Gran Jurado del Condado de Napa
2015-2016
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 (10)
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
9 hallazgos
F1:
There is an appearance of management style and behavior that results in employees feeling intimidated, isolated and undervalued. Based on its witness interviews and review of documentary evidence, the Grand Jury is concerned that, if unchecked, this may result in continued operational issues and continued attrition of qualified personnel from an already understaffed group.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (3)
R1:
The County Board of Supervisors should enhance its oversight of the NCJ to ensure that it is operating properly, including assigning a senior staff person to comprehensively 11 review the operation of the jail and to provide a written report of findings no later than April 1, 2017.
R2:
The Board of Supervisors should retain a management consultant to work with jail leadership on operational, administrative and workforce issues.
R5:
The County Board of Supervisors should establish a multi-year Citizen’s Oversight Committee by December 31, 2016. The BOS should assure that there is no retribution to staff from the committee’s findings. COMMENDATION The County Board of Supervisors should commend the Correctional Officers for excelling in an extremely difficult environment.
F2:
NCJ polices and operational procedures are in place, but are not always followed or are inconsistently applied. This ranges from policies that are applied differently from shift to shift depending on the supervisor to policies that simply are not enforced, to policies that are enforced differently against different employees.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (3)
R1:
The County Board of Supervisors should enhance its oversight of the NCJ to ensure that it is operating properly, including assigning a senior staff person to comprehensively 11 review the operation of the jail and to provide a written report of findings no later than April 1, 2017.
R2:
The Board of Supervisors should retain a management consultant to work with jail leadership on operational, administrative and workforce issues.
R5:
The County Board of Supervisors should establish a multi-year Citizen’s Oversight Committee by December 31, 2016. The BOS should assure that there is no retribution to staff from the committee’s findings. COMMENDATION The County Board of Supervisors should commend the Correctional Officers for excelling in an extremely difficult environment.
F3:
There are no standard operating procedures in place defining the relationships among the NCJ staff and outside medical and mental health providers.
F4:
The manner in which the jail is managed has engendered low morale on the part of at least some, if not most, staff and correctional officers.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (3)
R1:
The County Board of Supervisors should enhance its oversight of the NCJ to ensure that it is operating properly, including assigning a senior staff person to comprehensively 11 review the operation of the jail and to provide a written report of findings no later than April 1, 2017.
R2:
The Board of Supervisors should retain a management consultant to work with jail leadership on operational, administrative and workforce issues.
R5:
The County Board of Supervisors should establish a multi-year Citizen’s Oversight Committee by December 31, 2016. The BOS should assure that there is no retribution to staff from the committee’s findings. COMMENDATION The County Board of Supervisors should commend the Correctional Officers for excelling in an extremely difficult environment.
F5:
Correctional Officer retention is an issue, as 40% of the existing officers have less than five (5) years in service.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3:
Compensation and benefits for Correctional Officers should be analyzed to determine the incentive package necessary to attract new career officers and retain existing officers.
F6:
Recruitment is a problem at all levels at the NCJ. The jail has not been fully staffed for at least three years.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R3:
Compensation and benefits for Correctional Officers should be analyzed to determine the incentive package necessary to attract new career officers and retain existing officers.
R4:
Staffing should be made an immediate priority, including a full staff of Correctional Officers, and a bilingual FMHC.
F7:
Rehabilitation programs have been discontinued to the detriment of the inmate population and the public at large.
F8:
A new jail is needed.
F9:
Correctional Officers and staff, at least for the time being, continue to be invested and interested in their positions and committed to making the best of the challenging situation created by organizational issues and poor facilities.
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
2 hallazgos
F1:
While food-borne illnesses cannot always be prevented, the Retail Food Program within Napa County’s Environmental Health Division does an effective job of partnering with food providers to minimize food-borne illness risk.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
The Board of Supervisors is encouraged to direct the Department of Planning, Building and Environmental Services to expand resources devoted to the training of restaurant owners and employees regarding food-borne illness prevention and food safety practices.
F2:
The Grand Jury finds that the continuous education of businesses and staff is a reasonable and cost-effective means of minimizing food-borne illness risk to Napa County residents and visitors. 8
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
8 hallazgos
F1:
NRRD is not now performing, and never has performed, the essential levee control and maintenance responsibilities for which it was created.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R2:
NRRD and NCLAFCO should take all steps necessary to ensure that NRRD has all enforcement and funding authority necessary to perform the levee maintenance, rehabilitation and construction functions for which it was created. Alternatively, NRRD should be reformed so that it is responsible only for providing sewer services.
R4:
If NRRD continues to be responsible for reclamation and flood control services, NCLAFCO should consider reforming the NRRD Board to include independent, non- resident members should it become apparent that an all-resident board is reluctant to take actions to ensure the enforcement and funding necessary to bring all levees into compliance and to maintain them. As an alternative, the Board of Supervisors could consider creating a revenue source for NRRD at the county level.
F2:
All parties with oversight of NRRD either know or should have known of NRRD’s continued failure to perform. These parties include the NRRD Board of Directors, NCLAFCO Executive Director(s) and Commissioners, and Napa County Counsel‘s office.
F3:
Despite being aware of NRRD’s failures, all stakeholders–including NRRD residents and directors–have failed or refused to remedy the situation.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4:
If NRRD continues to be responsible for reclamation and flood control services, NCLAFCO should consider reforming the NRRD Board to include independent, non- resident members should it become apparent that an all-resident board is reluctant to take actions to ensure the enforcement and funding necessary to bring all levees into compliance and to maintain them. As an alternative, the Board of Supervisors could consider creating a revenue source for NRRD at the county level.
F4:
Despite NRRD clearly not performing its essential levee maintenance function, County dollars have been spent to partner with NRRD on various stop gap projects such as sand bag facilities and dewatering pumps.
F5:
A. If NRRD floods, County facilities (Milton Road) could be damaged, first responders (fire, EMS, etc.) could be at risk serving NRRD residents, and the district's underground sewer system could fail, possibly causing a serious health and safety issue to residents and responders, as well as significant public or private property damage. B. In the event of a flood in NRRD, it is unclear what the responsibility and liability would be for Napa County and its taxpayers. During its investigation, the Grand Jury became concerned that the county would have to pay for the flood damages because state and federal agencies likely would not pay for the errors of local authorities in failing to make sure that NRRD was empowered and funded to take necessary precautionary steps. 9
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
The County BOS should direct County Counsel to render a written opinion, that will be made public, on the respective liabilities and responsibilities of NRRD and the County arising from NRRD's failure to perform its essential function(s).
F6:
Geologic information the Grand Jury reviewed and witness testimony indicate that, due to subsidence and rising levels of the Napa River and surrounding wetlands in coming years, existing levees within NRRD will be inadequate to protect properties in the district.
F7:
NRRD contracts with the County for its legal services. Counsel assigned by the County to NRRD refused to participate in a Grand Jury interview without a subpoena, and, upon appearing, refused to answer some basic questions. Therefore, the Grand Jury has been unable to ascertain important information as to NRRD’s legal responsibilities and liabilities.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
The County BOS should direct County Counsel to render a written opinion, that will be made public, on the respective liabilities and responsibilities of NRRD and the County arising from NRRD's failure to perform its essential function(s).
F8:
NCLAFCO has not timely reviewed NRRD as to “Sphere of Influence,” “Municipal Services,” or “Governance” and NCLAFCO Commissioners have not followed well- reasoned staff recommendations in reviews that have been done.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3:
NCLAFCO should, within the next six months, complete comprehensive Sphere of Influence, Municipal Services and Governance reviews of NRRD.
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
8 hallazgos
F1:
The County of Napa has been very diligent in maintaining Fiscal Policies that achieved the highest possible Bond Rating from S&P.
F2:
The BOS have established a series of Budget Policies that call for holding the line on spending and using a Fiscal Contingency Plan to prepare for the future. The BOS have consis- tently maintained the County of Napa budgeting and spending within the limits that were estab- lished in 2011.
F3:
The Grand Jury finds that the financial documentation in the CAFR for “Aid from other governments” on the Budgetary Comparison Schedule is confusing. The schedule overstates “Inflow” and Capital Works Project anticipated expenditures.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
As the result of F3, the Grand Jury recommends that Napa County institute a schedule in the Management’s Discussion and Analysis Section of the CAFR that explains the negative variance from “Actual Amount (Budgetary Basis)” and “Variance with Final Budget” in “Aid from other governments.” The Grand Jury believes that including the information outlined below will clarify the actual situation for the average citizen.
F4:
The BOS has maintained an impressive position in Contingencies and Reserves that pro- vides the County of Napa with a healthy financial future.
F5:
Napa County uses divisional “Goals” to support the request for funding on an annual basis. However, they have not require reporting divisions to provide progress or completion of “Ac- complishments” as follow-up in the next year.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3:
As the result of F5, the Grand Jury recommends that the BOS and the CEO must require every division to report current status of every Goal that was prepared to support the previous years Recommended Budget. *This type of trust is authorized by Section 115 of the Internal Revenue Code solely for the purpose of funding post-employment benefit for workers and cannot be revoked by the employing agency. The timing of the utilization of funds is determined by the employing agency. 9
F6:
The County Executive Office did not prepare on an annual basis a Five-Year Financial Forecast from 2012 to 2015. 8
F7:
The County of Napa has maintained exceptional Financial Reporting (CAFR) as recog- nized by GFOA.
F8:
The County of Napa has maintained the appropriate payments to CalPERS for the Pension Plan and OPEB, but has not taken advantage of using Fund Balances to pay down Unfunded Pension and OPEB obligations.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2:
As the result of F8, the Grand Jury recommends that the BOS consider using some positive Fund Balances each year to begin to pay down the Unfunded Pension and OPEB by establishing an 115 Irrevocable Trust.*
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
5 hallazgos
F1:
“The Community Indicators” or activity trend section of the Performance Measurement Reports is too outdated to be of any use to department and division managers, but may be of interest to residents and elected officials. The Grand Jury recognizes the value of this information, but questions its distribution as part of the PMR. The Napa County Website seems to be a better tool for distributing important up-to-date activity levels.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2:
Post key activity levels (“Community Indicators”) on the county website annually, or more frequently if data are available, and no later than 60 days following the end of the period being reported. 7
F2:
The Grand Jury finds that the standards for establishing performance measurements that were found in the August 15, 2013 Budget Performance Measures Training manual to be a valuable resource. Unfortunately, the current version of the PMR does not adhere to the best practices outlined in that manual, particularly in identifying measures that are timely and focused on controllable factors.
F3:
The Grand Jury found that the process to produce and publish the PMR is expensive and largely futile. The over 300 pages of material contains mostly rote information that changes little from year to year other than entering the most current year’s figures. Nar- ratives seldom change significantly.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
Discontinue publication of the Performance Measurement Report in its current form. If the Board of Supervisors finds the activity tracking and/or division overviews useful, produce them in a more condensed and efficient way. Use the website to do so whenever possible.
F4:
The timing and frequency of the PMR build in delays that make it of no practical use other than providing long term activity trends. The report is of no use to budget analysts, who must have more current data for forecasting and budgeting, or to line managers who must have current data to allocate resources.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
Discontinue publication of the Performance Measurement Report in its current form. If the Board of Supervisors finds the activity tracking and/or division overviews useful, produce them in a more condensed and efficient way. Use the website to do so whenever possible.
F5:
Given the significant time and effort required to produce the PMR, and its limited useful- ness, the Grand Jury finds that the cost of this report far exceeds its value and therefore concludes that there is no fiscally sound reason to continue producing the report in its current form.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
Discontinue publication of the Performance Measurement Report in its current form. If the Board of Supervisors finds the activity tracking and/or division overviews useful, produce them in a more condensed and efficient way. Use the website to do so whenever possible.
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
5 hallazgos
F1:
Lack of Standards – The Jury found that although all departments use a standard web page design, there is a wide range of formats and features from department to department. Document naming conventions are not consistent, frequently making documents difficult or impossible to find. Some departments include helpful information, like organizational charts, but others do not. Website users would benefit from more uniform formats and features.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
In response to finding F1, establish County wide standards for formats, document naming conventions, and best practice content features.
F2:
Content Out of Date or Wrong – The Jury found that content on the site is not current. Some links to documents do not go to current versions of those documents. Some reports that are referenced don’t exist. Some reports cannot be found through website searches and can only be accessed if readers already know the location. Documents that are supposed to be available elsewhere, i.e., at the county library, are not there. Regular reviews of website content are not being done.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2:
In response to finding F2, clean up the website and keep it current. Verify that information is accurate, up-to-date, and easy to find.
F3:
Search Function is Weak – The search function on the county website is inadequate.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3:
In response to finding F3, the county should upgrade the website search function.
F4:
Website Content Not a Priority – Managing website content is a line manager responsibility, and it is clear that it is not a priority for some departments. In most cases, monitoring and updating website content make up a small fraction of the jobs of the administrators who are assigned those duties, and those people have widely varying ability and interest in the task. The technical challenges of maintaining the site are intimidating for some. The website is not getting sufficient attention to make it an important communication and customer service tool. 6
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4:
Based on findings F4 and F5, the Jury recommends that the county form an expert user group to share best practices and new web functionality among divisions.
F5:
Site Not Living Up to Full Potential – Although the website is a useful resource and has become a primary source of county information, it has not lived up to its potential to be an effective tool for providing service and efficiency. In addition to having inaccurate and hard to find data, the site does not support even basic transaction capability, such as scheduling appointments and submitting applications, functions that are available on the websites of other counties. The current organizational structure relies on part time content administrators and puts the responsibility for website maintenance and development on the shoulders of line managers, who in many cases do not have the necessary resources to do that. Information Technology Services does have some systems development capability, but also has limited resources and does not have the responsibility for driving process enhancements in county departments and divisions. As a result, the website falls well short of the functionality it could and should have.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R5:
In response to findings F4 and F5, recognize the website’s importance as a communication, productivity, and service tool, by providing sufficient up front resources to department/division managers and to Information Technology Services to be able to implement all systems enhancements that can be cost justified through improvements in productivity and customer service.
Recomendaciones adicionales
1
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R6:
In response to Finding F5, the Board of Supervisors should challenge department and division managers to identify opportunities to improve productivity and/or customer service through the use of technology and provide the necessary up front resources to implement those opportunities that can be justified based on cost/benefit analyses.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
10 hallazgos
F1:
Efforts of law enforcement to address gang activity in Napa County have been successful in limiting its impact.
F2:
Efforts of administrators and staff at NVUSD and at St. Helena High School to address gang activity on high school campuses have been successful in limiting its impact.
F3:
Significant gang activity remains in Napa County generally and in Vintage High School, Valley Oaks High School and Napa High School.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R1:
Continue and expand the use of SROs at all Napa County public high school campuses.
R2:
Continue the Legacy Program at Vintage High School and use as a model for other high schools, in particular Napa High School and Valley Oak High School. 9
F4:
Gang Activity on the campuses of Vintage High School, Valley Oaks High School and Napa High School is more akin to social affiliation than a violent organization or criminal enterprise.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
Continue and expand the use of SROs at all Napa County public high school campuses.
F5:
Efforts at Vintage High School with the Legacy Program have been particularly successful in attracting gang members and potential gang members and in dissuading them from following a gang lifestyle. However, the success of the Legacy Program is limited to Vintage High School and likely due to the individuals involved in establishing and running the Program there.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R1:
Continue and expand the use of SROs at all Napa County public high school campuses.
R2:
Continue the Legacy Program at Vintage High School and use as a model for other high schools, in particular Napa High School and Valley Oak High School. 9
F6:
Napa High School is nearest to Vintage High School on a demographic analysis.
F7:
It is uncertain whether the Legacy Program could be effectively established at other campuses.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R1:
Continue and expand the use of SROs at all Napa County public high school campuses.
R2:
Continue the Legacy Program at Vintage High School and use as a model for other high schools, in particular Napa High School and Valley Oak High School. 9
F8:
Gang activity is not a present danger at American Canyon High School.
F9:
Gang Activity is not a present danger at St. Helena High School.
F10:
Gang activity is not a present danger at Calistoga High School.
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
2 hallazgos
F1:
The video surveillance cameras are outdated and of poor quality.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
Replace video surveillance cameras with up-to-date technology by December 31, 2016
F2:
Inadequate video surveillance leads to "blind spots" in the recreation yard and at the control desk areas in two detention units
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2:
Place new cameras in areas where blind spots have been identified by December 31, 2016
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
3 hallazgos
F1:
The Public Works Department is maintaining county facilities in a way that provides county employees and citizens with clean, safe, and pleasant buildings in which to conduct the county’s business.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
The County Board of Supervisors should commend the Public Works and Information Technology Services Departments for the post earthquake recovery work they performed.
F2:
The Public Works and Information Technology Services Departments did a masterful job of earthquake recovery. Over 400 people where relocated to temporary spaces and were 7 back in operation in only two days. Except for the historic courthouse and the Hall of Justice, which both incurred significant structural damage, earthquake repairs were completed in little over a year. The Public Works Department took the opportunity to include building system upgrades and maintenance items while the impacted spaces were vacant. The displaced departments, except the ones housed in the historic courthouse and the Hall of Justice, were smoothly and efficiently moved back to their permanent spaces as the renovations were completed.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2:
The County Board of Supervisors should direct the County Executive Officer to compile a list of contracts for the maintenance of critical equipment and services and to institute a policy that RFPs for replacement contracts be distributed at least sixty days in advance of the expiration dates of such contracts. This policy should be in place by December 31, 2016. Any deviations from this policy should be approved by the County Executive Officer on a case by case basis.
F3:
RFPs for maintenance contracts for critical building systems were not sent out on time, allowing the existing contracts to expire on July 1, 2015 without renewal or replacement. Although a basic level of inspection and testing was done by county maintenance personnel and some inspection and repair work was done by vendors on a purchase order by purchase order basis, the inspection regimen by third party experts on HVAC equipment, elevators, and emergency power generators was suspended with the expiration of the maintenance contracts on July 1, 2015. Elevator inspections continued on a month-to-month basis until October 31, 2015, but were suspended thereafter. The lack of regular thorough inspection and testing by third party specialists could lead to the increased risk of failure of this critical equipment when it is needed most.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
3 hallazgos
F1:
The Public Works Department is maintaining county facilities in a way that provides county employees and citizens with clean, safe, and pleasant buildings in which to conduct the county’s business.
F2:
The Public Works and Information Technology Services Departments did a masterful job of earthquake recovery. Over 400 people where relocated to temporary spaces and were back in operation in only two days. Except for the historic courthouse and the Hall of 29 Justice, which both incurred significant structural damage, earthquake repairs were completed in little over a year. The Public Works Department took the opportunity to include building system upgrades and maintenance items while the impacted spaces were vacant. The displaced departments, except the ones housed in the historic courthouse and the Hall of Justice, were smoothly and efficiently moved back to their permanent spaces as the renovations were completed.
F3:
RFPs for maintenance contracts for critical building systems were not sent out on time, allowing the existing contracts to expire on July 1, 2015 without renewal or replacement. Although a basic level of inspection and testing was done by county maintenance personnel and some inspection and repair work was done by vendors on a purchase order by purchase order basis, the inspection regimen by third party experts on HVAC equipment, elevators, and emergency power generators was suspended with the expiration of the maintenance contracts on July 1, 2015. Elevator inspections continued on a month-to-month basis until October 31, 2015, but were suspended thereafter. The lack of regular thorough inspection and testing by third party specialists could lead to the increased risk of failure of this critical equipment when it is needed most.
Recomendaciones adicionales
8
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
By December 31, 2015, the Napa County Public Works Department to develop contingency plan, approved by the Board of Supervisors, that lays out the major steps to be taken in the event of severe drought conditions. Board of Supervisors’ Response: The recommendation will be implemented in the context of the Alternative Groundwater Sustainability Plan, due to the State between June 30, 2016 and January 1, 2017.
R2:
By June 30, 2016, The Napa County Public Works Department to require major groundwater users to meter and report their water usage on a quarterly basis to ensure all well owners are following prescribed usage rates. Board of Supervisors’ Response: The recommendation requires further analysis. This recommendation will be considered in the context of the Alternative Groundwater Sustainability Plan, due to the State between June 30, 2016 and January 1, 2017. Development of the plan will include significant outreach to and input from the public. The Board of Supervisors will consider and determine the necessary amount of metering and reporting in the context of this public discussion.
R3:
By June 30, 2016, the Napa County Public Works Department to adopt policies to encourage all other groundwater users to meter and monitor their well water usage. Board of Supervisors’ Response: The recommendation requires further analysis. This recommendation will be considered in the context of the Alternative Groundwater Sustainability Plan, due to the State between June 30, 2016 and January 1, 2017. Development of the plan will include significant outreach to and input from the public. The Board of Supervisors will consider and determine the necessary amount of metering and reporting in the context of this public discussion. 2. RECYCLED WATER
R4:
The Napa Sanitation District should immediately begin exploring additional opportunities to expand its wastewater storage and infrastructure capacity through funds that may be available from the passage of California Proposition 1, the $7.1 Billion “Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014.” Napa Sanitation District Board of Directors Response: This recommendation is currently being implemented. The District is a founding member of the North Bay Water Reuse Authority, which was formed to help communities in Marin, Sonoma and Napa County to develop recycled water projects, complete the environmental analysis and studies required, and find federal and state funding support for the projects. The District is currently studying the development of new and expanded recycled water storage as part of the NBWRA's current "Phase 2" study. This work will culminate in the necessary analysis, community outreach and reports that are required under NEPA and CEQA to obtain any federal or state grant support, including Proposition 1 funding. Once the environmental studies are completed, the District intends to apply for federal and state grants, including Proposition I funding, to support expansion of recycled water storage and infrastructure capacity projects.
R5:
By June 30, 2016, the Napa Sanitation District and the City of Napa Water Department should begin negotiations to extend the current agreement that requires the sanitation district to reimburse the water department for lost revenue when a city water customer converts to recycled water. Napa Sanitation District Board of Directors Response: As discussed above, the District and City of Napa staffs have already held preliminary discussions on extension of the service agreement. The District will actively seek an agreement that promotes recycled water use and that provides for the conversion of sites irrigated with potable water to recycled water where appropriate and feasible. City of Napa Response: This recommendation has been implemented. The City and NSD have had communications over the past year regarding the potential to expand the service area covered by the agreement to include Silverado Middle School and Tulocay Cemetery. As noted above, 10 these discussions will require an extension of the term of the current agreement. The City remains open to continuing those discussions with NSD to extend the term of the current agreement, and negotiate necessary amendments to the agreement as a part of that negotiation.
R6:
By December 31, 2015, the Napa Sanitation District and the City of Napa Water Department should begin working with local officials, lobbying groups, and trade associations to persuade the State to fund the conversion of Napa State Hospital to recycled water for its irrigation purposes. Napa Sanitation District Board of Directors Response: The District has worked with local representatives of Napa State Hospital, as well as the State's Department of Mental Health and State Department of General Services, to assist in the Hospitals conversion from potable water to recycled water for irrigation. District staff has also worked with local and state elected officials to seek support for the conversion to recycled water. The District and the City have also worked cooperatively to provide information and support necessary for conversion. The District will continue to provide support necessary to assist the State in the conversion of its property to recycled water for irrigation purposes. City of Napa Response: This recommendation has been implemented. The City has been supportive of the State Hospital conversion to recycled water for many years. On multiple occasions, City staff has worked with NSD to calculate the amount of reimbursement to the City for the conversion so that local officials could meet with State Hospital representative. -13 of the City's 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (submitted to the State) specifies that the City will continue to support the expansion of NSD recycled water for irrigation by fulfilling the agreement for recycled water with NSD and supporting the conversion of Napa State Hospital. V. REVIEW OF RESPONSES TO THE 2014-15 GRAND JURY REPORT ON NAPA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
R7:
" Accepted; recommendation will be implemented
R8:
" Not accepted; issue requires further analysis Groundwater R1 Board of Supervisors Accepted; will be implemented in context of State plan, due in 2016