Gran Jurado del Condado de Napa
2019-2020
From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (7)
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
9 hallazgos
F1:
Neither NCDC nor NCPD provided verifiable documentation that the required annual Wellpath/County reviews and approvals of the Procedures Manual have been conducted after June 3, 2019, indicating inadequate monitoring of Wellpath’s administrative performance.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
NCDC and NCPD require Wellpath to maintain the Procedures Manual in accordance with the provisions of the BSC Title 15 and the Wellpath Agreement. This action to be completed by December 31, 2020, and thereafter for the term of the Agreement.
F2:
Neither NCDC nor NCPD provided verifiable documentation that any contractually required training was provided by Wellpath during calendar year 2019 indicating inadequate monitoring of Wellpath’s performance.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2:
NCDC and NCPD require Wellpath to provide training for Probation and Correctional Personnel in accordance with the provisions of the Wellpath Agreement. This action to be completed by December 31, 2020, and annually thereafter.
F3:
Neither NCDC nor NCPD are able to provide verifiable documentation that Wellpath has prepared and maintained documents required by Exhibit “A” Item 3.a. for those items which Wellpath has chosen to define as “Patient Safety activity work products” under the provision of 42 U.S.C.A. 299b, indicating inadequate monitoring of Wellpath’s performance.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3:
NCDC and NCPD require Wellpath to certify the preparation of “Patient Safety activity work products.” This action to be completed by December 31, 2020, and annually thereafter. 10
F4:
Neither NCDC nor NCPD provided verifiable evidence that the items annotated as “The Department does not have any documents responsive to this request.” in Enclosure (1), Table 2, have been produced, indicating inadequate monitoring of Wellpath’s performance.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4:
NCDC and NCPD are to establish the existence of those items required by the Wellpath Agreement, but which are not held by the County, to be verified by June 30, 2021.
F5:
The County has public documents within its custody which it is withholding from examination by the Jury based on objections from Wellpath.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R5:
The Napa County Board of Supervisors institute a one-time audit of Wellpath’s compliance with the Scope of Work contained in the Wellpath Agreement. This audit to be independent of the NCDC and NCPD, and to include a physician with contract administration experience. This audit to be completed no later than June 30, 2021.
F6:
The Jury identified a significant number of administrative deficiencies in a limited sampling of Wellpath’s work indicating inadequate monitoring of Wellpath’s performance.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R6:
The Napa County Auditor-Controller, the Departments of Corrections and Probation, County Counsel, and County Executive Officer are to review the provisions of the Wellpath Agreement, including Exhibits “A” and “B,” and institute the appropriate Services Agreement amendments or modifications, as provided for in the Agreement, necessary to reflect the actual contract requirements. This action to be completed by December 31, 2020.
F7:
Not all the Wellpath Agreement Terms or Appendix “A” Scope of Work Items are uniformly administered, indicating inadequate monitoring of Wellpath’s performance.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R7:
The Napa County Auditor-Controller, together with the Departments of Correction and Probation, is to establish clearly defined criteria for the confirmation that goods or services have been received from Wellpath. These criteria are to be put in place by December 31, 2020.
F8:
The Napa County Department of Corrections and Napa County Probation Departments approve Wellpath invoices based solely on the basis that a submitted claim agrees with the budgeted amount, not by verification of work performed. The taxpayers of Napa County are billed more than 3 million dollars a year based on this limited information.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R8:
The County of Napa should not accept Wellpath invoices submitted more frequently than quarterly. This policy to be implemented by the second quarter of fiscal year 2020-2021.
F9:
The Wellpath Agreement calls for quarterly submittal of invoices, but the County accepts monthly submittals adding to the cost of administering the Agreement. THE GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS:
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Recomendaciones adicionales
1
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R3:
in the report titled "City of Napa Traffic Signal states, "The City Council and the PWD resume Synchronization Study" negotiations with Caltrans for the release of control of the traffic signals located on Redwood Road/Trancas Street at the intersections of Highway 29 by March 31, 2020." The City resumed negotiations prior to March 31, 2020, as specified in the recommendation and City response. The City sent a letter to Caltrans on February 24, 2020 and received an email back from Einar Acuna, Caltrans District 4 Senior Traffic Engineer for Signal Operations on April 10, 2020 and a letter from Tony Tavares, Caltrans District 4 Director on April 21, 2020. The responses from Caltrans specify the technical reports and analysis that the City must perform for Caltrans to further evaluate and process the request for the City to assume control of the signal operations of the Caltrans signal system on Redwood Road/Trancas Street. City Hall: 955 School Street, Napa CA 94559 | Mailing Address: P.O. Box 660, Napa CA 94559 | (707) 257-9500 | www.cityofnapa.org City of Napa Response to 2019-2020 Napa County Grand Jury Final Report entitled "Review of Responses to the 2018-2019 Grand Jury Reports" The City has contacted a qualified Traffic Engineering Consultant to obtain a proposal to complete the engineering studies required by Caltrans to further the goal of Caltrans releasing the traffic signal operations to the City. The cost for the engineering work will be $70,000 and the scope of work includes traffic counts, traffic analysis, and development of future traffic projections. The work cannot begin until traffic volumes within the City are no longer impacted by the COVID-19 emergency and schools and other businesses have reopened to normal capacity. The City has identified the need for hardware upgrades for the signal system detection and communication systems. Considering signal upgrades, professional services and staff time, City staff has estimated the total cost to fully implement this work to meet Caltrans requirements to be approximately $200,000 to $250,000. The costs for this work have not been included within the fiscal year 20/21 budget due to the City's fiscal emergency and will be reexamined for priority within future budgets. The City of Napa thanks the Grand Jury for its service during the 2019-2020 term. If you or the Grand Jury Foreperson have any questions regarding the City's response, please contact me. Respectfully Submitted, Steve Potter, City Manager Michael Barrett, City Attorney CC: Julie Lucido, Public Works Director Phil Brun, Utilities Director · . . . . City Hall: 955 School Street, Napa CA 94559 | Mailing Address: P.O. Box 660, Napa CA 94559 | (707) 257-9500 | www.cityofnapa.org
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
6 hallazgos
F1:
The physical facilities at Napa County Juvenile Hall provide a safe, clean, and secure environment for the detained juveniles in compliance with Title 15.
F2:
The management and staff appear to be well-trained and fully committed to working with the juvenile detainees to become productive citizens.
F3:
The facility is over-staffed for the actual number of juvenile detainees.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
The Probation Department is to reduce its staffing level for Napa County Juvenile Hall to a level consistent with the historical trends of the past ten years and consistent with the requirements of Title 15. This reduction in staffing is to be accomplished no later than June 30, 2021 and reflected in the Napa County’s Adopted Budget for Napa County Juvenile Hall for FY 2021-2022.
F4:
Title 15 does not require Napa County Juvenile Hall to be staffed for 50 juvenile detainees. There is no legal impediment to reducing staffing to a level more consistent with the actual number of juvenile detainees.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
The Probation Department is to reduce its staffing level for Napa County Juvenile Hall to a level consistent with the historical trends of the past ten years and consistent with the requirements of Title 15. This reduction in staffing is to be accomplished no later than June 30, 2021 and reflected in the Napa County’s Adopted Budget for Napa County Juvenile Hall for FY 2021-2022.
F5:
There is a need to find additional uses for the Napa County Juvenile Hall facility.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2:
The Board of Supervisors consider using The Tool Kit created from the Juvenile Hall Utilization Workgroup. The Board of Supervisors and the Probation Department are to convene a task force consisting of relevant governmental agencies to study and suggest alternative uses for the under-used Napa County Juvenile Hall facility. This task force is 5 California State Association of Counties, “Juvenile Justice Facilities in California: Report and Tool Kit”, November, 2019, https://www.counties.org/sites/main/files/file- attachments/juvenile_hall_report_and_toolkit_2019.pdf?1576174740 9 to convene no later than December 31, 2020, with directions to issue a public report with its recommendations no later than June 30, 2021.
F6:
The California State Association of Counties’ Report and Tool Kit would be helpful to Napa County in determining other uses for the Juvenile Hall facility. THE JURY RECOMMENDS
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2:
The Board of Supervisors consider using The Tool Kit created from the Juvenile Hall Utilization Workgroup. The Board of Supervisors and the Probation Department are to convene a task force consisting of relevant governmental agencies to study and suggest alternative uses for the under-used Napa County Juvenile Hall facility. This task force is 5 California State Association of Counties, “Juvenile Justice Facilities in California: Report and Tool Kit”, November, 2019, https://www.counties.org/sites/main/files/file- attachments/juvenile_hall_report_and_toolkit_2019.pdf?1576174740 9 to convene no later than December 31, 2020, with directions to issue a public report with its recommendations no later than June 30, 2021.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
10 hallazgos
F1:
The Grand Jury, with guidance from a housing consultancy, projects that 750-1,000 ADU units could possibly be built across Napa County including the cities of Napa and American Canyon in the next five years.
F2:
a) The City of Napa’s website has acceptable ADUs educational information on planning requirements and fees. 14
F3:
Neither the County of Napa nor the cities of Napa and American Canyon have ADU planning and approval steps “sequenced” in written material or on their website.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
upgrade their websites with detailed ADU planning steps, approval fees and impact fees (units over 750 square feet) and/or provide a Flow Chart of the step-by-step process and implement these actions no later than December 31, 2020. 15
F4:
The County of Napa and the cities of Napa and American Canyon are largely relying on the NVCF education program to improve homeowners’ knowledge on how to build and finance an ADU or Junior Unit.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2:
promote the NVCF ADU education initiative on their websites, in print and online media, and implement these actions no later than December 31, 2020.
F5:
Neither the County of Napa nor the cities of Napa and American Canyon have listed an ADU Housing Development single-point-of-contact person or position that could expedite the planning and building approval process for a homeowner.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3:
name a dedicated ADU Point Person who will expedite the planning and building approval process for individual ADU households and implement this action no later than December 31, 2020.
F6:
The County of Napa and the cities of Napa and American Canyon have implemented simpler (than prior years) planning and building approval procedures for ADUs and Junior Units, but the processes could be further streamlined.
F7:
Neither the County of Napa nor the cities of Napa and American Canyon provide pre- approved ADU building designs which could reduce approval costs.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4:
develop pre-approved ADU building plans, promote these plans on their upgraded websites, and implement this no later than December 31, 2020.
F8:
Napa County and the City of Napa continue to charge significant planning and building approval fees on all sizes of ADUs that discourage ADU builds.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R5:
reduce and/or eliminate discretionary ADU fees (such as Park fee or Affordable Housing fee) and implement these actions no later than December 31, 2020.
F9:
Detached ADUs do not realistically represent an affordable housing resource for Napa County and the Cities of Napa and American Canyon.
F10:
Junior Units and Garage Conversions may fall into the affordable housing range, particularly if subsidized by the cities or County.
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
3 hallazgos
F1:
Napa County’s Election Division accurately registers voters and maintains a secure database.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends the Napa County Election Division and County Webmaster strengthen social media Password policy including a robust schedule for password updates and dual authentication logins by November 1st, 2020.
F2:
Napa County’s Election Division accurately counts, records and reports citizens’ votes.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2:
Director of the Napa County Election Division (F3-R1) 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 Grand Jury. APPENDICES
F3:
Napa County’s Election Division’s lack of policy regarding social media account access exposes them to risk of someone using their accounts to post false or misleading election information on social media.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
4 hallazgos
F1:
The garbage rate increases were timely and justified, given the need to offset a $3.3 million shortfall in the Utilities Department 2020 Solid Waste and Recycling Enterprise Fund.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
The City of Napa’s Utilities Department Director notify all ratepayers through their monthly bill where to locate information explaining in detail how all revenues and expenditures are allocated and spent for the 2020 Solid Waste and Recycling budget. The Jury recommends that this information is to be sent out no later than December 31, 2020 and update annually.
F2:
The 2020 Solid Waste and Recycling expenditure budget pie chart showing expenditures lacked full clarity in outlining the cost of the 2001 Coombsville dump lawsuit liability debt.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2:
The City of Napa’s Deputy Public Works Director continue to explore new sources of revenue for the sale of recyclable materials to both domestic and foreign markets to offset any future Solid Waste and Recycling budget shortfall.
F3:
The 2020 Solid Waste and Recycling budget pie chart showing expenditures lacked clarity in outlining the cost of repairs to city streets caused by the weight of the garbage trucks. 14
F4:
The reduction of sales in recyclable materials to global markets negatively impacted the City of Napa’s Solid Waste and Recycling 2020 budget and is contributing to the $3.3 million budget shortfall.
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
10 hallazgos
F1:
Nearly all of the Public Works Department’s annual neighborhood sidewalk repair budget is spent on projects associated with the Local Streets Paving Program rather than those individual segments of vertically displaced sidewalks that present the most serious tripping risks. City of Napa website, general discussion of PWD sidewalk programs, https://www.cityofnapa.org/365/Sidewalks-Curbs-Gutters. See, e.g., the link offered by the Parks and Recreation Department on their website page, https://www.cityofnapa.org/377/Trees-Urban-Forestry. The city provides a form for all claims reporting an incident in which the claimant believes “the City of Napa has caused a loss or damage to [the claimant’s] person or property,” https://www.cityofnapa.org/151/Claims. 11
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
The Jury recommends that Public Works Department publish definitions of the terms “priority,” “location,” and “one-off” whenever those terms are used in documents or information made available to the public, to be completed by December 31, 2020.
F2:
Because the Public Works Department lacks a written plan for determining which “one- off” or “priority” projects will be undertaken, repair decisions appear to be made subjectively.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2:
The Jury recommends that the Public Works Department adhere to their published definitions of terms such as “priority,” “location,” and “one-off” in their recordkeeping efforts so that PWD’s reporting on the number of sidewalk repairs is consistent and clear, to be completed by December 31, 2020.
F3:
Because the Public Works Department lacks a written plan for determining when “one-off” or “priority” projects will be performed, scheduling of these repairs appears random.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3:
The Jury recommends that the Public Works Department adopt a written policy governing the selection of individual “one-off” or “priority” repair projects, to be completed by December 31, 2020. 12
F4:
Because the Public Works Department lacks written definitions of key terms such as “location” and “priority” that are used in published documents or webpages, the use of these terms is confusing to readers.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4:
The Jury recommends that the Public Works Department adopt a written policy governing the timing of work on “one-off” or “priority” projects, to be completed by December 31, 2020.
F5:
The Public Works Department does not publish a list of “priority” projects completed each year, making it difficult for residents of the City of Napa to assess the City’s progress in repairing dangerous sidewalks.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R5:
The Jury recommends that the Public Works Department develop a 5-year plan for repairing all sidewalks with a vertical displacement of four inches or more, to be completed by December 31, 2020.
F6:
The Public Works Department does not adequately inform residents of the City of Napa of its sidewalk repair schedule.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R6:
The Jury recommends that Public Works Department annually publish on the City of Napa’s website a street address list of priority projects completed each year, to be completed by December 31, 2020.
F7:
The Public Works Department’s webpage does not include a service request button or email link to the City of Napa’s service request page. The webpage therefore does not offer an easy way to report sidewalk problems.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R7:
The Jury recommends that the Public Works Department update its portion of the City of Napa’s website to better inform citizens. At a minimum, the update should include the most current schedule or map for sidewalk repairs as well as a link to facilitate citizen reporting of sidewalk issues, to be completed by December 31, 2020.
F8:
The Public Works Department’s recordkeeping and public reporting are unclear because in both their internal and external communications as well as their internal records, the Public Works Department uses undefined terms such as “one-off,” “location,” and “priority.”
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R8:
The Jury recommends that the Public Works Department develop a schedule and methodology for assessing the success of the conversion to the Workorder Asset Management system and their ability to use it effectively, to be completed by December 31, 2020.
F9:
The Cost-Share program has not kept pace with the actual cost of sidewalk replacement. The 50% reimbursement level being offered is rarely available to homeowners.
F10:
The Public Works Department has not adopted a method for assessing the success of the Workorder Asset Management system conversion and its implementation in helping staff address sidewalk displacement issues.
* 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.