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 (10)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
11 findings
F1:
With respect to the Napa County Fairgrounds report, the Board of Supervisors’ responses to
F2:
With respect to the Napa Child Abuse Hotline report, The CWS Director’s and HHSA Director’s responses to Recommendations R1-R4, and the Board of Supervisors’ responses to
F3:
With respect to the Napa County Jail report, the Board of Supervisors’ responses to
F4:
With respect to the Napa County Juvenile Hall report, the Chief Probation Officer’s response and the Board of Supervisors’ response to Recommendation R1 do not comply with the provisions of Penal Code §933.05(b); one of four responses required;
F5:
With respect to the Napa Valley Transportation report, the Board of Supervisors’ response to
F6:
The State’s severe reduction of financial support for the Napa County Fair in 2011 may have abrogated its Land Tenure Agreement with Napa County. Regardless, the Land Tenure Agreement expires in 2024. Response, Board of Supervisors: The Board of Supervisors agrees with this finding. With approval of the Agreement between NCFA and the County in 2013, it was agreed to continue fairgrounds operations so long as could be done without financial support from the County, providing the NCFA with the opportunity to find long-term sustainability solutions. It is important to note that funding was reduced from approximately $200,000 to the almost $35,000 NCFA received in 2016.
F7:
The Napa County Fair itself is in serious decline, with its continued operation in doubt. Response, Board of Supervisors: The Board of Supervisors agrees in part with this finding. Over the past 25 years, as each individual community within Napa County has developed its own 4th of July celebration, participation in the County Fair has declined. The celebration of community life through the County Fair is not in jeopardy, only the time of year it currently takes place. The NCFA continues to look at dates, duration and type of activities that encourage attendance. 168
F8:
The ancillary function of the Fairgrounds as an emergency refuge for victims of flooding, wildfires, or earthquake is important, even vital, to any future development of the Fairgrounds themselves. Response, Board of Supervisors: The Board of Supervisors agrees with this finding. The NCFA' s mission is to serve the citizens of Napa County with cultural, social, and economic benefits in times of celebration as well as need. This mission has existed for the NCFA since 2013, underscored by its significant role in the Valley Fire shelter operations. The Fairgrounds is identified as a primary evacuation center site in the County's Emergency Operations Plan (EOP). While the sheer size of the Fairgrounds was a huge bonus for the 2015 Valley Fire response, the site is a primary location due to its location rather than its size. The Valley Fire Shelter was an atypical response. The County plans for shelter operations on a much smaller scale. During previous evacuation events for Floods and Fires evacuee populations totaled less than 100 at County evacuation centers. The benefits of the Fairground location is:1) the County owns the property so approvals to use the site are not complicated; 2) large numbers of evacuees can be accommodated with support facilities; 3) animals can be accommodated at the Fairgrounds locations, unlike other County locations; and 4) Fairgrounds staff are trained in Emergency Response and their assistance and coordination proved invaluable during the Valley Fire Shelter response. If governance changes, it is currently anticipated that the Fairgrounds will continue to play an important part in the countywide emergency services plans.
F9:
The conduct of the Napa County Fairgrounds Association Board has been at times dysfunctional, with some Board members publicly complaining about lack of transparency in the Board’s financial reporting. Response, Board of Supervisors: The Board of Supervisors disagrees with this finding in part. While some NCFA members have complained, the NCFA has had its most transparent financial operation since it established a finance committee in 2012. All financial records are made available to the public. Monthly financial statements are provided to the full Association board and the agenda packets made available at each board meeting and online. The finance committee reviews the detailed financial reports quarterly and presents them for final acceptance to the full NCFA board. Financial reports are presented to the NCFA membership at its annual meeting by the finance committee chairperson. The finance committee also completes the annual Statement of Operations (annual report) for submittal to the California Department of Food and Agriculture and presents the report to the NCFA. Recently, with the rebranding of the NCFA website, it has included the NCFA audits from 2010. An independent Auditor is employed annually by the Association to perform a full audit of the Associations financial records, reporting and financial management every other year, with a complete financial review in the alternating years. The Auditors’ report and management letter are placed on the Board's agenda at a regular Board meeting for review, public input, and approval by the Board. 169
F10:
Some of the complaints expressed by the former dissenting members of the Napa County Fairgrounds Association Board have merit: complaints about golf course maintenance, managerial decision making, and a general lack of transparency. Response, Board of Supervisors: The Board of Supervisors disagrees with this finding. The golf course maintenance issue is a recent one. Public comments received from golfers from 2012-2015 praised the golf course maintenance operation. In 2016 the course experienced problems due to the drought and a damaged irrigation system; the conditions were corrected prior to the end of the year due to a concerted effort of personnel time, financial resources, and reengagement of professional consultants. The Board of Supervisors and management of the NCFA acknowledge the need for professional golf course management but lack the funds necessary to contract with such an individual or firm. Regarding transparency, current Association management brought the Board into compliance with the Brown Act beginning in 2010, including annual training of board members. Since then, the NCFA has developed a comprehensive written policy manual. All board meeting and standing committee meeting agendas are publicly noticed. Minutes and supporting documentation are made available online and at the meetings. Recently, the NCFA added additional financial reports to its website. The NCFA has never been more transparent to the public in its history than in the last7 years. .
F11:
A Joint Powers Authority (or Agreement), currently being discussed by the Board of Supervisors and the Calistoga City Council, could allow for long term contracts with concessionaires to incentivize investment in and development of Fairgrounds facilities. Response, Board of Supervisors: The Board of Supervisors agrees with this finding. Since October 2016, designated members of the Board of Supervisors and Calistoga City Council have been meeting to develop a mutually agreed upon governance model. It is anticipated that a recommendation will be discussed with the full Board of Supervisors and City Council by the end of the calendar year.
Additional Recommendations
7
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Board of Supervisors and all department heads file code-compliant responses per Penal Code §933.05 to all future Grand Jury findings and recommendations.
R2:
The NVTA Executive Director, the NVTA Board or Directors and the Board of Supervisors each file a code-compliant response per Penal Code §933.05 to all future Grand Jury findings and recommendations. REPORT: THE NAPA COUNTY FAIRGROUNDS: The County’s Orphan Asset
R3:
By 2020, the Napa County Board of Supervisors fully determine the implications of the agreement’ s 2024 termination and set in place plans for the Fairgrounds future development and operation. Response, Board of Supervisors: The Board of Supervisors agrees with the recommendation and is working with the City of Calistoga to create a governance structure which will provide for the future development and operation of the Fairgrounds. As reported during its discussion at its September 20, 2016 meeting, the Boss acknowledges the funding difficulties facing the NCFA, which is why the effort is being made to work with the City of Calistoga to change the governance structure. 2017-2018 Grand Jury Finding: This does not comply with §933.05(b); one of four responses required, and no time frame identified.
R4:
The Napa County Board of Supervisors’ plans for the Fairgrounds’ future include provisions for the Fairgrounds’ use as an emergency refuge for the victims of natural disasters in the region. Response, Board of Supervisors: The Board of Supervisors agrees with the recommendation. The County continues to include the Fairgrounds in all its emergency preparedness planning as a primary location for providing services during an emergency response. The last time the facilities were used for that purpose by Napa County was in 2015 during the Valley Fire. In addition, the NCFA supports this, as evidenced by its recommendation to the County and City concerning the proposed JPA: the Fairgrounds should continue "as a place supports (sic) emergency preparedness, response, and disaster relief" needs of the community. 2017-2018 Grand Jury Finding: This does not comply with §933.05(b); one of four responses required. 171
R5:
As soon as practicable, the Napa County Board of Supervisors contract the operation of the Calistoga Raceway, the Mount St. Helena Golf Course, and the Calistoga RV Park to concessionaires knowledgeable and competent to operate those enterprises efficiently and profitably. Response, Board of Supervisors: The Board of Supervisors agrees with this recommendation. The two by two consisting of two members from the Board of Supervisors and two members from the City of Calistoga City Counsel together with the City Manager, the Interim County Executive Officer and staff will be making recommendations to the full City Council and Board of Supervisors by the end of 2017 regarding the governance and ongoing operations of the Fairgrounds. Once the governance is resolved the next step is to identify long term partnerships but between jurisdictions and possibly private industry that would result in the best utilization of the Fairgrounds with the greatest community impact and benefit. 2017-2018 Grand Jury Finding: This does not comply with §933.05(b); one of four responses required.
R6:
As soon as practicable, the Napa County Board of Supervisors revise its contract with the Napa County Fairgrounds Association to focus that organization’s efforts exclusively on the funding and operation of the Napa County Fair and related community activities. Response, Board of Supervisors: The Board of Supervisors partially agrees with this recommendation. The two by two consisting of two members from the Board of Supervisors and two members from the City of Calistoga City Council together with the City Manager, the Interim County Executive Officer and staff will be making recommendations to the full City Council and Board of Supervisors by the end of 2017 regarding ongoing operations of the Fairgrounds. This will include recommendations regarding the relationship with the NCFA but may not include the ongoing operation of the Napa County Fair. 2017-2018 Grand Jury Finding: This does not comply with §933.05 (b); one of four responses required. REPORT: NAPA CHILD ABUSE HOTLINE
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
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.
Quick View
Full Details →
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.