Not Implemented

Observations 19

• OB1 Page 9
  Napa County Public Works Director
• OB2 Page 8
  Napa County Auditor-Controller
• OB3 Page 9
  Napa County Board of Supervisors/Flood Protection and Water Improvement Authority (FPWIA)
• OB4 Page 9
  Financial Oversight Committee (FOC)
• OB5 Page 9
  Calistoga City Council The parties above submitted all the required responses in a timely manner. There were eleven Recommendations in the report, of which three responses were “Implement” (27 percent) and eight responses were “Not Implement” (63 percent). Upon review, the Grand Jury was struck by how identical the responses were from the different agencies, as if all were written by the same individual, which seems inappropriate. The Grand Jury believes the spirit of the investigative process demands thoughtful individualized responses to the Recommendations. 9
• OB6 Page 10
  Provide the public with information regarding the manner in which Measure A proceeds have been spent;
• OB7 Page 10
  Prepare an annual audit regarding the use of Measure A proceeds;
• OB8 Page 10
  Review the financial impact of each project and advise the public whether it is consistent with the purpose, spirit, intent and language of Measure A;
• OB9 Page 10
  Inform the public of any expenditure which is inconsistent with the purpose and intent of Measure A;
• OB10 Page 10
  Make recommendations to the Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District regarding proposed replacement projects if a project identified in Measure A is determined not feasible. 10 The Grand Jury acknowledges that this Recommendation is in fact being followed. In February 2012, an ad hoc Committee from the FOC re-examined several of the Calistoga projects cited in the 2011-2012 Grand Jury Report and presented its findings to the members. Its primary focus pertained to the issue of water flow from Kimball Dam to ensure the protection of the fish population downstream. The Committee independently concluded that Calistoga City Council’s use of Measure A funds to pay for legal expenses to defend its position in reserving a portion of water from being released was inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Measure A ordinance. In May 2013 the FOC approved the Committee’s report, thereby indicating Napa County Flood Protection and Water Improvement Authority, comprised of the Napa County Board of Supervisors, improperly reimbursed about $525,000 to the City of Calistoga. In its Measure A Report, the previous Grand Jury described the FOC as a “sleeping watchdog”. Given its effort to become more critical and independent, it seems this sobriquet might now require amending. The present Grand Jury commends the FOC for its willingness to read the report with the intention of improving its operation and making an effort to more effectively fulfill its fiduciary responsibilities to the public. III. NAPA COUNTY JAIL, NAPA COUNTY JUVENILE HALL, AND CALIFORNIA PUBLIC SAFETY REALIGNMENT ACT Every year the Napa County Grand Jury is mandated to investigate local jail and detention facilities in order to assure they are being administered in the best interests of county residents. Accordingly, the 2011-2012 Grand Jury issued a final report detailing its investigation of (1) Napa County Jail, (2) Napa County Juvenile Hall and (3) potential effects on Napa County Jail as a result of realignment. At the time of this report, changes under the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Reorganization Plan had only recently gone into effect. The report was published in May 2012, and it addressed Recommendations to the following individual and governing bodies:
• OB11 Page 8
  Napa County Executive Officer
• OB12 Page 11
  Napa County Probation Department
• OB13 Page 11
  Napa County Department of Corrections
• OB14
  Napa County Board of Supervisors. 11 Their responses were reviewed and found to meet statuary requirements. All responsible parties agreed to implement Recommendations 1, 2 and 3. R1. County Criminal Justice Community report each year to the citizens on how the alternative programs are working, including current information on average jail population, alternative program statistics, and recidivism rate along with the annual crime rate report. R2. County administration continue to reach out at public forums, and solicit community input regarding jail design and location, while looking at jail expansion alternatives. R3. The County prepare to assume greater financial responsibility for Realignment, in the event State funding is not forthcoming.
• OB15 Page 13
  Napa Mental Health Services and Napa Law Enforcement Agencies develop coordinated services to help residents cope with the occurrence and outcome of crises that befall their communities, and
• OB16 Page 13
  The suggestion that the Grand Jury act as a Civilian Review Board.
• OB17 Page 14
  The absence of a statute requiring Grand Jury Members to serve on a citizen review board,
• OB18 Page 14
  The interruption of mandated Grand Jury duties that must be completed in a 12-month term and,
• OB19 Page 14
  The lack of continuity year to year of the same members serving. Given that the government bodies otherwise rejected this Recommendation, the Grand Jury regretfully recognizes there is no likelihood further action will be taken by the agencies regarding this issue in the near future. Final Conclusion The 2012-2013 Grand Jury recognizes the necessary time and effort undertaken by both the previous Grand Jury in creating its reports and by the public agencies in responding to those reports. Both share a common pursuit: a commitment to improving the well-being of Napa County residents. The 2012-2013 Grand Jury also acknowledges that a commitment to facilitating positive changes in Napa County is often an evolutionary rather than a revolutionary process; changes are likely to be completed in the long-term rather than short-term. The