Napa County Grand Jury
2010-2011
From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (13)
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The Napa County Jail is one of two remaining county jails operating with a Director of Corrections under the authority of the Board of Supervisors rather than the Sheriff.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Department of Corrections Director prepare and present a report to the Board of Supervisors that evaluates the safety measures in place that protect the Jail staff from the actions of the Napa State Hospital patients.
F2:
Correction Officers do not take a sworn law enforcement oath and are not required to take periodic drug and alcohol tests.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Department of Corrections Director prepare and present a report to the Board of Supervisors that evaluates the feasibility, benefits and cost savings of having the Department of Corrections re-organize under the Napa County Sheriff.
F3:
The Jail staff does not have the authority to force medicate inmates.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Board of Supervisors encourage Senator Evans to amend Senate Bill 60 to include payment to the County from the State for the time Napa State Hospital patients are held in the Jail.
F4:
The cost of housing the individuals transferred from Napa State Hospital to the Jail is a financial burden to County taxpayers.
F5:
Senate Bill 60 (Evans), unless amended, will not pay County costs for the time Napa State Hospital patients held in the Jail.
Findings & Recommendations
14 findings
F1:
LBRID’s water and sewer problems were due to aging infrastructure and deferred maintenance.
F2:
Between 1995 and 2010 the RWQCB issued notices of violation and a Cease and Desist Order to the LBRID Board of Directors.
F3:
LBRID water and sewer rate increases have been insufficient to cover operating expenses.
F4:
LBRID does not have an up-to-date Master Facilities Plan.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
LBRID Board of Directors meets quarterly with LBRID property owners in Lake Berryessa Resort to update them on District issues and the Master Facilities Plan.
R2:
Board of Supervisors authorizes the County Public Works Director to prepare a Master Facilities Plan with a timeline and cost analysis for future infrastructure, maintenance and replacement plans.
R3:
County Public Works Director presents the newly formulated Master Facilities Plan to the property owners and the LBRID Board of Directors.
F5:
Adequate reserves have not been set aside to address ongoing infrastructure needs and emergencies.
F6:
For the past two years current revenues have not been sufficient to cover operating expenses.
F7:
The LBRID Board of Directors has requested loans from the County to cover operating shortfalls.
F8:
The LBRID Board of Directors has requested a loan of $345,000 to balance the FY 2010/11 budget.
F9:
LBRID does not have a rate calculation in place to establish and maintain a reserve balance for emergencies and ongoing repair maintenance.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
LBRID Board of Directors includes in future rate calculations a formula to provide for the establishment and maintenance of a reserve balance.
F10:
By their actions the Board of Supervisors formed a Board of Directors for LBRID within the meaning of CPRC §13032.
F11:
The composition of the LBRID Board of Directors is not in compliance with CPRC §13034, since the members are not elected by the residents of the District.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Board of Supervisors brings the composition of the LBRID Board of Directors into compliance with State law through the election of least four members who reside in the District to replace the four supervisors who do not reside in the District.
F12:
The LBRID Board of Directors has no legal existence.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Board of Supervisors passes a formal resolution forming a Board of Directors for LBRID.
F13:
Since the LBRID Board of Directors does not legally exist, meetings and resolutions in its name can be legally challenged on that ground.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
Board of Supervisors ceases meeting and acting in the name of the LBRID Board of Directors.
F14:
The Board of Supervisors causes public confusion by acting in the name of a board of directors that has no formal legal foundation. 11
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
Board of Supervisors ceases meeting and acting in the name of the LBRID Board of Directors.
Findings & Recommendations
15 findings
F1:
The NBRID Board of Directors has only met once in Cappell Valley with NBRID residents and property owners to update them on District issues.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
NBRID Board of Directors meets quarterly in Cappell Valley with NBRID residents and property owners to update them on District issues.
F2:
NBRID’s continuing water and sewer problems are due to aging infrastructure and deferred maintenance.
F3:
Between 1995 and 2010 the RWQCB issued several notices of violations and three Cease and Desist Orders to the NBRID Board of Directors.
F4:
NBRID does not have an up-to-date Master Plan.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3:
Board of Supervisors authorizes the County Public Works Director to prepare an up-to-date Master Facilities Plan with a timeline and cost analysis for future infrastructure, maintenance, and replacement plans in the event that NBRID does not become a community service district.
R4:
County Public Works Director presents the newly formulated Master Facilities Plan to the property owners and the NBRID Board of Directors.
F5:
Adequate reserves have not been set aside to address ongoing infrastructure needs to keep facilities up-to-date.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
NBRID Board of Directors includes in future rate calculations a formula that will provide for the establishment and maintenance of a reserve balance.
F6:
For the past two years current revenues have not been sufficient to cover operating expenses.
F7:
The NBRID residents have expressed interest in converting to an independent community services district and would like to be part of a transition committee.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
NBRID Board of Directors facilitates the formation of a transition committee to serve until conversion to an independent community service district is complete.
F8:
The NBRID Board of Directors has requested loans from the County to cover operating shortfalls.
F9:
The NBRID Board of Directors received a loan of $205,000 from the County to balance the FY 2010/11 budget.
F10:
NBRID does not have a rate calculation in place to establish and maintain a reserve balance for emergencies and ongoing repair maintenance.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
NBRID Board of Directors includes in future rate calculations a formula that will provide for the establishment and maintenance of a reserve balance.
F11:
By their actions the Board of Supervisors formed a Board of Directors for NBRID within the meaning of CPRC §13032.
F12:
The composition of the NBRID Board of Directors is not in compliance with CPRC §13034, because the members are not elected by the residents of the District.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Board of Supervisors brings the composition of the NBRID Board of Directors into compliance with State law through the election of at least four members who reside in the District to replace the four supervisors who do not reside in the District.
F13:
The NBRID Board of Directors has no legal existence. 11
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
Board of Supervisors passes a formal resolution forming a Board of Directors for NBRID.
F14:
Since the NBRID Board of Directors does not legally exist, meetings and resolutions in its name can be legally challenged on that ground.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
Board of Supervisors ceases meeting and acting in the name of the NBRID Board of Directors. 12
F15:
The Board of Supervisors causes public confusion by acting in the name of a board of directors that has no formal legal foundation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
Board of Supervisors ceases meeting and acting in the name of the NBRID Board of Directors. 12
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
There are eight caseworkers employed by Napa County Health and Human Services carrying an average caseload of 25-30. This is approximately a 40% increase in caseload size within the past two years.
F2:
The number of foster homes has declined by 40% since the late 1980s.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Child Welfare Services explore how community groups can help promote awareness of the need for foster homes and develop programs to reach out to these groups.
F3:
There are two caseworkers certified as bilingual.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Health and Human Services continue their efforts to hire qualified bilingual caseworkers.
F4:
The recruiting and licensing process for new foster care homes and parents is assigned to one social worker.
F5:
The Merit System Services, currently used by Napa County Health and Human Services for its hiring process, is outdated and rigid.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Health and Human Services Agency work with the Napa County Human Resources Department to replace Merit System Services with the Napa County Human Resources Department.
F6:
A timeframe of three to six months is required to complete the hiring process for a new caseworker.
F7:
Although improved from previous years, communication and trust between caseworkers, their supervisors and management continues to be insufficient. 5
F8:
There is no formal respite program to provide intervals of relief for foster care parents.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
A program be made available to foster parents providing intervals of respite in conjunction with Child Welfare Services.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
Napa County school districts provide alternative educational options for high school students.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
All school districts in Napa County provide NCOE with “read-only” access to their individual on-line student databases.
F2:
Individual schools within a district, as well as NCOE, only have access to their own district’s on-line databases of student records.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
NCOE provide “read only” access to all school districts in Napa County to their on-line student databases.
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
Juveniles in NCJH do not have access to water sources other than the drinking fountains.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Within six months of this report the NCPWD and the NCJH staff develop a plan to eliminate the metallic taste in the water in NCJH.
F2:
Drinking fountain water in the NCJH has a metallic taste.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
No later than February 2012 the NCPWD implement the above plan that will eliminate the metallic taste in the water in NCJH.
F3:
Juveniles in the NCJH avoid drinking the water due to the metallic taste.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The NCJH provide palatable water within NCJH until the plan to eliminate the metallic taste has been implemented.
F4:
Water in the NCJH facility currently meets the CDPH’s secondary drinking standard for copper.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Once palatable water is available from the water fountains in NCJH, that NCPWD conduct regular water taste tests.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The NVUSD provides safe transportation services to its students.
F2:
The TD has completed an internal and external review and has developed
F3:
The TD does not use computerized routing systems.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Transportation Department uses computerized routing tools and a graphic information system to determine if current transportation services are efficient and meet the NVUSD regulations with respect to AR 3541.
F4:
The NVUSD Transportation Department would not provide the necessary information to determine if AR 3541 requirements are met relative to maximum walking distances.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
NVUSD Board of Trustees evaluates and revises the maximum walking distances in AR 3541 to be consistent with current practices and available financial resources.
F5:
A substantial portion of NVUSD transportation funds goes to providing services to SD/OI students. Thirty-nine percent (39%) of the TD 2009/10 budget is expended on nine percent (9%) of the students.
F6:
The cost to provide transportation services to SD/OI students on a per student basis shows a rising trend. 8
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
Ongoing ACO efforts and industry trends (IPM, organic and sustainable farming) have resulted in a substantial and steady reduction in pounds of active ingredients in pesticides applied.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
By January 2012, the Agricultural Commissioner post for the general public, on the County website, statistics on pesticide use, violations, fines and restrictions and update the information on an annual basis.
F2:
ACO does not adequately inform the general public about pesticide violation enforcement statistics.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
By January 2012, the Agricultural Commissioner annually prepare and send a notice, to the local newspapers for them to publish, which will give the general public the statistics on pesticide use, violations, fines and restrictions.
Findings & Recommendations
13 findings
F1:
The City's ARLE system was established to reduce accidents.
Related Recommendations (2)
R6:
City monitors and evaluates the ARLE system for its benefits in reducing accidents and within 6 months after the release of this report publishes its
R7:
City continues the ARLE program if it clearly and substantially demonstrates that the program economically reduces accidents.
F2:
A disproportionate number of the City's citations are issued for failure to stop on right turns.
F3:
Accidents rarely occur on right turn movements.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
City immediately limits, after the release of this report, future applications of ARLE systems to turning movements that have a clear history of poor safety and excessive accidents.
F4:
More severe and frequent accidents occur due to drivers failing to stop when traveling straight through intersections.
F5:
The SH 29/12/121 ARLE signal falls under Caltrans' jurisdiction; the City has no authority to set signal timing at this intersection.
F6:
The SH 29/12/121 ARLE system was not studied by a licensed engineer in accordance with Caltrans' Policy Directive 09-03 prior to the installation of the ARLE system.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
City prepare a traffic engineering study at SH 29/12/121 in accordance with Caltrans' Policy Directive 09-03, within 6 months after the release of this report, to determine if alternative countermeasures or intersection improvements would address driver behavior patterns as an alternative to ARLE.
F7:
The yellow light change interval timing has an effect on the number of citations issued on ARLE intersections.
F8:
CVC Section 21455.7 (b) specifically references approach speed as the criteria for setting minimum yellow light interval times.
F9:
Caltrans did not use approach speeds to set the SH 29/12/121 right turn yellow light change interval time.
Related Recommendations (4)
R1:
City immediately issue a moratorium on ARLE right turn citations at the SH 29/12/121 intersection until such time as the legal requirements for yellow light interval times are firmly established and in place.
R3:
NPD review and evaluate all SH 29/12/121 ARLE right turn citations, within 90 days after the release of this report, and determine if a citation would have occurred under the most current enforcement practices.
R4:
City issue refunds, within 6 months after the release of this report, to drivers cited for right turn violations at SH 29/12/121 who would not have been cited if the current enforcement practices were in place.
R8:
City issues a letter to drivers, within 6 months after the release of this report, specifying that the moving violation has been rescinded for those drivers cited for right turn violations at SH 29/12/121 who would not have been cited if the current enforcement practices were in place.
F10:
The City and Caltrans recognized deficiencies at the SH 29/12/121 ARLE system.
F11:
The City made enforcement changes in an attempt to correct these deficiencies at the SH 29/12/121 ARLE system.
F12:
Caltrans made adjustments to signal timing in an attempt to correct these deficiencies at the SH 29/12/121 ARLE system.
F13:
Drivers were cited for illegal right turns at SH 29/12/121 prior to the recognition of deficiencies in the yellow light interval timing and prior to the adjustments of enforcement practices.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R09-03:
EFFECTIVE DATE: DATE ISSUED: ROBERT COPP, DIVISION CHIEF (Signature) 06/15/09 06/15/09 DISTRIBUTION SLABJECT: Use of Automated Red Light Enforcement Systems on All District Directors the State Highway System. All Deputy District Directors - Traffic Operations All Deputy District Directors - Maintenance All Deputy District Directors - Construction All Deputy District Directors - Design All Deputy District Directors - Transportation Planning Chief, Division of Engineering Services Chief Counsel, Legal Division Publications (California MUTCD Website) www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/signtech/mutcdsupp/ca mutcd.htm Headquarters Division Chiefs for: IF YES, DESCRIBE DOES THIS DIRECTIVE AFFECT OR SUPERSEDE
R15-10:
Dismissed/Acquitted 33 293 Convicted Cases filed 6-4-09 to 9- #6 Number of non-Photo Red Light trials heard since implementation 97
Findings & Recommendations
26 findings
F1:
Napa County was awarded $10,628,707 in ARRA grants. Response, Board of Supervisors and County Auditor-Controller: The Board of Supervisors agrees with this finding for the amount at the time of the original report. For additional clarification, of this total, $7,852,950 represented grant awards and $2,775,757 represented the amount of allocations and enhanced Federal Medical Assistance Percentage for certain programs that county staff estimated would be received over the term of ARRA. As of 9/30/10, the County has been awarded $8,739,543 in ARRA grants and expects to receive approximately $3,741,038 from the aforementioned allocations and enhancements due to ARRA. Please see the full ARRA report on the County’s website for more information.
F2:
ARRA tracking, grant compliance, and reporting procedures were implemented. Response, County Auditor-Controller: The Auditor-Controller agrees with this finding.
F3:
Separate accounting mechanisms were set up within the General Fund that allow for accurate ARRA tracking and transparency. Response, County Auditor-Controller: The Auditor-Controller agrees with this finding. However, it is not limited just to the General Fund. If ARRA funding was received in Special Revenue funds or Enterprise funds, the funding has to be recorded as such. The same separate accounting mechanisms are in place in those funds as well.
F4:
Napa County department representatives attended training workshops pertaining to fraud and misuse of funds and/or materials. Response, County Executive Officer and Community and Intergovernmental Affairs Manager: The County Executive Officer and Community and Intergovernmental Manager agree with this finding. Training sessions were held in spring 2010 and attended by county managers and staff.
F5:
Departments involved in fraud or misuse are subject to review by County Counsel. Response, County Executive Officer and Community and Intergovernmental Affairs Manager: The County Executive Officer and Community and Intergovernmental Manager agree with this finding. County policy requires a review by County Counsel whenever fraud or misuse is alleged.
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. Response, County Auditor-Controller: The Auditor-Controller agrees with this finding, with the exception of two instances where funding is advanced prior to expenditure. Please see the full ARRA report on our website for more information.
F7:
California has forty-five calendar days from receipt of an undisputed claim to forward funds based on county reimbursement requests. Response, County Auditor-Controller: The Auditor-Controller agrees with this finding.
F8:
Napa County employees keep current with changing State guidelines. Response, County Executive Officer and Community and Intergovernmental Affairs Manager: The County Executive Officer and Community and Intergovernmental Manager agree with this finding. Napa County employees monitor and keep current with changes in State guidelines. 17
F9:
Napa County employees have expressed concern about receiving vague information from the State and difficulty in receiving written information. Response, County Executive Officer and Community and Intergovernmental Affairs Manager: The County Executive Officer and Community and Intergovernmental Manager agree with this finding. Obtaining written documentation from the State has been and can be difficult. It has been the informal policy of the County Executive Office to not accept certain funds when there is ambiguity or difficulty understanding guidelines and the State is unable or unwilling to provide written documentation. This has not been the experience with ARRA funds.
F10:
ARRA grant information is posted on the County website (www.countyofnapa.org). Response, County Auditor-Controller: The Auditor-Controller agrees with this finding. Response, County Executive Officer and Community and Intergovernmental Affairs Manager: The County Executive Officer and Community and Intergovernmental Manager agree with this finding.
F11:
ARRA updates and information will be presented for the first time to the BOS beginning in April 2010 and continue quarterly thereafter. Response, County Auditor-Controller: The Auditor-Controller agrees with this finding. Response, County Executive Officer and Community and Intergovernmental Affairs Manager: The County Executive Officer and Community and Intergovernmental Manager agree with this finding.
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. Response, County Executive Officer and Community and Intergovernmental Affairs Manager: The County Executive Officer and Community and Intergovernmental Manager agree with this finding.
F13:
County Policies and Procedures specific to ARRA have not been written. Response, County Executive Officer and Community and Intergovernmental Affairs Manager: The County Executive Officer and Community and Intergovernmental Manager disagree in part with this finding. While no formal amendments to county policies and procedures have been brought to the Board of Supervisors for approval, the Auditor-Controller has issued guidelines to the departments regarding procedures that departments are to follow.
F14:
The District is currently considering whether to form its own non-profit foundation or join an existing community foundation. Response, NCRPOSD Board of Directors: Agree
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. Response, City of Calistoga: Agree with the finding, per California Penal Code 933.05(a)(1). Response, City of St. Helena: Pursuant to Penal Code Section 933(c), the City of St. Helena responds as follows only to the extent the finding pertains to matters under the control of the City of St. Helena. Subject to this stated limitation, the oral health benefits of fluoridation is not a matter under the control of the governing body of St. Helena (see Penal Code section 933(c). Response, Town of Yountville: Agree with the finding.
F16:
AB 733 mandates fluoridation of public water systems having 10,000 or more connections. Response, City of Napa: Disagree partially. AB 733 or more specifically California Code of Regulations Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 15, Article 4.1, Section 64433 and California Health and Safety Code Section 116409 – 116415 requires public water systems with 10,000 service connections or more to fluoridate their water IF funding is offered pursuant to a binding contractual offer from an outside source for capital and operating costs associated with the fluoridation system. Health and Safety Code Section 116415 describes “outside source” as follows – As used in this section, “outside source” mean a source other than the system’s ratepayers, 54 shareholders, local taxpayers, bondholders, or any fees or charges levied by the water system.
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. Response, City of Calistoga: Disagree partially with the finding, per California Penal Code 933.05(a)(2). Annual savings in oral healthcare to the City of Calistoga has not been projected to exceed the estimated costs of operating water fluoridation systems. While fluoridation does have certain benefits, it is not required for a small system such as Calistoga’s, and there is no demonstrated community support for such an initiative. During approximately 22 publicly-noticed, public meetings conducted by a City Council-appointed water advisory committee, there was extensive public commentary and participation, but no requests for fluoridation. City water customers can make individual choices on fluoride use through widely available, over-the-counter fluoride supplements and toothpaste. Response, City of Napa: Disagree partially. While capital and operating costs for a fluoridation system can be accurately calculated, annual savings in oral healthcare is difficult to determine definitively. The responsibility of the Water Division is to provide safe and dependable water delivery to the community. Treatment and distribution programs are focused on those goals. While adding fluoride to the water supply may be beneficial to a small percentage of the population, this is a medical or public health issue unrelated to the primary mission of delivering water to the community. The health related benefits and costs of fluoridation should be better handled and, if appropriate, be funded through the Department of Health and Social Services. If they wish to accept responsibility for the planning and funding of such an effort we will be happy to cooperate. Response, City of St. Helena: Pursuant to Penal Code Section 933(c), the City of St. Helena responds as follows only to the extent the finding pertains to matters under the control of the City of St. Helena. Subject to this stated limitation, the annual health benefits of the fluoridation of water is not a matter under the control of the governing body of St. Helena (see Penal Code section 933(c). Response, Town of Yountville: 55 Disagree partially with the finding. Annual savings in oral healthcare to Yountville and Veterans Home residents has not been projected to exceed the estimated costs of operating water fluoridation systems at the Rector Reservoir Water Treatment Plant. As stated in the response to
F18:
No County municipalities have applied for funding to fluoridate their water systems. Response, City of Calistoga: Agree with the finding, per California Penal Code 933.05(a)(1). Response, City of Napa: Agree with respect to City of Napa Response, City of St. Helena: Pursuant to Penal Code Section 933(c), the City of St. Helena responds as follows only to the extent the finding pertains to matters under the control of the City of St. Helena. Subject to this stated limitation, the County municipalities applying for funding to fluoridate their public water systems is not a matter under the control of the governing body of St. Helena (see Penal Code section 933(c). Response, Town of Yountville: Agree with the finding.
F19:
The DEC Protocol was implemented four years ago and is a collaborative effort by NSIB, CWS, Napa County DA, and QVMC. Response, NSIB Governing Board: 76 The respondent agrees with this finding. Response, NSIB Commander (Special Agent Supervisor): The respondent agrees with this finding. Response, County Executive Officer: The County Executive Officer agrees with this finding.
F20:
State and County budget cuts have reduced the number of NSIB agents as compared to past years. Response, NSIB Governing Board: The NSIB governing Board disagrees in part with this finding. The County and BNE have continued their NSIB staffing levels. Staffing levels with the Napa Police Department (NPD) and the California Highway patrol (CHP) have been impacted due to budget concerns resulting in a reduced number of officers assigned to NSIB. Response, NSIB Commander (Special Agent Supervisor): The respondent agrees with this finding. Response, Napa County Board of Supervisors: The Board of Supervisors disagrees in part with this finding. NSIB is a multi-jurisdictional agency and all agencies in Napa County, the Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement and California Highway Patrol have contributed officers or funds to the task force in the past. Napa County serves as the fiscal agent of the task force and through the Sheriff’s Department provides one Sergeant and two Deputies to NSIB on a full time basis. Over the last few years, other law enforcement agencies, not the County/Sheriff’s Office have reduced the number of officers allocated to the task force on a full time basis. Napa County received grant funding from the California Methamphetamine Enforcement Team program that allowed for the allocation of additional officer overtime hours towards methamphetamine eradication throughout the County. Consistent with the Board of Supervisor’s policy to not backfill reduced or depleted grant funds, the Sheriff’s Office has eliminated the additional officer overtime once dedicated to methamphetamine enforcement due to a reduction in grant funds received. Response, County Executive Officer: The County Executive Officer concurs with the Board of Supervisor’s response. 77
F21:
The PO attached to NSIB, like all Napa County Pos, does not carry a firearm. Response, NSIB Governing Board: The respondent agrees with this finding. Response, Chief probation Officer: The Chief Probation agrees with this finding. Response, Board of Supervisors: The Board of Supervisors agrees with this finding.
F22:
NSIB has expressed the desire to have the County arm the PO attached to NSIB. Response, NSIB Governing Board: The NSIB Governing Board disagrees with this finding. While the NSIB commander has expressed the desire to arm PO assigned to NSIB, the NSIB Governing Board, as a whole, does not share this view. All agree the matter of whether the NSIB PO is armed should be decided by the Chief Probation Officer. Response, Chief Probation Officer: The Chief Probation Officer disagrees with this finding. NSIB is governed by an independent Board that is comprised of the Sheriff, the District Attorney, Chiefs of the local police agencies and the Chief Probation Officer. While the Commander assigned to NSIB by the Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement (not a governing board member) has discussed arming the Probation Officer assigned to NSIB with the Chief Probation Officer, the NSIB Governing Board has never taken formal action or even discussed the arming of the Probation Officer. Furthermore, upon inquiry by the Chief Probation officer, the Sheriff and the City of Napa Chief of Police stated that they believe the issue of arming the Probation Officer should be handled by the Chief Probation Officer that they do not endorse or recommend the arming of the Probation Officer assigned to NSIB and will continue to support the position in a limited and low-risk capacity. Please see the response to Recommendation No. 2. Response, Board of Supervisors: 78 The Board of Supervisors disagrees with this finding and incorporates by reference the August 10, 2010 response and explanation of the Chief Probation Officer.
F23:
The Probation Department Safety Committee currently has a not recommended arming the PO attached to NSIB. Response, NSIB Governing Board: The respondent agrees with this finding. Response, Chief Probation Officer: The Chief probation Officer agrees with this finding.
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 for illegal marijuana cultivation and possession. Response, NSIB Governing Board: The respondent agrees with this finding.
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. Response, NSIB Governing Board: The respondent agrees with this finding. Response, Board of Supervisors: The Board of Supervisors agrees with this finding.
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. Response, NSIB Governing Board: The respondent agrees with this finding.
Additional Recommendations
14
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, 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. Response, CEO and Director of Community and Intergovernmental Affairs: The recommendation has been implemented. The CEO and Manager of Community and Intergovernmental Affairs have scheduled, along with the Auditor-Controller, a quarterly update on the status of ARRA funding for the Board of Supervisors. These updates will occur after the reports have been submitted to the State Inspector General. Response, Napa County Board of Supervisors: 19 The recommendation has been implemented. The Board of Supervisors received the first of these quarterly reports at the April 13, 2010 BOS meeting.
R2:
The CEO provide quarterly ARRA expenditures updates for residents via the County website immediately following the BOS review. Response, CEO and Director of Community and Intergovernmental Affairs: The recommendation has been implemented. The County’s website will be updated to reflect the latest report that has been presented to the Board of Supervisors. The website will be updated quarterly immediately following the report to the Board of Supervisors.
R3:
The Auditor-Controller develop written policy and procedures that pertain specifically to ARRA. Response, Auditor-Controller: The recommendation has been implemented. The Auditor-Controller does not set County polices. 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. NAPA COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE FACILITIES Napa County Department of Corrections/County Jail The 2009-2010 Grand Jury published its final report on the Napa County Department of Corrections/Jail on May 13, 2010. The 2009-2010 Grand Jury did not ask the Napa County Department of Corrections, Board of Supervisors, District Attorney or Adult Probation Department to respond to findings, as the law requires. A request to each department to respond to the findings was made by the 2010-2011 Grand Jury. Each department responded to the 2010-2011 Grand Jury’s request. Responses to findings and recommendations were received from the following: 20 • Napa County Department of Corrections • Napa County Board of Supervisors • Napa County District Attorney’s Office • Napa County Adult Probation Department Below are the findings and recommendations made by the 2009-2010 Grand Jury and following each finding and recommendation are each of the responses of each respondent who was asked to respond to the specific finding and recommendation. The responses to the following findings and recommendations were received and found to meet statutory requirements.
R4:
Prepare and publish a budget summary each year with sufficient detail which can be easily understood by the public. Response, Board of Directors: The NCTPA Board of Directors has not implemented this recommendation. NCTPA plans to publish a budget summary for FY 10/11 as part of the budget hearing process for establishing next year’s budget FY 11/12 with sufficient detail so that it can be easily understood by the public.
R5:
Develop a plan for the Agricultural Worker Vanpool Program to be self sufficient after June 2011. Response, Board of Directors: The NCTPA Board of Directors state this recommendation needs further analysis. The original application submitted in 2008 contained a plan for the Agriculture Worker Vanpool Program to become self-sufficient after June 2011. NCTPA has kept the Board abreast of the progress made to date and has agreed to revaluate the program at its January 2011 meeting. 46
R6:
Establish a plan to seek ongoing funding for street and roadway repair and maintenance. Response, Board of Directors: The NCTPA Board of Directors has implemented this recommendation. NCTPA, through its participation with the Metropolitan (MTC), which serves as the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the bay area’s nine counties, seeks ongoing funding for street and roadways, land- planning oversight and many other functions listed in the Grand Jury’s report. Each year NCTPA helps to identify, plan and program Federal and State funds that are available to the region through formula and street classification established by the MTC. Napa County is one of a few counties within the nine county Bay Area that does not have a dedicated transportation sales tax, responsible for delivering voter-approved transportation sales tax measures throughout the state. Without such dedicated funding it is extremely difficult to deliver many of the region’s priority transportation projects. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission administers and allocates by formula all of the available Federal and State monies it receives that then NCTPA plans, programs and distributes to its member jurisdictions. NCTPA also serves to distribute by issuing Calls for Projects for available funding for state and local programs such as the Transportation for Clean Air administered by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). However, it is worth noting that some programs are established with very specific criteria and conditions that must be met in order to qualify. Federal funds require a local match of either 10 to 20% of the total project costs. Use of federal funds also triggers full compliance of all federal requirements such as Timelines; Procurement: Environmental: Reporting; etc. ARRA serves as a prime w=example in both project delivery and source of funding to which Napa County delivered 100% of its allocation. NAPA COUNTY WATER Our Precious, Critical Resource The 2009-2010 Grand Jury published its final report on Napa County Water on May 31, 2010. Responses were received from the following: • Napa County Board of Supervisors • Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 47 • Napa Sanitation District • City American Canyon Public Works Department • City of Calistoga Public Works Department • City of Napa Public Works Department • City of St. Helena Public Works Department • Town of Yountville Public Works Department • Mayor, City of American Canyon • Mayor, City of St. Helena • Mayor, Town of Yountville • City Council, City of Calistoga • City Council, City of St. Helena The 2009-2010 Grand Jury did not ask the respondents to respond to findings, as the law requires. A request to respond to the findings was made by the 2010-2011 Grand Jury. The respondents did respond to the findings. Below are the findings and recommendations made by the 2009-2010 Grand Jury and following each finding and recommendation are each of the responses of each respondent who was asked to respond to the specific finding and recommendation. The responses to the following findings and recommendations were found to meet statutory requirements.
R7:
Board of Supervisors develop regulations to ensure adequate groundwater supply for future needs. Response, City of Napa: This recommendation requires further analysis as it relates to the City’s groundwater resources. The City is responding to these recommendations to the extent that they pertain to matters under the control of the City. While these recommendations imply that Napa County is solely responsible for groundwater resources, in fact the City of Napa is responsible for groundwater resources underlying City owned property and within City limits. Historically, the City has voluntarily honored County policies related to groundwater, and the City has not approved the use of groundwater as a primary source for urban development within the City limits. Currently, the City is exploring groundwater options for dry- year and emergency back-up. This is a necessary step to ensure locally controlled water sources are available in the event of an emergency or when State water is unavailable. Hydro-geologic studies and management plans will be required as part of the City’s future use of groundwater.
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. Response, Napa Sanitation District: 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 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 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 City supports the 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. 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. Response, City of Napa: This recommendation requires further analysis. While the City of Napa agrees that there may be significant merit to the consolidation of services, the City is not in a position to implement this recommendation unilaterally. The City is willing to explore the potential benefits of consolidation (i.e. economics of scale, coordination of services, planning) that could result from a merger. If the Napa Sanitation District wishes to participate in a joint effort to identify the feasibility and advisability of a consolidation the City could begin such an effort within the next six months.
R9:
The County and all municipalities continue development and expansion of recycled water projects to alleviate future water shortages. Response, City of American Canyon: Agree. The City is currently delivering recycled water to several community parks and a commercial vineyard. We plan to continue to expand the system in accordance with the recycled water implementation plan and as funding becomes available. Response, City of Calistoga Public Works Director: The recommendation has been substantially implemented per California Penal Code 933.05(a)(1). Calistoga has provided disinfected tertiary- 65 treated recycled water to customers for many years. Calistoga seeks to expand the use of recycled water to new customers, when it is economic and feasible to do so. In some cases, the use of recycled water is specified as a mandatory condition of approval for new development projects. For example, the large and prominent Solage resort, which opened in 2007, is a relatively new and significant recycled water user. In 2009, Calistogans used approximately 761 acre-feet of potable water, while using 320 acre- feet of recycled water. Calistoga expects the beneficial re-use of recycled water to continue and expand modestly into the foreseeable future. Response, City of Napa: This recommendation has been implemented. The City of Napa encourages the use of recycled water where feasible and cost effective to offset potable water use. In 1998, the City and NSD entered into an agreement for NSD to convey water in the southern portion of the City’s service area. This area includes many of the City’s large irrigation customers such as Kennedy Golf Course, Kennedy Park, Napa Valley College, Napa Corporate Park and Napa State hospital. To date, many of these customers have converted to recycled water saving the City over 300 acre-feet of water per year. The City has planned for the conversion of Napa State Hospital in the near future. The approval of the Ritz-Carleton project included a water mitigation requirement that can be met by converting the irrigation system at the Napa Valley Corporate Park to recycled water. The proposed St. Regis project includes provisions for converting the project as well as irrigation on the Stanley ranch property to recycled water. The City is fully in support of this requirement. Response, City of St. Helena: Pursuant to 933.05(b)(4) the recommendation will not be implemented because it is unreasonable. While the City recognizes recycled water should be put to beneficial use, the production rate of recycled water would not be satisfactory to “alleviate future water shortages”. Additionally the demand for recycled water is likely to be highest during the driest months when flows into the sewage treatment plant are at the lowest. This means that recycled water could not be a meaningful factor in augmenting supply of non-potable use without the addition of a substantial storage capacity. It would be necessary to provide recycled water storage, pumping and distribution facilities, which includes at minimum, a 400 acre-feet of storage. The City does not own land at a location suitable for such storage capacity and the cost of purchasing land and constructing more storage is not fiscally justifiable to rate payers. Not to mention a significant capital cost. Response, Napa Sanitation District: 66 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. The 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 $1.2M 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. Response, City of American Canyon: Disagree. Each water agency in Napa County operates its own water system according to state and federal regulations and in accordance with the needs and desires of each community, and at the direction of their respective elected governing bodies. While there might be financial benefit from the economy of scale afforded by a countywide water agency, a one-size-fits-all approach to water supply, demand, and conservation issues would not be appropriate for the diversity of Napa County cities and their community goals and objectives. Response, City of Calistoga Public Works Director: The recommendation will not be implemented per California Penal Code (a)(4), as it is not warranted nor reasonable. Calistoga’s existing systems of partially interconnected utility systems, water supply agreements, and constructive cooperation among the County and the municipalities, is adequate to meet the needs of Calistoga. Calistoga has a well-developed, two-source potable water supply system, which is sized to meet the City’s needs to grow in accordance with its General Plan. Calistoga’s recycled water system provides a substantial amount of tertiary-treated recycled water to approximately two dozen customers, and Calistoga is implementing plans to expand the system when it is economic and feasible 67 to do so. Given the geographic remoteness of Calistoga from the other (larger) municipalities in the County, Calistoga believes its current utility systems are sufficient to meet community requirements. Response, City of Napa: The City does not intend to implement this recommendation since it is not warranted. The City understands that the underlying goal of this recommendation is to establish systems that would more effectively manage potable and recycled water throughout the County, and the City certainly agrees with this goal. However, in order to effectively manage water resources and water use, and meet the expectations of residents with within the community, it is important to be able to coordinate land use planning with the construction of necessary improvements. If a countywide utility district was formed, it would create a disconnect between the agency responsible for regulating land use (the City) from the agency responsible for providing public improvements to the residents and businesses generated from the land use decisions (the utility district). The City agrees that all municipalities, the County, and NSD should wok cooperatively to communicate, coordinate, and implement joint projects and/or countywide efforts as it relates to water resources. Monthly Water Technical Advisory Committee meetings provide the forum for this to occur. In addition, each municipality is represented on the Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Board which functions in part as the countywide district related to water issues. Response, City of St. Helena’s Mayor: Disagree partially with the finding [recommendation]. The recommendation requires further analysis by December 1, 2010. While it is cost prohibitive at this time for the City to solely provide recycled water, the Public Works Director will work with other municipalities in the County to 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. Response, Napa Sanitation District: 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. 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 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.
R11:
St. Helena accelerate its planning process and implementation of distribution and use recycled water. Response, City of St. Helena: Pursuant to 93305(b)(4) the recommendation will not be implemented because it is not reasonable. While the City recognizes recycled water should be put to beneficial use, the economic feasibility of implementing a recycled water product is daunting for a system with so few users. The City has researched and proposed a Recycled Water Project which involved an upgrade and expansion of the existing wastewater treatment facilities to provide up to 1,200 acre-feet of recycled water meeting tertiary, unrestricted reuse standards according to Title 22 to be utilized to offset current use of potable water for irrigation of school grounds, parks, and other City properties, groundwater currently used by vineyards for irrigation, and to enhance drought and fire protection. However the demand for recycled water is likely to be highest during the driest months than when flows into the sewage treatment plant are at their lowest. This means that recycled water could not be a meaningful factor in augmenting supply for non-potable use without the addition of substantial storage capacity. It would be necessary to provide recycled water storage, pumping and distribution facilities, which includes at minimum, a 400 acre-feet of storage. The City does not own land at a location suitable for such storage capacity and the cost of purchasing land and constructing more storage is fiscally challenging to so few rate payers and the City is not currently capable to produce funds for such a significant capital cost.
R12:
NSD proactively and aggressively identify funding sources to accelerate expansion of recycled water service in Napa. Response, Napa Sanitation District: This recommendation has been implemented. NSD is currently a member of the North Bay Water Reuse Authority, an organization omitted 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 $1.5M 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.
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. Response, City of Napa: The City does not intend to implement this recommendation since it is not warranted. The responsibility of the Water Division is to provide safe and dependable water delivery to the community. Treatment and distribution programs are focused on these goals. Requests for capital funding are prioritized for treatment technology to meet water quality regulations, upgrades to the distribution system that is more than 100 years old in some areas, and investment in water supplies to ensure adequate water is available to the community through 2050. Less than one percent of the water treated by the City of Napa is consumed by the population. Of this one percent, only a small percentage includes children that get the most benefit from fluoride in the water. Of that small percentage, an even smaller percentage is children that don’t get fluoride from other sources such as toothpaste and mouthwash. Funds would be better applied directly to those needing treatment, rather than spending over $1M to treat 100% of the water with fluoride when far less than 1% of the water reaches the intended beneficiary of the treatment. The Department of health and Social Services is in a better position to distribute fluoride through clinics and dental outlets if there are real benefits to be achieved.
R14:
That within six months American Canyon, Calistoga, St. Helena, and Yountville prepare capital cost proposals for fluoridation of their water supplies. Response, City of American Canyon: Before the City can agree or disagree with the Grand Jury recommendation, the City Council will refer this proposal to its Blue 70 Ribbon Committee on Water Resources, a community technical advisory group, who will evaluate the merits of fluoridation and provide a recommendation to the City Council early next year. Response, City of Calistoga Public Works Director: The recommendation will not be implemented per California Penal Code 933.05 (a)(4), as it is not warranted nor reasonable. While fluoridation does have certain benefits, it is not required for a small system such as Calistoga’s, and there is no community support for such an initiative. Calistoga is currently undertaking a comprehensive review of the City’s water system, including the operation and funding of same, as part of a water rate-setting process. During approximately 18 publicly-noticed meetings conducted by the Council-appointed advisory committee, there was extensive public commentary and participation, but no requests for fluoridation. In light of the substantial water rate increases now being contemplated, even without the provision of new fluoridation systems the additional costs of fluoridation (estimated on an order-of-magnitude basis of $80,000 initially plus $6,000 per year) do not appear to be justified. Furthermore, City water customers can make choices on fluoride use through widely available, over-the-counter fluoride supplements and toothpaste. Response, City of St. Helena: Pursuant to 933.05(b)(4) the recommendation will not be implemented because it is not required of small water systems. The City of St. Helena’s 2009 Consumer Confidence Report (Annual Drinking Water Quality Report) showed that laboratory testing found 0.56 parts per million (ppm) of fluoride detected so there is some fluoride in the water supply. Fluoridation is most beneficial to children, most toothpastes have fluoride, and fluoride supplements can be purchased for children. If the City Council insisted on fluoridation, then there are up front capital costs to add fluoride to the water treatment process and ongoing chemical purchase costs that would likely to be paid by the City. The City Council is evaluating the need to increase water rates, which is not what rate payers want during these difficult economic times. Since fluoridation would increase the rates higher, the benefits do not justify the costs spread to all rate payers. Additionally, there is rapidly growing scientifically supported opposition evidencing that fluoridation, long promoted to fight tooth decay, is ineffective an has serious health risks. One fact contrary to the belief that began in the 1940s and 1950s that fluoride needed to be swallowed in order to be most effective shows that according to the Centers for Disease Control. Fluoride’s “predominant effect is posteruptive and topical”, and any benefits that accrue from the use of fluoride, come from the direct application of fluoride to the outside of 71 teeth (after they have erupted into the mouth) and not from ingestion. Therefore, there is no need to expose all other tissues to fluoride by swallowing it.” NAPA COUNTY SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS BUREAU 24-HOUR DRUG HOTLINE (707) 224-DRUG The 2009-2010 Grand Jury published its final report on the Napa Special Investigations Bureau on June 8, 2010. Responses were received from the following: • Napa County Board of Supervisors • Napa County Executive Officer • Napa County Chief Probation Officer • NSIB Governing Board • NSIB Special Agent Supervisor The 2009-2010 Grand Jury did not ask the respondents to respond to findings, as the law requires. A request to respond to the findings was made by the 2010-2011 Grand Jury. The respondents did respond to the findings. Below are the findings and recommendations made by the 2009-2010 Grand Jury and following each finding and recommendation are each of the responses of each respondent who was asked to respond to the specific finding and recommendation. The responses to the following findings and recommendations were found to meet statutory requirements.
Quick View
Full Details →
Additional Recommendations
11
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
"Municipalities within the County develop, expand, and formalize agreements to provide water allocations to address a catastrophic loss of water". Response: Disagree partially with the finding. The recommendation requires further analysis by December 1, 2010. The City produces water from two water treatment plants. One plant treats water from Bell Canyon Reservoir and the other treats surface water from Stonebridge Wells (two deep groundwater sources fed by Sonoma Volcanic aquifer). The City also has an agreement with the City of Napa to purchase between 400 and 800 acre-feet of water per year. The City has adequate groundwater and backup water supply, and the Public Works Director is working with other municipalities in the County to improve water supply reliability in the entire Napa Valley and to address a catastrophic loss of water. Received AUG 0 5 2010 Napa Superior Court Letter to Judge Kroyer July 27, 2010
R2:
"All County municipalities evaluate means to increase the capacity, and enhance the survivability, of municipal reservoirs and water storage facilities". Response: Disagree partially with the finding. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not environmentally or financially feasible. The municipal reservoir created by the dam at Bell Canyon, built in the late 1950's, is a tall earthen dam in a narrow canyon. Increasing the capacity of the dam is not likely for the following reasons: The dam at Bell Canyon cannot be raised without an environmental study • proving to the State Water Board that the watershed can support additional storage. The dam could not be raised without a seismic study satisfactory to the Division of Safety of Dams. Due to the age and type of the current facility it is probable that the Division would require that the dam be rebuilt to modern standards. The State Water Board would require careful evaluation of the any • increase in capacity against its recently adopted Inflow Stream Policy (AB 2121).
R3:
• "Calistoga, St. Helena, and Yountville prepare their own detailed plans that supplement and complements the County's ERP." Response: Disagree partially with the finding. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. The City has less than 2,400 service connections (1,964 within City limits, 348 outside city limits) to a population of approximately 6,800 people using approximately 1977 acre feet of water per year. The City is not required to prepare an Emergency Response Plan; however the City has established an Urban Water Management Plan which addresses the City's response to a catastrophic loss of water in Section 9 Water Shortage Contingency Plan, Section 9.1, the City has a five-phased Water Shortage Emergency (Contingency) Plan which includes voluntary and mandatory conservation measures. At any time that the City Council determines that a water shortage emergency condition exists, and that it is necessary to limit usage by the customers of the City's water system, the City Council shall adopt a resolution setting forth applicable phases.
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 communities' population, especially local hospitals, shelters, and emergency centers". Response: Disagree partially with the finding. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. The City has less than 2,400 service connections (1,964 within City limits, 348 outside city limits) to a population of approximately 6,800 people using approximately 1977 acre feet of water per year. The City is not required to prepare an Emergency Response Plan; however the City has established an Urban Water Management Plan which addresses the City's response to a catastrophic loss of water in Section 9 Water Shortage Contingency Plan, Section 9.1, the City has a five-phased Water Shortage Emergency (Contingency) Plan which includes voluntary and mandatory conservation measures. At any time that the City Council determines that a water shortage emergency condition exists, and that it is necessary to limit usage by the customers of the City's water system, the City Council shall adopt a resolution setting forth applicable phases. Letter to Judge Kroyer July 27, 2010
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." Response: Disagree partially with the findings. The City of St. Helena is not required to prepare and adopt an Urban Water Management Plan because it does not meet the minimum number of required connections which is 3,000. The city currently has only +/- 2,500 connection and based on projected General Plan growth will not exceed the minimum of 3,000. Although the City is not required to prepare an Urban Water Management Plan, the City voluntarily completed one in 2003 Letter to Judge Kroyer July 27, 2010 and an update in 2007. Emergency preparedness can always be improved, and City staff will continue to update its plan on a periodic basis.
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." Response: Disagree wholly with the finding. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. The Recommendation does not apply to the City of St. Helena as it specifically addresses that the City of Napa and NSD identify a process for, and develop an implementation plan to, integrate NSD and PWD into a single department.
R9:
"The County and all municipalities continue development and expansion of recycled water projects to alleviate future water shortages". Response: Agree partially with the finding. While the City recognizes recycled water should be put to beneficial use, the production rate of recycled water would not be satisfactory to "alleviate future water shortages". Additionally the demand for recycled water is likely to be highest during the driest months when flows into the sewage treatment plant are at their lowest. This means that recycled water could not be a meaningful factor in augmenting supply for non-potable use without the addition of substantial storage capacity. It would be necessary to provide recycled water storage, pumping and distribution facilities, which includes, at minimum, a 400 acre-feet of storage. The City does not own land at a location suitable for such storage capacity, and the cost of purchasing land and constructing more storage is not fiscally justifiable to rate payers. Not to mention a significant capital cost.
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 portable and recycled water." Response: Disagree partially with the finding. The recommendation requires further analysis by December 1, 2010. While it is cost prohibitive at this time for the City to solely provide recycled water, the Public Works Director will work with other municipalities in the County to investigate the process and economics for the formation of a countywide utility district to benefit the County residents and Letter to Judge Kroyer July 27, 2010 holistically manage the availability, distribution, and economics of portable and recycled water.
R11:
"St. Helena accelerate its planning process and implementation of distribution and use recycled water." Response: Agree partially with the finding. While the City recognizes recycled water should be put to beneficial use, the economic feasibility of implementing a recycled water product is daunting for a system with so few users. The City has researched and proposed a Recycled Water Project which involved an upgrade and expansion of the existing wastewater treatment facilities to provide up to 1,200 acre-feet of recycled water meeting tertiary, unrestricted reuse standards according to Title 22 to be utilized to offset the current use of potable water for irrigation of school grounds, parks, and other City properties, groundwater currently used by vineyards for irrigation, and to enhance drought and fire protection. However the demand for recycled water is likely to be highest during the driest months when flows into the sewage treatment plant are at their lowest. This means that recycled water could not be a meaningful factor in augmenting supply for non-potable use without the addition of substantial storage capacity. It would be necessary to provide recycled water storage, pumping and distribution facilities, which includes, at minimum, a 400 acre-feet of storage. The City does not own land at a location suitable for such storage capacity, and the cost of purchasing land and constructing more storage is fiscally challenging to so few rate payers and the City is not currently capable to produce funds for such a significant capital cost. Letter to Judge Kroyer July 27, 2010
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 AB733. Response: Disagree wholly with the finding. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. The Recommendation does not apply to the City of St. Helena as it specifically addresses that the City of Napa to apply for funding sources for capital improvement to fluorite water supplies for its three treatment plants. CITY COUNCIL, ST. HELENA RECOMMENDATIONS
R14:
• "That within six months American Canyon, Calistoga, St. Helena, and Yountville prepare capital cost proposals for fluoridation of their water supplies". Response: Disagree wholly with the finding. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not required of small water systems. The City of St. Helena's 2009 Consumer Confidence Report (Annual Drinking Water Quality Report) showed that laboratory testing found 0.56 parts per million (ppm) of fluoride detected so there is some fluoride in the water supply. Fluoridation is most beneficial to children, most toothpastes have fluoride, and fluoride supplements can be purchased for children. If the City Council insisted on fluoridation, then there are up front capital costs to add fluoride to the water treatment process and ongoing chemical purchase costs that would likely to be entirely paid by the City. The City Council is evaluating the need to increase water rates, which is not what rate payers want during these difficult economic times. Since fluoridation would increase the rates higher, the benefits do not justify the costs spread to all rate payers. Additionally, there is rapidly growing scientifically supported opposition evidencing that fluoridation, long promoted to fight tooth decay, is ineffective and has serious health risks. One fact contrary to the belief that began in the 1940s and 1950s that fluoride needed to be swallowed in order to be most effective, shows that according to the Centers for Disease Control, fluoride's "predominant effect is posteruptive and topical", and any benefits that accrue from the use of fluoride, come from the direct application of fluoride to the outside of teeth (after they have erupted into the mouth) and not from ingestion. Therefore, there is no need to expose all other tissues to fluoride by swallowing it." MAYOR, ST. HELENA RECOMMENDATIONS
Quick View
Full Details →
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
"Municipalities within the County develop, expand, and formalize agreements to provide water allocations to address a catastrophic loss of water". Response: We agree with the finding and recommendation, and it is already being implemented in large part. Calistoga has two sources of potable water supply - from its own Kimball Reservoir and from its share of the North Bay Aqueduct (NBA) project. The NBA water is treated to potable water standards and 'wheeled' to Calistoga by the City of Napa; i.e. Calistoga is a wholesale water 'customer' of the City of Napa. The cities of Napa and Calistoga have long- standing and formal water service agreements to implement the water supply relationship, and the arrangements are further strengthened on a regular basis through staff communication and coordination efforts. In addition, public works and water utility staff from the entire county meet monthly as a Water Technical Advisory Committee to discuss and coordinate items of mutual interest with respect to water quality and water supply reliability. Staff at the various agencies within the County also have initiated and developed projects to improve the reliability of the water supplies during regular and emergency operational periods. For example, the cities of Napa, St, Helena, and Calistoga have recently completed the first phase (a Conceptual Design and Feasibility Study) of the Dwyer Pump Station project, which would provide enhanced and more reliable distribution of potable Received JUL 2 6 2010 Napa Superior Court July 22, 2010 City of Calistoga Response: Grand Jury Final Report on Water: Our Precious, Critical Resource water in the upper Napa valley area, to the benefit of each of the cities. The Public Works Director shall work with other municipalities in the County to develop and formalize any further agreements, as may be mutually beneficial, to provide water allocations and water supply reliability to address a catastrophic loss of water.
R2:
"All County municipalities evaluate means to increase the capacity, and enhance the survivability, of municipal reservoirs and water storage facilities". Response: Calistoga agrees with the finding, except as it pertains to the City's Kimball Reservoir. The recommendation should not be implemented at this time with respect to increasing the capacity of Kimball Reservoir at this time, because it is not fiscally justifiable. In the late 1990's, Calistoga undertook a comprehensive review of long-term water supply options, and elected to increase water supplies through the purchase of additional water allocations through the North Bay Aqueduct system. Calistoga's water supplies are adequate for its projected growth, as specified by the General Plan and it is not warranted or economically feasible at this time to also increase the Kimball Reservoir supply. Kimball Dam and Reservoir are inspected regularly by City staff, and on an annual basis by City staff and representatives of the State of California, Division of Safety of Dams, to ensure the facility is operated both safely and reliably. With respect to treated water storage, the City of Calistoga has secured all necessary funding, and anticipates beginning construction within nine months, on the Mount Washington Water Storage Tank project, which will increase the City's capacity to store treated water by over 125%.
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 communities' population, especially local hospitals, shelters, and emergency centers". Response: Calistoga agrees with the finding. The recommendation has already been implemented - the City already has an Emergency Response Plan (ERP), dated December 2004, as required by various laws and requirements as promulgated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the California Department of Public Health. The ERP, prepared and submitted in accordance with applicable laws, outlines, and guidance documents, was based in part on the completed vulnerability assessment of the City of Calistoga's water system. The ERP includes various operating procedures and action plans to protect and restore the water system during and following an emergency event. The City is also allowed by its Municipal Code to declare an emergency, procure necessary services and supplies via expedited emergency procedures, and request mutual aid during an emergency. July 22, 2010 City of Calistoga Response: Grand Jury Final Report on Water: Our Precious, Critical Resource
R9:
"The County and all municipalities continue development and expansion of recycled water projects to alleviate future water shortages". Response: Calistoga agrees with the finding and recommendation, and it is already being implemented in large part. Calistoga has provided disinfected tertiary-treated recycled water to customers for many years. Calistoga seeks to expand the use of recycled water to new customers, when it is economic and feasible to do so. In some cases, the use of recycled water is specified as a mandatory condition of approval for new development projects. For example, the large and prominent Solage resort, which opened in 2007, is a relatively new and significant recycled water user. In 2009, Calistogans used approximately 761 acre-feet of potable water, while using 320 acre-feet of recycled water. Calistoga expects the beneficial re-use of recycled water to continue and expand modestly into the foreseeable future.
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." Response: Calistoga is open to discussing this recommendation, however the existing systems of partially interconnected utility systems, water supply agreements, and constructive cooperation among the County and the municipalities, is adequate to meet the needs of Calistoga. Calistoga has a well-developed, two-source potable water supply system, which is sized to meet the City's needs to grow in accordance with its General Plan. Calistoga's recycled water system provides a substantial amount of tertiary-treated recycled water to approximately two dozen customers, and Calistoga is implementing plans to expand the system when it is economic and feasible to do so. Given the geographic remoteness of Calistoga from the other (larger) municipalities in the County, Calistoga believes its current utility systems are sufficient to meet community requirements.
R14:
"That within six months American Canyon, Calistoga, St. Helena, and Yountville prepare capital cost proposals for fluoridation of their water supplies". Response: Calistoga has concerns with this finding. While fluoridation does have certain benefits, it is not required for a small system such as Calistoga's, and there is no community support for such an initiative. Calistoga is currently undertaking a comprehensive review of the City's water system, including the operation and funding of same, as part of a water rate-setting process. During the approximately 18 publicly-noticed, public meetings conducted by the Council-appointed advisory committee, there was extensive public commentary and July 22, 2010 City of Calistoga Response: Grand Jury Final Report on Water: Our Precious, Critical Resource participation, but no requests for fluoridation. In light of the substantial water rate increases now being contemplated, even without the provision of new fluoridation systems, the additional costs for fluoridation (estimated on an order-of-magnitude basis of $80,000 initially plus $6,000 per year) do not appear to be justified. Furthermore, City water customers can make choices on fluoride use through widely available, over-the-counter fluoride supplements and toothpaste Thank you for your efforts in assuring that all branches of county and city government are being administered honestly, effectively, and in the best interest of Napa County Citizens. If you have any questions regarding these responses, please contact us at 707-942-2805. You may also contact Mr. Dan Takasugi, P.E., the City's Public Works Director and City Engineer, at 707-942- 2828. Sincerely Jack Gingles Mayor William C. Norton Interim City Manager Dan Takasugi, P.E. Public Works Director / City Engineer
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F2:
NVUSD is not required to provide current course work, for minors incarcerated at Juvenile Hall in a timely matter.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
NVUSD, in conjunction with NCIH personnel, establish and implement a re-entry program for youth returning from Juvenile Hall. Response: Partial Agreement We are in agreement with the recommendation that a re-entry program would be valuable, but resources and logistics may present significant obstacles. NVUSD will work with NCOE and NCJW to research the feasibility of a re-entry program for students returning to their school from Napa County Juvenile Hall. Discussion, coordination and implementation of how the student will overcome not having been in his or her classes for the time they were in Juvenile Hall, as well as a scheme for credit recovery, make up, and extra support would be addressed. The NVUSD Child Welfare and Attendance Supervisor will facilitate the planning and feasibility discussion between NCJH, NCOE and NVUSD during the 2010-11 school year, with the intention of implementing a program by the beginning of the 2011-12 school year. Received Napa Superior Court Mark Womin OCT 1 3 2010 Mark Morrison, Director of Secondary Education Court Executive Office
* 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.