⚠️ Aviso de traducción: Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Note: Missing finding numbers detected: F7
Findings 8 findings
F1
Page 13
The Grand Jury finds it repugnant that an entity of Napa County sued the County itself. The taxpayers of the County and of American Canyon funded this litigation; American Canyon residents were taxed twice, both as citizens of the City and citizens of the County. Both bodies should have instructed staff to meet and consult until the need for litigation was resolved. The Napa County Board of Supervisors (“the Board”) and the American Canyon City Council (“the Council”) should have given way to the common good.
F2
Page 13
The Board seem to be content to operate on a "status quo" basis with an invalid Housing Element, an invalid General Plan, and an invalid 1998 Airport Specific Plan (see October 26, 1992 letter from Deputy Director of Department of Housing and Community Development in Attachment). BACKGROUND The participants in this lawsuit seem to have had various reasons for filing suit. Citizens for Honest Government was a small organization unhappy with the Napa County Board of Supervisors; the Sierra Club was concerned about environmental issues near the Airport; and the City of American Canyon was embroiled in a long-standing dispute with Napa County. This dispute arose as a result of the incorporation of American Canyon in the early 1990's. When the City incorporated, it resulted in a net loss of revenue to the County's tax base. The incorporation greatly reduced Napa County's intended new housing base which was part of the Housing Element of the 1983 General Plan as amended in 1986. The County had planned to authorize the construction of new houses in south Napa County to meet its state and regional obligations for housing, including low-cost housing. American Canyon's incorporation resulted in a loss of new housing area to meet the County's housing obligation. Throughout the years following the incorporation, there had been additional skirmishes between American Canyon and Napa County. American Canyon has been unable to obtain a Rural-Urban Limit for growth purposes. There has been little cooperation from the County in responding to legitimate requests from American Canyon. The City's joining in the suit against the County regarding the Airport plan was a further attempt to get the County's attention. In 1999, the Napa Superior Court (the "NSC") ruled that the County’s 1998 Airport Industrial Area Specific Plan (the “Plan”) was invalid because the Environmental Impact Report (the "EIR") that had been prepared to assess the Plan's impact was deficient in its consideration of the Plan’s impacts after buildout upon traffic, housing and steelhead trout. The 1998 Plan was an updated version of the County’s 1986 Plan for the airport area, with more specific and comprehensive “industrial park” design, improvement and density standards. The NSC also held that the 1986 Plan, which the 1998 Plan superceded, remained valid and that the County could continue to process and approve projects in the airport area which complied with the earlier standards, while the County worked to correct deficiencies in the 1998 Plan and its EIR. This latter portion of the NSC’s decision was not appealed. The County appealed the invalidation of the Plan. The appeals court in San Francisco (the “Court”) in a published opinion, affirmed the NSC’s decision. The County asked the Court to reconsider its decision and was denied. The California Supreme Court declined to hear the County’s appeal. Several significant issues of “first impression,” not previously ruled upon in California environmental law, were decided by the Court. First, the County could properly decide to delete certain traffic mitigation measures adopted as part of the 1986 Plan, which the passage of time proved were infeasible. The 1986 Plan called for traffic interchanges to be build at the intersection of highways 29 and 221 at the south end of the Southern Crossing bridge and at the intersection of highways 29 and 12 at Airport Boulevard and Jamison Canyon Road. The 1998 Plan deleted these improvements as a required element of Plan buildout because: (1) the contribution of project traffic to congestion problems caused by other traffic using these roadways was “minor”; (2) the County lacked the funds to implement these very costly improvements (perhaps $70 million); and, (3) the County did not control the design, approval and construction of these State highway improvements; Caltrans did. These were legitimate reasons for County to conclude these improvements were “infeasible.” Evidence supported these reasons. Changed circumstances over time allow a county to delete or modify project mitigation measures previously adopted. They are not cast in stone. Mitigation measures to minimize significant environmental effects, such as traffic, are “infeasible” if they cannot be accomplished within a reasonable time, taking into account economic, environmental, social and technological factors. Secondly, the Court concluded that the 1998 Plan EIR adequately identified traffic impacts from the airport industrial area and mitigation measures, even though the only mitigation it required was funding an area traffic study, not funding the actual improvements if the study concluded they were necessary. Mitigation measures must be roughly proportional to the impacts of a project. Since there was evidence that project traffic impacts were a “minor” contributor to area traffic problems, funding the costly improvements was not proportional and therefore did not require mitigation. The County will continue to impose a traffic mitigation fee on plans for area development, which so far has raised more than $2 million for internal roadway improvements. Third, the Court held that the EIR contained an adequate discussion of housing impacts and mitigation, but that its discussion of significant impacts due to water availability and wastewater treatment was not adequate. Since preparation of the EIR American Canyon has constructed its own sewer plant and there is capacity to service the Plan area (American Canyon south of Fagan Creek and Napa Sanitation District north of Fagan Creek). American Canyon has also contracted with Vallejo for extra water and, according to the Napa Flood Control and Water Conservation District, is in good shape for both short and long-term water supply. Finally, the EIR failed to adequately consider project impacts on steelhead trout in the Napa River. The County unwisely elected not to amend the Plan EIR to discuss this and incorporate necessary mitigation (stream setbacks, riparian cover, prevention of siltation/sedimentation). Aside from finding these deficiencies in the EIR, the Court also held that the 1998 Plan was invalid because it was in conflict with the County’s General Plan. The General Plan is the highest and most authoritative document in the hierarchy of County plans and ordinances. All specific plans or zoning ordinances are subordinate to it and must be consistent with the dictates of the General Plan. What is particularly significant about the Court’s ruling is that the 1998 Plan was inconsistent because it frustrated the general “Goals” of reducing congestion and implementing a comprehensive circulation system set forth in the General Plan. The County argued these Goals were advisory only, but the Court concluded they were mandatory. The Court found the 1998 Plan failed to implement these Goals, contained no specific improvements to reduce congestion and to handle the increase in traffic from the project area without increasing congestion. This will be a challenge to the County, since it has concluded it lacks the funds and authority to make congestion-reducing improvements on adjacent State highways 221, 29 and 12. It may be that the County will have to amend its General Plan Goals to recognize this reality before it can approve a “consistent” Specific Plan for the airport area. The Court also concluded any new Specific Plan must include affirmative steps to mitigate project impacts on housing and growth in order to be consistent with the General Plan. The result of the decision is that no pending projects may be approved under the 1998 Plan, as it is invalid and will remain so until properly adopted after certification of an adequate EIR. Processing of all project applications in the airport area by the County under the 1998 Plan have been processed under the 1986 plan. Each project must comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and several are required to prepare their own EIRs. The 1986 Plan remains valid and in force. There appears to be a lack of concern by the Napa County Board of Supervisors regarding the invalidity of the 1998 Plan, the invalidity of the General Plan, and, most importantly, the invalidity of the Housing Element of the General Plan. The monies spent on the 1998 Airport Specific Plan appear to be largely wasted. It appears to the Grand Jury that the resolution of the Housing Element has the highest priority. If the General Plan is to be updated, the Airport Specific Plan can be part of the General Plan update. Because of the invalidity of the Housing Element, and the General Plan and the Court’s determination of the invalidity of the Airport Specific Plan, property rights of owners county-wide are in great jeopardy. The Grand Jury is informed that a court could prohibit all building permits in the county until a lawful Housing Element of the General Plan is adopted and the General Plan is updated. The Grand Jury determined that the City of American Canyon spent $173,000 on attorney’s fees and that the County of Napa spent over $380,000 on attorney’s fees and consultants on the litigation in addition to the substantial cost of preparation of the 1998 Airport Specific Plan The Grand Jury is unable to determine the cost of lost staff time for either entity. PROCEDURES The Grand Jury interviewed members of the Napa County Board of Supervisors, members of the American Canyon City Council, members of Citizens for Honest Government, the Napa County Planning Director and staff, the American Canyon City Manager, Napa City Council members and members of the public.
F3
Page 22
Traditional agricultural practices involving the application of toxic chemicals to soil can lead to cumulative chemical effects that contaminate the environment, threaten human health and compromise ecosystems. There is a growing trend among some County farmers that is resulting in a movement away from traditional chemical pesticides and towards a safer pest management approach. This concept of “Sustainable Agriculture” can provide agricultural product in a profitable way without creating pollution or risks to human health or environment. Sustainable Agriculture is "an integrated system of plant production practices that meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs" according to the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program at the University of California, Davis. This Program was created in 1986 by CA legislature in response to concern about: • Protecting human health and wildlife in rural communities; • The environmental impacts of traditional agricultural techniques; • Profitability and success of small and family farming operations; and • Ensuring abundant, affordable and healthy farming product.
F4
Page 23
Last year, more than 2,120,000 pounds of pesticide were used in Napa County, which ranked 22nd highest in pesticide use out of California's 58 counties. This represents a 10% decrease from the prior year. This is the third straight year that Napa County has experienced decreased conventional agricultural pesticide use. Three of the top five most-used pesticides or herbicides in Napa County: sulfur, glyphosate salt and copper hydroxide, are considered relatively safe to humans. The most commonly used chemical is elemental sulfur, which many believe is relatively safe for human contact and the environment. In fact, elemental sulfur is authorized for use by certified organic farmers. However, some observers still feel that there may be long-term health risks even with elemental sulfur use. Two others in the top five, methyl bromide and simazine, are among chemicals that most concern citizen activists: • Methyl bromide is a soil sterilant in gas form used prior to planting. It has been associated with human birth defects at low doses, and its use is closely regulated under the terms of Proposition 65: the State’s Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1984. • Simazine is a common herbicide used on grapes. It is categorized as a possible human carcinogen and endocrine disrupting chemical. It is a frequent ground water contaminant throughout the U.S. Some vineyard managers believe that most of the useful information on effective pesticide or herbicide choices comes from local dealers, marketing agents or word of mouth from other vineyard managers, rather than from our local government agencies.
F5
Page 24
Watershed testing for ground and surface water contamination in Napa County done by State agencies over the past twelve years has shown undetectable levels of pesticide or herbicide. These tests are done on a random, unscheduled basis throughout high-risk areas in the county. State requirements vary from one time testing, annual testing or every three-year testing, depending on the chemical. Water is also tested for other contaminants, including pathogens, nutrients and sediment by these random tests. Currently the Department of Environmental Management (DEM) receives State funds of $26,000 per year plus additional tax revenues from local water districts for implementing these environmental health and safety regulations. However, neither DEM nor any other local Napa County agency is testing ground or river water for pesticide contamination at this time. According to the Director, this is in part due to DEM staffing shortages over the past several years. The State may take over the required testing in Napa County if DEM does not comply, and DEM could lose State and water district revenues for this testing. Currently, neither Sonoma nor Solano County agencies are doing local ground water testing; it is being done by the State.
F6
Page 25
The Agriculture Commissioner, the Director of DEM and the Napa County Public Health Officer have investigated and found that there are no reports of any serious illnesses or injuries related to pesticide use in Napa County. There have been some mild eye and skin irritations or allergic reactions of a temporary nature in some pesticide workers. The Grand Jury finds that there is no data or evidence to link pesticide exposure with any chronic or long-term illness or injury affecting Napa County residents. Specifically, the Grand Jury finds that there is no evidence to indicate a clustering of cancer or higher incidences of cancer among residents in agricultural areas of the county or among agricultural workers.
F8
Page 58
The FCD has proceeded to attempt to collect the cost of contamination clean up from the original polluter where possible.
F9
Page 59
If the Federal share and the State share are not forthcoming, and in fact pay only that which is now budgeted by the FCD, there will be a short fall of revenues that will increase the cost of the project beyond the amount of the shortfall.
Recommendations 10
-
R1Page 17Future litigation between the County and its cities or other governmental bodies should be avoided at almost any cost. In the future, staff should be directed to find a solution short of litigation. Mediation between the staff of the County and the staff of the City should be required before resorting to litigation. Response Requested from American Canyon City Council Board of Supervisors County Executive Officer County Planning Director
-
R2Page 17Napa County's Board of Supervisors and its responsible agencies need to urgently address the issues raised by the invalidity of the Housing Element, and the invalidity of the General Plan. The County has hard choices to make regarding growth, development and housing and it is up to the elected officials to take stands and make policy rather than maintain their current "wait and see" attitude. Response Requested from Board of Supervisors County Executive Officer County Planning Director AGRICULTURAL PESTICIDES - NAPA COUNTY The Grand Jury reviewed agricultural pesticide use and regulation in Napa County. This included the following: • Monitoring proper use, storage and application procedures by licensed commercial pesticide users; • Enforcement of regulations required by local, State and Federal laws, and the penalties imposed for violations; • Pesticide exposure risk data - worker and public health issues; • Effects on the Napa County watersheds – ground water, streams, water reservoirs and the Napa River; and • Efforts to publicly educate farmers, agricultural workers, and our citizenry regarding pesticide risk issues including information on alternatives to traditional pesticide use SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 1. The Grand Jury found no evidence of any significant, repetitive or extensive violation of agricultural pesticide use in the county. Where appropriate, it appears that violators have been assessed warnings, penalties and/or fines and corrected their misuse. 2. The Agricultural Commissioner has created a Glassy-Winged Sharpshooter (GWSS) task force of citizen activists and experts and created a GWSS work plan for Napa County. The Grand Jury commends the Napa County Agricultural Commissioner for his leadership. 3. “Sustainable Agriculture” practices have helped result in a reduction of traditional chemical pesticide use in Napa County of 10% from the prior year. Pesticide use has dropped in Napa County in 2000 for the third straight year. 4. Watershed testing by the State for ground and surface water has shown undetectable levels of pesticides. Local agencies are not performing water testing required by State agencies. 5. The Offices of the Agricultural Commissioner, the Department of Environmental Management and Public Health are watching for and have found no reported cases of any serious pesticide related health issues in Napa County. There are no studies or data to indicate a clustering of cancer or higher incidences of cancer in agricultural areas of the county or among agricultural workers. BACKGROUND The California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) and Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations provide guidelines for local agencies on pesticide licensing, reporting and use. Local agencies involved in pesticide regulation and safety include the Napa County Agricultural Commissioner’s Office, the Department of Environmental Management and the Public Health Department. Agricultural pesticide use can be the single greatest contributor to water pollution and air pollution in many rural counties. Concern regarding pesticide use has risen once it was understood that these toxins can have effects on health and the environment well beyond their intended use against pests. Potential public health and environmental consequences of traditional agricultural practices can include: • Contamination of ground water and the watershed by hazardous materials; • Air pollution from pesticide drift, waste burning, and machinery exhaust fumes; • Human health risks such as cancer, reproductive and neurological toxicity, and other acute and chronic illnesses such as allergic reactions and skin sensitivity associated with the use of pesticides on farmlands; • Wildlife loss due to habitat destruction and toxic effects on birds, fish, bees and other beneficial organisms; and • Degraded soils from over cultivation, excessive use of chemical pesticides and fertilizers, soil erosion from hillside vineyard development, and neglect of the proper balance of microbial and organic matter needed to maintain healthy soil. Heightened public awareness of pesticide effects is appropriate: nearly 25% of pesticide applied in agriculture in the U.S. is applied in California. In addition, pesticide exposure is not just confined to our agricultural areas; pesticides are also used in and around homes, yards, buildings, stores, schools, parks, and other public settings. Persons most susceptible to unwanted toxic effects of pesticides are among the most vulnerable in Napa County: farm workers, children, the homeless, the elderly and ill. The Napa County Agricultural Commissioner (AC) supervises a staff of 22 regular employees and some additional seasonal employees. The Commissioner and his staff are responsible for the implementation of Federal, State and local regulatory agricultural programs within Napa County. Specifically, these programs are designed to both protect citizens and our environment as well as to promote agriculture within Napa County. The challenge for the AC is to balance these goals, which can be at odds with each other. The AC licenses local professional pesticide dealers, advisors and applicators. The AC investigates all reports of pesticide related illness or injuries, relying on the county Public Health Staff and local health care providers to report these occurrences. The AC also enforces some regulations to protect ground and surface water from pesticide contamination. The AC Office performs random field inspections using staff biologists primarily during the dormant growth season. Three or four inspectors examine pesticide storage sites, review vineyard managers’ records regarding worker safety programs and pesticide use, and attempt to keep farmers abreast of current State and Federal requirements for worker safety and pesticide use. The AC states that within a 4-year period, all licensed users of pesticides in Napa County are reviewed. Warnings and/or fines are imposed on violators. The maximum penalty is $700 per violation. The Grand Jury reviewed records of penalties imposed by the AC Office over the past three years. PROCEDURES 1) The Grand Jury interviewed the following officials, agencies and citizens in Napa County: • A large scale organic vineyard manager using Sustainable Agricultural techniques • A large scale vineyard manager using conventional techniques • A citizen member of POISON (People Opposed to Insecticide Spraying on Neighborhoods) who is also on the Napa Agricultural Commissioner’s Special Advisory Committee on Alternatives to Pesticide use • A citizen on the Napa Watershed Task Force • The County Agricultural Commissioner • The County Director of Environmental Management • The County Public Health Officer • A medical director and several health care providers from health care clinics that serve agricultural field workers 2) The Grand Jury reviewed the following published data and reports regarding pesticides: • Water testing in Napa County by local, State and Federal agencies for chemicals and pesticides over the past 12 years; • Penalties imposed by the Napa Agricultural Commissioner’s Office for misuse of hazardous materials over the past 3 years; • POISON Manual 2001 (People Opposed to Insecticide Spraying on Neighborhoods) - a collection of citizen activist papers on pesticide use; • Roots of Change: Agriculture, Ecology and Health in California – published by the Funders Agricultural Working Group in San Francisco, CA (March 2001) - a report on Sustainable Agriculture in California; • Pesticides and Human Health – resource for health care professionals – published by Physicians for Social Responsibility and Californians for Pesticide Reform (1999) - data and positions by health care professionals; • Time For a Change: Pesticides and Wine Grapes in Sonoma and Napa Counties – published by Californians for Alternatives to Toxics (1997) – data and positions by citizens; and • Cancer statistics for Napa County and California - published by American Cancer Society (2000) and additional data from Napa County Public Health Office. 3) Grand Jury committee members attended a Napa Valley Vintner’s Association Conference with presentations on Sustainable Agriculture research and the use of alternatives to traditional pesticides in Napa County. 4) Grand Jury committee members reviewed past Grand Jury Reports on the Napa County Agricultural Commissioner’s Office.
-
R2aPage 80NVUSD should improve awareness of the condition of the schools. There are existing parent-teacher organizations at each school which should be encouraged to take a more active role in inspecting the school and reporting safety hazards or other substandard conditions to the District. Response Requested from Superintendent of Schools Napa Valley Unified School District Board of Trustees
-
R2bPage 80NVUSD must find ways to provide adequate facilities for all of the students. The Board of Trustees should reorder its priorities in apportioning the limited funds it controls to improve the physical plant of the District. Response Requested from Superintendent of Schools Napa Valley Unified School District Board of Trustees
-
R3Page 23The AC Office should take the lead in encouraging Napa County farmers to learn about and implement Sustainable Agricultural concepts and techniques. Research and data available suggest that Sustainable Agricultural techniques are an important means towards prevention of the adverse effects of traditional chemical pesticides and fertilizers, while still operating profitable and productive farms. Sustainable Agriculture should be one of the subjects for the Public Awareness Week in Recommendation #4. Response Requested From Napa County Agricultural Commissioner Napa County Board of Supervisors
-
R4Page 24The Grand Jury acknowledges and applauds County farmers’ efforts at reducing traditional pesticide and herbicide use. The Department of Environmental Management and The Office of the Agriculture Commissioner should consider a “Public Awareness Week” for increased dissemination of information regarding pesticide, health and clean water issues in Napa County. The Napa Board of Supervisors needs to be kept abreast of recent changes in State and Federal laws regarding use and monitoring of pesticides in our county. Response Requested From Napa County Agricultural Commissioner Napa County Director of Environmental Management Napa County Public Health Officer Napa County Board of Supervisors
-
R5Page 25Napa County DEM should comply with State requirements for chemical contaminant testing in ground and surface water at this time, and make use of the funds received for this task. Napa County DEM needs to comply or the testing should be turned over to State regulators. Response Requested From Napa County Director of Environmental Management Napa County Board of Supervisors
-
R6Page 26The Public Health Officer, Agriculture Commissioner, and DEM should maintain public education programs which encourage reporting and detection of both acute and chronic illness related to pesticide exposure. All reasonable requests for investigation of illness or injury caused by pesticides should be fully investigated and tracked by a joint database and good communication between all three agencies. Property owners’ requests for no pesticide use on their property should be honored. No forced spraying should be considered for areas around schools, daycare centers, hospitals, retirement homes, parks, tourist areas, medical and vet facilities, creeks and other bodies of water. Chemically sensitive persons, such as cancer patients, AIDS patients, asthmatics, and others with compromised immune systems should be notified prior to any spraying. Response Requested From Napa County Agricultural Commissioner Napa County Director of Environmental Management Napa County Public Health Officer Napa County Board of Supervisors AUDITOR – COUNTY OF NAPA The Napa County Auditor-Controller Department provides accounting and internal audit services to various county government entities, including but not limited to county agencies, or special districts. It utilizes two major software systems provided by Megabite (Property Tax) and PeopleSoft (Financial, Payroll/Personnel) and many in-house developed spreadsheets and databases tools, mostly developed on Microsoft Corporation product platforms. This department works closely with the County Treasurer’s Office and the County Assessor. The County Auditor-Controller Department provides to county managers financial reports including budget information. SUMMARY OF GRAND JURY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Bartig, Basler & Ray (B.B &R.) is the certified public accountant firm contracted by the County to provide the independent audit of the county’s annual financial statements. The current contract is for a period of three years for the Fiscal Years Ending (FYE) 2002, 2003 and 2004 and was renewed in 2001 . The County should contract with a different independent audit firm in the next cycle to ensure freshness of opinion. 2. The County is currently working to implement and comply with Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement No. 34 (GASB- 34), which establishes new financial reporting requirements for state and local governments. In compliance with GASB-34, the Board of Supervisors established with the adoption of Resolution No. 01-83 a policy for budgetary controls that defines the value of fixed assets. The Grand Jury finds that the County’s decision to expense physical assets individually valued at less than $5,000 that excludes those assets from the Balance Sheet will understate the property, plant and equipment assets held by Napa County. 3. In addition to its duties as the independent auditor, B.B. & R. also provides accounting services to the County, specifically in implementing GASB-34. The Grand Jury recommends that different entities perform the independent audit function and accounting service, especially when establishing Pro-Forma Financial Statements and new accounting standards. 4. Napa County maintains many trust fund accounts. Problems with trust fund accounting have occurred in the past. Internal reports used by the Auditor-Controller’s Department to manage these Trust Funds demonstrate that the accounting processes are inadequate. The County Board of Supervisors should require that the independent auditor review the Trust Fund accounting system, its internal control structure and procedures, and report to the Board of Supervisors those matters which it considers to be material or worthy of consideration. PROCEDURE I. The Grand Jury obtained the following information: • The County Auditor-Controller was interviewed. • The lead independent audit manger from B.B.& R. was interviewed. II. The Grand Jury reviewed: • County of Napa Management Reports For the Years Ended June 30, 2000 and June 30, 2001. • County of Napa Annual Financial Report For the Fiscal Years Ended June 30, 1999; June 30, 2000; and June 30, 2001. • General Ledger Organization Budget Status, County of Napa For the Periods: 1 to 12, FY 2000; 1-12, FY 2001; and 1 to 6, FY 2002. • General Ledger Organization Revenue Status, County of Napa For the Periods: 1 to 12, FY 2000; 1 to 12, FY 2001; and 1 to 6, FY 2002. • General Ledger Detail Transactions- Napa. For Fiscal Year 2001, Period 1 to 12. • Trust by Program of Trust Fund List(s) as of 6/30/01 and 12/31/01. • An exhibit listing all of the County’s bank accounts prepared by the Treasurer-Tax Collector. • An exhibit prepared by the Auditor-Controller’s Department listing all of the local government entities of Napa County and the identified responsibilities (either accounting services or internal audit) of the Auditor-Controller. • An exhibit of General Fund Budget Transfers for FY 2000-2001. • GASB-34. • Resolution No.01-83. Resolution of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Napa State of California. Policy For Budgetary Controls. • Contracts between B.B.&R. and The County of Napa for audit services for the FYE 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 and FYE 2002, 2003 and 2004. BACKGROUND I. B.B & R. Overview B.B.&R. is the certified public accountant firm contracted by the County of Napa to provide the independent audit of the county’s annual financial statements. This firm was originally awarded the outside audit contract by the county in 1986 for the FYE 1987,1988 and 1989. The contract with the county was subsequently extended to include FYE 1990,1991, 1992 and 1993.For the FYE 1994,1995 and 1996, Marcias & Company provided the outside independent audit service. In 1996, the county awarded a contract to B.B.&R. to conduct the independent audit function for the FYE 1997,1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001. The contract with this firm was renewed to include FYE 2002, 2003 and 2004. The county included the 2000-2001 Napa County Grand Jury Audit Committee (Audit Committee) in the decision process for the most current contract. The County Auditor-Controller opined that with the implementation of GASB- 34 required in 2002, that the extension of the B.B.&R. contract was appropriate in consideration of the firm’s familiarity of the County’s financial systems and methods. The Audit Committee does not disagree with the Auditor-Controller’s opinion. As permitted but not required by statute, the county may solicit competing bids to provide the annual independent audit of its financial statements, and should the county receive competing bids, it may award the contract based upon merit and cost. Regarding the most recently completed independent audit contract, no other accounting firm was requested to submit a proposal to provide the county with auditing services. Along with the independent audit function provided by B.B.& R. the Auditor-Controller’s office requested that this firm provide consulting services (establish Pro-Forma Financial Statements for the FYE 2001) for the implementation of GASB-34. The scope of work described in the contract between B.B.&R. and the county executed in 2001 did not anticipate this additional work. It was believed by the Auditor-Controller that the Pro-Forma Financial Statements could be created by existing county staff. II. Policy for Budgetary Controls—Fixed Assets and GASB-34 The county is currently working to comply with GASB-34, Basic Financial Statements-- and Management’s Discussion and Analysis—for State and Local Governments. The Preface to Statement No. 34 reads as follows: “This Statement establishes new financial reporting requirements for state and local governments throughout the United States. When implemented, it will create new information and restructure much of the information that governments have presented in the past. We developed these new requirements to make annual reports more comprehensive and easier to understand and use.” One of the most significant changes to the financial statements of the County of Napa will be the inclusion of capital assets , including infrastructure assets, in the county wide statement of net assets. Resolution No. 01-83, entitled “Policy For Budgetary Controls” was adopted June 19, 2001 by the Napa County Board of Supervisors and defines the policy for fixed assets in paragraph number 8 as follows: “All requests to establish fixed assets, or to reallocate fixed asset appropriations, require the approval of the Board of Supervisors, either through the budget process or else during a Board of Supervisors meeting, and are to be established in the Equipment account line item (356600010). Fixed assets are those items of equipment, including PC’s (sic) and related peripherals or furnishings, each valued at $5,000 or more.” Physical assets purchased by the County that are not capitalized and established as fixed assets under the County’s policy are expensed in the current fiscal year. It is not clear to the Grand Jury that with the adoption of the policy and if by expensing rather than capitalizing physical assets, that those assets would be included in the Physical Assets Inventory (Asset Tagged) by Napa County. III. Trust Funds The County of Napa holds many trust funds. As of December 31, 2001 the Auditor-Controller was responsible for the accounting of 1,132 active trust fund accounts. The value of individual trust fund accounts varies from $0 to several million dollars. These accounts are broadly characterized by the following categories: County General Fund, Special Revenue Funds, Permanent Funds, Pension Funds, Investment Funds, Private Purpose Funds and Agency Funds. The trust funds are further identified by individual county departments, courts, agencies and commissions such as Health and Human Services, Public Works and the District Attorney’s Office. Many but not all of these trust accounts accrue interest. Accounting for these trust fund accounts is cumbersome. Notations included on the Trust Fund Accounts spreadsheets provided to the Grand Jury and dated June 30, 2000, June 30, 2001 and December 31, 2001 indicate that many of the accounts are very old, should be inactivated, or should be valued at $0 at the fiscal year end (allocated) and yet show significant dollar amounts. In fairness to the Auditor-Controller Department, the Grand Jury acknowledges that spreadsheet notations indicate that various County entities were requested to provide information regarding trust fund accounts that could be made inactive or that required specific instructions by the entity as to how the funds should be allocated. In the two year financial period reviewed by this investigation specific to the Trust Fund accounts, the Grand Jury is able to conclude (based upon no change in the notations) that the County entities either ignored the request, did not prioritize the request or were not able to provide guidance in a timely manner. Two examples of accounts that should show zero balances at year end are: 1. FBA:ST/CO PROP TAX ADM-AB818, Program # 10168, $956,163.73; and, 2. FBA:SUPPLEMENTAL-SB813, Program # 70018, $931,285.52. In theory, unallocated funds are not available to a county entity until such action occurs. Problems with Trust Fund accounting were made public last year after it was discovered that one Trust Fund Account (an interest accruing account specific to property tax) was inadvertently unaccounted for due to a change in the staff person responsible for property tax accounting, and partially due to a chronic staff shortage in the Auditor-Controller’s office. Since this disclosure, the Auditor-Controller has implemented departmental cross-training programs to mitigate these sorts of accounting errors, and was able to fill staff vacancies.
-
R8Page 58None.
-
R9Page 59The FCD staff should report to the Financial Oversight Committee, the Board of Supervisors, the various City Councils and the public through the media the nature and extent of the shortfall and the contingency plans to meet it. Response Requested From (to Findings 2, 3, 4, 6 and 9) Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Board NAPA-VALLEJO WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY A joint committee of the Napa and Solano County Grand Juries was appointed to review the activities of the Napa Vallejo Waste Management Authority, a Joint Powers Authority (JPA). SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Commendations 8
-
CM1 Page 52In last year’s NCFD Budget, there was a large surplus of revenue available at the end of the fiscal year. This is money that was not disbursed, but was “rolled over” into this year’s budget and is kept in an interest bearing Fire Protection Fund (1080). The amount of money in this fund was $3,278,727 as of 1/31/2002 according to the County Auditor.
-
CM2 Page 27Bartig, Basler & Ray (B.B &R.) is the certified public accountant firm contracted by the County to provide the independent audit of the county’s annual financial statements. The current contract is for a period of three years for the Fiscal Years Ending (FYE) 2002, 2003 and 2004 and was renewed in 2001 . The County should contract with a different independent audit firm in the next cycle to ensure freshness of opinion.
-
CM3 Page 27The County is currently working to implement and comply with Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement No. 34 (GASB- 34), which establishes new financial reporting requirements for state and local governments. In compliance with GASB-34, the Board of Supervisors established with the adoption of Resolution No. 01-83 a policy for budgetary controls that defines the value of fixed assets. The Grand Jury finds that the County’s decision to expense physical assets individually valued at less than $5,000 that excludes those assets from the Balance Sheet will understate the property, plant and equipment assets held by Napa County.
-
CM4 Page 27In addition to its duties as the independent auditor, B.B. & R. also provides accounting services to the County, specifically in implementing GASB-34. The Grand Jury recommends that different entities perform the independent audit function and accounting service, especially when establishing Pro-Forma Financial Statements and new accounting standards.
-
CM5 Page 27Napa County maintains many trust fund accounts. Problems with trust fund accounting have occurred in the past. Internal reports used by the Auditor-Controller’s Department to manage these Trust Funds demonstrate that the accounting processes are inadequate. The County Board of Supervisors should require that the independent auditor review the Trust Fund accounting system, its internal control structure and procedures, and report to the Board of Supervisors those matters which it considers to be material or worthy of consideration. PROCEDURE I. The Grand Jury obtained the following information: • The County Auditor-Controller was interviewed. • The lead independent audit manger from B.B.& R. was interviewed. II. The Grand Jury reviewed: • County of Napa Management Reports For the Years Ended June 30, 2000 and June 30, 2001. • County of Napa Annual Financial Report For the Fiscal Years Ended June 30, 1999; June 30, 2000; and June 30, 2001. • General Ledger Organization Budget Status, County of Napa For the Periods: 1 to 12, FY 2000; 1-12, FY 2001; and 1 to 6, FY 2002. • General Ledger Organization Revenue Status, County of Napa For the Periods: 1 to 12, FY 2000; 1 to 12, FY 2001; and 1 to 6, FY 2002. • General Ledger Detail Transactions- Napa. For Fiscal Year 2001, Period 1 to 12. • Trust by Program of Trust Fund List(s) as of 6/30/01 and 12/31/01. • An exhibit listing all of the County’s bank accounts prepared by the Treasurer-Tax Collector. • An exhibit prepared by the Auditor-Controller’s Department listing all of the local government entities of Napa County and the identified responsibilities (either accounting services or internal audit) of the Auditor-Controller. • An exhibit of General Fund Budget Transfers for FY 2000-2001. • GASB-34. • Resolution No.01-83. Resolution of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Napa State of California. Policy For Budgetary Controls. • Contracts between B.B.&R. and The County of Napa for audit services for the FYE 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 and FYE 2002, 2003 and 2004.
-
CM6 Page 47The Grand Jury commends the volunteers in the NCFD for their long hours of service and training dedicated to the safety and support of our communities. The value of this currently unpaid work force is significant and should be acknowledged by our community. Finding 2 There are problems with volunteer firefighter recruitment and retention in Napa County. Several volunteer stations are short on numbers of volunteers. In recent years, the number of persons interested in volunteer firefighting has been decreasing. Each year, as our County population increases, the volunteer stations in NCFD are called upon to increase their workload. Data confirm that most stations are making more calls each year. The annually increasing call- out rate is wearing on many of the volunteers. Recruiting and staffing of volunteer stations has become more difficult for most of the chiefs (there are a couple of exceptions to this where local community support is very strong). This difficulty is due to a combination of factors, including the rigorous training and certification required by the State, the time commitment necessary, problems with access to affordable housing in Napa County, and the fact that volunteer firefighters are not paid. At some stations, high volunteer turnover rate keeps training sessions to basics. Many younger volunteers eventually quit volunteer work to join paid fire departments or to pursue other paying jobs. Emergency calls during Monday-Friday daytime hours are the most challenging for most volunteer fire stations. Most of the volunteers are not readily available during those hours because they are working at their regular jobs, sometimes located out of area. Evenings and weekends are generally easier to staff. Recommendation 2 The Grand Jury recommends that the County initiate a paid weekday full-time staff of firefighters at certain volunteer stations where necessary. This could include a paid chief and one or two full-time paid firefighters. Calistoga initiated a system like this three years ago with good results; the City of St. Helena Fire Department also has a part-time paid chief. Some volunteer stations may not require this where staff is always readily available. This paid staff would facilitate Monday-Friday daytime calls, do local administrative work, keep up the facilities at the station, organize training/recruiting and most importantly, have a permanent staffing voice that could be more effectively heard by the NCFD administration. This system would decrease response times for emergency calls Monday-Friday daytime at some stations, as weekday staff would be available immediately at the volunteer stations. The NCFD should supplement the proposed full-time paid County fire station staff with a pay-per-call system where other on-call volunteers could handle evening and weekend calls, and would be paid on an hourly basis for all calls. Response Requested From CDF Napa County Board of Supervisors Napa County Executive Officer Finding 3 Central Dispatch located in the City of Napa initially receives most emergency “911” calls. For the unincorporated areas of Napa County, medical emergency and fire calls are then relayed to CDF Dispatch in St Helena. These calls are then relayed again to the appropriate volunteer firefighters via pagers or local community sirens. There have been delays of 8 minutes and longer from when a County resident dials 911 until the call is relayed to the volunteer station staff. A response time of 5 minutes or less to arrive on scene in order to initiate CPR or defibrillation is the goal generally accepted by most rescue agencies. CDF Dispatch is a complex system. When CDF initiated dispatching for the combined six-county CDF Ranger Unit, many observers felt that NCFD dispatching decreased in quality. Dispatchers have made errors when dispatching some NCFD Volunteer station fire engines. This has been either the result of inexperienced CDF Dispatch personnel, or from faulty information listed in the CAD (Computer Assisted Dispatch). There have been incidents of dispatchers sending the wrong fire engines to County fires or medical emergencies because they do not know all the proper dispatch tones or areas of responsibility for the volunteer stations. Some volunteer chiefs have had difficulty getting CDF dispatch administrators or supervisors to acknowledge and address these dispatch errors. Recommendation 3 The Grand Jury recognizes that it is a demanding task for CDF Dispatch to handle the six-county CDF Ranger Unit as well as NCFD dispatching. Nonetheless, all dispatchers need to be proficient in their knowledge of NCFD and required to perform this task at the highest level. Dispatchers need to know the proper tones, stations, roadways and volunteer areas of responsibility for all of Napa County. Dispatch Command needs to assure that Computer Assisted Dispatch (CAD) information is up to date and accurate for NCFD dispatch purposes. As problems arise with unsatisfactory CDF Dispatch performance, NCFD Volunteer chiefs need to be able to communicate effectively with CDF supervisors and get responses and honest efforts at problem solving from these administrators without delay. Response Requested From CDF Napa County Board of Supervisors Napa County Executive Officer Finding 4 CDF training for volunteers has been inconsistent, partly due to the fact that the CDF Training Officers have been transferred or promoted every two years on average. This constant turnover has created prolonged vacancies in the position at times and has led to poor continuity in volunteer training sessions provided by CDF. Many volunteer chiefs describe the CDF Training Officer position as a “stepping stone” where qualified personnel are moved or promoted to other jobs after a short period of time. Some volunteer chiefs complained that CDF training personnel do not always show up when they are scheduled and do not seem to give much priority to volunteer training sessions. Some volunteer chiefs have been told that CDF cannot give training to volunteers in summer months, due to their own CDF staffing needs. One volunteer chief has learned to rely more on neighboring CDF fire station personnel for training than on the CDF administration. He arranges training directly with the CDF stations rather than using the CDF Training Officer. Other chiefs rely mostly on their own local volunteer training programs. The recent appointment of a volunteer firefighter to the CDF County Training Officer position may help alleviate these training problems. This will likely depend on how long he is kept in that position by CDF, and the quality of the volunteer training the CDF allows him to implement. County unincorporated area station volunteers are not paid for either CDF training sessions or local training sessions. Recommendation 4 An improved and more reliable CDF training system should be implemented to make sure CDF fulfills its training agreements with the County for the volunteers. It may be necessary to reconsider the policy of changing the CDF Training Officer position every two years. One solution would be to create a specific County Training Officer position only for NCFD Volunteers, instead of relying on the CDF Training Officer. NCFD Volunteers should get the same high quality of training in a reliable and consistent manner, as do paid firefighters. Paid volunteer training sessions would likely improve County Volunteer participation, morale and performance. The Grand Jury recommends that NCFD pay the volunteers for training sessions. Response Requested From CDF Napa County Board of Supervisors County Executive Officer Finding 5 For most of fiscal year 2000-01, there was only one full-time employee at the CDF Maintenance Station in St. Helena providing all NCFD fire engine, emergency and routine equipment maintenance. Most of the volunteer chiefs think that this employee performs very well and does an excellent job, but he needs more help. There have been incidents of long waits (months) for routine maintenance service due to this staffing shortage. Some chiefs are waiting long periods for equipment testing and having to make do without equipment due to these delays. One full-time person staffs the CDF/NCFD warehouse and on occasion supply needs are slow to be filled. Usually there is no staffing of the warehouse on weekends. No data are published regarding the distribution of supplies to individual volunteer stations. Recommendation 5 A delay of months in some instances for routine maintenance seems excessive. There should be adequate maintenance staff persons available to address NCFD needs for timely equipment routine service. The CDF/NCFD warehouse should be adequately staffed and supplies readily available to the volunteer stations whenever necessary, including on weekends. There should be records available regarding distribution of supplies to individual NCFD Volunteer stations and tracking for the costs of these disbursements. Response Requested From CDF Napa County Board of Supervisors County Executive Officer Finding 6 The concept outlined by the MOU where the volunteer chiefs act as a meaningful Volunteer Chief Advisory Board is not working well. The volunteer chiefs that are content with the current system are content because they are favored by receiving equipment requests and other CDF resources. Other volunteer chiefs are less content and believe that CDF has no interest in volunteer chief participation in running NCFD. Recommendation 6 The Napa County Board of Supervisors (BOS) should reconsider its decision to have CDF administer the NCFD rather than the County. If the BOS chooses to maintain the current CDF administrated system for NCFD, the BOS should have at least one high level County administrator assigned exclusively to work with all of the NCFD Volunteer chiefs. This person should be readily available to the volunteer chiefs, and should communicate with all nine chiefs on an equal basis. This person would act as a liaison between CDF and the volunteer stations and would speak on behalf of the volunteer stations to the County Administrator and BOS in dealing with all the different segments of the NCFD system. This person should also see that funds for equipment are distributed fairly. Response Requested From CDF Napa County Board of Supervisors Napa County Executive Officer Finding 7 In last year’s NCFD Budget, there was a large surplus of revenue available at the end of the fiscal year. This is money that was not disbursed, but was “rolled over” into this year’s budget and is kept in an interest bearing Fire Protection Fund (1080). The amount of money in this fund was $3,278,727 as of 1/31/2002 according to the County Auditor. Recommendation 7 This Grand Jury does not have the resources to examine the reasons for this surplus or to recommend a resolution to the question of excess funding in Fund 1080. The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors appoint a team of County staff including an auditor to look into the issue and make recommendations to the Board including changes to the MOU if necessary. Response Requested From CDF Napa County Auditor/Controller Napa County Board of Supervisors Napa County Executive Officer NAPA RIVER FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT The Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (NFC) has historically been an agency of the County of Napa operating as a division of the Napa County Department of Public Works. In 1998 the voters of Napa County passed an increase of one half of one percent in the sales tax to fund the local share of a $180,000,000 (estimate at the time) Napa Flood Management Plan designed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers with great input from Community Coalition for Napa Flood Management. The NFC sponsored the Plan. In the process, the NFC Board of Directors, formerly the Board of Supervisors was changed to add to the Board of Supervisors the Mayors of each of the County’s Cities and a City Council person from the City of Napa. In 1999 bonds were sold in the amount of $43,650,000 to finance the start of the plan. SUMMARY OF GRAND JURY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Finding 1 Income from the sales tax is running ahead of projections by 7.1 million dollars in three years. Finding 2 In the acquisition files examined by the Grand Jury there was no instance in which the original offer was less than the appraised value. In only one instance was there an appraisal with a range of value and in that instance the initial offer was at the highest of the range. Finding 3 The antagonism and bitterness that resulted from condemnation is the fault of the process and not the fault of FCD personnel. The better the process is understood by the property owner, the less the bitterness. Finding 4 Negotiations for the acquisition of property and relocation expenses are conducted by consultants hired by the FCD and only rarely by FCD personnel. Finding 5 FCD personnel have conducted themselves honorably and with integrity in the land acquisition process, and the grand jury commends them for their conduct. Finding 6 The Grand Jury finds that, other than going permanently out of business, one of the worst things that can happen to a business that is located on property needed for the Project is to be closed from the time of the order of possession until a new location can be found. Temporary closure is devastating to most businesses. Recommendation 6 The Board of Supervisors of the County and the Planning Commission and Planning Staff of the County and the City Councils of the County’s Cities and their Planning Commissions and their Staffs should make every effort to accommodate applications for relocation of businesses closed by the Project, including but not limited to giving priority to such applications over other applications.
-
CM7 Page 83The Planning Director is commended by the Grand Jury for his leadership in the Department. Finding 2 The Board of Supervisors is acting responsibly in refusing to allow housing on prime agricultural soils or in environmentally unacceptable locations. Finding 3 The process of environmental review of projects with the potential of causing harmful erosion (in part, new vineyards and replants) should continue to be improved so that critics are comfortable that the process ensures protection of the environment and property owners are assured that there is a process. The recent agreement for the Suscol Springs Vineyard Conversion Project (March) between critics of the process, property owners, and the Department is a foundation for putting this problem behind the County.
-
CM8 Page 89The Grand Jury commends the steering committee of the 2001 Napa City Housing Element for the excellent work they did in producing a comprehensive and socially supportive document. The Grand Jury also commends the individual efforts by members of the Continuum of Care for their ongoing work to resolve homelessness in Napa County.
No Responses Found 2
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
American Canyon
City
Napa County Board of Supervisors
Elected County Office