Score: +2 (2/24/0)
Napa County Grand Jury • 2021-2022

Consolidated Final Report

Published: December 31, 2020 236 pages Consolidated Report
Ver PDF original

Findings 16 findings

F1 Page 17
Many Angwin residents interviewed stated they did not recall having received notice prior to the Napa County Board of Supervisors’ ‘yes vote’ in favor of keeping Old Howell Mountain Road closed. The Grand Jury is aware that under the Brown Act, no more than 72 hours’ notice of any agenda item is required. But depite repeated efforts, the Grand Jury was unable to confirm that even so minimal a notice occurred. Moreover, given the level of local concern about Old Howell Mountain Road, more prominent notice and even the opportunity for a public hearing would have been appropriate. Had this happened, years of concern and confusion could have been avoided.
F2 Page 17
These residents believe that they did not receive an explanation of why Old Howell Mountain was not repaired and they were not adequately represented in the decision-making process.
F3 Page 17
The residents of Angwin have been impacted multiple times by evacuations due to wildfires and want to have as many evacuation routes as possible, in order to avoid a tradgedy like the Paradise, California scenario.
F4 Page 17
The Napa County Board of Supervisors caused unnecessary mistrust in their local government by not sufficiently communicating with Angwin-area residents regarding the closure of Old Howell Mountain Road.
F5 Page 17
Multiple agencies, including , Napa County Office of Emergency Services, Napa County Public Works, CalFire, Napa County Fire Department and local construction companies have deemed the road unrepairable, due to a nearly three-mile long section of unstable ground and other hazards; however, the Napa County Office of Emergency Services and the Napa 1 Only after careful research was the Grand Jury able to find a general reference to Howell Mountain Road on the December 8, 2020 Board of Supervisors meeting agenda. Item 10B included the following: “Director of Public Works requests discussion and possible direction on the status of Old Howell Mountain Road.” Supporting Documents and a Roads 4 Year Plan were also referenced. Public comments by one resident were not read but added subsequently after the meeting. There was no mention of a final vote. 7 (cid:3072) County Board of Supervisors did not effectively communicate to the public their reasons for their decision not to repair the road.
F6 Page 24
City residents do not have easy access to sidewalk repair information due to the Public Works Department’s outdated sidewalks website. An updated website could help to inform the public about the City of Napa’s strong financial and operational commitment to sidewalk repair given budgetary constraints.
F7 Page 34
Given present resources and staffing, the Public Defender’s office provides consistently high-quality representation to defendants in the cases in which it is appointed.
F8 Page 73
The absence of expertise in CDD regarding the renovation of historic sites means that some historic building project applications might not receive appropriate review.
F9 Page 89
The County has not taken steps, as recommended by its consultants, to establish a lead County agency or department to review local policies affecting broadband across various County jurisdictions to ensure they are consistent, sensible, and broadband-friendly.
F10 Page 89
The County has only allocated part-time staff resources (for whom broadband is only one of many important roles), to work on broadband issues, whereas other similarly situated counties appear better prepared, staffed, and are much further along in their planning processes.
F11 Page 89
Unlike neighboring counties, the County, its cities and towns, and other stakeholders have only recently started communicating with each other regarding their broadband needs. They do not seem prepared to coordinate strategies, development, the pursuit of grant funding, or project implementation.
F12 Page 89
The NCBP does not have a clearly articulated purpose or agenda that is understood by its participants and does not yet appear to be an effective stakeholder group.
F13 Page 89
While the County’s involvement with the RCRC, NBNCBC, and GSCA is positive, the speed with which the County is moving seems to be stuck in an out-of-date paradigm, when State and Federal funds were largely unavailable, and local agencies did not play a significant role in efforts to extend fast and reliable broadband availability.
F14 Page 89
There are no established ongoing forums for County residents, businesses, governmental units, schools, medical and emergency response, and others to identify and communicate with County leadership about their broadband needs, except about one-off access or service complaints.
F15 Page 89
The County has no priorities or queue of broadband projects that are “shovel-ready” for implementation, nor any resources available to identify such projects or supervise their implementation if they are funded. 15 (cid:3072)(cid:3074)
F16 Page 90
Without proper preparedness to compete for broadband grant funding (including a coherent strategic plan, adequate staffing, resources, and County-wide stakeholder coordination) the County may not be as successful at acquiring funds as it should be, and efforts may remain ad hoc and passive.

Recommendations 9

Commendations 3

Agency Responses 2

Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.

No Responses Found 2

Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.

County of Napa Agency
Napa County Board of Supervisors Elected County Office