2010-2011 Napa County Grand Jury Reports

Recommendations 14

• R1

  Page 35
  City immediately issue a moratorium on ARLE right turn citations at the SH 29/12/121 intersection until such time as the legal requirements for yellow light interval times are firmly established and in place.
• R2

  Page 35
  City prepare a traffic engineering study at SH 29/12/121 in accordance with Caltrans’ Policy Directive 09-03, after the release of this report, to determine if alternative countermeasures or intersection improvements would address driver behavior patterns as an alternative to ARLE.
• R3

  Page 35
  NPD review and evaluate all SH 29/12/121 ARLE right turn citations, after the release of this report, and determine if a citation would have occurred under the most current enforcement practices.
• R4

  Page 35
  City issue refunds, after the release of this report, to drivers cited for right turn violations at SH 29/12/121 who would not have been cited if the current enforcement practices were in place. 16
• R5

  Page 36
  City immediately limits, after the release of this report, future applications of ARLE systems to turning movements that have a clear history of poor safety and excessive accidents.
• R6

  Page 36
  City monitors and evaluates the ARLE system for its benefits in reducing accidents and after the release of this report publishes its
• R7

  Page 36
  City continues the ARLE program if it clearly and substantially demonstrates that the program economically reduces accidents.
• R8

  Page 36
  City issues a letter to drivers, after the release of this report, specifying that the moving violation has been rescinded for those drivers cited for right turn violations at SH 29/12/121 who would not have been cited if the current enforcement practices were in place.
• R9

  Page 243
  HHS implement a procedure whereby all policies and procedures are numbered and their review and revision history becomes an integral part of the policy or procedure. Response, Director of Mental Health and Director of Health and Human Services: HHSA agrees with the Grand Jury’s recommendation to the extent it has not already occurred. The recommendation requires further analysis to determine if additional measures will be required to ensure full implementation. The Mental health Division has a formally adopted policy and procedure in place that provides for the adoption, numbering, and tracking of policies and procedures. However, the findings and recommendation do raise subsidiary issues relating to the development of certain unit-specific program manuals which were intended to supplant policies and procedures but did not expressly provide for their repeal; and the administration of these manuals, which can function in the same manner as policies and procedures and may also require a procedure for formal tracking and, when appropriate, retirement. The Mental Health Division’s Policy Committee will be asked to review known unit-based manuals and see to their repeal or formal integration into the Division’s policy and procedures system. This review will be completed and the results reported to the HHSA Director by December 31, 2010. HHSA’s current policy and procedure governing the administration of policies and procedures requires each division to maintain a numbering system for the cataloging of its polices and procedures; and the inclusion of a review and revision history at the end of each policy and procedure. That policy for the administration of P&P became effective in March, 2009. HHSA will review the current status of policy and procedures across the agency and make any necessary changes in systems to ensure that they are being appropriately cataloged, designated, and tracked as required under current guidelines. The review will also assess the question of whether older policies and procedures are coming within the new system through the requirement that all policies and procedures be reviewed and re- adopted every two years. This review will be completed and the results reported to the HHSA Director
• R10

  Page 244
  HHS modify the reporting of involuntary detentions statistics to Department of Mental Health to ensure these data accurately reflect the 5150 holds administered by the County. Response, Director of Mental Health and Director of Health and Human Services: HHSA agree in part and disagrees in part with this recommendation. Some actions have been taken which further this recommendation; other actions have not been taken but will be in the future. HHSA is unable to directly implement this recommendation because it involves State systems that are outside the control of Napa County. The data being collected by the Mental Health Division for its own analysis and use are different than the data required to be submitted local mental health facilities to the State Department of Mental Health. In 14 addition, Napa County does not have control over the criteria for data submitted to the State or the manner in which those data are utilized and reported by the State. This situation is further muddied by the fact that the State changed the types of facilities that were required to report information to the Department of Mental Health. It is suspected that this change resulted in a change in the utilization reported by the State. The Mental Health Division will endeavor to confer with officials at the State Department of Mental Health to confirm the application of State guidelines to information being reported by mental health facilities in Napa County. Division staff will contact these local facilities to relay any guidance provided by the State. The Division will endeavor to complete this process by December 31, 2010 however, its ability to do so is dependent on the ability of the Department of Mental Health to respond. HHSA has the need to collect and maintain data relating to the 5150 process that is different than the data being collected through the State system. This includes the need for more detailed data, including information on cases which may not have resulted in hospitalization, to allow for better analysis of trends and the effectiveness of services being provided by the Emergency Response Unit. HHSA will endeavor to more clearly distinguish this data collection effort from its activities in connection with the State mandated data collection process. AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 2009 Funds Awarded to Napa County The 2009-2010 Grand Jury published its final report on Funds Awarded to Napa County through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 on April 29, 2010. Responses were received from the following: • Napa County Auditor-Controller • Napa County Chief Executive Officer • Napa County Director of Community and Intergovernmental Affairs • Napa County Board of Supervisors Below are the findings and recommendations made by the 2009-2010 Grand Jury and following each finding and recommendation are the responses of each 15 respondent who was asked to respond to the specific finding and recommendation. The responses to the following findings and recommendations were found to meet statutory requirements.
• R11

  Page 299
  St. Helena accelerate its planning process and implementation of distribution and use recycled water. Response, City of St. Helena: Pursuant to 93305(b)(4) the recommendation will not be implemented because it is not reasonable. While the City recognizes recycled water should be put to beneficial use, the economic feasibility of implementing a recycled water product is daunting for a system with so few users. The City has researched and proposed a Recycled Water Project which involved an upgrade and expansion of the existing wastewater treatment facilities to provide up to 1,200 acre-feet of recycled water meeting tertiary, unrestricted reuse standards according to Title 22 to be utilized to offset current use of potable water for irrigation of school grounds, parks, and other City properties, groundwater currently used by vineyards for irrigation, and to enhance drought and fire protection. However the demand for recycled water is likely to be highest during the driest months than when flows into the sewage treatment plant are at their lowest. This means that recycled water could not be a meaningful factor in augmenting supply for non-potable use without the addition of substantial storage capacity. It would be necessary to provide recycled water storage, pumping and distribution facilities, which includes at minimum, a 400 acre-feet of storage. The City does not own land at a location suitable for such storage capacity and the cost of purchasing land and constructing more storage is fiscally challenging to so few rate payers and the City is not currently capable to produce funds for such a significant capital cost.
• R12

  Page 299
  NSD proactively and aggressively identify funding sources to accelerate expansion of recycled water service in Napa. Response, Napa Sanitation District: This recommendation has been implemented. NSD is currently a member of the North Bay Water Reuse Authority, an organization omitted to securing state and federal resources to promote the expansion of recycled water throughout Marin, Sonoma and Napa Counties. Through membership in this organization, which has been supported financially by Napa County, NSD has been awarded $1.5M in federal grants to expand recycled water pipeline through the Napa State Hospital and into the MST area. If partnership agreements are reached with future beneficiaries of an expanded recycled water system to other areas, NSD will continue to develop projects and pursue external funding sources to expand the use of recycled water.
• R13

  Page 300
  That the City of Napa apply for funding sources for capital improvements to fluoridate water supplies for its three treatment plants in compliance with AB 733. Response, City of Napa: The City does not intend to implement this recommendation since it is not warranted. The responsibility of the Water Division is to provide safe and dependable water delivery to the community. Treatment and distribution programs are focused on these goals. Requests for capital funding are prioritized for treatment technology to meet water quality regulations, upgrades to the distribution system that is more than 100 years old in some areas, and investment in water supplies to ensure adequate water is available to the community through 2050. Less than one percent of the water treated by the City of Napa is consumed by the population. Of this one percent, only a small percentage includes children that get the most benefit from fluoride in the water. Of that small percentage, an even smaller percentage is children that don’t get fluoride from other sources such as toothpaste and mouthwash. Funds would be better applied directly to those needing treatment, rather than spending over $1M to treat 100% of the water with fluoride when far less than 1% of the water reaches the intended beneficiary of the treatment. The Department of health and Social Services is in a better position to distribute fluoride through clinics and dental outlets if there are real benefits to be achieved.
• R14

  Page 300
  That American Canyon, Calistoga, St. Helena, and Yountville prepare capital cost proposals for fluoridation of their water supplies. Response, City of American Canyon: Before the City can agree or disagree with the Grand Jury recommendation, the City Council will refer this proposal to its Blue 70 Ribbon Committee on Water Resources, a community technical advisory group, who will evaluate the merits of fluoridation and provide a recommendation to the City Council early next year. Response, City of Calistoga Public Works Director: The recommendation will not be implemented per California Penal Code 933.05 (a)(4), as it is not warranted nor reasonable. While fluoridation does have certain benefits, it is not required for a small system such as Calistoga’s, and there is no community support for such an initiative. Calistoga is currently undertaking a comprehensive review of the City’s water system, including the operation and funding of same, as part of a water rate-setting process. During approximately 18 publicly-noticed meetings conducted by the Council-appointed advisory committee, there was extensive public commentary and participation, but no requests for fluoridation. In light of the substantial water rate increases now being contemplated, even without the provision of new fluoridation systems the additional costs of fluoridation (estimated on an order-of-magnitude basis of $80,000 initially plus $6,000 per year) do not appear to be justified. Furthermore, City water customers can make choices on fluoride use through widely available, over-the-counter fluoride supplements and toothpaste. Response, City of St. Helena: Pursuant to 933.05(b)(4) the recommendation will not be implemented because it is not required of small water systems. The City of St. Helena’s 2009 Consumer Confidence Report (Annual Drinking Water Quality Report) showed that laboratory testing found 0.56 parts per million (ppm) of fluoride detected so there is some fluoride in the water supply. Fluoridation is most beneficial to children, most toothpastes have fluoride, and fluoride supplements can be purchased for children. If the City Council insisted on fluoridation, then there are up front capital costs to add fluoride to the water treatment process and ongoing chemical purchase costs that would likely to be paid by the City. The City Council is evaluating the need to increase water rates, which is not what rate payers want during these difficult economic times. Since fluoridation would increase the rates higher, the benefits do not justify the costs spread to all rate payers. Additionally, there is rapidly growing scientifically supported opposition evidencing that fluoridation, long promoted to fight tooth decay, is ineffective an has serious health risks. One fact contrary to the belief that began in the 1940s and 1950s that fluoride needed to be swallowed in order to be most effective shows that according to the Centers for Disease Control. Fluoride’s “predominant effect is posteruptive and topical”, and any benefits that accrue from the use of fluoride, come from the direct application of fluoride to the outside of 71 teeth (after they have erupted into the mouth) and not from ingestion. Therefore, there is no need to expose all other tissues to fluoride by swallowing it.” NAPA COUNTY SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS BUREAU 24-HOUR DRUG HOTLINE (707) 224-DRUG The 2009-2010 Grand Jury published its final report on the Napa Special Investigations Bureau on June 8, 2010. Responses were received from the following: • Napa County Board of Supervisors • Napa County Executive Officer • Napa County Chief Probation Officer • NSIB Governing Board • NSIB Special Agent Supervisor The 2009-2010 Grand Jury did not ask the respondents to respond to findings, as the law requires. A request to respond to the findings was made by the 2010-2011 Grand Jury. The respondents did respond to the findings. Below are the findings and recommendations made by the 2009-2010 Grand Jury and following each finding and recommendation are each of the responses of each respondent who was asked to respond to the specific finding and recommendation. The responses to the following findings and recommendations were found to meet statutory requirements.