Napa County Grand Jury
2011-2012
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 (7)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F3:
Having the CAL FIRE 6 County Unit Chief who, at the same time, is also the NCFC creates a less than full time commitment and attention to Fire and Emergency services for Napa County and its taxpayers. The nine (9) volunteer fire department chiefs agree with the finding. Response #1 The 2008 Grand Jury report determined a similar need for a dedicated Napa County Employee to coordinate, focus and support the NCFD Volunteer members of the NCFD. As described in the 2008 response (Recommendation #2), a position was created and filled by a CAL FIRE employee. Unfortunately, this model has not resulted in meeting the intended goals. Lack of coordination, focus and support is also identified in the current GJR and addressed not only the volunteer firefighter contingency, but the NCFD as a whole. We strongly believe that cultural differences exist between the career members (union CAL FIRE employees), and the volunteer members of NCFD. CAL FIRE staff focuses more on issues within the Lake/Napa/Sonoma Unit and the State, where the priority and commitment of the volunteer member is dedicated to their local community. These differences of vision and lack of a dedicated central position have not resulted in forward progress in the evolution of the NCFD. A dedicated Napa County employee whose allegiance is to the citizens and taxpayers of Napa County will enhance emergency services in Napa County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Napa County write a job description and employ a NCFC who will be independent and separate from CAL FIRE employment, before contracting CAL FIRE services for the agreement year 2013-2014. While in agreement, the nine (9) volunteer chiefs have no authority to implement Response #1 this recommendation. A model of a CALFIRE employee in a similar position is currently in place. This position has not had the anticipated affect on NCFD. The volunteer chiefs strongly recommend that this position should be a Napa County employee wholly dedicated to the NCFD. See Finding #3 response.
F5:
If Napa County had a standalone Fire Department, without the CAL FIRE Agreement, Napa County residents could experience similar services as to what is now provided, at a significant savings to the County as demonstrated in Sonoma County. Response #5 The nine (9) volunteer fire department chiefs partially agree with the finding. While the taxpayers of Napa County "could" receive similar services, the savings are unknown. To compare the Napa County and Sonoma County fire departments is difficult and the complexities are many. With the significant cost of the CALFIRE contract, a cost benefit analysis should be completed to determine if the Napa County taxpayers are receiving their best value. A dedicated Napa County Fire Department focused primarily on promoting emergency . services in Napa County, rather than the Lake/Napa/Sonoma Unit and state, would enhance the services to our citizens.
Related Recommendations (2)
R5:
Replace CAL FIRE Dispatch services for Napa County Fire/EMS with the existing Napa Central Dispatch services which will not alter CAL FIRE dispatch of CAL FIRE units. Response #5 The nine (9) volunteer chiefs have no authority to implement this recommendation. We believe further analysis is required.
R6:
Napa complete a CBA, by an independent firm, of all fire protection services provided by CAL FIRE and NCFD before contracting CAL FIRE services for the agreement year 2014-2015. Response #6 While in agreement, the nine (9) volunteer chiefs have no authority to implement this recommendation.
F6:
There is a reasonable probability of saving a major part of the $8,267,184 CAL FIRE contract budget if Napa County transitions CAL FIRE services to the NCFD. Response #6 The nine (9) volunteer fire department chiefs partially agree with the finding. Much of the Napa County lands are State Response Area (SRA). As explained by CALFIRE staff with regards to the November 2011 "Soda" Fire in the Loma Vista/Soda Canyon area, "The SRA Fire is the responsibility of CAL FIRE to mitigate, investigate, and provide explanations and helpful information to the affected citizens." NCFD is described as a cooperating agency. CAL FIRE is RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY FINDINGS Napa County Volunteer Fire Chiefs responsible for these areas whether they receive county funds or not. This also is a complex issue as other non-fire related emergency services are included in the current contract. A cost benefit analysis should be to be completed to determine the value of the contract.
Related Recommendations (2)
R5:
Replace CAL FIRE Dispatch services for Napa County Fire/EMS with the existing Napa Central Dispatch services which will not alter CAL FIRE dispatch of CAL FIRE units. Response #5 The nine (9) volunteer chiefs have no authority to implement this recommendation. We believe further analysis is required.
R6:
Napa complete a CBA, by an independent firm, of all fire protection services provided by CAL FIRE and NCFD before contracting CAL FIRE services for the agreement year 2014-2015. Response #6 While in agreement, the nine (9) volunteer chiefs have no authority to implement this recommendation.
F12:
CAL FIRE has made decisions which are self serving to CAL FIRE and not in the best interest of Napa County. The nine (9) volunteer fire department chiefs agree with the finding. Response #12 It appears that the trend by CALFIRE is an effort to minimize or diminish volunteer response by ٠ reducing volunteer response areas, changing of dispatch models and "mandating" excessive training requirements so that volunteers are not allowed to, or have a limited opportunity to respond to emergencies. These changes have underutilized the volunteer resources and could have a negative impact on the citizens and visitors of Napa County. These changes also support an argument that today's volunteer responses are diminishing, thus the need for an increased CALFIRE role. When cover assignments are needed, or equipment for hire is requested, in lieu of staffing ٠ county fire apparatus with NCFD volunteers as was past practice, County equipment is typically now staffed with CALFIRE employees. The purchase of the most effective types of emergency vehicles for some of the more remote, ٠ unique areas in Napa County have not been supported, unless pressured by an outside influence (Patrol units by the 2008 GJR). The CALFIRE/NCFD staff usually support the purchases of apparatus that blend into the state mutual aid system in which CALFIRE plays a significant role. These are not always the best vehicles for Napa County, but certainly support the CALFIRE response capability. County training staff have been utilized for state purposes, whether it is training state ٠ employees (often times the seasonal state firefighters), or used on state incidents. This affects NCFD training and NCFD. A recent example was a NCFD training staff member cancelled required training due to playing a role in the February 2012 Soda fire. One of many others could have filled the role at the fire, but the choice was made to cancel NCFD training, and the county funded employee to remain on the SRA fire.
F14:
The Volunteer Departments in Napa County are very cost effective providers of Fire/EMS services. The nine (9) volunteer fire department chiefs agree with the finding. Response #14 The Napa County Volunteer Fire Departments are cost effective providers of emergency services if supported and managed. Volunteer emergency resources could have an increased role in the delivery of emergency services and provide a quality service to the citizens and visitors of Napa County. Volunteers can perform station coverage, or backfill in their response areas, when large RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY FINDINGS Napa County Volunteer Fire Chiefs The nine (9) volunteer fire department chiefs agree with the finding. Response #15 The use of volunteer stations for local coverage assignments has decreased, thus underutilizing these valuable resources. Recent CAD (computer aided dispatch) reprogramming changes have shown that some volunteer departments are not dispatched to incidents in their response areas. As a result, the closest emergency resource is not always sent to the incident, thus delaying intervention. For medical incidents, which are 80-90% of the emergency responses, volunteers will often respond in their personal vehicles. CAD does not seem to recognize this type of response, assuming that all responses will be by a fire apparatus. This underutilizes the volunteers and could prevent quicker medical assistance. Some volunteers are certified fire instructors and many others are qualified to instruct. However, the training division prefers the use of a career station to instruct rather than using qualified volunteer instructors. The assistance provided from the career stations is appreciated, but the opportunity of the qualified volunteer instructor to provide quality training, to lead, to gain ownership of NCFD and to develop their management skills are lost. A change in initial volunteer firefighter training has taken place that often times greatly exceeds • the number of training hours required by State and Federal laws. This has negatively effected recruitment and discouraged those wishing to be volunteer emergency responders in their communities. The NCFD training plan has focused more toward the volunteer seeking a future fire career ٠ rather than the volunteer seeking to provide safe, effective emergency response to their local community. This has significantly increased the number of hours required to respond to emergency events and reduced the ability of the volunteer departments to provide responders.
F15:
In Napa County, CAL FIRE has discouraged the use of volunteers. RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY FINDINGS Napa County Volunteer Fire Chiefs The nine (9) volunteer fire department chiefs agree with the finding. Response #15 The use of volunteer stations for local coverage assignments has decreased, thus underutilizing these valuable resources. Recent CAD (computer aided dispatch) reprogramming changes have shown that some volunteer departments are not dispatched to incidents in their response areas. As a result, the closest emergency resource is not always sent to the incident, thus delaying intervention. For medical incidents, which are 80-90% of the emergency responses, volunteers will often respond in their personal vehicles. CAD does not seem to recognize this type of response, assuming that all responses will be by a fire apparatus. This underutilizes the volunteers and could prevent quicker medical assistance. Some volunteers are certified fire instructors and many others are qualified to instruct. However, the training division prefers the use of a career station to instruct rather than using qualified volunteer instructors. The assistance provided from the career stations is appreciated, but the opportunity of the qualified volunteer instructor to provide quality training, to lead, to gain ownership of NCFD and to develop their management skills are lost. A change in initial volunteer firefighter training has taken place that often times greatly exceeds • the number of training hours required by State and Federal laws. This has negatively effected recruitment and discouraged those wishing to be volunteer emergency responders in their communities. The NCFD training plan has focused more toward the volunteer seeking a future fire career ٠ rather than the volunteer seeking to provide safe, effective emergency response to their local community. This has significantly increased the number of hours required to respond to emergency events and reduced the ability of the volunteer departments to provide responders.
F16:
CAL FIRE has ignored volunteer chiefs' recommendations. Response #16 The nine (9) volunteer fire department chiefs agree with the finding. Page #15 of 2011-2012 GJR, a middle management correspondence with regards to volunteer chief opinions/recommendations, "...it seems incredible that the future organization of NCFD hangs on a decision made by individuals who work as a gardener, vintner, school teacher, fire extinguisher serviceman, etc." Unfortunately, this opinion is not isolated and seems to be held by some of the middle management and senior staff, and through their examples, has proven to have a negative systemic effect on NCFD. While it is true that these four referenced individuals are not full time career fire employees, they provide valuable insight as embedded community members, bringing over 120 years of NCFD fire experience to the Advisory Board. The nine volunteer chiefs bring well over 200 years of experience. Important decisions in areas such as apparatus/equipment purchases, training requirements and response/dispatch models often times appear to be ignored. The process for soliciting
F17:
The NCFC does not sufficiently encourage volunteer recruitment. Response #17 The nine (9) volunteer fire department chiefs partially agree with the finding. The volunteer academy schedule has little flexibility, and the training content is excessive. When compared to established Federal/State mandates, the required number of training hours is greatly exceeded and is increasingly burdensome. This not only discourages recruitment of volunteers, but also the ability to retain volunteer resources. A stipend program to reimburse volunteer members for participation is in place. However, the firefighter recruits that put in approximately 200 hrs of training over a 4 month period, not including travel times throughout the county, can have significant fuel costs and are not compensated. This can be a financial burden and discourages new prospective volunteers. In the past year, NCFD career and volunteer staff have worked to obtain a grant to assist with ٠ recruiting volunteer firefighters. Career staff has also been assisting volunteer staff with developing a recruitment flyer. These actions are appreciated and are steps in the right direction.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The NCFC immediately and actively support recruitment of new firefighter volunteers. While in agreement, the nine (9) volunteer chiefs have no authority to implement Response #3 this recommendation.
F18:
Some volunteer fire departments need outreach to their community, and their community needs to be directly involved with the Volunteer Fire Department boards and operations. Response #18 The nine (9) volunteer fire department chiefs partially agree with the finding. Some communities benefit from members being involved with the fire department boards. We support each department involving community members in roles that best serve their community. However, community boards are not viable for every department.
F19:
A balanced volunteer fire department governing Board of Directors should require a significant community representation. Response #19 The nine (9) volunteer fire department chiefs partially agree with the finding. Not all departments have a Board of Directors or community oversight council. However, community involvement should be encouraged at all levels of the local department.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R2:
The NCFC immediately and actively support the local Volunteer Fire Department Chiefs, their Advisory Board, and governing boards. While in agreement, the nine (9) volunteer chiefs have no authority to implement Response #2 this recommendation.
R7:
Within three years, or on the schedule outlined by the CBA, implement the CBA recommendation regarding the CAL FIRE Agreement. Response #7 The nine (9) volunteer chiefs have no authority to implement this recommendation. If the CBA determines a more cost effective way to provide similar emergency services, we should evaluate those recommendations to ensure that we provide the best value to the taxpayers.
Findings & Recommendations
16 findings
F1:
Construction of the Mt. Washington water storage tank is a build out of the City’s water infrastructure. It supports growth and will store NBA water, both of which are counter to the letter and spirit of Measure A.
F2:
Construction of the Mt. Washington water storage tank should have been listed in the 1998 Ordinance as an “approved project” or should have gone through the “replacement project” process.
F3:
Solage Resort Drainage Project should not have been paid with Measure A funds as the City of Calistoga had no duty to pay that $600,000 cost.
F4:
As the defense of a lawsuit by a municipality is a general governmental function, the legal fees paid by the City of Calistoga for the Kimball Creek Bypass litigation was an improper use of Measure A funds.
F5:
The invoices for the fees paid by the City of Calistoga for the Kimball Creek Bypass litigation provided inadequate information to allow the FPWIA to make an informed determination as whether the billings were reasonable and appropriate.
F6:
The City of Calistoga should have acknowledged its breach of public trust much earlier in the bypass litigation .
F7:
The Measure A Ordinance did not explicitly describe how the approval process should operate and as a result the Organizational Chart was arbitrarily drawn. To the degree the chart is used as a schematic model for Measure A projects, its flaws are transferred into the approval process.
F8:
The County Public Works Director improperly certified the legality of several Calistoga Measure A projects.
F9:
County Counsel is on the Flood Protection Funding Flow Chart to put agreements into proper form, but has no formal role reviewing proposals for compliance with Measure A. In practice County Counsel sometimes reviews proposals but does not review all proposals, and even as to reviewed proposals, County Counsel renders no formal opinion as to compliance with Measure A.
F10:
The approval process is ineffective since the Flood Protection Water Improvement Authority (Board of Supervisors) has approved projects that lack compliance to Measure A requirements. Greater care should be taken to examine in reasonable detail the compliance of projects and their expenses.
F11:
The Financial Oversight Committee exemplifies the disability of the system by being placed at the end of the approval process. The Ordinance intended the Financial Oversight Committee to “Ensure ongoing community input in the finalization of all projects...” (Emphasis added.) 22
F12:
The Financial Oversight Committee is the community “watchdog” for Measure A projects and should constantly monitor the projects in all stages, instead of only after the termination of those projects.
F13:
The Financial Oversight Committee is improperly constituted and has passively performed its role.
F14:
County projections forecast a 23% population reduction with evidence-based practices. If achieved, this could translate into a cost savings for the taxpayers of Napa County since the cost of the monitoring and treating out-of-custody offenders is less than the cost of incarceration.
F15:
The County’s Criminal Justice team is challenged on a daily basis to manage the prisoner population to stay within the bed-rated capacity.
F16:
Commitments of State financial support have been very limited, funding provisions included in the Assembly Bills expire in June 2012. A long-term solution is dependent on future legislation. 16
Additional Recommendations
11
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Flood Protection and Water Improvement Authority (Board of Supervisors) more carefully evaluate Measure A proposals and take steps to ensure that all proposals for the expenditure of Measure A tax revenue meet Measure A requirements from a legal standpoint as well as from a technical standpoint.
R2:
Flood Protection and Water Improvement Authority redefine the approval process and the corresponding County flow chart, so that after “the Auditor/Controller ensures adequate Measure A funds exist to meet request” and before “County Counsel prepares funding agreement,” both the Director of Public Works and County Counsel certify that the requested expenditure meets Measure A requirements, rather than just the Director of Public Works so certifying.
R3:
Flood Protection and Water Improvement Authority redefine the approval process and the corresponding County flow chart, so that after “the Auditor/Controller ensures adequate Measure A funds exist to meet request” and before the proposal is “presented at meeting of Flood Protection and Water Improvement Authority,” the Financial Oversight Committee be given a copy of the proposal to, pursuant to their charge, review and “advise the public whether it is consistent with the purpose, spirit, intent, and language of Measure A.”
R4:
County Counsel certify every proposed expenditure as in compliance with Measure A.
R5:
Financial Oversight Committee receives the information on proposed expenditures prior to approval by the Flood Protection and Water Improvement Authority.
R6:
Immediate, concerted and ongoing effort to fill Financial Oversight Committee vacancies by Financial Oversight Committee and Board of Supervisors; specifically, the vacancies for representatives from: Board of Supervisors Business Community Local Media Napa County Taxpayers 23 Environmental Community Agricultural Industry Health and Human Services
R7:
Auditor-Controller prepare an annual audit as per Section 23 of Ordinance in addition to the annual Financial Oversight Committee audit.
R8:
Financial Oversight Committee be granted authority to require jurisdictions requesting Measure A funds to present proposed expenditures to that Committee prior to final approval by Flood Authority.
R9:
Financial Oversight Committee receive and examine itemized invoices billed to Measure A projects in addition to the summarized data currently provided it.
R10:
Financial Oversight Committee establish subcommittees in order to more effectively fulfill its responsibilities under the Ordinance, namely: a. Provide the public with information regarding the manner in which Measure A tax proceeds have been spent; b. Prepare an annual audit regarding the use of Measure A proceeds; c. Review the financial impact of each project and advise the public whether it is consistent with the purpose, spirit, intent and language of Measure A; d. Inform the public of any expenditure which is inconsistent with the purpose and intent of Measure A; e. Make recommendations to the Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District regarding proposed replacement projects if a project indentified in Measure A is determined not feasible.
R11:
Any further requests by the City of Calistoga for Measure A funds for the Mt. Washington tank and Solage projects be denied and the City be required to return any unspent Measure A tax revenue forwarded to it for these matters.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
The Napa Police Department is delinquent in not publishing the results of its Administration Investigation in a timely manner.
F2:
Richard Poccia’s body was left on the street over thirteen hours, an inordinate and unacceptable amount of time.
F3:
There is a need for more effective collaboration between Napa County Mental Health and the Napa Police Department in crisis situations.
F4:
There is no civilian review board in Napa County for OIS incidents.
F5:
Much of the Alta Heights community is estranged from the Napa Police Department as result of police actions during and after the Richard Poccia event.
F6:
It is commendable that the Napa Police Department provides access to psychological counseling for its officers following traumatic situations such as an OIS.
F7:
Adequate psychological counseling is not currently available to Napa communities following traumatic situations that occur in public.
F8:
Mental Health’s two unanswered phone calls without more follow-up to Richard Poccia were inadequate.
Additional Recommendations
8
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Napa Police Department explain the reason(s) the Administrative Investigation Report of the OIS of November 28, 2010, is delinquent, and release the report within 60 days.
R2:
The Napa Police Department publish future Administrative Investigation Reports within 180 days of the incidents giving rise to them.
R3:
Within 90 days the City of Napa establish procedures to utilize appropriate screening for sensitive crime scenes.
R4:
Within 180 days the law enforcement departments in Napa County and Mental Health Department establish more effective coordination in situations of crisis intervention by (1) engaging in joint training exercises, and by (2) maintaining instantaneous communication and patching capability. 8
R5:
Within one year the Napa County Board of Supervisors and all Napa County incorporated local governments establish a civilian review board to examine all investigation documents of this incident and all future Officer involved shooting (OIS) incidents to provide feedback from a civilian point-of-view.
R6:
Within 90 days the Napa Police Department provide its staff effective public interface and/or appoint a liaison officer to inform and reassure the public during tense events.
R7:
Within 180 days the Napa County Mental Health Department (1) establish support programs for communities involved in traumatic incidents, and (2) establish additional programs to promote community awareness of resources for crisis support.
R8:
Within 180 days the Napa County Board of Supervisors provide the necessary funding resources to assist Napa County Mental Health with (1) appropriate staff levels for crisis situations, and (2) effective communication routing and patching links with Napa Police.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
16 findings
F1:
The recent hiring of a new NCDC Director and the cooperative working relationships in the County’s Criminal Justice Community has resulted in an efficient administration of justice that is certainly a plus for Napa County.
F2:
The NCDC Director has demonstrated a high level of professionalism and leadership, while improving jail operations, and staff morale.
F3:
The Napa County Criminal Justice Committee has promoted evidence based programs to reduce recidivism and has implemented alternatives to jail sentences for lower level criminals.
F4:
There are frequent overcrowding issues in the current jail facility. NAPA COUNTY JUVENILE HALL INSPECTION BACKGROUND The facility was built in 2004 as a state of the art detention and rehabilitation center and was designed to house up to 50 juveniles, supervised by 27 permanent staff assisted by additional part time staff members. The Napa County Probation Department oversees the operation of NCJH. The Chief Probation Officer serves as its Director, responsible for the overall operation of NCJH. NCJH provides for juvenile detention and rehabilitation providing custody, counseling, medical care, and guidance of delinquent and custodial children in a variety of short- and medium-term evidence based programs and assessments. Juvenile probation oversight delivers various levels of supervision that are based on protection of the community, risk/needs assessments, out-of-home placements, and amenability to rehabilitation. The juvenile supervisors collaborate with the Napa County Health and Human Services Department in the supervision of selected cases wherein mental health issues are a major factor. The supervisors also collaborate with other community and government agencies such as Juvenile Drug Court, Wolfe Center and Aldea Inc. Detainees receive treatment including mental health evaluations and services provided by a mental health professional 40 hours per week. General nursing care is provided seven days per week. DISCUSSION The Grand Jury found that NCJH is a secure facility that provides safe custody, counseling, medical care, and guidance to delinquent youth. The Grand Jury found the NCJH to be well managed and maintained with programs designed to engage and rehabilitate youth, and instill the values of treating others with respect and courtesy. The facility provides residents the opportunity to continue school through on site teachers and classrooms. In cooperation with other County agencies and non-profits, the NCJH provides programs addressing alcohol and drug abuse, mental health, conflict resolution, religious services and art. The Grand Jury was satisfied with the facility operations, and the high level of professionalism and respectfulness of the administration and staff. FINDINGS The 2011-2012 Grand Jury finds that:
F5:
The NCJH is providing a safe and secure environment for delinquent Napa County youths.
F6:
The Juvenile Hall facility is well designed, maintained and has a dedicated management team.
F7:
Administration and staff demonstrate a high level of professionalism and respectfulness while carrying out their duties.
F8:
Administration and staff are making use of evidence based drug abuse, alcohol abuse, and mental health rehabilitation programs. CALIFORNIA PUBLIC SAFETY REALIGNMENT BACKGROUND As shown in the table below, California's prison population grew rapidly over the past two decades. From 1990 to 2011, the population in the state’s prisons grew from 97,000 to nearly 161,000. At the same time, the cost of incarceration rose from $20,562 per inmate to $49,190. 1990 2011 Change Prison Population 97,000 161,000 +166 % Cost of Incarceration $20,562 $49,190 +239 % With a greater than 70 percent state prison recidivism rate, most observers would rate the state’s prison system challenged. These were clearly unsustainable trends. Many factors influenced this increase in the state’s prison population. The two most significant contributors were mandatory sentencing laws and tougher drug enforcement policies. The ultimate recognition of the rising prison population, combined with the economic factors of prison expansion programs, and soaring labor costs, began to gather attention. Researchers, lawmakers, fiscal analysts and corrections officials recognized that the rehabilitation process was not working and that the system could not sustain this growth. Thus the Realignment legislation shifted the responsibility for monitoring, tracking and imprisoning low-level offenders, previously bound for state prison, to county jails. Unfortunately it did so without necessarily providing all of the equivalent funding to the county governments. Criminals arrested after October 1, 2011, who qualify under the so- called “triple non” qualification (non-violent, non-serious, non-sex offenders), will serve their sentences in county jail rather than the state prison. This puts offenders under the management of local officials who may have a greater stake in their rehabilitation than distant state prison employees. Napa County’s response to this legislation, in essence, began in 2004 when seeking a long-term solution for overcrowding conditions at the jail. A study illuminated trends at the jail and made recommendations for improvements. These recommendations evolved into a two phase Master Plan identifying correction system needs for the next 20 years. Subsequent reports presented to the BOS in 2007 and 2008 by the Criminal Justice Committee concluded the County was not implementing evidenced based programs that 8 could reduce recidivism, and recommended the County begin planning for a jail that would meet population projections. In December of 2010, the BOS was presented with a Major Facilities Preliminary Financing Plan and Feasibility Analysis that, among other items, recommended a two phase Jail Replacement Project. The CEO’s office conducted community meetings in early 2011 to solicit public comment on this new Downtown Campus Redevelopment Plan. By then it was obvious these earlier projections for jail population increases would be impacted by the legislature’s enactment of the Realignment Act. While the legislation neither transfers nor orders early release of any inmates, it does shift custody of newly convicted felons sentenced for non-violent, non-serious, non-sex offenses to county control unless excluded by statute. In the near term, this bill will affect Napa County by impacting both the number of prisoners in the jail and the severity of their crimes. It will also impact the probation monitoring requirements. This necessitated a re-evaluation of previous projections. In June 2011, a presentation, Napa County Jail Expansion Design Concepts and Split Operations Analysis, was made to the BOS taking into consideration the projected Realignment impact over the next several years, detailing the cost estimates of three jail construction alternatives. In addition to the revised jail population projections and cost estimates, the analysis explored access to Courts, proximity to other County Departments and services, land use, compatibility for other jail sites, law enforcement access and parking. The report also explored construction complexities associated with each prospective site and capacity for expansion if necessary in the future. The staff recommendation to the BOS is for the jail to maintain its current position, that the downtown site is the preferred location for the jail. However, staff recommended delaying a final decision until further analysis can be conducted. The two primary issues driving the delay are related to the downtown location; limited future expansion capacity and complexities associated with new construction at the existing site. An updated report to the BOS is anticipated later this year. The State has allocated $1 billion to the 58 counties to administer the Realignment program, but this initial funding will end on June 30, 2012. The money comes after lawmakers converted part of the state sales tax to a local sales tax. Counties also will receive $453 million from the state's vehicle license fees that used to go to the Department of Motor Vehicles. The State allocates a relatively low dollar amount to Napa County versus other counties, based on the number of offenders the county has sent to state prison in the past. The Governor has pledged to put a constitutional amendment before voters in November 2012 to guarantee that local governments get this money regardless whether the state runs into more fiscal difficulties. Despite these promises, funding remains one of the many concerns for Napa County as well as the other counties. It is uncertain whether there will be enough money from the state to implement and manage the upcoming changes. If not, this burden could shift to the Napa County taxpayers. DISCUSSION JAIL EXPANSION ALTERNATIVES The Master Plan recommendations to the BOS, as well as the subsequent studies and analysis, have identified a need for an updated jail facility. Based on these
F9:
The various agencies involved within the County’s criminal justice system are working well together as a team to solve the many issues imposed by the new Realignment legislation and current jail overcrowding conditions.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
County Criminal Justice Community report each year to the citizens on how the alternative programs are working, including current information on average jail population, alternative program statistics, and recidivism rate along with the annual crime rate report.
F10:
These stakeholders are finding a common ground, implementing jail alternatives such as the Community Corrections Service Center and the use of home detention and electronic monitoring.
F11:
Napa's alternative programs to incarceration are up and running and have been recognized statewide.
F12:
Alternative programs have been shown to reduce recidivism and modify criminal behavior, potentially increasing the safety of our community and saving taxpayers’ funds.
F13:
Current overcrowding conditions could be exacerbated by the influx of new prisoners; expansion solutions remain several years away.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
County administration continue to reach out at public forums, and solicit community input regarding jail design and location, while looking at jail expansion alternatives.
F14:
County projections forecast a 23% population reduction with evidence-based practices. If achieved, this could translate into a cost savings for the taxpayers of Napa County since the cost of the monitoring and treating out-of-custody offenders is less than the cost of incarceration.
F15:
The County’s Criminal Justice team is challenged on a daily basis to manage the prisoner population to stay within the bed-rated capacity.
F16:
Commitments of State financial support have been very limited, funding provisions included in the Assembly Bills expire in June 2012. A long-term solution is dependent on future legislation. 16
Related Recommendations (2)
R3:
The County prepare to assume greater financial responsibility for Realignment, in the event State funding is not forthcoming.
R4:
The County study alternative funding strategies, in the event State funding is not forthcoming.
Findings & Recommendations
19 findings
F1:
The Fire Station Deployment Analysis and Master Plan Implementation for Napa County Fire Department, Citygate Report was not a cost benefit analysis.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Napa County complete a CBA, by an independent firm, of all the fire protection services provided by CAL FIRE and NCFD before contracting CAL FIRE services for the agreement year 2014-2015. 18
F2:
Presently, there is no job description for the NCFC. The NCFC operates under the State CAL FIRE 6 County Unit Chief job description.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Napa County write a job description and employ a NCFC who will be independent and separate from CAL FIRE employment, before contracting CAL FIRE services for the agreement year 2013-2014.
F3:
Having the CAL FIRE 6 County Unit Chief who, at the same time, is also the NCFC creates a less than full time commitment and attention to Fire and Emergency services for Napa County and its taxpayers.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Napa County write a job description and employ a NCFC who will be independent and separate from CAL FIRE employment, before contracting CAL FIRE services for the agreement year 2013-2014.
F4:
An assessment of CAL FIRE services vs. cost of a full service NCFD as a result of a Cost Benefit Analysis has not been completed.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Napa County complete a CBA, by an independent firm, of all the fire protection services provided by CAL FIRE and NCFD before contracting CAL FIRE services for the agreement year 2014-2015. 18
F5:
If Napa County had a standalone Fire Department, without the CAL FIRE Agreement, Napa County residents could experience similar services as to what is now provided, at a significant savings to the County as demonstrated in Sonoma County.
F6:
There is a reasonable probability of saving a major part of the $8,267,184 CAL FIRE contract budget if Napa County transitions CAL FIRE services to the NCFD.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
Within three years, or on the schedule outlined by the CBA, implement the CBA recommendations regarding the CAL FIRE Agreement.
F7:
The transition from CAL FIRE to an independent Sonoma County Fire Department has resulted in reduced fire protection expenses in Sonoma County.
F8:
Currently dispatch of Fire/EMS is provided by CAL FIRE at $230,000 annually. The existing Napa Central Dispatch could provide these fire dispatch services at a savings to the County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Replace CAL FIRE Dispatch services for Napa County Fire/EMS with the existing Napa Central Dispatch services which will not alter CAL FIRE dispatch of CAL FIRE units.
F9:
The very complex economics and multifaceted fire protection services of Napa County need to be better understood by the Napa County residents.
F10:
The very complex economics and multi faceted fire protection services of Napa County need to be clearly understood by the leadership of the County.
F11:
The current CAL FIRE agreement with Napa County is $8,267,184 which includes an "Administrative Charge" of 11.96% equaling $988,755 in the 2011-12 FY. This $988,755 savings could be allocated for administration of a NCFD.
F12:
CAL FIRE has made decisions which are self serving to CAL FIRE and not in the best interest of Napa County. 17
F13:
Substantial accumulated County Fire Protection funds, of approximately $10,000,000, are available that could be used for transition from CAL FIRE services to a full service volunteer and career NCFD.
F14:
The Volunteer Departments in Napa County are very cost effective providers of Fire/EMS services.
F15:
In Napa County, CAL FIRE has discouraged the use of volunteers.
F16:
CAL FIRE has ignored volunteer chiefs' recommendations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The NCFC immediately and actively support the local Volunteer Fire Department Chiefs, their Advisory Board, and governing boards.
F17:
The NCFC does not sufficiently encourage volunteer recruitment.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The NCFC immediately and actively support recruitment of new firefighter volunteers.
F18:
Some volunteer fire departments need outreach to their community, and their community needs to be directly involved with the Volunteer Fire Department boards and operations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The NCFC immediately and actively assure the volunteer fire departments governing Boards include at least 1/3 representation of community (non- firefighter) members on their Boards.
F19:
A balanced volunteer fire department governing Board of Directors should require a significant community representation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The NCFC immediately and actively assure the volunteer fire departments governing Boards include at least 1/3 representation of community (non- firefighter) members on their Boards.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
15 findings
F1:
LBRID's water and sewer problems were due to aging infrastructure and deferred maintenance. Response, Napa County Public Works Director: The Director of Public Works agrees with the finding.
F2:
Between 1995 and 2010 the RWQCB issued notices of violation and a Cease and Desist Order to the LBRID Board of Directors. Response, Napa County Public Works Director: The Director of Public Works agrees with the finding.
F3:
LBRID water and sewer rate increases have been insufficient to cover operating expenses. Response, Napa County Public Works Director: The Director of Public Works agrees with the finding.
F4:
LBRID does not have an up-to-date Master Facilities Plan. Response, Napa County Public Works Director: The Director of Public Works disagrees with the finding. Typical master facilities plan issues have been addressed through actions and reports that are comparable in sum to a master facilities plan. Specifically, LBRID has completed 2007 needs analysis compiled by Winzler & Kelly Consulting Engineers which identified future improvements and proposed an assessment for each parcel of land within the Assessment District. This report was used to support a successful bond issuance which has been used to fund needed system improvements. In addition, LBRID has a Sanitary Sewer Management Plan (SSMP) as required by the Waste Discharge Requirements and has entered into an agreement with an environmental engineering consultant to prepare an Inflow/Infiltration Capacity Evaluation Report and a Wastewater Facilities Improvement Plan, both to be completed in September 2011.
Related Recommendations (2)
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. Response, Director of Public Works: The recommendation has been implemented. On November 9, 2010, the Board of Supervisors approved an agreement with an environmental engineering consultant to prepare an Inflow-Infiltration Capacity Evaluation Report and a Wastewater Facilities Improvement Plan. These reports will address the challenges currently faced by LBRID and will be completed in September 2011. Response, Board of Supervisors: The Board of Supervisors concurs with the response and explanation of the Director of Public Works.
R3:
County Public Works presents the newly formulated Master Facilities Plan to the property owners and the LBRID Board of Directors. Response, Director of Public Works: The recommendation has not been implemented but will be implemented in the future. When the reports described in Finding 4 and Recommendation 2 are complete, the will be presented to the LBRID governing board and the property owners.
F5:
SHIPPY ままひ 不得のなむ ALVERTA CHEN DE ANE ESTADE the but save 多利性的利益的 EXHIBIT A BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION LAKE BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (A Resort Improvement District) All that real property situated in the County of Mapa, State of California, being a portion of Township 10 North, Range 5 West, M.D.B.&M., described as follows: In Section 10: East half of Southeast quarter. In Section 14: West half of Northwest quarter: West half of Southwest quarter; that portion of the Southeast quarter of the Southwest quarter lying South- westerly of the natural center line of Putah Creek. In Section 15: East half of East half; West Half of Southeast quarter; Southeast quarter of Southwest quarter; Southwest quarter of the Southwest quarter. In Section 22: Northeast quarter of Northwest quarter; Northwest quarter of Northeast quarter; North- east quarter of Northeast quarter; West half of the West half. East half of the Southwest quarter; the Southeast quarter of the Northwest quarter; the Southwest guarter of the Northbest guarter; West half of the Southeast quarter; the Southeast quarter of the Northeast quarter; North half of the Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter. In Section 23: Northwest quarter of Northwest quarter; that portion of the Northwest quarter of the Mortheast quarter and the Mortheast quarter of the Northwest quarter lying Southerly of the natural center line of Putah Creek; East half of Southeast quarter; that portion of Lot I and the Southeast quarter of the Northeast quarter lying Southwesterly of the natural center line of Putah Creek. In Section 24: Southwest quarter of Southeast quarter; West half of Southwest quarter; Southeast quarter of Southwest querter; that portion of Lot 4, and the South half of the Northwest quarter, the Northwest quarter of the Southeast quarter, and the Northeast quarter of the Southwest quarter, lying Southwesterly of the natural center line of Putah Creek. In Section 15: Lot 1; West half of Northeast quarter; Northwest quarter; Northwest quarter of South- west quarter. In Section 26: Northeast quarter of Southeast quarter. In Section 27: Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter. ATTACHMENT C CERTIFIED COPY -7 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - COUNTY OF NAPA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA - E. M. HEALAS RESOLUTION NO. 65-34 RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING BOUNDARIES OF AND ESTABLISHING PROPOSED LAKE BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, A RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Napa, State of California, adopted its Resolution No. 65-21, making certain findings and declaring its intention to establish proposed LAKE BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT and fixed Tuesday, March 23, 1965, at 2:30 P.M., at the County Courthouse, Napa, California, as the time and place for the public hearing thereon, and WHEREAS, notice of said hearing containing (a) the text of the resolution, (b) the time and place for the hearing, and (c) a statement that at the hearing the testimony of all interested persons or taxpayers for or against the establishment of the district, the extent of the district or the furnishing or specified types of services will be heard, was duly published, pursuant to Section 6061 of the Government Code, in The Napa Register, a newspaper of general circulation published in the County of Napa and circulated within said proposed district, on March , 1965, said publication having been completed at least seven days before the date of said harring. MOW, THEREFORE, THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY of Napa, State of California, Does Herbey Resolve, Determine and ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
F6:
The boundaries of said district are hereby finally determined and established to be as set forth on the map and description of said district on file with said County Clerk.
F7:
This Board of Supervisors shall be the governing body of the district until otherwise determined as provided by law." Said LAKE BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT is hereby established subject to the approval of the voters as provided in Section 13030 of the Public Resources Code of the State of California." September 13, 2011 The Honorable Diane M. Price, Presiding Judge Napa County Superior Court
F8:
The said district may acquire, construct, maintain and operate property, works and facilities for any one or more of the following purposes: (a) To supply the inhabitants of the district with water for demostic use, irrigation, sonitation, industrial use, fire protection and recreation. (b) The collection, treatment or disposal of sewage, waste and storm water of the district and its inhabitants. (c) Protection against fire. (d) Comprehensive planning for the physical growth of the area within the district. (a) The collection or disposal of garbage or refuse mattor, (f) Public recreation by means of parks, including but not limited to aquatic parks and recreational harbors, playgrounds, golf courses, swimming pools or recreation bulldings for all-year recreation, including but not limited to facilities for public and private mostings and other public squares and places. (g) Street lighting. (h) Mosquito abatement. (1) The equipment and maintenance of a police depart- ment or other police protection to protect and safeguard life and property. (j) The opening, widening, extending, straightening, and suffecing, in whole or part of any street in such district, subject to the consent of the State Department of Public Works, with respect to State highways, and local authorities as defined in Section 365 of the Vehicle Code, with respect to highways under their jurisdiction. (%) The construction and improvement of bridges, culverts, curbs, gutters, drains, and works incidental to the purposes specified in subdivision (j), subject to the consent of the State Department of Public Works, with respect to State high- ways, and local authorities as defined in Section 385 of the Vehicle Code, with respect to highways under their jurisdiction. (1) The construction and maintenance of parking facilities and other transportation facilities.
F9:
Said LAME BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT is hereby established subject to the approval of the voters as pro- vided in Section 13030 of the Public Resources Code of the State of California. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS on this 23rd day of March, 1965, by the following vote: AYES: Supervisora ANDERSEN, CLARK and CAIOCCA NOES: NONE ABSENT OR NOT VOTING: DICKENSON and FERGUSON (SEAL) JULIUS CAIOCCA, JR. Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Napa attest: Clerk of Said Board тия полисовки правинали в в совивает сору OF THE OMGINAL ON FILE IN THIS OFFICE COLUMN OF THE GOLMO CALIFORNIE MAPA STATE OF
F10:
By their actions the Board of Supervisors formed a Board of Directors for LBRID within the meaning of CPRC 13032. Response, Board of Supervisors: The Board of Supervisors disagrees with this finding. As is identified in the responses prepared by the Lake Berryessa Resort Improvement District (LBRID) governing board, LBRID was properly formed in conformance with state law in 1965. At that time, Public Resource Code 13030 stated in part: "Proceedings for the establishment of a district shall be instituted and conducted as nearly as may be practicable, in the same manner as is prescribed by Article 2 (commencing with Section 25210.10), Chapter 2.2, Part 2, Division 2, Title 3 of the Government Code ..." This was followed and on February 16, 1965, the Board of Supervisors adopted Resolution No. 65-21. The Board of Supervisors wishes to incorporate by reference the response and full explanation of the LBRID governing board.
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. Response, Board of Supervisors: The Board of Supervisors disagrees with this finding and incorporates by reference the response of the LBRID governing board.
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. Response, Board of Supervisors: This recommendation will not be implemented. The Board of Supervisors incorporates by reference the LBRID governing board's response to Finding Nos. 10, 11, and 12. The composition of the LBRID governing board is in compliance with State law. If the residents of LBRID would like to approach the LAFCO to initiate a change from a dependent to independent District the Board of Supervisors will support that request.
F12:
The LBRID Board of Directors has no legal existence. Response, Board of Supervisors: The Board of Supervisors disagrees with this response and incorporates by reference the response of the LBRID governing board.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Board of Supervisors passes a formal resolution forming a Board of Directors for LBRID. Response, Board of Supervisors: This recommendation was implemented in 1965 by Resolution No. 65-21. The Board of Supervisors concurs with the response and explanation of the LBRID governing board and incorporates by reference its response to Finding No. F12.
F13:
Since the LBRID Board of Directors does not legally exist, meetings and resolutions in its name can be legally challenged on that ground. Response, Board of Supervisors: The Board of Supervisors disagrees with this finding. As mandated by Resort Improvement District law, the County Board of Supervisors is the governing board of the District. (Pub. Res. Code § 13031.) As more fully set forth in the responses to Finding Nos. F10, 11 and 12, the Napa County Board of Supervisors formed LBRID and established itself as the governing body.
F14:
The Board of Supervisors causes public confusion by acting in the name of a board of directors that has no formal legal foundation. Response, Board of Supervisors: The Board of Supervisors disagrees with this finding and incorporates by reference the LBRID governing board's response to Finding No. 11. As stated in that response, the LBRID governing board has referred to itself using the terms "Directors" or "Board of Directors" for the purpose of delineating LBRID business from County business. This is consistent with the general use of the term Directors or Board of Directors when the Board of Supervisors conducts business on behalf of other dependent special districts. Over the years, both the County and LBRID have carefully taken actions to ensure LBRID function as a separate and independent legal entity from the County in accordance with the provisions of the Public Resource Code. The LBRID governing board holds its public meetings separately from the County Board of Supervisors. LBRID has its separate, independent legal counsel and its own financial budgets, which undergo different annual reviews and audits from the County's budget.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
Board of Supervisors ceases meeting and acting in the name of the LBRID Board of Directors. Response, Board of Supervisors: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. LAKE BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT DISTRICT ENGINEER DONALD G. RIDENHOUR, P.E. September 13, 2011 The Honorable Diane M. Price Presiding Judge Napa County Superior Court 825 Brown Street Napa, CA 94559 Response to the Grand Jury 2010-2011 Final Report on Napa County SUBJECT: Lake Berryessa Resort Improvement District Judge Price: The Lake Berryessa Resort Improvement District (LBRID) has reviewed the findings and recommendations contained in the 2010-2011 Final Report. The Grand Jury is to be commended for its work on behalf of the citizens of Napa County. This letter is intended to respond to
F27:
PUTY. . . . . ATTACHMENT D BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF NAPA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA RESOLUTION NO. 65-35 RESOLUTION CALLING AND PROVIDING FOR AN ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, APRIL 27, 1965, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING TO THE QUALIFIED VOTERS OF PROPOSED LAKE BERRYESSA RESORT INPROVEMENT DISTRICT IN NAPA COUNTY A MEASURE TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT SAID DISTRICT SHALL BE FORMED; PRESCRIBING THE MANNER OF HOLDING SAID ELECTION AND OF VOTING, THE FORM OF BALLOT TO BE USED; DESIG- NATING PRECINCT, POLLING PLACE AND ELECTION BOARD THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING FOR THE FIXING OF NOTICE THEREOF. WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors in its Resolution No. 65-3h ____, adopted March 23, 1965, determined that the pro- posed LAKE BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT should be established in Napa County, California, and fixed and described the boundaries chereof: and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 13030 of the Public kesources Code, this Board of Supervisors desires to call a special election for the purpose of submitting to the qualified votirs of said proposed district the question of whether or not said district shall be formed; NOW, THEREFORE, THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF NAFA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. A special election is hereby called and ordered to be held in said proposed district on Tuesday, April 27, 1965, for the purpose of submitting to the qualified voters of said proposed district a measure to determine whether said pro- posed district shall be formed. Section 2. Said measure to be submitted to the voters as aforesaid is as follows: MEASURE: Shall Resolution No. & Adopted March 23, 1965, by the Board of Supervisors of Napa County, State of California establishing proposed LAKE BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT be approved. Section 3. This Board of Supervisors hereby submits to the qualified voters of said proposed district at said special election said measure set forth in Section 5 of this Resolution and designates and refers to said measure as the form of measure to be set forth on the ballots to be used at said election. (a) Said special district election shall be held and conducted, the votes thereat canvassed, the returns thereof made, and the result thereof ascertained and determined as herein pro- vided; and in all particulars not prescribed by this Resolution said election shall be held as provided for in the Resort Improve- ment District Law and in all particulars not provided for therein said election shall be held in accordance with the law governing special county elections in the State of California. (b) All qualified voters within the proposed LAKE BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT shall be qualified to vote upon the measure submitted at said special formation election. A qualified voter means an owner of land within said district, as shown on the last equalized assessment roll of Napa County, or the officer appointed therefor by the Board of Directors of a corpora- tion owner, or the legal representative of the owner, including one joint tenant or one tenant in common. "Legal representative" means an officer or other person or persons appointed to serve as such by the Board of Directors of a corporation owner. (e) Each voter shall have one vote and will have one additional vote for each five thousand dollars ($5,000) of assessed valuation of the land and improvements owned by him in said district as shown on the last equalized county assessment roll of Napa County. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The polls for said election shall be opened at (b) eight o'clock A.M. (Cal. P.S.T.) of said day of election and shall remain open continuously from said time until seven o'clock P.M. (Cal. P.S.T.) of said day, when said polls shall be closed. The ballots to be used at said special district (e) formation election shall be substantially in the following form, to wit: (This number shall be MARK CROSS (X) ON BALLOT ONLY No. WITH RUBBER STAMP; NEVER WITH torn off by the Inspector and handed PEN OR PENCIL. to the voter) ABSENTEE BALLOTS MAY BE MARKED WITH PEN AND INK OR No. PENCIL. (Fold ballot to this perfor- ated line, leaving top margin exposed) OFFICIAL BALLOT SPECIAL DISTRICT FORMATION ELECTION :PROPOSED LAKE BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVAMENT DISTRICT NAPA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA INSTRUCTIONS TO VOTERS: To vote on any measure, stamp a cross (X) in the voting square : after the word "YES" or after the word "NO." All marks : except the cross (X) are forbidden. All distinguishing : marks or erasures are forbidden and make the ballot void. : If you wrongly stamp, tear or deface this ballot, return : it to the Inspector of Election and obtain another. On absent voter ballots mark a cross (x) with pen or pencil. MEASURE(S) SUBMITTED TO VOTE OF THE VOTERS 65-34 Shall Resolution No. MEASURE: adopted March 23, 1965, by the Board of Supervisors of Napa County, State YES of California, establishing proposed LAKE BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT be : NO approved. (f) Each voter to vote for the measure hereby submitted shall stamp a cross (X) in the blank space opposite the word "YES" on the ballot to the right of the measure, and to vote against such measure shall stamp a cross (X) in the blank space opposite the word "NO" on the ballot to the right of the measure. A cross (X) stamped in the voting square after the word "YES" shall be counted in favor of the adoption of such measure, and a cross (X) stamped in the voting square after the word "NO" shall be counted against the adoption of such measure. (g) The returns of said election shall be made out and signed by the election officers and deposited with the Clerk of the Board of supervisors, County of Napa, and said Board of Supervisors shall meet at its usual place of meeting at its next regular meeting following said election to canvass the election returns and declare the results thereof. Section 4. The precinct and polling place for said special district election shall be as designated and appointed in the notice of said election hereinafter set forth. The election board which will serve at said polling place in said precinct is as follows: SPECIAL PRECINCT "A" Inspector: Edwin G. Cooppion John M. Roos Judge: Clerk: Robert Roos Clerk: Henry N. Kuechler Section 5. Notice of said special district election shall be as follows: NOTICE OF SPECIAL DISTRICT FORMATION ELECTION PROPOSED LAKE BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT. A RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, NAPA COUNTY NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN TO the qualified voters of pro- posed LAKE BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT of Napa County, State of California, that in accordance with law a special district . . . TUESDAY, April 27, 1965 between the hours of eight o'clock A.M. (Cal. P.S.T.) and seven o'clock P.M. (Cal. P.S.T.) during which period and between which hours the polls shall remain open, at which election there will be submitted the question of whether said proposed LAKE BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT shall be formed as set forth in the following measure, to wit: MEASURE: Shall Resolution No. 65-3-4, adopted March 23, 1965, by the Board of Supervisors of Napa County, State of California, establishing proposed LAKE BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT be approved. For the purpose of holding said election, said proposed district shall be consolidated into a portion of a general State and County election precinct which now includes the areas within said district as hereinafter provided, to wit: The general election precinct hereinafter designated by name or by name and number is part of an election precinct as now established of record by the Board of Supervisors of Napa County, State of Californis, for the general State and County election purposes within the boundaries of said district named and numbered and designated for general election purposes by said Board of Supervisors. Said election precinct and the polling place therein is and shall be as hereinafter set forth, to wit: SPECIAL PRECINCT "A" Comprising a portion of the Napa County precinct Monticello which is within the bound- aries of the proposed LAKE BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT. Polling Place: Paul Carlisle residence, Stage Coach Canyon Road, Napa County Any qualified voter of proposed LAKE BERRYASSA RESORT IMPROVENENT DISTRICT may vote at said special district formation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - -. - . to be absent from the district on election day, or will be unable to vote by reason of physical disability, or will be unable to go to his polling place because the tenets of his religion prevent him from doing so throughout the day of election, he may apply in person or by mail for an absent voter's ballot at the office of the County Clerk, County of Napa, Napa, California. L.TaD: Maron 23, 1905 BY ORDER OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF NAPA JULIUS CAIGCCA, JT. Section 6. The County Clerk is hereby directed to cause this resolution to be published once a week for two (2) successive weeks before said special district formation election in THE NAPPA REGISTER, a newspaper of general circulation in said proposed district, and said Clerk is hereby further directed to mail anotice of appointment to each election officer, and to mail a notice of politing place and sample ballot to each qualified voter of said proposed district. Section 7. This resolution shall take effect immediately. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF NAPA COUNTY THIS 23rd day of March, 1965, by the following vote: ANDERSEN, CLARK and CAIOCCA AYES: Supervisors NONE NCES: DICKENSON and FERGUSON ABSENT: Chairman of the Board of Supervisors County of Napa, California (SEAL) ATTEST: 1 6 C CLERK of said Board. ATTACHMENT E MENTICO COPY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF NAPA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 65-55 MAY 1 1 19hb RESCLUTION NO. - CRESOLUTION DECLARING RESULT OF FORMATION ELECTION LAKE BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 13,030 of the Public Resources Code, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Mapa, in its Resolution No. 65-35, adopted March 23, 1965, called a special election to be held April 27, 1965, for the purpose of submitting to the qualified voters of the proposed Lake Berryessa Resort Improvement District, the proposition of whether the resolution of this Board, No. 15. 34, adopted March 23, 1965, establishing said district, should be approved, and WHEREAS, notice of said election was duly given in the manner and form required by law, by publishing said notice of election calling said election and setting forth the time, manner and place of voting, and all the necessary matters in the Mapa Register, a newspaper printed in Nepa County and of general circulation in said proposed district on and WHEREAS, additional notice of said election was given by posting a notice of election in three public places in said district and by mailing postage prepaid to all qualified voters in said district sample ballots and polling place cards in the manner, form and time required by law, and WHEREAS, said election was duly held on Tuesday, April 27, 1965, and was conducted in all respects as required by law, മാദ് WHEREAS, said Board of Supervisors has canvassed all the returns of said election, including absent voter ballots and determined the result of said election to be as follows: t deserve d The whole number of votes cast in said election l. 7 was The only measure or matter voted on in said election
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R65-21:
E. M. REAM By . Deputy Clerk resolution of letention to establish proposed lake berryessa RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, A RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, IN THE COUNTY OF MAPA, FIXING TIME AND PLACE FOR HEARING AND PROVIDING NOTICE THEREOF. WHEREAS, there has been filed with the Clark of the Board of Supervisors, County of Napa, State of California, a Petition signed by all the landowners within said proposed Lake Berryessa Resort Improvement District, pursuant to the provisions of Division 11 of the Public Resources Code, to be known as proposed Lake Berryessa Resort Improvement District, and WHEREAS, said proposed district will cover and include territory in the County of Napa, near adjoining Lake Berryessa, as is more fully shown on a map of said proposed district and a description thereof which are attached to said Petition and Request; and WHEREAS, the proposal for the formation of said proposed resort improvement district was submitted to the Boundary Commis- sion of the County of Napa pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 3, Division 1 Title 6, California Government Code; and pursuant to said chapter said Boundary Commission duly reviewed said proposal and the map and description of said proposed district and at its meeting duly called, noticied and held on January 26, 1965 1965, recommended in a report filed with the Board of Supervisors and the proponents of said district that the proposed resort im- provement district boundaries be as set forth in the description and on the map of said proposed district attached to the Petition and filed with said Board of Supervisors: and -- 2 -- WHEREAS, a Notice of Intention to form said resort improvement distict was filed with the Local Agency Formation Commission of the County of Napa pursuant to the provisions and as required by Chapter 6.5 of Part 1, Division 2, Title 5, California Government Code; nnû WHEREAS, said notice contained the specific boundaries and a description of the kind of district proposed to be formed and all other matters required by sail Chapter 6.6, and was filed with said Local Agency Formation Commission prior to the circulation of said petition for the formation of the proposed resort improvement dis- trict; and WHEREAS, after the provisions of law relating to consideration of the proposal by the Mapa County Boundary Commission had been complied with and notice of the action of said Boundary Commission received by said Local Agency Formation Commission, said Local Agency Formation Commission at its regular meeting on January 13 , 1965, fixed the date, time and place for a public hearing on the said resort improvement district proposal, said date of hearing being within sixty days of the data said notice was received from said Boundary Commission; and WHEREAS, said public hearing was fixed for Wednesday, February 10, 1965, at 7:30 P.M., at the regular meeting place of the Board of Supervisors, Napa County, County Courthouse, Mapa, California; and WHEREAS, the Local Agency Formation Commission gave not less than fifteen days notice of the date, time and place of said hear- ing to (1) the governing body of each city or special district having jurisdiction within the boundaries of said proposed district, (2) the governing body of each city and special district within 3 miles of the exterior boundaries of the proposed district, (3) any interested party who had filed a written request with the executive - officer of said Commission for such notice, and (4) the proponents of said district; and WHIRPAS, notice of said hearing was duly published pursuant to Section 6061 of the Government Code by publication in The Napa Register, a newspaper of general circulation in each city or dis- trict within the proposed district, at least diffeen days prior to the date fixed for said hearing; and WHERMAS, at said public hearing said Local Agency Formation Commission carefully reviewed said proposal and considered all the factors to be considered as set forth in said Chapter 6.6, including but not limited to those factors referred to in Section 54786 of the Government Code; and at the conclusion of said hearing unani- monsly approved the initiation of proceedings for the formation of said proposed resort improvement district and the circulation of the Petition with respect thereto, HOW, THEREFORE, THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF hapa does hereby resolve, determine and order as follows: 1. The foregoing recitals and each of them are true and correct and the Board of Supervisors hereby so finds and determines. This Board of Supervisors has reviewed all proceedings heretofore taken the has found as a result of such review and to heroby determine that all acts, conditions and things required by law to exist, happen and be performed prior to the fixing of a final hearing on the formation of a recort improvement district have existed, happened and been porformed in the time, for- ್ವಾರ manner as required by law. . 3. It is the intention of this Board of Cope .8 establish a resort improvement district pursuant of Division 11 of the Public Resources Colorand 36 3E Article 2. Title 3 of the Government Cile. 4. The name of said proposed - ۲. a' Bornyessa Resort Improvement Die Ti ť. shall be as shown on a map of so, it is the tag of the Ad point at and a description thereof attached he mat to "Both and the second It is proposed that the district may acquire, construct, maintain and operate property, works and facilities for the following purposes within said district: (a) To supply the inhabitants of the district with water for Comestic use, irrigation, sanitation, industrial use, fire pro- tection, and recreation. The collection, treatment or disposal of savage, waste (b) and storm water of the district and its inhabitants. Protection against fire. (C) Comprehensive planning for the physical growth of the (ď) area within the district. The collection or disposal of garbage or refuse matter. (e) (f) Public recreetion by means of parks, including but not limited to aquatic parks and recreational harbors, playgrounds, golf courses, swimming pools or recreation buildings for all-year recreation, including but not limited to facilities for public and private meetings and other public squares and places. (g) Street lighting. Mosquito abatement. (h) (i) The equipment and maintenance of a police department or other police protection to protect and safeguard life and property. (i) The opening, widening, extending, straightening, and surfacing, in whole or part of any street in such district, sub- ject to the consent of the State Department of Public Works, with respect to state highways, and local authorities as defined in Section 385 of the Vehicle Code, with respect to highways under their jurisdiction. (k) The construction and improvement of bridges, culverts, curbs, gutters, drains, and works incidental to the purposes specified in subdivision (j), subject to the consent of the State Department of Public Works, with respect to state highways, and local authorities, as defined in Section 385 of the Vehicle Code, Selection of with respect to highways under their jurisdiction. (1) The construction and maintenance of parking facilities, and other transportation facilities. Where applicable and pursuant to law, except where funds are otherwise available, a tax sufficient to pay for all such services which are actually furnished will be annually levied upon all taxable property with such distict. Notice is hereby given and the Board of Supervisors hereby fixes Tuesday, March 23, 1965, at 2:30 P.M., Napa, California at the County Courthouse as the time and place for the hearing on the establishment of said proposed district, which said date of hearing is not less than thirty nor more than sixty days after the date of adoption of this resolution. At said hearing the testimony of all interested persons or taxpayers for or against the establishment of such district, the extent of said district, or the fundshing of specified types of services will be heard. The Clerk of the Board of Supervisors is hereby ordered. to publish notice of said hearing and this resolution once in The Wapa Ragister, a newspaper of general circulation, circulated within said proposed district. Publication shall be complete at least seven days prior to the date of hearing. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS on this 16 day of February, 1965, by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors AMDERSEN, CLARK, PERGUSON and CAIOCGA NOES : NONE ADSENT DICKENSON (SEAL) CAROCCA. Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, County of Napa, California. уну сописов в принципрический принципрический of the original or the my this office 5. SHIPPY ままひ 不得のなむ ALVERTA CHEN DE ANE ESTADE the but save 多利性的利益的 EXHIBIT A BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION LAKE BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (A Resort Improvement District) All that real property situated in the County of Mapa, State of California, being a portion of Township 10 North, Range 5 West, M.D.B.&M., described as follows: In Section 10: East half of Southeast quarter. In Section 14: West half of Northwest quarter: West half of Southwest quarter; that portion of the Southeast quarter of the Southwest quarter lying South- westerly of the natural center line of Putah Creek. In Section 15: East half of East half; West Half of Southeast quarter; Southeast quarter of Southwest quarter; Southwest quarter of the Southwest quarter. In Section 22: Northeast quarter of Northwest quarter; Northwest quarter of Northeast quarter; North- east quarter of Northeast quarter; West half of the West half. East half of the Southwest quarter; the Southeast quarter of the Northwest quarter; the Southwest guarter of the Northbest guarter; West half of the Southeast quarter; the Southeast quarter of the Northeast quarter; North half of the Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter. In Section 23: Northwest quarter of Northwest quarter; that portion of the Northwest quarter of the Mortheast quarter and the Mortheast quarter of the Northwest quarter lying Southerly of the natural center line of Putah Creek; East half of Southeast quarter; that portion of Lot I and the Southeast quarter of the Northeast quarter lying Southwesterly of the natural center line of Putah Creek. In Section 24: Southwest quarter of Southeast quarter; West half of Southwest quarter; Southeast quarter of Southwest querter; that portion of Lot 4, and the South half of the Northwest quarter, the Northwest quarter of the Southeast quarter, and the Northeast quarter of the Southwest quarter, lying Southwesterly of the natural center line of Putah Creek. In Section 15: Lot 1; West half of Northeast quarter; Northwest quarter; Northwest quarter of South- west quarter. In Section 26: Northeast quarter of Southeast quarter. In Section 27: Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter. ATTACHMENT C CERTIFIED COPY -7 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - COUNTY OF NAPA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA - E. M. HEALAS RESOLUTION NO. 65-34 RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING BOUNDARIES OF AND ESTABLISHING PROPOSED LAKE BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, A RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Napa, State of California, adopted its Resolution No. 65-21, making certain findings and declaring its intention to establish proposed LAKE BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT and fixed Tuesday, March 23, 1965, at 2:30 P.M., at the County Courthouse, Napa, California, as the time and place for the public hearing thereon, and WHEREAS, notice of said hearing containing (a) the text of the resolution, (b) the time and place for the hearing, and (c) a statement that at the hearing the testimony of all interested persons or taxpayers for or against the establishment of the district, the extent of the district or the furnishing or specified types of services will be heard, was duly published, pursuant to Section 6061 of the Government Code, in The Napa Register, a newspaper of general circulation published in the County of Napa and circulated within said proposed district, on March , 1965, said publication having been completed at least seven days before the date of said harring. MOW, THEREFORE, THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY of Napa, State of California, Does Herbey Resolve, Determine and ORDER AS FOLLOWS: 1. The foregoing recitals and each of them are true and correct and the Board of Supervisors hereby so finds and determines. All of the territory of the proposed LAKE BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT is (a) unincorporated, (b) particularly " 72" ST suited to and used for recreation resort purposes, (c) is held and used by residents of this State, but inhabited only seasonally, and (d) lies entirely in the County of Napa. 3. Eighty percent (80%) or more of the assessed valuation of the land in said district, as shown on the last equalized County assessment roll, is in non-resident ownership. 4. At said public hearing fixed by the Board of Super- visors for Tuesday, March 23, 1965, an opportunity was provided to all persons so desiring to protest against the establishment of said district, the extent thereof, and the furnishing of specified typos of services within the district. No protests of any kind were made either orally or in writing to this Board, or to the Clerk of this Board at said hearing or prior thereto. 5. This Board hereby determines that all of the territory shown on the map of said district on file with the County Clerk will be benefited by the establishment of said district, and said Board so declares and heraby establishes LAKE BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT. 6. The boundaries of said district are hereby finally determined and established to be as set forth on the map and description of said district on file with said County Clerk. 7. This Board of Supervisors shall be the governing body of the district entil otherwise determined as provided by 1200. 8. The said district may acquire, construct, maintain and operate property, works and facilities for any one or more of the following purposes: (a) To supply the inhabitants of the district with water for demostic use, irrigation, sonitation, industrial use, fire protection and recreation. (b) The collection, treatment or disposal of sewage, waste and storm water of the district and its inhabitants. (c) Protection against fire. (d) Comprehensive planning for the physical growth of the area within the district. (a) The collection or disposal of garbage or refuse mattor, (f) Public recreation by means of parks, including but not limited to aquatic parks and recreational harbors, playgrounds, golf courses, swimming pools or recreation bulldings for all-year recreation, including but not limited to facilities for public and private mostings and other public squares and places. (g) Street lighting. (h) Mosquito abatement. (1) The equipment and maintenance of a police depart- ment or other police protection to protect and safeguard life and property. (j) The opening, widening, extending, straightening, and suffecing, in whole or part of any street in such district, subject to the consent of the State Department of Public Works, with respect to State highways, and local authorities as defined in Section 365 of the Vehicle Code, with respect to highways under their jurisdiction. (%) The construction and improvement of bridges, culverts, curbs, gutters, drains, and works incidental to the purposes specified in subdivision (j), subject to the consent of the State Department of Public Works, with respect to State high- ways, and local authorities as defined in Section 385 of the Vehicle Code, with respect to highways under their jurisdiction. (1) The construction and maintenance of parking facilities and other transportation facilities. 8. This Board hereby finds that all of the proceedings loading up to the establishment of said district were valid and in conformity with the requirements of Division 11 of the Public Resources Code and Chapter 2.2, Article 2, Part 2, Division 2, Title 3 of the Government Code. 9. Said LAME BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT is hereby established subject to the approval of the voters as pro- vided in Section 13030 of the Public Resources Code of the State of California. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS on this 23rd day of March, 1965, by the following vote: AYES: Supervisora ANDERSEN, CLARK and CAIOCCA NOES: NONE ABSENT OR NOT VOTING: DICKENSON and FERGUSON (SEAL) JULIUS CAIOCCA, JR. Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Napa attest: Clerk of Said Board тия полисовки правинали в в совивает сору OF THE OMGINAL ON FILE IN THIS OFFICE COLUMN OF THE GOLMO CALIFORNIE MAPA STATE OF 27. PUTY. . . . . ATTACHMENT D BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF NAPA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA RESOLUTION NO. 65-35 RESOLUTION CALLING AND PROVIDING FOR AN ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, APRIL 27, 1965, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING TO THE QUALIFIED VOTERS OF PROPOSED LAKE BERRYESSA RESORT INPROVEMENT DISTRICT IN NAPA COUNTY A MEASURE TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT SAID DISTRICT SHALL BE FORMED; PRESCRIBING THE MANNER OF HOLDING SAID ELECTION AND OF VOTING, THE FORM OF BALLOT TO BE USED; DESIG- NATING PRECINCT, POLLING PLACE AND ELECTION BOARD THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING FOR THE FIXING OF NOTICE THEREOF. WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors in its Resolution No. 65-3h ____, adopted March 23, 1965, determined that the pro- posed LAKE BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT should be established in Napa County, California, and fixed and described the boundaries chereof: and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 13030 of the Public kesources Code, this Board of Supervisors desires to call a special election for the purpose of submitting to the qualified votirs of said proposed district the question of whether or not said district shall be formed; NOW, THEREFORE, THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF NAFA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. A special election is hereby called and ordered to be held in said proposed district on Tuesday, April 27, 1965, for the purpose of submitting to the qualified voters of said proposed district a measure to determine whether said pro- posed district shall be formed. Section 2. Said measure to be submitted to the voters as aforesaid is as follows: MEASURE: Shall Resolution No. & Adopted March 23, 1965, by the Board of Supervisors of Napa County, State of California establishing proposed LAKE BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT be approved. Section 3. This Board of Supervisors hereby submits to the qualified voters of said proposed district at said special election said measure set forth in Section 5 of this Resolution and designates and refers to said measure as the form of measure to be set forth on the ballots to be used at said election. (a) Said special district election shall be held and conducted, the votes thereat canvassed, the returns thereof made, and the result thereof ascertained and determined as herein pro- vided; and in all particulars not prescribed by this Resolution said election shall be held as provided for in the Resort Improve- ment District Law and in all particulars not provided for therein said election shall be held in accordance with the law governing special county elections in the State of California. (b) All qualified voters within the proposed LAKE BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT shall be qualified to vote upon the measure submitted at said special formation election. A qualified voter means an owner of land within said district, as shown on the last equalized assessment roll of Napa County, or the officer appointed therefor by the Board of Directors of a corpora- tion owner, or the legal representative of the owner, including one joint tenant or one tenant in common. "Legal representative" means an officer or other person or persons appointed to serve as such by the Board of Directors of a corporation owner. (e) Each voter shall have one vote and will have one additional vote for each five thousand dollars ($5,000) of assessed valuation of the land and improvements owned by him in said district as shown on the last equalized county assessment roll of Napa County. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The polls for said election shall be opened at (b) eight o'clock A.M. (Cal. P.S.T.) of said day of election and shall remain open continuously from said time until seven o'clock P.M. (Cal. P.S.T.) of said day, when said polls shall be closed. The ballots to be used at said special district (e) formation election shall be substantially in the following form, to wit: (This number shall be MARK CROSS (X) ON BALLOT ONLY No. WITH RUBBER STAMP; NEVER WITH torn off by the Inspector and handed PEN OR PENCIL. to the voter) ABSENTEE BALLOTS MAY BE MARKED WITH PEN AND INK OR No. PENCIL. (Fold ballot to this perfor- ated line, leaving top margin exposed) OFFICIAL BALLOT SPECIAL DISTRICT FORMATION ELECTION :PROPOSED LAKE BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVAMENT DISTRICT NAPA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA INSTRUCTIONS TO VOTERS: To vote on any measure, stamp a cross (X) in the voting square : after the word "YES" or after the word "NO." All marks : except the cross (X) are forbidden. All distinguishing : marks or erasures are forbidden and make the ballot void. : If you wrongly stamp, tear or deface this ballot, return : it to the Inspector of Election and obtain another. On absent voter ballots mark a cross (x) with pen or pencil. MEASURE(S) SUBMITTED TO VOTE OF THE VOTERS
R65-34:
Shall Resolution No. MEASURE: adopted March 23, 1965, by the Board of Supervisors of Napa County, State YES of California, establishing proposed LAKE BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT be : NO approved. (f) Each voter to vote for the measure hereby submitted shall stamp a cross (X) in the blank space opposite the word "YES" on the ballot to the right of the measure, and to vote against such measure shall stamp a cross (X) in the blank space opposite the word "NO" on the ballot to the right of the measure. A cross (X) stamped in the voting square after the word "YES" shall be counted in favor of the adoption of such measure, and a cross (X) stamped in the voting square after the word "NO" shall be counted against the adoption of such measure. (g) The returns of said election shall be made out and signed by the election officers and deposited with the Clerk of the Board of supervisors, County of Napa, and said Board of Supervisors shall meet at its usual place of meeting at its next regular meeting following said election to canvass the election returns and declare the results thereof. Section 4. The precinct and polling place for said special district election shall be as designated and appointed in the notice of said election hereinafter set forth. The election board which will serve at said polling place in said precinct is as follows: SPECIAL PRECINCT "A" Inspector: Edwin G. Cooppion John M. Roos Judge: Clerk: Robert Roos Clerk: Henry N. Kuechler Section 5. Notice of said special district election shall be as follows: NOTICE OF SPECIAL DISTRICT FORMATION ELECTION PROPOSED LAKE BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT. A RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, NAPA COUNTY NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN TO the qualified voters of pro- posed LAKE BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT of Napa County, State of California, that in accordance with law a special district . . . TUESDAY, April 27, 1965 between the hours of eight o'clock A.M. (Cal. P.S.T.) and seven o'clock P.M. (Cal. P.S.T.) during which period and between which hours the polls shall remain open, at which election there will be submitted the question of whether said proposed LAKE BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT shall be formed as set forth in the following measure, to wit: MEASURE: Shall Resolution No. 65-3-4, adopted March 23, 1965, by the Board of Supervisors of Napa County, State of California, establishing proposed LAKE BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT be approved. For the purpose of holding said election, said proposed district shall be consolidated into a portion of a general State and County election precinct which now includes the areas within said district as hereinafter provided, to wit: The general election precinct hereinafter designated by name or by name and number is part of an election precinct as now established of record by the Board of Supervisors of Napa County, State of Californis, for the general State and County election purposes within the boundaries of said district named and numbered and designated for general election purposes by said Board of Supervisors. Said election precinct and the polling place therein is and shall be as hereinafter set forth, to wit: SPECIAL PRECINCT "A" Comprising a portion of the Napa County precinct Monticello which is within the bound- aries of the proposed LAKE BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT. Polling Place: Paul Carlisle residence, Stage Coach Canyon Road, Napa County Any qualified voter of proposed LAKE BERRYASSA RESORT IMPROVENENT DISTRICT may vote at said special district formation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - -. - . to be absent from the district on election day, or will be unable to vote by reason of physical disability, or will be unable to go to his polling place because the tenets of his religion prevent him from doing so throughout the day of election, he may apply in person or by mail for an absent voter's ballot at the office of the County Clerk, County of Napa, Napa, California. L.TaD: Maron 23, 1905 BY ORDER OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF NAPA JULIUS CAIGCCA, JT. Section 6. The County Clerk is hereby directed to cause this resolution to be published once a week for two (2) successive weeks before said special district formation election in THE NAPPA REGISTER, a newspaper of general circulation in said proposed district, and said Clerk is hereby further directed to mail anotice of appointment to each election officer, and to mail a notice of politing place and sample ballot to each qualified voter of said proposed district. Section 7. This resolution shall take effect immediately. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF NAPA COUNTY THIS 23rd day of March, 1965, by the following vote: ANDERSEN, CLARK and CAIOCCA AYES: Supervisors NONE NCES: DICKENSON and FERGUSON ABSENT: Chairman of the Board of Supervisors County of Napa, California (SEAL) ATTEST: 1 6 C CLERK of said Board. ATTACHMENT E MENTICO COPY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF NAPA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
R65-55:
MAY 1 1 19hb RESCLUTION NO. - CRESOLUTION DECLARING RESULT OF FORMATION ELECTION LAKE BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 13,030 of the Public Resources Code, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Mapa, in its Resolution No. 65-35, adopted March 23, 1965, called a special election to be held April 27, 1965, for the purpose of submitting to the qualified voters of the proposed Lake Berryessa Resort Improvement District, the proposition of whether the resolution of this Board, No. 15. 34, adopted March 23, 1965, establishing said district, should be approved, and WHEREAS, notice of said election was duly given in the manner and form required by law, by publishing said notice of election calling said election and setting forth the time, manner and place of voting, and all the necessary matters in the Mapa Register, a newspaper printed in Nepa County and of general circulation in said proposed district on and WHEREAS, additional notice of said election was given by posting a notice of election in three public places in said district and by mailing postage prepaid to all qualified voters in said district sample ballots and polling place cards in the manner, form and time required by law, and WHEREAS, said election was duly held on Tuesday, April 27, 1965, and was conducted in all respects as required by law, മാദ് WHEREAS, said Board of Supervisors has canvassed all the returns of said election, including absent voter ballots and determined the result of said election to be as follows: t deserve d The whole number of votes cast in said election l. 7 was The only measure or matter voted on in said election 2. WESS Shall Resolution No. 65-35 MEASURE: adopted March 23, 1965 by : the Board of Supervisors of Napa : County, State of California, establish- ing proposed LAKE BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT be approved? The number of votes cast in the precincts for and 34 against said measure was: SPECIAL PRECINCY "A" Against: Fort O Absentee Ballots: Against: Por: 3 W, The total number of votes given in said election for and against said measure: Against / - 0 Por: 5. As reflected in said canvass hereinabove and pursuant to Section 13,050 of the Public Resources Code, this Board of Supervisors provided in its Resolution No. adopted March 23, 1965, that each voter shall have one vote, and additional voting power in proportion to the assessed valuation of the land and improvements owned by him as shown on the last equalized County assessment roll, not to exceed one vote per Five- Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00) of assessed valuation as set forth on the certificate of the Assessor, County of Mapa, attached hereto as "Emhibit A." NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF MAPA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS FOLLOWS: 1. All the matters set forch above are true and correct and this Board so finds and determines. 2. The manner and form in which notice of election was actually published and otherwise given are hereby ratified and approved. 3. This Board hereby finds and determines that a majority of the voters voting at said special formation election have approved Resolution No. /5-3/, adopted by this Board on March 23, 1965, establishing Lake Berryessa Resort Improvement District. The Clerk shall cause a copy of the map and a 4 . description of the boundaries of said District to be promptly . filed with (a) the State Board of Equalization, and (b) the Assessor of the County of Napa, in compliance with Section 54,900 of the Government Code. Mail PASSED AND ADOPTED this / day of 1965, by the following vote: AMDERSEN, CLARK, DICKENSON, FERGUSON AYES: Supervisors AND CAIOCCA NON NOES: absent or not voting: NONE (SHAL) the Board/df (XChalrman of Supervisors, County of Napa ATTEST THE POREGOING INSTRUMENT IS A CORRECT COPY a/ C. 3. SHIPP THE ORIGINAL ON FILE IN THIS OFFICE Clerk Said OĪ ATTEST . 9-4-4- THE COUNTY OF NAPA STATE OF 300 BUOK CALIBRICIO San Jest Ball . DEPUTY. . . . . . • ATTACHMENT C Certifie copy 100 DOARD OF SUPERVISORS · HEX 251965 COUNTY OF NAPA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA - E. M. TEAMS RESOLUTION NO. 65-34 RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING BOUNDARIES OF AND ESTABLISHING PROPOSED LAKE BERRYESSA PESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, A RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Napa, State of California, adopted its Resolution No. 65-21, making certain findings and declaring its intention to establish proposed LAKE BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT and fixed Tuesday, March 23, 1965, at 2:30 P.M., at the County Courthouse, Napa, California, as the time and place for the public hearing thereon, and WHEREAS, notice of said hearing containing (a) the text of the resolution, (b) the time and place for the hearing, and (c) a statement that at the hearing the testimony of all interested mersons or taxpayers for or against the establishment of the district, the extent of the district or the furnishing or specified types of services will be heard, was duly published, pursuant to Section 6061 of the Government Code, in The Napa Register, a newspaper of general circulation published in the County of Napa and circulated within said proposed district, on March , 1965. said publication having been completed at least seven days before the date of said harring. NOW, THEREFORE, THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF NAPA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: 1. The foregoing recitals and each of them are true and correct and the Board of Supervisors hereby so finds and determines. All of the territory of the proposed LAKE BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT is (a) unincorporated, (b) particularly . 100 21 suited to and used for recreation resort purposes, (c) is held and used by residents of this State, but inhabited only seasonally, and (d) lies entirely in the County of Napa. 3. Eighty percent (80%) or more of the assessed valuation of the land in said district, as shown on the last equalized County assessment roll, is in non-resident ownership. 4. At said public hearing fixed by the Board of Super- visors for Tuesday, March 23, 1965, an opportunity was provided to all persons so desiring to protest against the establishment of said district, the extent thereof, and the furnishing of specified types of services within the district. No protests of any kind were made either orally or in writing to this Board, or to the Clerk of this Board at said hearing or prior thereto. 5. This Board hereby determines that all of the territory shown on the map of said district on file with the County Clerk will be benefited by the establishment of said district, and said Board so declares and hereby ostablishes LAKE BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT. 6. The boundaries of said district are hereby finally determined and established to be as set forth on the map and description of said district on file with said County Clerk. 7. This Board of Supervisors shall be the governing body of the district until otherwise determined as provided by 2æ₩. 8. The said district may acquire, coastruct, maintain and operate property, works and facilities for any one or more of the fellowing purposes: (a) To supply the ishabitants of the district with water for demestic use, irrigation, sanitation, industrial use, fire protection and recreation. (b) The collection, treatment or disposal of sewage, waste and storm water of the district and its inhabitants. (c) Protection against fire. Comprehensive planning for the physical growth (a) of the area within the district. The collection or disposal of garbage or refuse (0) 'matter, Public recreation by means of parks, including but (£) not limited to aquatic parks and recreational harbors, playgrounds, golf courses, swimming pools or recreation buildings for all-year recreation, including but not limited to facilities for public and private meetings and other public squares and places. Street lighting. (র) Mosquito abatement. (h) The equipment and maintenance of a police depart- (1) ment or other police protection to protect and safeguard life and property. (j) The opening, widening, extending, straightening, and surfacing, in whole or part of any street in such district, subject to the consent of the State Department of Public Works, with respect to State highways, and local authorities as defined in Section 385 of the Vehicle Code, with respect to highways under their jurisdiction. (k) The construction and improvement of bridges, culverts, curbs, gutters, drains, and works incidental to the purposes specified in subdivision (j), subject to the consent of the State Department of Public Works, with respect to State high- ways, and local authorities as defined in Section 385 of the Vehicle Code, with respect to highways under their jurisdiction. (1) The construction and maintenance of parking facilities and other transportation facilities. 8. This Ecard hereby finds that all of the proceedings loading up to the establishment of said district were valid and in conformity with the requirements of Division 11 of the Public Resources Code and Chapter 2.2, Article 2, Part 2, Division 2, Title 3 of the Government Code. 9. Said LAKE BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT is hereby established subject to the approval of the voters as pro- vided in Section 13030 of the Public Resources Code of the State of California. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS on this 23rd day of March, 1965, by the following vote: AYES: Supervisora ANDERSEN, CLARK and CAIOCCA MOES: NONE ABSENT OR NOT VOTING! DICKENSON and FERGUSON (SEAL) JULIUS CAIOCCA, JR. Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Napa ATTEST: s/ C S. SHIPPY Clerk of Said Board тие волевогие глаганиемт із в соднаст сору. OF THE ORIGINAL ON FILE IN THIS OFFICE ATTEST FOR CLARK BY THE DOWNER SUNTS UP HAPA STATE OF EPUTY, ) * . ATTACHMENT D BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF NAPA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA RESOLUTION NO. 65-35 RESOLUTION CALLING AND PROVIDING FOR AN ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, APRIL 27, 1965, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING TO THE QUALIFIÉD VOTERS OF PROPOSED LAKE BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT IN NAPA COUNTY A MEASURE TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT SAID DISTRICT SHALL BE FORMED; PRESCRIBING THE MANNER OF HOLDING SAID ELECTION AND OF VOTING, THE FORM OF BALLOT TO BE USED; DESIG- NATING PRECINCT, POLLING PLACE AND ELECTION BOARD THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING FOR THE FIXING OF NOTICE THEREOF. WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors in its Resolution No. 65-3h , adopted March 23, 1965, determined that the pro- posed LAKE BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT should be established in Napa County, California, and fixed and described the boundaries chereof: and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 13030 of the Public Resources Code, this Board of Supervisors desires to call a special election for the purpose of submitting to the qualified voters of said proposed district the question of whether or not said district shall be formed; NOW, THEREFORE, THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF MAFA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HERRBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. A special election is hereby called and ordered to be held in said proposed district on Tuesday, April 27, 1965, for the purpose of submitting to the qualified voters of said proposed district a measure to determine whether said pro- posed district shall be formed. Section 2. Said measure to be submitted to the voters as aforesaid is as follows: MEASURE: Shall Resolution No. 65 4 Adopted March 23, 1965, by the Board of Supervisors of Napa County, State of California establishing proposed LAKE BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT be approved. Section 3. This Board of Supervisors hereby submits to the qualified voters of said proposed district at said special election said measure set forth in Section 5 of this Resolution and designates and refers to said measure as the form of measure to be set forth on the ballots to be used at said election. (a) Said special district election shall be held and conducted, the votes thereat canvassed, the returns thereof made, and the result thereof ascertained and determined as herein pro- vided; and in all particulars not prescribed by this Resolution said election shall be held as provided for in the Resort Improve- ment District Law and in all particulars not provided for therein said election shall be held in accordance with the law governing special county elections in the State of California. (b) All qualified voters within the proposed LAKE BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT shall be qualified to vote upon the measure submitted at said special formation election. A qualified voter means an owner of land within said district, as shown on the last equalized assessment roll of Napa County, or the officer appointed therefor by the Board of Directors of a corpora- tion owner, or the legal representative of the owner, including one joint tenant or one tenant in common. "Legal representative" means an officer or other person or persons appointed to serve as such by the Board of Directors of a corporation owner. Each voter shall have one vote and will have one (c) additional vote for each five thousand dollars ($5,000) of assessed valuation of the land and improvements owned by him in said district as shown on the last equalized county assessment roll of Napa County. The polls for said election shall be opened at (d) eight o'clock A.M. (Cal. P.S.T.) of said day of election and shall remain open continuously from said time until seven o'clock P.M. (Cal. P.S.T.) of said day, when said polls shall be closed. The ballots to be used at said special district (e) formation election shall be substantially in the following form, to wit: MARK CROSS (X) ON BALLOT ONLY (This number shall be No. WITH RUBBER STAMP; NEVER WITH torn off by the : PEN OR PENCIL. Inspector and handed : to the voter) ABSENTEE BALLOTS MAY BE MARKED WITH PEN AND INK OR No. PENCIL. (Fold ballot to this perfor- ated line, leaving top margin exposed) OFFICIAL BALLOT SPECIAL DISTRICT FORMATION ELECTION PROPOSED LAKE BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT: NAPA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA INSTRUCTIONS TO VOTERS: To vote on any measure, stamp a cross (X) in the voting square : after the word "YES" or after the word "NO." All marks : except the cross (X) are forbidden. All distinguishing : marks or erasures are forbidden and make the ballot void. : If you wrongly stamp, tear or deface this ballot, return : it to the Inspector of Election and obtain another. On absent voter ballots mark a cross (x) with pen or pencil. MEASURE(S) SUBMITTED TO VOTE OF THE VOTERS MEASURE: Shall Resolution No. 65 - 34 adopted March 23, 1965, by the Board of Supervisors of Napa County, State YES of California, establishing proposed LAKE BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT be NO approved. (f) Each voter to vote for the measure hereby submitted shall stamp a cross (X) in the blank space opposite the word "YES" on the ballot to the right of the measure, and to vote against such measure shall stamp a cross (X) in the blank space opposite the word "NO" on the ballot to the right of the measure. A cross (X) stamped in the voting square after the word "YES" shall be counted in favor of the adoption of such measure, and a cross (X) stamped in the voting square after the word "NO" shall be counted against the adoption of such measure. (g) The returns of said election shall be made out and signed by the election officers and deposited with the Clerk of the Board of supervisors, County of Napa, and said Board of Supervisors shall meet at its usual place of meeting at its next regular meeting following said election to canvass the election returns and declare the results thereof. Section 4. The precinct and polling place for said special district election shall be as designated and appointed in the notice of said election hereinafter set forth. The election board which will serve at said polling place in said precinct is as follows: SPECIAL PRECINCT "A" Edwin G. Cooperion Inspector: Judge: John M. Roos Clerk: Robert Roox Clerk: Henry N. Kuechler Section 5. Notice of said special district election shall be as follows: NOTICE OF SPECIAL DISTRICT FORMATION ELECTION PROPOSED LAKE BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, A RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, NAPA COUNTY NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN TO the qualified voters of pro- posed LAKE BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT of Napa County, State of California, that in accordance with law a special district TUESDAY, April 27, 1965 between the hours of eight o'clock A.M. (Cal. P.S.T.) and seven o'clock P.M. (Cal. P.S.T.) during which period and between which hours the polls shall remain open, at which election there will be submitted the question of whether said proposed LAKE BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT shall be formed as set forth in the following measure, to wit: MEASURE: Shall Resolution No. 45-34, adopted March 23, 1965, by the Board of Supervisors of Napa County, State of California, establishing proposed LAKE BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT be approved. For the purpose of holding said election, said proposed district shall be consolidated into a portion of a general State and County election precinct which now includes the areas within said district as hereinafter provided, to wit: The general election precinct hereinafter designated by name or by name and number is part of an election precinct as now established of record by the Board of Supervisors of Napa County, State of California, for the general State and County election purposes within the boundaries of said district named and numbered and designated for general election purposes by said Board of Supervisors. Said election precinct and the polling place therein is and shall be as hereinafter set forth, to wit: SPECIAL PRECINCT "A" Comprising a portion of the Napa County precinct Monticello which is within the bound- aries of the proposed LAKE BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT. Polling Place: Paul Carlisle residence, Stage Coach Canyon Road, Napa County Any qualified voter of proposed LAKE BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT may vote at said special district formation .. . . . to be absent from the district on election day, or will be unable co vote by reason of physical disability, or will be unable to go to his polling place because the tenets of his religion prevent him from doing so throughout the day of election, he may apply in person or by mail for an absent voter's ballot at the office of the County Clerk, County of Napa, Napa, California. 22782: March 23, 1965 BY ORDER OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF NAPA JULIUS CAIOCCA, JT. Section 6. The County Clerk is hereby directed to cause this resolution to be published once a week for two (2) successive weeks before said special district formation election in THE NAPPA REGISTER, a newspaper of general circulation in said proposed district, and said Clerk is hereby further directed to mail anotice of appointment to each election officer, and to mail a notice of polling place and sample ballot to each qualified voter of said proposed district. Section 7. This resolution shall take effect immediately. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF NAPA COUNTY THIS 23rd day of March, 1965, by the following vote: ANDERSEN, CLARE and CAIOCCA AYES: Supervisors NONE NOES: DICKENSON and PERGUSON ABSENT: Chairman ot Board of Supervisors the County of Napa, Colifornia (SEAL) ATTEST: CLEAR or said Hoard. ATTACHMENT E GESTIFIED COPY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF NAPA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
The County does not provide formal training for grant procedures and application writing.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
County departments start to use Cal-CARD.
F2:
The A-C is using an excessive number of accounts (about 3500) in its chart of accounts.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The PeopleSoft® “Procure to Pay” process be fully configured and implemented for use by all County Departments by the end of the fiscal year 2011-2012.
F3:
Personal credit cards are being used for some purchases by Napa County employees.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The A-C implement a consolidated chart of accounts of 500 or less within one year. 7
F4:
The County is not using CAL-CARD.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The A-C publish an annual printed summary providing a brief overview of the County’s financial condition within one year.
F5:
The “Procure to Pay” process of PeopleSoft® is under-utilized.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The A-C include on the County’s website an annual summary providing a brief overview of the County’s financial condition within one year.
F6:
The A-C does not publish a brief summary of the County’s financial condition.
F7:
The Napa County Administration Building on Third Street is not in the current flood plain.
* 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.