Napa County Grand Jury
2018-2019
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
While the Napa County Board of Supervisors and County Staff generally have been in favor of the Napa Pipe development since 2007 due to its housing and affordable housing components, the Napa City Council and Staff were decidedly against it for many years from the time of its original proposal.
F2:
The opposition to the project by many in the City leadership caused much political infighting and led to years of delays in the development of the property.
F3:
The City and the County finally decided to work together on the project only after Costco had been introduced to the plan and a direct mail campaign showed how much County residents wanted the retailer.
F4:
The Developer has made frequent and substantial changes to the project plan and phasing, which have caused numerous delays in obtaining City and County approvals.
F5:
The developer sought changes to the Napa Pipe plan that in 2018, led the City and the County to work quickly with the state legislature to seek legislation that would allow for Napa County to report RHNA credit in the current cycle for units built at Napa Pipe in areas already annexed to the City of Napa. For County residents who live north of St. Helena, the nearest Costco may be in Rohnert Park or Santa Rosa. 14
F6:
The cost of construction has increased substantially since the Napa Pipe development was initially proposed, which further complicates the financial ramifications of a project this size.
F7:
The current situation requiring the Developer to work with two separate governmental entities for plan and design approval, as well as procurement of building permits, adds cost and complexity that have resulted in continued project delays.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Assuming SB 235 is signed into law in the Summer of 2019, the City and County of Napa should move as quickly as possible to annex the balance of the Napa Pipe Property into the City so that the Developer only has to deal with one entity for permitting, zoning, design, and other related building issues. This annexation should take place no later than January 1, 2020.
F8:
Even if the City and County do everything in their power to enable the Developer to begin construction, it will still be up to the Developer to actually make the decision to do so.
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
The City’s financial forecasting is not performed by an actuary, thereby leaving the results suspect. It is not reasonably possible to do five-year financial planning without accurate revenue and expense data and forecasts.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Prior to the issuance of the 2020-2030 CIP, the City should engage an experienced outside actuarial firm, or assign a qualified member of City Staff, to generate a professionally appropriate Long-Range Financial Forecast, for the fiscal years beginning July 1, 2020 and thereafter.
F2:
The City’s Capital Improvement Plan does not list amounts to be expended for the Water and Wastewater Enterprise projects mandated by federal, state, and local authorities. The Upper York Creek Dam, Bell Canyon Reservoir, and Wastewater projects have been on the CIP docket for many years, without beginning construction or making other material forward progress toward their completion.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The City should adopt a system that prioritizes payments for projects mandated by federal, state, or local authorities, to go into effect no later than the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2020. This mandate should provide that lesser projects cannot subvert any prioritized projects. Projects that are mandated by law (i.e. Upper York Creek Dam and Wastewater Plant retrofit) should be assigned to a City Council member for oversight and project management to completion. This Council member should be required to provide regular periodic status reports to all St. Helena citizens.
F3:
The various projects facing the City place tremendous time and expertise burdens on City Staff. City Staff lacks specific expertise to manage some of these complicated dam and reservoir projects.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
No later than the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2020, the City should adhere to its Capital Improvement Plans.
F4:
The City has not adhered to its own Capital Improvement Plans for the previous 10 years. This is especially notable concerning how few of the major projects—listed repeatedly in the CIPs over these years—have been completed.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
For the larger and more complex projects such as Bell Canyon Reservoir, Upper York Creek Dam, and the Wastewater Plant retrofit, the City should consider hiring or otherwise engaging the services of an outside project manager to oversee the project, in order to lessen the burden on City Staff and assure a timely and appropriate outcome for the project completion. These assignments should take place commensurate with the start of the July 1, 2020 budget year.
F5:
The City’s Water and Wastewater Enterprise rates are suspect, due to an inaccurate water and wastewater rate report.34
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The City should review and implement the findings in the new Water Rate study, on or before June 30, 2020, and thereafter review then-current and relevant engineering and rate studies to determine appropriate multi-tiered Water and Wastewater rates.
F6:
The SHAPE Committee recommendations to the City did not include the less- expensive options in the SHAPE Committee Report.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
In accordance with the new Water Rates, and no later than June 30, 2020, the City should identify, review, and renegotiate all water contracts with commercial and residential users located inside and outside the City limits. All such rates and contracts should be identified publicly to all City taxpayers and residents.
F7:
On a regular basis, the City’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report has not funded the cost of deferred asset maintenance, which has left its physical assets in disrepair.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The City should follow and seriously consider the findings in the current LAFCO municipal services review, cited in the Water Quality Report by this 2018-2019 Grand Jury published June 14, 2019.
F8:
The cost of the City’s ‘City Attorney’ is remarkably higher than comparable small cities in Northern California.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The City should reconsider the proposed City Hall project, on or before June 30, 2020. The estimated costs and sources for funding the proposed City Hall project should be included on the most current Capital Improvement Plan docket and 15 Long-Range Financial Forecast. Emphasis should be placed on possible use of the City’s existing real property assets as “City Hall” offices.
F9:
There is no budgeted or written method for dealing with the City’s unfunded pension liabilities, as reported to the City in the Bartel & Associates Report.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
Beginning in the 2020-2021 Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2020, and continuing thereafter, the City should allocate a designated percentage of the General Fund each year for additional payments toward its unfunded liabilities to CalPERS as well as deferred maintenance costs for City real property assets.
F10:
The City’s residents are not adequately informed of the financial impact of decisions made by the City Council and City Staff. As reported in the St. Helena Star on May 29, 2019, a dispute with the consultant for part of this report recently has been settled for ~$1 Million. https://tinyurl.com/y638xapl . 14
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
Beginning with the fiscal year commencing on July 1, 2020, as the City hires additional full-time personnel, such as new full-time firefighters, the City should recalculate the effect of such hires on unfunded pension liabilities to CalPERS and include those new liabilities in the allocated budget.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R11:
No later than December 31, 2019, the City should conduct an analysis of its legal expenditures and associated results in order to determine whether any changes need to be made to the City’s current legal support and strategy. The results of this analysis and any accompanying recommendations should be shared with the public.
R12:
The City should develop and enhance its system of community-based communications to highlight important financial issues affecting City residents. These communications could be published in the weekly St. Helena Star or by e-mail or both. Re-advertise the city e-mail communications system and how city residents can access these communications on a regular basis.
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
The Transportation Operations Center is understaffed given the recent vacancy of one full-time senior engineering aide. This position is not expected to be filled for several months.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Director of Public Works fill the vacant Senior Engineering Aide position at the TOC as soon as possible.
F2:
A final purchasing decision on an upgraded system has yet to be finalized while one of the bidders is re-visiting their proposal on pricing.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
When the 2019-2020 fiscal budget becomes effective on July 1, the Department of Public Works finalize the selection of a traffic management software package and initiate the purchasing process for installation commencing by January 1, 2020. 11
F3:
The traffic signals at the on and off ramps of Highway 29 and Redwood Road/Trancas Avenue are under control of Caltrans making it difficult for the City of Napa to efficiently control the traffic along the Trancas corridor.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The City Council and the PWD resume negotiations with Caltrans for the release of control of the traffic signals located on Redwood Road/Trancas Street at the intersections of Hwy. 29, by March 31, 2020.
F4:
The Department of Public Works does not have a Master Plan for the systematic repair, maintenance and replacement of its traffic signal lights.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that the PWD develop a comprehensive Master Plan for the systematic repair, maintenance and replacement of the traffic signals in their jurisdiction by December 31, 2020.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
Neither the County of Napa Code Compliance division nor the City of Napa Code Enforcement division have enough staff to manage all the code compliance and enforcement complaints they receive from the public on a timely basis.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Both the County of Napa Code Compliance division and the City of Napa Code Enforcement division evaluate their staffing ratios versus complaints received and cases investigated. This should be completed by December 31, 2019.
F2:
Both the County and City of Napa Municipal Codes are outdated, unwieldy, and in need of revision. Officials recognize that the task is difficult with the current staff and violations cannot be completely remedied. This leaves code enforcement officers without sufficient resources to enforce the County/City codes for the benefit and protection of the citizens.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Both the County of Napa and the City of Napa complete a revision to their respective Codes, by June 30, 2020. These revisions should remove outdated codes which are no longer enforced, as well as make it easier for residents to find answers to their most common code questions.
F3:
The County has an estimated 450 non-permitted STVRs within the unincorporated areas of the County. This not only deprives the County of much- needed housing stock for residents and workforce, but also denies revenue to hotels, as well as Transient Occupancy Taxes to the County and its cities. The number of non-permitted STVRs in the City of Napa is unknown.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
When staff turnover allows, both the City and County of Napa consider an alternative workweek for new CE officer hires that would allow for evening and/or weekend coverage.
F4:
Both the County of Napa Code Compliance officers as well as the City of Napa Code Enforcement officers have restricted work schedules that limit their ability to monitor STVR violations during peak evening and weekend hours when many violations occur.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The County explore ways to reduce the number of non-permitted STVRs in the unincorporated areas of the county by June 30, 2020.
F5:
STVR owners are aware of the resource limitations faced by City and County enforcement teams, and are thus adept at avoiding detection and/or prosecution.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The County authorize and train CC officers to be armed with pepper spray, by June 30, 2020.
F6:
The County CC officer is a potentially dangerous occupation. Officers are issued bulletproof vests, but are not supplied the appropriate tools, such as pepper spray, to defend themselves. 10
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
Drinking water supplied by all Napa County municipalities meets all USEPA and State Water Resources Control Board standards and is safe to drink.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Each Napa County municipality’s Department of Public Works explain on its City and/or Department of Public Works website, in water invoices, via social and other local media, what ongoing water quality tests are taken, where and when are they taken, and what is required if results do not meet USEPA and State standards. Each of Napa County’s five Department of Public Works should implement these actions no later than June 30, 2020.
F2:
Drinking water supplied by each municipality is acknowledged by all Napa County Public Works officials to have, from time-to-time, predictable Taste and Odor (T&O) and color issues which, while not unsafe, the water-consuming public may find objectionable and a cause for concern.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Each Napa County municipality’s Department of Public Works advise citizens of known and anticipated T&O and color issues by notices on its Department of Public Works website and within social media and news media. Each of Napa County’s five Department of Public Works should implement these actions no later than June 30, 2020.
F3:
Communication of water quality testing and T&O and color issues to the public by all Napa County Public Works municipalities is inconsistent and, at times, inadequate.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Each Napa County municipality’s Department of Public Works identify, evaluate, and estimate water treatment process improvements and longer-term capital improvement programs that could mitigate T&O and color issues in their respective water treatment operations. Each of Napa County’s Department of Public Works should implement these actions no later than June 30, 2020 for the 2021/2022 budget year.
F4:
Napa County Public Works officials are aware of existing T&O and color issues and a number of municipalities are assessing and testing various treatment options for improvement, including long-term capital improvement projects.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Each Napa County municipality’s Department of Public Works publish T&O and color quality measures and results as part of their Annual Consumer Confidence Water Quality Report provided to citizens. Each of Napa County’s Department of Public Works should implement this action in the 2019 Report published by June 30, 2020.
F5:
Public Works officials countywide treat T&O and color issues as less important than Federal and State regulated contaminant standards, thereby minimizing T&O and color concerns in their water treatment standards and reporting.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Each Napa County municipality’s Department of Public Works establish a formal written complaint policy identifying how complaints should be received, processed, tracked, responded to, and reported, including a written complaint resolution notice to be issued for every complaint. Each of Napa County’s Department of Public Works should implement these actions no later than June 30, 2020.
F6:
All municipalities lack formal written procedures for the handling of water quality complaints.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Each Napa County municipality’s Department of Public Works establish a formal written communication policy identifying how to better communicate to and interact with customers in mobile home parks, gated communities, and apartment residents that are beyond the water meter. Each of Napa County’s Department of Public Works should implement these actions no later than June 30, 2020.
F7:
There are large disparities in household drinking water and wastewater rates between the municipalities, with smaller up-valley cities in Napa County paying much higher costs for the same amount of residential drinking water and wastewater.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The LAFCO Municipal Service Review of drinking water and wastewater countywide resources recommendations are due in February 2020. Each Napa County municipality’s senior municipal elected officials should review, evaluate, respond to, and where appropriate, incorporate the LAFCO MSR recommendations into each Napa County municipality’s operating and long-range plans. Each of Napa County’s senior municipal elected officials should implement these actions by no later than June 30, 2020.
F8:
Residents of mobile home parks, gated communities and apartment buildings do not always receive communication about water quality or taste and odor issues – rather the owner/operator/manager of the site receives required water quality notifications and is not required to pass the notification on to individual residents.
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
The mental health counselors and the correctional officers do not participate on a regular basis in joint training workshops focused on recognizing the symptoms of a mental illness.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Director of the Department of Corrections establish, by December 2019, a joint training program for mental health counselors and correctional officers for the purpose of offering continuing education on topics including the awareness and sensitivity to the symptoms of mental illness.
F2:
The Napa County Jail lacks sufficient inpatient psychiatric health treatment facilities to provide inmates access to comprehensive mental health therapeutic treatment services.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors re-evaluate, by December 2019, the Carey Group’s 2007 Adult Correctional System Master Plan’s recommendation to include a 32-bed section in the new jail dedicated solely to comprehensive mental health therapeutic services. 12
F3:
The NCJ medical staff provides inmates with reasonable access to medical and psychiatric health care services under Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations, Minimum Standards for Adult Correctional Facilities.
F4:
A new Napa County jail with a dedicated 28-bed medical unit is in the design phase of construction with a completion date of March 2022.
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
The Napa County Juvenile Hall staff works collaboratively and cohesively with the mental health counselors and the medical staff from Wellpath to provide adequate mental health services to all juveniles who are in custody.
F2:
The Napa County Office of Education’s Crossroads School provides juveniles with a pathway to continue their education toward earning a high school diploma. COMMENDATIONS C1. The Grand Jury commends the Napa County Juvenile Hall staff, the mental health counselors, and the medical staff from Wellpath for their dedication and professionalism in providing mental health services to all juveniles who are in need of these services. C2. The Grand Jury commends the Napa County Office of Education and their supporting staff at Crossroads School for their commitment to offer a pathway to High School graduation. BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Section 1347, Minimum Standards for Mental Health Services, Title 15. Minimum Standards for Juvenile Facilities, Board of State and Community Corrections, 2016 2. Board of Sate and Community Corrections Biennial Napa County Juvenile Hall Inspection Report– December, 2017 3. Napa County Grand Jury Reports 2012-13; 2013-14; 2014-15; 2015-16; 2016-17; 2017- 18. 4. Title 15. Minimum Standards for Juvenile Facilities in California: Board of State and Community Corrections, Sacramento, California, 2017. 5. Napa County Juvenile Hall Procedures Manual, Revised 2016 6. California Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice Abstract: Fewer Juveniles Entering California Juvenile Detention Facilities, 2018. 7. Section 1322, Child Supervision Staff Orientation and Training, Title 15. Minimum Standards for Juvenile Facilities in California: Board of State and Community Corrections, 2016 8. Millon, Theodore, PhD, Millon, Carrie, PhD, Davis, Roger, PhD, Grossman, Seth, Speed. Millon Adolescent Clinical Inventory, (MACI), The Millon Personality Group, 2006. 9. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Arlington, VA, American Psychiatric Association, 2013 10. California Welfare and Institutions Code – 827, Legislative Intent Service, Inc. May 2015. 11. Napa County Office of Education, Department of Data + Analytics, 2018 Reports issued by the Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code section 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the jury. 11