Napa County Grand Jury
2017-2018
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 (11)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
The FY2018/19 Budget Overview Presentation to the BOE in March 2018 indicates the likelihood of budget cuts for the next three years, but does not include a detailed, long-term plan for the future. Response: The BOE agrees with this finding.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
By the end of calendar year 2018, the Napa Valley Unified School District should develop a detailed, five-year financial plan for the District. Response: The recommendation will not be implemented. As required by the State, the District creates and updates, at least twice a year, multi-year budget projections that reflect a three-year budget cycle. Projections of revenue and expenses beyond three years are fraught with the uncertainty of enrollment and funding levels. Additionally, the District is now required to closely align the allocation of resources with the Local Control Accountability Plan, which is driven by needs of the instructional- program offered by the District. Looking at instructional needs beyond a three-year horizon is of questionable benefit. It is our intention to continue reporting on the three-year cycle, as required.
F2:
Over the past 3 years of budget deficits, District emphasis has been on cutting costs, not growing revenue. Response: The BOE agrees with this finding.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
In calendar year 2018, the District should develop and implement a comprehensive marketing program designed to increase attendance. Response: The recommendation requires further analysis. As reported out by the District's Budget Advisory Committee, increasing attendance rates by .5 percent to 1 percent could generate upwards of $763,000 to $1,500,000 in additional revenue. Not only does chronic absenteeism cost the District much needed revenue, the impact on student learning is seen each day in the classroom. As such, the District's Child Welfare and Attendance office will focus this year of developing plans to address chronic absenteeism, which is more complex than just poor attendance. We expect that a report will be presented to the Board of Education in the fall detailing success from the 2017/2018 school year. Based on data, we would also expect to discuss a focused plan of parent communication and action to address those schools where we see the greatest absenteeism. In short, we would not want to commit to strategizing and funding a comprehensive marketing program if the issue is best addressed in other ways, such as mental, physical or social interventions. It is possible that the Grand Jury recommendation is meant to reference enrollment as opposed to attendance. Increasing enrollment would necessitate a comprehensive marketing campaign, with focus on homeschool and private school students and inter-district students.
F3:
The NVUSD has made significant strides to communicate budget issues as well as invite input from the community. Response: The BOE agrees with this finding.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
In calendar year 2018, the Napa Valley Unified School District should develop a website link devoted to budget news and post regular quarterly updates. Response: This recommendation will be implemented. District staff is committed to communicating news of the budget to our staff and community on a regular basis. As such, and as noted in the Grand Jury report, the fairly recent budget roadshows have been received favorably by staff. It is staff's intent to continue the budget roadshows, with at least three presentations per year. After each presentation, the District will utilize our website to get the roadshow information out to our parents and other community partners. The Communications office will build and market a budget page with all relevant budget-related information in one place. One goal is to provide summaries of the quarterly budget reports that are presented to the BOE, post the summaries to the website, and share via the home page and social media. As always, we value the work of the volunteer Grand Jury in safeguarding the interests of the community, and appreciate the opportunity to respond to this report. Superintendent Joe Schunk, Board President CC: Wade Roach, Assistant Superintendent of Business Services Board of Education Joe Schunk, President 2425 Jefferson Street Robb Felder Patrick J. Sweeney, Ed.D. Napa, CA 94558 Thomas Kensok, Vice President José Hurtado Superintendent 707.253.3511 Icela Martin, Clerk Robin Jankiewicz www.nvusd.org
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F2:
Construction costs for many projects in the NVUSD Facilities Master Plan are running 30-500% higher than the District originally estimated. Response: The BOE disagrees partially with the finding. It is accurate that since the Facilities Master Plan was approved in 2016 to date, construction costs are increasing, for public and private projects statewide. The factors include costs of material and labor, and more stringent State requirements. However, the percentages presented by the GJ report in no way reflect our actual experiences. In the CBOC Annual Report presented June 21, costs of up to 82% above the original estimate were noted on one component of one project.
F3:
The District's ability to fund all the projects in the Facilities Master Plan is at further risk because the State of California has not disbursed District-anticipated funds and has not guaranteed it will do so. Response: The BOE agrees with this finding.
F4:
The new $346 million "Implementation Plan" introduced by staff in May 2018, does not clearly identify which items from the original FMP are being reprioritized. Response: The BOE disagrees with this finding. The updated Implementation Plan, which is a living document, is by design an update of the projects that were on the Measure H project list, not an update of the entire Facilities Master Plan. The FMP was designed to show all the critical needs of the District as we knew them, based on the facts as we knew them back in 2014. It is important to remember that the 2014 West Napa Fault Earthquake occurred during development of the FMP, necessitating an almost complete rewrite of the plan. As District needs change, under the umbrella of the Measure H bond language, projects will be modified and re-prioritized.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The NVUSD staff revise the original $505 million Facilities Master Plan to reflect which projects will be executed through the new Implementation Plan, and which projects will be deferred until new funds become available. The revised FMP should be posted to the NVUSD website no later than October 31, 2018, and kept current. Response: This recommendation requires further analysis. The CBOC has responsibility only for projects funded by Measure H. The Facilities Master Plan (FMP) is the BOE's over-arching vision for potential facility's needs. The District's current Implementation Plan, approved June 14, clearly identifies projects from the 2016 FMP that are expected to be completed with Measure H funds, and which projects must wait until additional funding is identified and secured. Staff will examine the feasibility of bringing an updated Implementation Plan bi-annually to the BOE.
F5:
The Bylaws of the Bond Oversight Committee have not been followed as written with regard to the creation of subcommittees, the creation of staggered terms, and the frequency of meetings. Response: The BOE agrees with the finding in regards to the creation of staggered terms and the creation of subcommittees. The BOE disagrees with the finding in regards to the frequency of meetings. As documented in the voice recordings of the initial in-person meeting of the CBOC with the bond counsel who drafted the CBOC bylaws, the limit on regular (quarterly) meetings is intended to reduce the burden on staff. The Bylaws are silent on supplementary (special) meetings. The CBOC discussed supplementary meetings with the bond counsel during the initial formation meeting. It was determined at that time that supplementary meetings would be necessary so that the CBOC could accomplish oversight duties in a timely and professional manner. The CBOC met four (4) times in it's seven month existence for 2016/2017, and seven (7) times in the full year 2017/2018.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Board of Education strengthen the independence of the Bond Oversight Committee by revising the BOC bylaws no later than Aug. 31, 2018 in order to allow the creation of subcommittees by the BOC, and also to establish a set meeting frequency. Response: The recommendation will be partially implemented. BOE supports the recommendation to amend the CBOC bylaws in order to create subcommittees of the CBOC. The meeting schedule will not allow that change to happen by Aug. 31. The change will be made by Oct. 31. Staff will work with bond counsel to draft a revision for the current CBOC bylaws to create subcommittees for review and action. Regarding meeting frequency, see the response to F5.
F6:
Neither the NVUSD nor the Citizen's Bond Oversight Committee are fully informing Napa County taxpayers on a timely basis of the status is Measure H bond expenditures or cost escalations. Response: The BOE disagrees with this finding. The CBOC since inception has communicated with the public in a virtually real-time basis. The CBOC agendas, minutes (recorded) and bond project progress and financials are available via the NVUSD website (www.nvusd.org/boc). NVUSD staff present a facilities update at each regularly scheduled Board of Education meeting. NVUSD staff also meet regularly with parent and community groups to discuss Measure H projects. Additionally, in Spring 2018, staff hosted four public Board study sessions on topics related to Measure H, including construction methods, funding sources, the updated implementation plan and technology projects. All CBOC meetings, as is true with NVUSD Board meetings, are agendized, publicized and open to all members of the public.
F7:
By not issuing the required annual report nor communicating with the public in any way during its first 18 months, the Bond Oversight Committee has not lived up to its obligations to the taxpayers of Napa County. Response: The BOE disagrees with this finding. As explained previously to the Grand Jury in a written communication dated Feb. 9, 2018, the CBOC issued its annual report as soon as the independent financial and performance audits were completed, in order to be compliant with the requirements of both the Education Code and the CBOC bylaws. The CBOC since inception has communicated with the public in a virtually real-time basis. The CBOC agendas, minutes (recorded) and bond project progress and financials are available via the NVUSD website (www.nvusd.org/boc). NVUSD staff present a facilities update at each regularly scheduled Board of Education meeting. NVUSD staff also meet regularly with parent and community groups to discuss Measure H projects. Additionally, in Spring 2018, staff hosted four public Board study sessions on topics related to Measure H, including construction methods, funding sources, the updated implementation plan and technology projects. All CBOC meetings, as is true with NVUSD Board meetings, are agenized, publicized and open to all members of the public.
F8:
There is a high likelihood that Napa County taxpayers will be asked to fund yet another bond measure in order to complete the many FMP projects that will not be completed under the Measure H bond issuance. Response: The BOE disagrees with this finding. The BOE has made no indication that another bond measure is being considered. The finding is speculative. (Recommendation)R1. The Bond Oversight Committee fulfill its duty to inform the public about the expenditure of Measure H bond funds by communicating to the public at least twice annually about Measure H project status and costs. Response: This recommendation has been implemented. The CBOC since inception has communicated with the public in a virtually real-time basis. The CBOC agendas, minutes (recorded) and bond project progress and financials are available via the NVUSD website (www.nvusd.org/boc). NVUSD staff present a facilities update at each regularly scheduled Board of Education meeting. NVUSD staff also meet regularly with parent and community groups to discuss Measure H projects. Additionally, in Spring 2018, staff hosted four public Board study sessions on topics related to Measure H, including construction methods, funding sources, the updated implementation plan and technology projects. All CBOC meetings, as is true with NVUSD Board meetings, are agenized, publicized and open to all members of the public. If the Grand Jury is asking for a bi-annual formal report, the cost of additional staff time and the costs of additional performance and financial audits are prohibitive and do not enhance in any meaningful way the communication to the public at large.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R4:
The NVUSD Board of Education provide training to the BOC from organizations such as the 21st Century School Fund or the California League of Bond Oversight Committees so that the BOC has access to best practices for citizen oversight of public school construction programs. This access to training should take place commensurate with the seating of the next committee in the fall of 2018. Response: This recommendation requires further analysis. It is important to the BOE that CBOC members understand their duties and responsibilities. As such, District staff have had bond counsel, inspectors of records, construction managers and technology consultants attend CBOC meetings to provide training. Further, staff will research other relevant training opportunities that are demonstrably fact- and law-based, as opposed to advocacy-based in content. As always, Napa Valley Unified School District Board of Education values the work of the volunteer Grand Jury in safeguarding the interests of the community, and appreciate the opportunity to respond to this report. Superintendent Joe Schunk, Board President cc: Wade Roach, Assistant Superintendent of Business Services Board of Education 2425 Jefferson Street Joe Schunk, President Robb Felder Patrick J. Sweeney, Ed.D. Thomas Kensok, Vice President Napa, CA 94558 José Hurtado Superintendent 707.253.3511 Icela Martin, Clerk Robin Jankiewicz www.nvusd.org
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F1:
Napa County agencies that agreed to implement Grand Jury recommendations in years 2012-2013 through 2015-2016 did so with minor exception.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Napa County agencies that are required or invited to respond to future Grand Jury recommendations do so in accordance with the provisions of Penal Code section 933.05. APPENDIXES Appendix A, 2012-2013 Updated Responses Appendix B, 2013-2014 Updated Responses Appendix C, 2014-2015 Updated Responses Appendix D, 2015-2016 Updated Responses 4
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R2:
County Counsel Initial response (2013): I agree to implement this recommendation in County Counsel’s office this year. Updated response (2017): The Office of County Counsel and its attorneys and staff are of course well aware of their responsibilities and the duties of County departments in the context of responding to Grand Jury inquiries and requests. County Counsel prepared and provides the attached instructional documents to clients and staff (attached in their current form; updated periodically as needed). County Counsel attorneys keep apprised of the legal requirement for responding to Grand jury inquiries and do so without any formally designated annual training within the office itself.
R3:
District Attorney Initial response (2013): I agree to implement this recommendation this year. Updated response: None
R4:
Mayor, City of Calistoga Initial response (2013): The City of Calistoga agrees to implement this recommendation prior to the end of the calendar year. Updated response: None 0
R5:
Mayor, City of St. Helena Initial response (2013): The City of St. Helena agrees to implement this recommendation prior to the end of the calendar year. Updated response (2018): The City has no institutional memory of its follow-up to Recommendation No. 1, now five years in the past. The City responds to Grand Jury information requests in accordance with law. If the current Grand Jury has “best practices” for formal responses to Grand Jury inquires, it would be appreciated if you would provide a copy. The City will take them into consideration when next called upon to respond to a Grand Jury inquiry. Further, if there are such “best practices,” it is respectfully suggested that they be attached to any future inquiry from the Grand Jury.
R6:
Napa County Sheriff Initial response: I agree to implement this recommendation this year. Updated response: All Sheriff’s Office personnel are provided, via County email, instructions regarding duties and responsibilities toward the Grand Jury process. These instructions are provided annually.
R7:
Treasurer – Tax Collector Initial response (2013): I agree to implement this recommendation this year before the end of this year. Updated response (2017): Consistent with that response, those County employees that work under my supervision were trained on Grand Jury protocol at a November 7, 2013 staff meeting. II. Public Employment Retirement A. Recommendation No. 3 was: Develop plans to control future health care costs including the concepts advocated by the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) of accessing increased-deductible or higher co-pay insurance plans.
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The Napa County Grand Jury finds that:
The Planning Department, the agency responsible for bringing unincorporated Napa County a CAP, has generally been responsive to stakeholder groups’ critiques of and suggestions for the Plan.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Planning Commission and the Planning Department continue its community outreach efforts with more public hearings for a 60-day period starting in January 2019.
F2:
The Napa County Grand Jury finds that:
Ten years after adoption of Napa County’s (updated) General Plan, the County is not in compliance with the General Plan’s action item to prepare and adopt a CAP. While specifically the County’s jurisdictional area, a CAP covering only the unincorporated areas of the County runs contrary to the comprehensive countywide approach favored by the County entities we interviewed and does not target GHG emissions reductions countywide.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The CAP should consider including incentives starting in 2019 for carbon sequestration and woodland preservation and/or restoration projects under the guidance of the Planning Department.
F3:
The Napa County Grand Jury finds that:
There is no effort to coordinate Climate Action Plans between each of the jurisdictional communities within Napa County, which complicates the ability to identify, target, and reduce GHG emissions countywide in compliance with CEQA and BAAQMD regulations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Planning Department should consider including a proposal to quantify and mitigate winery operations GHG emissions in the next CAP draft revision expected in January 2019.
F4:
The Napa County Grand Jury finds that:
The County delayed its timeline for completion of the Plan because of the legal challenges that arose from the court ruling in the Sonoma County CAP lawsuit.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The County finalize and adopt the Napa County CAP by June 30, 2019, executing under the terms of the current amendment to the professional services agreement. 10
F5:
The Napa County Grand Jury finds that:
The existing draft CAP does not take into consideration all sources of GHG emissions, most notably winery operations emissions.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
As follow-up upon completion of the CAP: In February, 2019 the Planning Department take the lead to bring all the County jurisdictions to the table to discuss ways to coordinate all the existing climate change mitigation efforts in the County geographical area. We suggest each jurisdiction furnish the department (as a clearinghouse) with emissions targets and reduction results for inclusion in countywide reporting.
F6:
The Napa County Grand Jury finds that:
Tools exist to measure winery GHG emissions enabling the County to include winery emissions reductions in its CAP.
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
The new jail and Re-entry Facility construction timelines and funding have been and continue to be confusing to the public.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Napa County Board of Supervisors direct appropriate staff to produce a dedicated, easily- accessible timeline on the County website that informs Napa County residents of the progress and funding of the jail by October 1, 2018.
F2:
Funding and financial instruments for the new jail are complicated; the taxpayers are not fully informed of funding sources and the effects of the options.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Board of Supervisors generate greater publicity for all proposed funding sources of financing, holding public hearings throughout the County to justify the need and rationale for the use of particular funding mechanisms by October 1, 2018.
F3:
The Re-entry Facility will assist inmates transitioning back to the community.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Board of Supervisors evaluate the recruitment and retention pilot program after its conclusion on September 30, 2021.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The Napa County Williamson-Act program does not provide any more protection from development than does existing zoning and the General Plan.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
No later than November 30, 2018, the Board of Supervisors commission an independent cost-benefit analysis of the Williamson-Act program, with public input, in which the cost to all stakeholders (e.g. schools, cities, special districts) in property tax revenues is considered so that the BOS may make informed decisions regarding the County’s continued participation in the Williamson-Act program.
F2:
The Board of Supervisors lacks adequate information about the workings of the Napa County Williamson-Act program, of BOS options under it, and of the total lost property tax revenue to all Napa County entities that share in the revenue.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
No later than November 30, 2018, the Board of Supervisors commission an independent study of the County Williamson-Act program to determine whether the program comports with those programs in other counties and with best practices, and to recommend revisions to the program, including revisions to the minimum-imputed-income values in Type-H contracts.
F3:
Williamson-Act contract enforcement is non-existent. Planning and Assessor staff have not informed the BOS of undersize parcels, parcels without agricultural income, and 16 parcels whose owners do not supply Assessor-requested information as required by contract and by law.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
No later than October 31, 2018, the Board of Supervisors commission an independent audit of the Napa County Williamson-Act program by the Auditor-Controller or outside agency to determine to what extent contract holders are in compliance with their contracts, the WA rules, and the law.
F4:
The continued use of 1969 minimum-imputed-income values may result in Williamson-Act grazing parcels (Type-H) being systematically under assessed.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
No later than October 31, 2018, the Assessor revise his internal conflict-of-interest procedures so that at least two assessment-qualified personnel perform all the work on employee-owned properties. COMMENDATIONS: C1. The Grand Jury commends the County employees who came forward and assisted the Grand Jury with this investigation.
F5:
The Board of Supervisors has not exercised effective supervision of the Williamson-Act program since at least 2008.
F6:
The Assessor lacks adequate conflict-of-interest procedures regarding his own properties with unqualified personnel assigned to “check” any work.
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
The Napa County Grand Jury finds that:
A multi-county consolidation of juvenile detention facilities is not optimal for serving Napa County youth.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
No later than December 31, 2018, the BOS commission a study to determine whether excess Juvenile Hall physical capacity and staffing above near-term projected needs can be put to an alternate use. The results of the study should be published.
F2:
The Napa County Grand Jury finds that:
Present and future state initiatives may increase the utilization of the NCJH facilities.
F3:
The Napa County Grand Jury finds that:
With the September 2018 implementation of CJNet in the Napa County Juvenile Hall, juvenile justice information technology will be fully integrated with the county’s criminal justice system.
F4:
The Napa County Grand Jury finds that:
NCJH programming aligns with the current juvenile justice philosophy of rehabilitation as opposed to incarceration.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
The Napa County Grand Jury finds that:
The fires that ravaged the North Bay during October 2017 were the most destructive in our history. Given the dry, ferocious winds, warm temperature, and our natural landscape, fires were predictable. Yet, there were no Nixle alerts preceding the fires.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Nixle or other alerts should always be sent out when there is an official red flag weather warning. The Napa County OES manager should investigate automating this capability in certain severe situations. Additionally, when this type of warning goes out, there should be notification sent to the Emergency Operations Center team to be prepared to turn up the center in the event a fire or other disaster erupts. Both recommendations should be addressed by October 31, 2018.
F2:
The Napa County Grand Jury finds that:
Reliance on the Nixle cellular communications platform proved to be insufficient in warning Napa County residents in a timely and accurate way. A small percentage of residents, and very few visitors, were registered, and for those in the danger areas, it became moot as the cell infrastructure quickly became inoperable.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Napa County OES should lead the effort to order and deploy iPaws, which will enable use of Wireless Emergency Alerts, throughout Napa County now that the FCC has mandated that it be improved. Further, OES should develop a check list and detailed procedures to coordinate its use among the multiple alert platforms and operators by December 31, 2018.
F3:
The Napa County Grand Jury finds that:
The understaffed OES personnel was initially hampered by the fire's fury and location, causing delay in issuing the first Nixle alert.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Napa County should investigate or commission plans to deploy where feasible other alert and warning technologies such as mobile and fixed sirens, aerial drones, etc. to reach more residents in the event of power or cellular communications loss of service by March 31, 2019.
F4:
The Napa County Grand Jury finds that:
While Napa County OES, the Sheriff’s Department, the Fire Department, and other public safety agencies' have developed versions of disaster action and hazard mitigation plans, information about emergency alerts and warnings from these agencies is lacking.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Increase staffing for Napa County Office of Emergency Services through grants or reallocation of budgets for emergency response planning, education and training, and to update and expand written alert and warning policies and procedures on the appropriate public websites by June 30, 2019.
F5:
The Napa County Grand Jury finds that:
Since power, Internet and cell towers were lost in many areas of Napa County, local radio station KVON provided a valuable platform for fire updates, evacuation locations, and critical information from public officials.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Napa County should negotiate an agreement, in conjunction with the County’s municipalities, to formally incorporate plans to utilize local radio station KVON into existing and future Disaster and Hazard mitigation plans in the County by June 30, 2019.
F6:
The Napa County Grand Jury finds that:
Proposed legislation in Sacramento is focused on numerous issues regarding disaster planning, including standardizing the approach to alerts since many disasters cross county lines.
F7:
The Napa County Grand Jury finds that:
The professional, coordinated and extraordinary response by Napa County OES, law enforcement and fire personnel, focused on saving lives and livestock, resulted in minimal loss of life despite what the Napa County Fire Chief described as a "once in a lifetime" fire.
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
The Napa County Grand Jury finds that:
The FY2018/19 Budget Overview Presentation to the BOE in March 2018, indicates the likelihood of budget cuts for the next three years, but does not include a detailed, long-term plan for the future.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
By the end of calendar year 2018, the Napa Valley Unified School District should develop a detailed, five-year financial plan for the District.
F2:
The Napa County Grand Jury finds that:
Over the past 3 years of budget deficits, District emphasis has been on cutting costs, not growing revenue.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
In calendar year 2018, the District should develop and implement a comprehensive marketing program designed to increase attendance.
F3:
The Napa County Grand Jury finds that:
The NVUSD has made significant strides to communicate budget issues as well as invite input from the community.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
In calendar year 2018, the Napa Valley Unified School District should develop a website link devoted to budget news and post regular quarterly updates.
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
Napa County does not have a current farmworker housing needs assessment.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Napa County Board of Supervisors commission an update to the 2012 Final Report: Napa County Farmworker Housing Needs Assessment not later than September 30, 2018. An updated assessment of farmworker housing needs should include: • An identification of actual and projected farmworker numbers • The number of women in the workforce • The number of male and female workers accompanied by families • The number of farmworkers choosing to reside in Napa County • Housing needs for southwest-County workers (e.g., Carneros) • Farmworker income
F2:
There is a lack of affordable farmworker housing in Napa County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Napa County Board of Supervisors, together with the appropriate stakeholders, prepare and publish a detailed action plan to meet County farmworker housing needs not later than June 30, 2019. These recommendations should specifically address south-County housing requirements.
F3:
A shortage of farmworkers can be attributed to changing immigration policies, competition from other agricultural demands, competition from other sectors such as construction and food service, and the lack of affordable housing.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Napa County Board of Supervisors, together with the appropriate stakeholders, prepare and publish a detailed action plan to meet County farmworker housing needs not later than June 30, 2019. These recommendations should specifically address south-County housing requirements.
F4:
With an increasing number of long-term farmworkers, the simultaneous closure of two units of Farmworker Housing results in a housing demand which exceeds capacity.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
The Napa County Board of Supervisors, together with the appropriate stakeholders, prepare and publish a detailed action plan to meet County farmworker housing needs not later than June 30, 2019. These recommendations should specifically address south-County housing requirements.
R3:
The Napa County Board of Supervisors amend the farmworker housing regulations to permit year-round operation of the Farmworker Housing Centers not later than June 30, 2019 10
F5:
There is virtually no publicly subsidized housing for female farmworkers in Napa County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Napa County Board of Supervisors, together with the appropriate stakeholders, prepare and publish a detailed action plan to meet County farmworker housing needs not later than June 30, 2019. These recommendations should specifically address south-County housing requirements.
F6:
The River Ranch Farmworker Center appears to be well maintained.
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
The Napa County Grand Jury finds that:
The $505 million Facilities Master Plan and budget, which were created in 2014, are outdated and underfunded, and do not reflect 2018 (or later) construction costs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The NVUSD Staff revise the original $505 million Facilities Master Plan to reflect which projects will be executed through the new Implementation Plan, and which projects will be deferred until new funds become available. This revised FMP should be posted to the NVUSD website no later than October 31, 2018, and kept current.
F2:
The Napa County Grand Jury finds that:
Construction costs for many projects in the NVUSD Facilities Master Plan are running 30- 500percent higher than the District originally estimated.
F3:
The Napa County Grand Jury finds that:
The District’s ability to fund all the projects in the Facilities Master Plan is at further risk because the State of California has not disbursed District-anticipated funds and has not guaranteed it will do so.
F4:
The Napa County Grand Jury finds that:
The new $346 million “Implementation Plan” introduced by NVUSD staff in May 2018, does not clearly identify which items from the original FMP are being reprioritized.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The NVUSD Staff revise the original $505 million Facilities Master Plan to reflect which projects will be executed through the new Implementation Plan, and which projects will be deferred until new funds become available. This revised FMP should be posted to the NVUSD website no later than October 31, 2018, and kept current.
F5:
The Napa County Grand Jury finds that:
The Bylaws of the Bond Oversight Committee have not been followed as written with regard to the creation of subcommittees, the creation of staggered terms, and the frequency of meetings.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Board of Education strengthen the independence of the Bond Oversight Committee by revising the BOC bylaws no later than August 31, 2018 in order to allow the creation of subcommittees by the BOC, and also to establish a set meeting frequency.
F6:
The Napa County Grand Jury finds that:
Neither the NVUSD nor the citizens’ Bond Oversight Committee are fully informing Napa County taxpayers on a timely basis of the status of Measure H bond expenditures or cost escalations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Bond Oversight Committee fulfill its duty to inform the public about the expenditure of Measure H bond funds by communicating to the public at least twice annually about Measure H project status and costs.
F7:
The Napa County Grand Jury finds that:
By not issuing the required annual report nor communicating with the public in any way during its first 18 months, the Bond Oversight Committee has not lived up to its obligations to the taxpayers of Napa County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Bond Oversight Committee fulfill its duty to inform the public about the expenditure of Measure H bond funds by communicating to the public at least twice annually about Measure H project status and costs.
F8:
The Napa County Grand Jury finds that:
There is a high likelihood that Napa County taxpayers will be asked to fund yet another bond measure in order to complete the many FMP projects that will not be completed under the Measure H bond issuance.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R4:
The NVUSD Board of Education provide training to the BOC from organizations such as the 21st Century School Fund or the California League of Bond Oversight Committees so that the BOC has access to best practices for citizen oversight of public school construction programs. This access to training should take place commensurate with the seating of the next committee in the fall of 2018.
* 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.