Napa County Grand Jury
2013-2014
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
6 findings
F1:
- Pension and OPEB benefits amount to less than 10% of Napa County and its jurisdictions' total annual budgets. Response – Agree with respect to the all funds budget for the City of Napa. However, for the City of Napa, comparing costs to the total budget reduces the impact of pension and OPEB costs because the biggest impact of labor, pension and OPEB costs is to the City's General Fund. Pension costs were 5.18% of the total budget in FY 2012-13, with OPEB costs at 0.58%, for a total of 5.76% of the annual expenditures for all funds. For the General Fund, pension costs came in at 11.27%, with OPEB costs at 1.2% for a total of 12.47% of the General Fund budget. This number is expected to increase to 16% of the General Fund budget by FY 2014-15.
F2:
– Napa County jurisdictions had pension liability funding levels that ranged from 70.3% in Calistoga to 84.3% in St. Helena for the 2012/2013 fiscal year. Response – Agree that the pension liability funding levels for the City of Napa are in this range. The City of Napa's Miscellaneous pension plan was funded at 74% as of June 30, 2012 and Safety pension plan was funded at 77% as of June 30, 2012, the last full year reported in the CalPERS actuarial reports received in December 2013. There is only one year since FY 2006-07 that the pension plans fell below the 70% funding level, and that was as of June 30, 2009, after the CalPERS investment portfolio experienced a negative return (investment loss) of approximately 25.9%. As of June 30, 2009, both of the City's pension plans were funded at between 55 and 57%, a significant drop from the previous year funding levels of 82-83%. Since FY 2009-10, the City of Napa's pension plans have been consistently funded at between 74 and 78%. This number is expected to increase slightly as the City recently made a payment to CalPERS of approximately $0.4 million on top of the annual contributions to fully fund the former Redevelopment Agency's outstanding unfunded pension liability based on an actuarial report prepared after the dissolution.
F3:
- All jurisdictions have introduced employee sharing of pension (PERS) costs, although many of those plans only apply to future employees. Response -For the City of Napa, partially agree, since all employees share pension costs. The City of Napa employees have been sharing in the cost of pension benefits for years beginning with negotiated cost share of the employer rates between 14% and 19%, whereby Safety employees have contributed 2.5% since FY 2005-06 and Miscellaneous employees paid a portion of the employer contribution beginning in FY 2007-08 and increasing to 1.5% in FY 2011-12. In 2012, City employees agreed to an additional cost share of 3%, with Safety employees picking up 5.5% of the employer rate and Miscellaneous employees picking up 4.5% of the employer rate, resulting in Safety employees paying 14.5% and Miscellaneous employees paying 12.5% toward pension benefits. While PEPRA calls for new employees to pay at least 50% of the cost of retirement benefits and does not allow municipalities to impose the cost share until 2018, Napa employees have been picking up at least 50% of the normal cost of retirement benefits for several years. All MOUs continue this employee cost share commitment into the future.
F4:
- Some jurisdictions are phasing in employee share for OPEB where possible via memorandums of understanding but will only apply to new employees. Response - Disagree with respect to the City of Napa. While this is an option, and it is our understanding that the City of St. Helena has implemented an employee cost share of OPEB benefits, the City of Napa has taken other measures to reduce the unfunded liability for OPEB benefits. The City was successful in negotiating changes in retiree medical benefits for future and most current Public Safety Fire Department employees by converting a portion of each employee's annual sick leave accrual and matching 1.75% of each employee's salary with a contribution to a Health Retirement Account (HRA) on an annual basis, thereby funding retiree medical benefits with a defined contribution rather than a defined benefit and reducing the City's liability by $0.3 million. The introduction of the HRA also eliminated the option to convert unused sick leave to additional PERS service credits, thus reducing the City's pension liability. Additionally, the City has implemented a Retiree Medical Trust (RMT) for police officers in exchange for reduced or eliminated retiree medical benefits, which served to reduce both the pension and OPEB unfunded liability in a similar way as the HRA did for the Fire bargaining groups. In addition, the City was successful in separating the active and non-Medicare retiree health care benefits, thereby removing the implied subsidy for retiree medical costs. The combination of those changes (except Police RMT which was implemented after the last actuarial analysis was performed), along with projected contributions to the Trust, has resulted in a reduction to the City's OPEB unfunded liability from $18 million in 2006 to a projected $9.8 million in 2013. The City continues to look for ways to reduce the unfunded pension and OPEB liabilities through creative benefit changes and employee cost share programs.
F5:
– Jurisdiction OPEB funded ratios are estimated to range from 27.8% to 35%. Response – Agree with respect to estimated funded ratios for the City of Napa. The City set aside funds in FY 2007-08 and 2008-09 with the intention of funding an OPEB trust; however, decided to hold the funds internally as CalPERS was experiencing large investment losses at that time, including the significant 25.9% approximate loss in FY 2008-09. In 2010, the City opened a California Employment Retirement Benefits Trust (CERBT) with an initial contribution of $1.5 million from the funds set aside in previous years. Since 2010, the City has funded the annual required contribution (ARC) as a percentage of payroll on a bi-weekly basis, and has contributed more than the ARC in three of the past four years. The last OPEB Actuarial Report was prepared based on June 30, 2011 balances, and at that time showed the City's OPEB liability funded at 17.3%. That same actuarial report projected a funded ratio of 27.8% as of June 30, 2013. The City is currently working with the actuary to update the actuarial report for OPEB benefits as of June 30, 2013, and we expect the funded ratio to exceed the initially estimated 27.8% due to over funding the ARC the past few years as well as the agreement by the Police employees to convert the defined benefit retiree medical program to a defined contribution program by which the City contributes to a Retiree Medical Trust during the employee's working career, which is then used to fund retiree medical costs for the employee.
F7:
- Most Napa County jurisdictions are trying to achieve full funding of their OPEB liability well before 2040, the 30 year amortization rate recommended by the Government Finance Officers' Association in March 2013. Response - Agree with respect to the City of Napa. The City of Napa's June 30, 2011 OPEB actuarial shows full funding of the City's OPEB liability by 2040. As stated above, the City has been overfunding the OPEB trust and has made additional changes to the post-employment benefit structure for various bargaining groups which is anticipated to result in full funding of the OPEB liability by 2040, if not before.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
- Napa County Board of Supervisors and the incorporated Napa jurisdictions form a pension/OPEB committee with appropriate financial and human resources management to establish a communication process and a planning best practices platform to share insights and collaborate on strategies for addressing and managing pension/OPEB funding. Response – This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. Each jurisdiction has vastly different circumstances and different options available for managing pension and OPEB funding - what may be a solution for one agency will not necessarily be the best fit for another. However, we believe that there is still value in meeting together to discuss pension funding strategies and managing the pension and OPEB liabilities. The Finance Directors of the various cities and town meet with the County Auditor-Controller on a quarterly basis and discuss various issues impacting all agencies. The City Managers from each agency also meet on a monthly basis and share policies, status, suggestions and ideas for various issues, including the pension and OPEB liabilities, options and funding mechanisms. These regularly scheduled meetings provide beneficial information for addressing the intent of the recommendation by the Grand Jury with respect to a county-wide pension/OPEB committee to share strategies and collaborate to address and manage pension and OPEB funding.
R2:
- Napa County Board of Supervisors and the incorporated Napa jurisdictions through the pension/OPEB committee issue an annual report that summarizes each entity's pension/OPEB funding status at the end of each fiscal year. Response – This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. All agencies are issued an actuarial report from CalPERS on an annual basis, and are required to have an actuarial valuation performed on the OPEB liability every 2-3 years, depending on agency size. All of these reports are public information and most are available on each agency's website. In addition, each agency is required to provide this information in the same format for "apples to apples" comparisons between agencies in a footnote to the basic financial statements each fiscal year for both pensions and OPEB, and with the recent release of the new Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) pronouncement No. 68 which requires government agencies to begin reporting the unfunded liabilities in the financial statements rather than simply in the footnotes, this information will be even more transparent and available to interested parties through the agencies' Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFR). This information is readily available and posted to each agency's respective website. Because the agencies are so different, and unfunded liabilities in one agency have absolutely no bearing on the other agencies' funding or services provided to citizens, re-creating an annual report to combine the annual reports already provided by each agency would have little to no added benefit to citizens. We do agree that the public should be informed about post-employment benefit funding obligations and believe that sufficient public information is readily available that would address the Grand Jury's recommendation.
Findings & Recommendations
18 findings
F1:
The ten-year Joint Use Agreement for Maintenance of School Sports Fields between the City of Napa and the NVSUD expired in 2010. The Joint Use Agreement provided funding to the School District for field maintenance.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
That the Superintendent of the NVUSD and the City of Napa Parks and Recreation Department re-establish within the next six months a new Joint Use Agreement for Maintenance of School Sports Fields for School and Community Use.
F2:
Inequities in field maintenance and appearance were noted in all of the fields observed; some of the fields were in excellent condition while others were found to be lacking in maintenance.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
That the Director of Maintenance and Construction develop a more consistent maintenance program to ensure that the playing fields at all schools are maintained in a safe, playable condition.
F3:
Team rosters are not checked for billing purposes; an estimated number of players serve as a basis for payment.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
That the Assistant Superintendent of Business Services develop written procedures for the enrollment of all non-profit youth sports leagues to ensure consistent tracking of applications, payments, billing and usage. 12
F4:
Collection of field use fees is not centralized or submitted on a regular basis.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
That the Assistant Superintendent of Business Services prepare quarterly financial reports for the Youth Sports Council meetings detailing current revenues and expenditures in the Napa Youth Sports League account.
F5:
The financial reports from the NVUSD distributed at the Youth Sports Council meetings to the NYSO are inconsistent, often incomplete and lack transparency.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
That the Director of General Services and Facilities implement within the next six months, a computerized system for the reservations of playing fields.
F6:
Fields are scheduled manually at two scheduling meetings during the year.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
That the Director of General Services and Facilities adopt a lottery or similar system to assign playing fields that would replace the current “historical” system.
F7:
Fields are currently scheduled on a “historic’ basis with preference to those leagues that have been established the longest.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
That the Assistant Superintendent of Business Services immediately allow the use of credit cards for the payment of field use fees to ensure more efficient tracking of funds and team payments.
F8:
Payment of fees is restricted to either cash or check. 11
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
That the Assistant Superintendent of Business Services establish in the next six months stricter enforcement policies for the non-payment of field use fees.
F9:
Some non-profit sports organizations fail to pay their field use fees, but still have access to the fields.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
That the Director of Maintenance and Construction, in conjunction with the principals at each elementary school site, place at the entrance of each playing field updated, highly visible signage stating that a use permit for organized sports groups is required to use the field.
F10:
Safety and use requirement signage at many of the elementary school fields is often lacking, outdated or misplaced.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
That the Director of Maintenance and Construction establish procedures that expedite and track emergency work order requests within the web-based, electronic “School Dude” system to ensure proper transparency of the completed work.
F11:
Emergency work requests are processed verbally, but not always followed up and recorded through the electronically controlled system known as “School Dude.”
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
That the Director of General Services and Facilities within the next three months create a computerized, online Facilities Use Application form designed for the exclusive reservations of playing fields.
F12:
The current field use application is outdated (1996) and consolidated within the application for rental or use of all school facilities. Users are required to complete separate applications for every field they request.
Related Recommendations (1)
R12:
That the Director of Maintenance and Construction continue to research and apply the most effective method of controlling the gopher infestation observed at many fields.
F13:
There is a gopher infestation problem at many of the natural grass fields.
Related Recommendations (1)
R13:
That the Superintendent of Schools and the Director of General Services and Facilities establish written guidelines immediately for the public posting of Youth Sports Council meetings, agendas and minutes.
F14:
Youth Sports Council meetings, agendas, and minutes are not published in advance for public view.
Related Recommendations (1)
R14:
That the City of Napa and the NVUSD continue to work in collaboration in the development of more playing fields on city-owned land for community use such as Kennedy Park.
F15:
The existing playing fields within the NVUSD have reached their maximum capacity to accommodate the growing number of non-profit youth sports organizations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R15:
That the Assistant Superintendent of Business Services implement and maintain a new financial software system for accounting services within the NVUSD to include the Napa Youth Sports League account. 13
F16:
The NVUSD accounting department is currently using outdate software to prepare financial reports for the Napa Youth Sports League account.
Related Recommendations (1)
R16:
That the NVUSD establish within the next six months written policies defining the type of work that can be performed on the fields by volunteers from the non-profit sports organizations.
F17:
Some volunteer work performed on the School District’s playing fields by adults from the NYSO often conflicts with the union rules of the California School Employees Association.
Related Recommendations (1)
R17:
That the Parks and Recreation Department resume the responsibility for collecting field use fees from the NVUSD as it did prior to 2007. IX. REQUEST FOR RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal Code section 933.05, the 2013-2014 Grand Jury requests responses from the following governmental agencies: • Napa City Council: R1, R14, R17 • NVUSD: R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8, R9, R10, R11, R12, R13, R14, R15, R16 It is requested that each person responding to the foregoing recommendations certify above his or her signature that the response conforms to the requirements of section 933.05 of the Penal Code. X.
F18:
The NVUSD assumed the responsibility of collecting field use fees from the NYSO in 2007. VIII. RECOMMENDATIONS The Grand Jury Recommends:
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
The Napa CVSO provides a critical service by assisting veterans to identify and apply for benefits they are entitled to receive.
F2:
There are 11,400 veterans in Napa County that are within the service area of the Napa CVSO.
F3:
As of 2012 (the latest available data), the Napa CVSO has assisted a total of 1,435 veterans through the VA claims process.
F4:
The Napa CVSO has a claims granting rate of 98% from the VA, ranking it seventh among all California counties.
F5:
The amount of new claim benefits received by Napa County veterans through the CVSO has increased steadily over the last several years, reaching a new annual high of $3,496,513 in 2013.
F6:
In recent years Napa County has understaffed and underfunded its CVSO in comparison to other, small California counties.
F7:
The Napa CVSO presently has a backlog of four to six weeks in scheduling non- emergency meetings with veterans.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Napa CVSO should set a goal of scheduling a meeting with a veteran within a two-week period.
F8:
Due to understaffing, the Napa CVSO in recent years has not engaged in effective outreach to veterans in Napa County.
Related Recommendations (3)
R2:
The Napa CVSO should develop an outreach program that ensures that veterans in Napa County are fully aware of its services, including that it will make home visits.
R3:
The Napa CVSO should report annually, in writing, to the Board of Supervisors on the effectiveness of its outreach programs, including not just what it has done but what in its assessment should be done.
R4:
Napa County should implement changes to its website that facilitate the finding of veteran services on its website.
F9:
Many veterans do not have documents on their person that identify themselves as veterans. VI. RECOMMENDATIONS
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Napa CVSO should make available a Veteran Identification Card for Napa County veterans to enable veterans to receive additional benefits from Napa County businesses with special benefits for veterans. VII. REQUEST FOR RESPONSES Pursuant to California Penal Code section 933.05, the 2013-2014 Grand Jury requests responses from the following governing body: • The Napa County Board of Supervisors It is requested that the official responding to the recommendations certify above his or her signature that the responses conform to the requirements of section 933.05 of the Penal Code. VIII. COMMENDATION The 2013-2014 Grand Jury commends the CVSO for its high grant rate of 98% and for achieving record benefit results in fiscal 2012-13. The foregoing report was approved by the 2013-2014 Grand Jury in regular session on April 15, 2014. /s/ Alan Galbraith Foreperson, 2013-2014 Grand Jury
Findings & Recommendations
16 findings
F1:
During 2003-2008 few new buses were purchased while NCTPA expanded its role from solely transit to planning, traffic congestion and other activities.
F2:
According to data collected during the period of 2001 to 2012, VINE ridership declined by more than 50%.
F3:
NCTPA has had more than $10 million rolled over annually in its reserve TDA fund since 2009 that can be used for transit related capital expenses with MTC approval.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends planning out the use of the $10 million reserve fund to meet transit’s existing needs over the next 10 years, including capital expenses and marketing costs by the beginning of the next fiscal year.
F4:
There was a major restructuring of NCTPA management and of the Veolia contractor during 2009 – 2011 and between 2009 and 2013 31 new buses were purchased for the VINE Routes.
F5:
A new VINE Transit Center and consolidated NCTPA office complex was completed in December 2012.
F6:
A redesigned VINE route system began service December 3, 2012 and had positive growth in ridership numbers over the first nine months of 2013.
F7:
A monthly VINE dashboard for the NCTPA Board of Directors (BOD) was implemented in 2012, reporting on ridership, maintenance, cleanliness, frequency of on- time running, and safety that showed in 2013, VINE buses were clean, running twice as often, and meeting on-time targets.
F8:
There is a lack of community awareness of numerous route changes, additional routes and other significant improvements in VINE transit services as documented in the NCTPA consultant Ilium Associate’s 2011 Marketing Plan.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
The Grand Jury recommends NCTPA contract with an agency with transit expertise to develop and implement appropriate marketing efforts to targeted ridership populations and major employers that will drive awareness of all VINE services and improve ridership within the current and for the future fiscal year.
F9:
Marketing of the VINE bus service is not perceived as a high priority for NCTPA management and thus the annual marketing budgets for the VINE are not being fully deployed consistently. Only 10% of the NCTPA marketing budget had been spent six months into the present (FY14) fiscal year.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
The Grand Jury recommends NCTPA contract with an agency with transit expertise to develop and implement appropriate marketing efforts to targeted ridership populations and major employers that will drive awareness of all VINE services and improve ridership within the current and for the future fiscal year.
F10:
Open since December 2012, the new NCTPA Office/VINE Transit Center does not have any visible street or building signage to help direct riders to the Transit Center and VINE buses and bus shelters lack consistent branding/signage, not optimizing potential advertising revenue and marketing opportunities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
NCTPA should install at a minimum temporary signage as soon as possible for the new Transit Center that can be seen from Soscol Avenue and install a complete and consistent branding and marketing signage system for the center, buses and bus shelters, within ninety (90) days of this report.
F11:
In the spring of 2013 the Route 29 service received special grant funds to conduct an extensive advertising (billboard, television and radio) campaign that increased ridership, demonstrating the effectiveness of a marketing campaign.
F12:
VINE services are not optimally promoted on website home pages of the incorporated jurisdictions. American Canyon, Yountville, and Calistoga websites have links that contain information about transportation services, including the VINE. The home pages of Napa and St. Helena lack such links.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
NCTPA should implement within the current fiscal year a coordinated VINE marketing strategy with each Napa County jurisdiction so that NCTPA’s transit services are readily available and consistently communicated across all public, community and visitor websites.
F13:
The VINE currently does not employ sufficient financial, quantitative and qualitative metrics, indicators toward adaptive (learning-based) management in decision-making to constantly improve transit operations and ridership service.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
NCTPA should develop financial, qualitative and quantitative reporting metrics that will identify problems in standards of system performance so operation corrections can be made through adaptive management actions, with those metrics in place by the end of the current fiscal year.
F14:
Planning for VINE proper (Napa inner-city) routes does not utilize Transit- Oriented-Development (TOD) methodologies for achieving the most sustainable transportation route designs.
Related Recommendations (2)
R5:
NCTPA should consistently utilize the Napa County Short Range Transit Plan FY 2013-2022 (June 2013) for guidance in the sustainable operation of the Napa transit system with timely progress reports to the Board of Directors (BOD) put in place by June 2014.
R10:
NCTPA should explore, adopt and apply sustainability design tools such as TOD to determine ideal alterations to transit services within the 2014 calendar year.
F15:
NCTPA lacks a coordinated logistics management system for its many different facilities including the transit center, maintenance area, bus parking, and fueling facilities which results in an inefficient operation.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the BOD adopt and follow a capital budget that anticipates maintenance and equipment acquisitions, projects out costs and funding mechanisms, and monitors implementation with a consistent progress reporting method. If the recommendation is not implementable in the current fiscal year, then it should be implemented in FY 2014/15.
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the BOD evaluate at least annually, with careful prior analysis by staff, any needed major acquisitions such as buses, maintenance yards, and fueling stations, with the goal of achieving the efficient integration of transit operations.
F16:
As demands increase upon its role in congestion management and transportation planning, particularly from the increased traffic in American Canyon and on Route 29 throughout the Valley, the NCTPA BOD’s time allocated to the VINE may not be sufficient in light of the VINE’s increasing directional needs regarding marketing, other ridership incentives, and long-term planning.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends the BOD to explore ways to improve NCTPA management retention such as merit pay or other incentives, and put in place for the coming fiscal year.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
Pension and OPEB benefits amount to less than 10% of Napa County and its jurisdictions’ total annual budgets. 6
F2:
Napa County jurisdictions had pension liability funding levels that ranged from 70.3% in Calistoga to 84.3% in St. Helena for the 2012/2013 fiscal year.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Napa County Board of Supervisors and the incorporated Napa jurisdictions through the pension/OPEB committee issue an annual report that summarizes each entity’s pension/OPEB funding status at the end of each fiscal year.
F3:
All jurisdictions have introduced employee sharing of pension (PERS) costs, although many of those plans only apply to future employees.
F4:
Some jurisdictions are phasing in employee share for OPEB where possible via memorandums of understanding but will only apply to new employees.
F5:
Jurisdiction OPEB funded ratios are estimated to range from 27.8% to 35%.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Napa County Board of Supervisors and the incorporated Napa jurisdictions through the pension/OPEB committee issue an annual report that summarizes each entity’s pension/OPEB funding status at the end of each fiscal year.
F6:
Napa County was able to bring its OPEB funded ratio up to 46.6% in the fiscal year ending in 2013.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Napa County Board of Supervisors and the incorporated Napa jurisdictions through the pension/OPEB committee issue an annual report that summarizes each entity’s pension/OPEB funding status at the end of each fiscal year.
F7:
Most Napa County jurisdictions are trying to achieve full funding of their OPEB liability well before 2040, the 30 year amortization rate recommended by the Government Finance Officers Association in March, 2013.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Napa County Board of Supervisors and the incorporated Napa jurisdictions form a pension/OPEB committee with appropriate financial and human resource management to establish a communication process and a planning best practices platform to share insights and collaborate on strategies for addressing and managing pension/OPEB funding,
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
NCJH provides a safe, secure, and well-maintained environment for delinquent juveniles.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that by the end of FY 2014-2015, all on-duty NCJH employees should wear clothing that clearly identifies them as staff.
F2:
NCJH administration and staff demonstrate a high level of professionalism.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that by the end of FY 2014-2015, video equipment should be updated to current state-of-the-art standards, and cameras added to the system to ensure that there are no blind spots within the facility or along the perimeter of the yard.
F3:
NCJH counselors and supervisors do not wear uniforms or monogrammed clothing that makes them readily identifiable as staff.
F4:
The video/camera system at NCJH is outdated and insufficient for surveillance of juveniles in the perimeters of the yard, and some blind spots inside the facility. 3
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
Realignment has changed the composition of the NCJ population and the dynamics between inmates and correctional staff by the addition of more criminally sophisticated felons, serving longer sentences in a facility designed for shorter-term stays.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The 2013-2014 Grand Jury has identified three “compelling issues” in favor of returning the management of the Napa County Jail facility to the Napa County Sheriff and requests that the Board of Supervisors reconsider its prior position on the management structure of the jail.
F2:
Recruitment and retention of correctional staff is a significant problem for NCDC. 11
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Grand Jury requests that the Board of Supervisors implement any changes in management structure by the end of FY 2015-2016. VI. REQUEST FOR RESPONSES The 2013-2014 Grand Jury requests responses from the following: • Napa County Board of Supervisors: R1, R2 It is requested that each person responding to the foregoing recommendation certify above his or her signature that the responses conform to the requirements of Section 933.05 of the Penal Code. VII. COMMENDATION The 2013-2014 Grand Jury commends the Director of Corrections and his staff for their dedication and professionalism in the increasingly challenging environment of the NCJ. Approved in regular session on May 6, 2014 /s/ Alan Galbraith Foreperson, 2013-2014 Grand Jury 12
F3:
The Napa County Jail is one of two remaining county jails in California managed by a Director of Corrections under the authority of the Board of Supervisors rather than the Sheriff. V. RECOMMENDATIONS
* 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.