to offenders both in-custody and out of custody. Moving the CCSC out of the downtown area would create significant transportation issues for clients and staff. In addition, having CCSC located in close proximity to the Courts and the Probation Department is beneficial. The Grand Jury did not provide a rationale for moving the jail or the CCSC out of the downtown area so it is unclear how this recommendation was determined. Response, Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors concurs with the response of the Director of Corrections. The Board of Supervisors has addressed the jail location issue as part of the Adult Correctional System Master Plan and believes that given the issues listed above, the jail shall remain in the downtown area.
F5:
The current configuration of the NCJ cannot accommodate the number and classification of inmates. Response, Director of Corrections: The Director of Corrections disagrees in part and agrees in part with this finding. The jail does have challenges with regard to classification and population concerns. The Adult Correctional System Master Plan has identified issues related to the ability of the current jail configuration to continue to meet the housing classification and population needs. The Criminal Justice Committee has worked with jail facility consultants to identify these issues and propose a remodeled or replacement facility that addresses the appropriate mix of beds needed to meet the County's needs. Given that any new jail facility would not be open for several more years, the Department of Corrections has implemented policies to minimize the impacts of these issues. For example, the Director of Corrections has the authority under Penal Code Sections 4024.1 and 4018.6 to authorize a 5-day or 3-day early release when certain situations, in some cases including overcrowding in either the housing unit or jail facility, exist. The Department has been conducting regular county parole hearings and is moving steadily towards using electronic monitoring as a standard tool in some instances to reduce crowding. Additionally, the Director of Corrections has proposed a small reorganization to create a classification team within the Department of Corrections. Once implemented, this team will begin reviewing evidence based classification instruments and be responsible for appropriately classifying each inmate in the facility. Given that the current system in place is outdated, this may help address some of the issues currently identified. Both the Department of Corrections and the County Executive Office monitor the jail population daily. While there have been some days over the last year where the jail population has spiked considerably, the average daily population has remained well below the 264 bed capacity. The Director of Corrections will continue to monitor these issues closely.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Allocate a portion of the inmate trust fund for substantive job skills training to assist inmates in transition to the community. Response, Director of Corrections: This recommendation requires further analysis as the ability to use the inmate trust fund is governed by the California Penal Code. The Evidence Based Practices Jail Committee will evaluate several programs for consideration of implementation inside the jail. It is possible that one or more of these programs might have a job skills training component. However, the program must be measurable in its results and meet the needs of the facility. It is unlikely, given the space limitations within the facility and the average inmate length of stay, that substantial job skills training is feasible. The Department will be able to determine this on a case-by-case basis once the committee has evaluated various programs. The Department of Corrections hopes to complete this analysis and implement new programs before December 2009. Response, Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors concurs with the response of the Director of Corrections.
F6:
Evidence Based Programs as recommended by the Napa County Adult Correctional System Mater Plan do not yet exist. Response, Director of Corrections: The Director of Corrections agrees in part and disagrees in part with this finding. The Community Corrections Service Center, opened March 1, 2009, includes an in-custody component. The program is evidence based and is new. The Department of Corrections has cancelled all non-evidence based programming in the jail and has created an Evidence Based Programs Jail Committee to identify programs that we might implement at the jail based upon our staffing and special needs. The committee will evaluate programs at other jails and will make recommendations to the Director of Corrections. Please see the Department's response to Recommendation 1 for additional information.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The County's IT Department maintains and repairs the Jail's computer system. Response, Director of Corrections: This recommendation requires further analysis pending discussions between the Director of Corrections and the County's Chief Information Officer. The Director of Corrections acknowledges the need to improve the maintenance and repair of the jail's computer system and hopes to discuss and resolve this issue by December 2009. Response, Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors concurs with the response of the Director of Corrections. 2008-09 Grand Jury Report Response JUVENILE HALL
F7:
Parolee services and CCSC located in downtown Napa pose a potential public safety concern. Response, Director of Corrections. The Director of Corrections disagrees with this finding. Parolee services have been provided at the Hall of Justice for a number of years and to our knowledge, have not resulted in any public safety issues. The Grand Jury report references approximately 300 parolees standing in line for weekly drug testing outside of the Hall of Justice. It is unclear how this number was determined. A 2007 report (most recent available) from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation indicates that there are only 197 parolees in Napa County. It is the Department of Corrections belief that only 25-30 parolees report to the Hall of Justice each week to meet with the parole officer. It is acknowledged that the public perception of a large number of parolees standing outside the Hall of Justice for drug testing might be negative. Parole agents incharge of the Napa location were also advised of this concern. To alleviate the immediate concern, the parolee drug testing times were moved to non-business hours. The location is ideal as most parolees are also part of our local criminal justice system and often have business in court and report to the Probation Department. Due to the limited public transportation available throughout the County, moving the parolee services outside of the downtown area may create significant transportation barriers to the parolees. The Community Corrections Service Center (CCSC) clients are supervised by the CCSC staff and are under the general supervision of the Probation Department. Again, the Department of Corrections is unaware of any public safety issues to date. If there were any incidents, this location provides for immediate law enforcement response through Sheriff's Deputies assigned to the courts as well as the Napa Police Department.
F8:
There is no Information Technology Department support to maintain and repair the computer system, which controls the locking system, intercoms, security cameras, and elevators. Response, Director of Corrections.: The Director of Corrections agrees with this finding. The support to maintain and repair the master control system rests with an outside vendor. The Director of Corrections has had some initial discussion with the Napa County Information Technology Services Division concerning the feasibility of obtaining some support during emergencies and other events. Please see the Department's response to Recommendation 6 for additional information.
Findings & Recommendations
20 findings
F1:
The Adult Probation Department is incorporating Evidence Based Practices in dealing with persons placed on Probation in an effort to reduce recidivism. Response, Chief Probation Officer: The Chief Probation Officer agrees with this finding.
F2:
Probationers are rated by a Probation Officer in the Court Unit using an Evidence Based Assessment tool to assess the likelihood of re-offending. The probationers are placed in risk groups designated as very low, low, medium, high and very high. Response, Chief Probation Officer: The Chief Probation Officer agrees with this finding.
F3:
The re-offending rating, which is not necessarily correlated to the seriousness of the offense committed, is included in the pre-sentencing report prepared for the Court by the Court Unit of the Probation Department. Response, Chief Probation Officer: The Chief Probation Officer agrees with this finding.
F4:
The degree of supervision by the Supervision Unit of the Adult Probation Department is a function of the re-offending rating. Response, Chief Probation Officer: The Chief Probation Officer agrees with this finding.
F5:
Probationers are placed into groups based on the types of offense committed and their offender rating. Each group is covered by one or more probation officers. Response, Chief Probation Officer: The Chief Probation Officer agrees with this finding.
F6:
There are insufficient rehabilitation programs available to the probation officers for use with probationers. Of those rehabilitation programs that are available, few are Evidence Based Programs. 2008-09 Grand Jury Report Response . Response, Chief Probation Officer: The Chief Probation Officer disagrees partially with this finding. All of the programs offered by Probation or the Community Corrections Service Center are evidence based.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Adult Probation Department identify and increase the number of evidence based programs, either "in house" or by outside contractors, to be used by the Probation Officers to assist probationers to achieve cognitive changes so as to reduce recidivism. Response, Chief Probation Officer: This recommendation has been implemented. Since the time the Grand Jury was conducting interviews, additional staff has been trained as cognitive behavioral group facilitators. The Department recently graduated three classes in the adult division. The felony offender and parenting curriculums were conducted with successful results and graduation celebrations were held for each of these programs. The Department has plans to conduct employment, felony offender and substance abuse curriculums in the coming months. Additionally, the Community Corrections Service Center opened on March 2, 2009 and currently provides evidence based programming to 2008-09 Grand Jury Report Response more than 50 adult probationers. The Chief Probation Officer will continue to explore cost effective ways to offer evidence based programming to more probationers. Response, Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors concurs with the response of the Chief Probation Officer.
F7:
The number of programs available for the mentally ill probationer is inadequate. Response, Chief Probation Officer. The Chief Probation Officer agrees with this finding. There are very few mental health services in the community available to non Medi-Cal clients. The majority of the mentally ill probationers do not qualify for Medi- Cal or other mental health services.
F8:
Upon completion of probation, the Adult Probation Department does not inform the probationer of California Penal Code Section 1203.4 concerning the possible dismissal of the probationer's case. Response, Chief Probation Officer. The Chief Probation Officer agrees with this finding. Please see the Department's response to Recommendation 7 for additional information.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
for additional information.
R7:
The Adult Probation Department's letter to the probationer informing them probation has been completed include a recital of California Penal Code Section 1203.4 concerning the possible dismissal of the probationers case. Response, Chief Probation Officer: This recommendation has not been implemented but will be implemented in the future. Currently, at the start of a probationary period, the probationer meets with his or her officer and the information in California Penal Code Section 1203.4 is discussed. Most probationers are on probation for a period of three or five years. It makes sense to review this code section with the probationer at the end of their term as well. In the next three months, the letter sent to a probationer at the end of their term of probation will be modified to include Penal Code Section 1203.4 language. . 2008-09 Grand Jury Report Response
F9:
Probation Officers, who are not armed except for pepper spray and handcuffs, can be exposed to potential harm when they perform unannounced search of a probationer's home and to a lesser degree to a "knock and talk" visit to a probationer's listed home address. Response, Chief Probation Officer: The Chief Probation Officer disagrees partially with this finding. While there is always the potential for risk when Probation Officers see their clients, that risk is mitigated in the field by always having law enforcement present during searches. Probation Officers never go on a "knock and talk" alone. There are always two Probation Officers and two Sheriff Deputies or Police Officer present during a search and two Probation Officers present during the "knock and talks."
F10:
The placement of furniture in a Probation Officer's office or cubicle could be a safety hazard if a probationer becomes violent. Response, Chief Probation Officer: The Chief Probation Officer agrees with this finding. Each officer receives safety training including office set-up instructions to reduce risk if a probationer were to become violent.
F11:
The alarm system is slow to provide assistance to the Probation Officer who activates the alarm. Response, Chief Probation Officer: The Chief Probation Officer agrees with this finding. Efforts continue to be made to improve the alarm system. 2008-09 Grand Jury Report Response
F12:
There is no secure holding area in the Adult Probation Department for holding probationers awaiting transfer from the Adult Probation Department to the Booking Department of the County Jail. Response, Chief Probation Officer: The Chief Probation Officer agrees with this finding. The Chief Probations Officer continues to work with the Director of Corrections to address this issue. Please see the Department's response to Recommendation 3 for additional information.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The security within the Adult Probation Department, inclusive of creating a secure holding area for holding arrested probationers awaiting transport to the Jail Booking Department be increased. Response, Chief Probation Officer: The recommendation has not been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. The Probation Department continues to look at ways to increase office safety, particularly in regards to holding arrested probationers awaiting transport. The Chief Probation Officer and the Director of Corrections have been working jointly to address this issue and expect that a better system will be developed and implemented within the next six months. Response, Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors concurs with the response of the Chief Probation Officer.
F13:
The procedure for a Probation Officer to "wand" probationers outside the Adult Probation Department's office does not include a protocol when weapons are detected on the probationer. Response, Chief Probation Officer: The Chief Probation Officer disagrees with this finding. The current policy and procedure on "wanding" addresses how to respond when a weapon is located.
F14:
The entrance to the Hall of Justice is not monitored and therefore is not secure. Response, Chief Probation Officer: The Chief Probation Officer disagrees in part with this finding. While it is true that the Hall of Justice entrance is not monitored, it is unclear what is meant by "secure." If the Grand Jury means that the Hall of Justice is not a secure facility, like the Jail, where access is strictly controlled, visitors are searched and escorted, etc., then the Chief Probation Officer agrees with the Grand Jury. However, if the Grand Jury means that there are significant safety or security issues in the Hall of Justice, then the Chief Probation Officer does not necessarily agree. The Hall of Justice houses several County agencies and employees in addition to the Adult Probation Department, including the Sheriff Deputies that act as court security officers. These Deputies regularly pass through the Hall of Justice and are available to respond to emergency situations. The Chief Probation Officer is not aware of any major public safety or security issues that have occurred in the Hall of Justice and it is unclear how the Grand Jury concluded that the Hall of Justice was not secure. There are no safety or security issues in the Hall of Justice.
F15:
The relatively high turnover of Probation Officers is due to the lack of upward mobility within the Department and the attractiveness of "safety officers" status with the additional pension and retirement benefits offered to Probation Officers by neighboring counties. Response, Chief Probation Officer: The Chief Probation Officer disagrees with this finding. The Grand Jury reported that in an eighteen-month period between 2007 and 2008, ten Probation Officers and one Management Officer have left the Probation Department for jobs in counties that offer greater retirement and employee retiree health benefits. It is unclear how the Grand Jury reached this conclusion. A review by the Chief Probation Officer and the Human Resources Department indicate that in calendar year 2008-09 Grand Jury Report Response 2007, only four Probation Officers resigned from their respective positions. Of these four, only one made it clear that they took a job as a Probation Officer in their county of residence (Sonoma) because of enhanced retirement benefits. Of the remaining three, one took a job as a Probation Officer in Sacramento County to be closer to family, one moved out of state for a spouse's job and one transferred to a police agency. In calendar year 2008, two Probation Officers resigned, of which one took a job as a parole agent and one transferred to their county of residence (Sacramento). Two of the six officers that resigned in either 2007 or 2008 have since been rehired as Probation Officers by Napa County. Additionally, one Supervising Probation Officer took a non-safety promotional management position in the Department of Corrections in 2008. The Probation Officer turnover rate was approximately 8.8% in 2007 and 6.1% in 2008, compared to the countywide turnover rates of 13.8% and 9.9% respectively.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The lack of opportunities for upward mobility within the Probation Department be addressed to reduce turnover. Response, Chief Probation Officer: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. The Department has done a review of positions and options for advancement. Due to the size of the Probation Department (33 Probation Officer I/II positions), it is not reasonable to have more management positions. There are currently six Supervising Probation Officer positions, two Supervising Legal Clerk positions, five Supervising Juvenile Hall Counselor positions, two management positions in Juvenile Hall and five management positions in Probation (including the Chief Probation Officer). Additionally, there are six Senior Juvenile Hall Counselor positions and 10 Senior Probation Officer positions. When vacant, all senior positions and most supervisor positions are opened as promotional only recruitments. Furthermore, as addressed in the response to Finding 15, the Chief Probation Officer does not agree that there is a unusually high turnover of Probation Officers. Response, Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors concurs with the response of the Chief Probation Officer.
F16:
Probation Officers are dedicated to their tasks as they serve a dual role of peace officer and social worker. Response, Chief Probation Officer: The Chief Probation Officer agrees with this finding.
F17:
The Adult Probation Department is modeling a Mental Health Court. Response, Chief Probation Officer: The Chief Probation Officer agrees with this finding. Probation continues to work with the Napa Superior Court, Health and Human Services-Mental Health Division, District Attorney and Public Defender to begin a Mental Health Court pilot project. Please see the Department's response to
F18:
The Adult Probation Department has been determined to be the appropriate authority to implement and manage the Community Corrections Service Center, staffed by trained non-county personnel to establish and implement Evidence Based Programs to reduce recidivism by probationers. Response, Chief Probation Officer: The Chief Probation Officer agrees with this finding. The Center opened March 2, 2009.
F19:
There is a "disconnect" between the Probation Officers and the Deputy District Attorneys on the issue of victim impact. Pre-sentencing reports produced by Probation Officers are not valued by the Deputy District Attorneys as providing sufficient victim impact information to the Court. The Probation Officer does not acquire victim impact information from the District Attorney's Office for use in the pre-sentencing report. The District Attorney's Office has no protocol for making victim impact information available to the Probation Officer for use in the pre-sentencing reports. Response, Chief Probation Officer: The Chief Probation Officer agrees with this finding and will make an effort to resolve this issue with the District Attorney. Please see the Department's response to Recommendation 6 for additional information. 2008-09 Grand Jury Report Response
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
A protocol be established between the District Attorney's Office and the Court Unit of the Probation Officer for use in a pre-sentencing report while maintaining the independence of investigations done separately by the two offices. Response, Chief Probation Officer: This recommendation has not been implemented but will be implemented in the future. In discussions with the District Attorney, it is clear there is a way for Probation Officers to gather increased victim information in time to complete their pre-sentence report. A protocol will be set up in the next six months to be able to have updated victim information available to the Probation Officer.
F20:
The Adult Probation Department has indicated a desire to add three new Probation Officers and one Training Officer so as to equalize the caseload on the existing probation officers. Response, Chief Probation Officer: The Chief Probation Officer disagrees in part with this finding. Although three new officers would reduce caseloads and contribute to increased supervision of probationers, it is not feasible during these difficult fiscal times to add new positions. The Department already has a Staff Services Manager position that acts as the Training Manager for the Department and it is unclear why the Grand Jury concluded that a Training Manager position was necessary. Please see the Department's response to Recommendation 5 for additional information.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Adult Probation staff be expanded by three Probation Officers and one Training Officer. Response, Chief Probation Officer: This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not reasonable. While the addition of three Probation Officers would further reduce caseloads and increase contact frequency with higher risk probationers, the County's current fiscal constraints do not make the addition of any new positions 2008-09 Grand Jury Report Response possible. The Chief Probation Officer will wait until the County's fiscal situation improves before beginning discussions of adding additional Probation Officers with the County Executive Office. The Probation Department currently employs a Staff Services Manager that functions as the Department's Training Manager. It is unclear why the Grand Jury is recommending this position. Response, Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors concurs with the response of the Chief Probation Officer.
Quick View
Full Details →
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.