Consolidated Final Report

Conclusions 6

• CL1 Page 35
  Receive the presentation regarding the California Land Conservation Act (CLCA) also known as the Williamson Act Program. including its administration, enforcement, policy, and tax assessment and revenue implications;
• CL2 Page 35
  Provide direction as to whether staff should take one or more of the following actions: a. Amend the Local Rules and/or Contract forms for Type A and/or Type H Williamson Act Agricultural Preserves and Agricultural Preserve contracts to address the issues raised by the elimination of Rule 13 in 2001; and b. Investigate and take action regarding contracts that are not in compliance with current minimum requirements or contract terms. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Napa County's commitment to the preservation of agriculture is evident through the variety and breadth of local programs enacted over the past 50 years. These include implementation of the County's historic Agricultural Preserve (AP) Zoning District in 1968 (Ordinance No. 274), Measure A In 1980 (which limits the number of residential building permits issued annually in the unincorporated area), Measures J and P enacted in 1990 and 2008 respectively (which prohibit any land use change or Intensification of non-agricultural land uses in agricultural zoning without prior voter approval), the Winery Definition Ordinance enacted in 1990 which strictly limits wineries and their accessory uses, the Right-to-Farm Ordinance also adopted In 1990, and adoption of the General Plan in
• CL3 Page 36
  Discussion and possible direction to staff. FISCAL IMPACT Is there a Fiscal Impact? No ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed action is not a project as defined by 14 California Code of Regulations 15378 (State CEQA Guidelines) and therefore CEOA is not applicable. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION For the past half-century, Napa County has been in the forefront of agricultural preservation, both in California and in the nation. As a result of strong policies and consistent leadership, unincorporated Napa County is one of the few jurisdictions that has withstood intense economic pressure and remained almost exclusively agricultural, despite being located within one of the largest metropolitan areas in the United States. In the past, the cities and county have jointly worked to support this vision. The County has generally foregone new sales and transient occupancy tax opportunities. and has instead focused urban development into the five cities. In return, most of the cities have adopted Urban limit Lines and have historically mtnimized annexations. Voters in both the cities and the county have voted on several proposals subject to Measure J (a ~ 990 voter-sponsored initiative that prohibits any land use change or intensification of non-agricultural land uses in agricultural zoning without prior voter approval}, and in 2008 further extended those provisions to 2058 through Measure P. As noted in the Visit Napa Valley surveys of people visiting Napa, the two main reasons for their travels are the wine-tasting and scenery, both of which are the responsibility of the County. It is this reason why the issue of the protection of farmland is so important. Agricultural preservation allows for the maintenance of a rural lifestyle for many, and allows us to continue our historical communities and traditions. but most importantly is that agricultural serves as the economic backbone tor the nearly 40,000 families who live and work within Napa County. The California Land Conservation Act (CLCA) of 1965, commonly referred to as the Williamson Act, is one program within the array of policies used by the County to manage the unincorporated area for the greatest good. 27 Board Agenda Letter Tuesday, May 8, 2018 Page 3 The Term "Agricultural Preserve" The term "Agricultural Preserve" appears in both local zoning as well as the CLCA and has a diHerent meaning depending on the context it is used. The Napa County Agricultural Preserve (AP) Zoning District was implemented in 1968, and established agriculture as the highest and best use for lands primarily located within the Napa Valley. It increased the minimum parcel size for subdividing land within the AP District from 1-acre to 20-acres. ln 1997 the minimum parcel size within the AP District was increased again to 40-acres. Initially the AP zoning district included approximately 23,000-acres. Today the AP Zoning District contains approximately 32,000-acres and includes lands within the Napa Valley, Wooden Valley and Gordon Valley. A CLCA preserve refers to specific parcels where Williamson Act contracts are allowed. Before the County can enter into a contract with a property owner, the Board must first establish a CLCA preserve (as opposed to the zoning Agricultural Preserve) to define the geographic area within which the County is willing to enter into a contract with the property owner. Napa County has designed its rules to require that each property subject to contract constitutes its own CLCA preserve. Whether or not a parcel is eligible for a contract and associated CLCA preserve depends on its size and agricultural use as determined by the Planning Building Environmental Services (PBES) Department in cooperation with the Agricultural Commissioner. Under Government Code 51230, land within a designated CLCA preserve that is not otherwise agricultural land, shall be restricted by zoning including appropriate minimum parcel size. CLCA Overview· The CLCA enables local governments to enter into voluntary contracts with private landowners for the purpose of restricting specific parcels of land to agricultural, open space, or recreational use. In return, landowners receive reduced property tax assessments based on the restricted uses rather than full market value. Local governments were partially reimbursed for the associated tax losses via an annual subvention payment provided for in the Open Space Subvention Act (OSSA) until 2009, when the State eliminated subvention funding for the CLCA. Agricultural use is defined as the commercial production of agricultural commodities. which in general includes fruits. vegetables, grains, legumes, animal feed, seed crops, bio-fuel and oilseed crops, nursery stock, trees lor lumber products. sod, livestock, poultry, horses for commercial sale, and other commodities accepted by local jurisdictions based on the recommendation of the Agricultural Commissioner. "Prime agricultural" means land that either:
• CL4 Page 37
  Planted with fruit or nut-bearing trees, vines, bushes, or crops with a non-bearing period of less than five years and which will return during the bearing period no less than $200 per acre annual gross income; or
• CL5 Page 37
  Other lands producing unprocessed agricultural plant products with an annual gross value of not less than $200 per acre for three of the last five years. In all cases, prime land must be irrigated to support agriculture on the premises. "Non-prime agricultural"lands are thos~ lands that do not meet the definition of prime agricultural lands and are generally used tor grazing and dry farmmg. 28 Board Agenda Lener Tuesday, May8,2018 Page 4 A Williamson Act contract is an enforceable contractual restriction. Failure to meet the terms and conditions will result in breach of contract In the case of breach, the local jurisdiction may seek a court injunction to enforce the terms of the contract. The contract and associated CLCA preserve are governed by rules that specify the uses allowed. Generally, any commercial agricultural use will be permitted within a CLCA preserve. In addition, local jurisdictions have the flexibility to identify and permit other activities they deem compatible with agricultural use. Contracts have an initial term of 10 years, run with the land, and are binding on all successors. Unless a non renewal is filed, the term automatically extends for an additional year each January 1. Thus a contract signed in 1969 still has a 10 year term as of January 1, 2017. Non-renewal can be initiated by either the land owner or the County. When a notice of non-renewal is served and recorded, the annual tax assessment gradually increases over nine years (unless the property owner protests a county-initiated non-renewal, in which case the increase in taxes takes place over the last five years of the non-renewal period), at which time the contract expires. Currently there are approximately 1,241-acres within the county that are in non-renewal. For examples of why non-renewal was pursued see the 'Program Compliance and Enforcement' section below. Contracts can also be prematurely cancelled either by the landowner or the local jurisdiction. A landowner can petition the local jurisdiction to cancel a contract. The landowner must pay a cancellation fee equal to 12.5% of the unrestricted fair marKet value of the property. Remedies for material breach of contract may include penalties of 25% of the value of the affected land and 25% of the value of any improvements built in violation of the law, local regulations, or the contract. A CLCA preserve defines the boundary of an area within which a city or county will enter into Williamson Act contracts with landowners. The boundary is designated by resolution of either the Board of Supervisors (Board) or City Council (Council) having jurisdiction. Only land that is located within a CLCA preserve is eligible for a Williamson Act contract. CLCA preserves are regulated by rules and restrictions designated in the resolution to ensure that the land within the preserve is maintained for agricultural or open space use. A CLCA preserve must consist of no less than 100 acres. Although Napa County currently requires a separate CLCA preserve for each parcel under contract, older CLCA preserves may include two or more parcels and/or owners. Smaller CLCA preserves may be established if a Board or Council determines that the unique characteristic of the agricultural enterprise in the area calls for smaller agricultural units and if the establishment of the CLCA preserve is consistent with the jurisdiction's General Plan. In 1998, the California Legislature amended the law to allow Farmland Security Zones (FSZ), which are also referred to as Super Williamson Act parcels, where, in exchange for further property tax breaks, the land is committed to agricultural use for a 20-year period. A FSZ is an area created within a CLCA preserve by a board of supervisors upon request by a landowner or group of landowners. The land restricted by an FSZ contract is valued for property assessment purposes at 65% of its Williamson Act valuation or 65% of its Proposition 13 valuation, whichever is lower. Napa County does not currently participate in the FSZ program (25 counties currently allow for FSZ contracts}. Presently, approximately 15 million acres of California's 31.4 million acres of farm and ranch lands are restricted by Williamson Act contracts. Of California's 58 counties, 53 participate in the program: county's that do not participate include Del Norte, San Francisco, lnyo and Yuba. (Alpine and Los Angeles Counties have enacted the program but have no existing Williamson Act contracts.) In January of 2011, Imperial County exited the program by filing Notices of Non-renewal on all their Williamson Act Contracts (covering over 139,000-acres) as a result of the loss of subvention payments. To date no other county has chosen to exit the program. tn total approximately 492,000-acres of contracted land statewide are reported to be in non-renewaL The CLCA in Napa County: The County has been participating in the Williamson Act program since 1969 as a tool for promoting agricultural land preservation consistent with the County's agricultural heritage and General Plan agricultural preservation 29 Board Agenda Letter Tuesday, May 8, 2018 Page 5 goals and policies. • Goal AG!LU-1: Preserve existing agricultural land uses and planed of agriculture and related activities as the primary land use in Napa. • Policy AG/LU-6: The County will continue to study tax assessment policies which recognize the long-term intent of agricultural zoning and the fact that agricultural land uses require a minimum of public expenditure for protection and servicing. • Policy AG/LU-7: The County will research, evaluate, and pursue new approaches to ensure even stronger protections for the County's finite and irreplaceable agricultural resources. Approaches to be evaluated shall include implementation of a "Super Williamson Act" program, a conservation easement program or other permanent protections, and program promoting the economic viability of agriculture. Currently the County offers three types of contracts, Type A. Type C, and Type H. (There are no active Type C contracts.) Type A contracts are specific to the Agricultural Preserve (AP) zoning district. Type H contracts are for agricultural land that is not zoned AP. There are currently no active Type C contracts in Napa County. There are also Type E and F contracts, which are no longer offered, but remain in effect. To qualify tor the establishment of a CLCA preserve and associated contract, a parcel must meet a minimum size requirement and contain a bona fide agricultural use (or Agricultural commodity as defined by Government Code Section 51201.a). For prime agricultural land, if a parcel is either being zoned AP or meets the definition of Prime Agricultural Land within local rules, a minimum of 10 acres is required. For non-prime agricultural land (i.e. grazing land) a minimum 40-acre parcel is required. Applications for new enrollees into the Act are taken in during the month of September. Qualification requirements (i.e. minimum parcel size and agricultural use) are confirmed as part of the application review process. Contracts for qualifying parcels are prepared and sent to owners for signature(s). Returned contracts are set to be heard by the Board at the first meeting in December at which time preserves and contracts are authorized and approved. Approved contracts are then recorded prior to January 1 so that they are enrolled prior to the January 1 lien date. Parcels under contract cannot be subdivided during the term of a contract except to the extent permitted by Government Code Section 51230.1 (for immediate family members operating by Joint Management Agreement), or by Section 51230.2 (for agricultural labor housing). Cancellation of a contract can only be initiated by the landowner. To approve a cancellation, the Board must make specific rigorous findings pursuant to Government Code Section 51282. Additionally, the landowner must pay a cancellation fee equal to 12.5% of the unrestricted fair market value of the property if cancellation is approved. During the past 49 years, there have only been four cancellations which totaled approximately two acres of land released from contract. The last cancellation of a contract was a partial cancellation done in 2005. To date no other petition to cancel a contract has been processed largely due to the findings the Board must be able to make as well as the required payment of a cancellation fee. Financial Implications of the CLCA in Napa County: As of January 1, 2017 there are 848 parcels covered by CLCA contracts which contain 7 4, 711-acres of land. Attachment A is a map showing the location of contracted parcels. Qf these 848 parcels only 446 parcels receive any property tax benefit from the CLCA contract. The other 402 parcels are assessed at their Proposition 13 factored base year value. The total assessed value reduction for the 446 parcels receiving a benefit is $54 7,9 45,026 which translates into approximately $1,000,000 in reduced tax revenue for the Napa County General Fund. Attachment B shows the current and historical CLCA financial impacts. The Open Space Subvention Act (OSSA) was enacted by the State in 1972, to provide for the partial replacement of 30 Board Agenda Letter Tuesday, May 8, 2018 Page 6 local property tax revenue foregone as a result of participating in the CLCA and other open space programs. Th.e State eliminated subvention funding in the 2009-2010 Fiscal Year budget. In 2009, the last year the county rece1ved full subvention funding, the assessed value reduction for all contracted lands was $538,450,249 or roughly $1,000,000 in general fund revenue loss. In that year the subvention payment was approximately $90,000. Rule and Contract Updates: Over the years the County has periodically updated local Williamson Act Rules and/or Contract Forms, to stay current with the State Statue and local standards and practices. A major update was done in April2001 where the Local Preserve Rules and Contract forms were updated to the current rules and forms that are currently in place. This update was also required by amendments to the California Revenue and Taxation Code which changed the property lien date from March 1 to January 1, and included a general process calendar so that the Board would not need to review and adopt a processing calendar annually. Other relevant updates to the Rules and/or Contract Forms include:
• CL6 Page 54
  None of these fires could have been slowed or put out due to the combination of variables that made them unstoppable: warm temperatures, extremely high winds, low humidity, mountainous terrain, and abundant fuel. According to CAL FIRE, this event was overwhelming, and there just were not enough resources. All told, the Tubbs, Atlas Peak, and the Partrick/Nunn’s fires resulted in 1,051 structures lost or severely damaged, of which 611 were homes. In addition, 69,274 acres burned just in Napa County alone. Tragically, but miraculously, only 7 seven people died. State Senator Bill Dodd (Napa), who was evacuated from his home during the fires, said the system’s deficiencies need to be looked at closely. “I think this warrants an investigation on why that happened,” Dodd said. “We know because of climate change the fire season will be longer, so we need to build a robust system to handle the need. There are a lot of lessons we will learn from these events, from notification of people in their homes to mutual aid.”4 The fact that so few died in the most ferocious fire of our time, certainly speaks highly of the dedicated, well-trained professionals in firefighting, law enforcement, emergency personnel, and partners around the state. The relationships they have established over the years ensured the best outcome in a terrible situation. Further, the Grand Jury recognizes the many brave citizens of 4 San Francisco Chronicle, “Lawmakers to investigate response to Wine Country fire,” Nov. 20, 2017 44 Napa County who took it upon themselves to help their neighbors flee the fires and comfort those who were physically, financially, and emotionally affected.

Commendations 23

• CM1 Page 125
  In 2004, the Napa Board of Supervisors created a Criminal Justice Committee (CJC) to assess the local criminal justice system and its effect on jail use.
• CM2 Page 125
  In 2007, the BOS adopts Adult Criminal Justice Master Plan, which includes
• CM3 Page 125
  October 2011, the Public Safety Realignment Act of 2011 resulted in low-risk felons in State facilities be remanded to local jails. Having a more serious criminal history, they brought with them a “prison mentality.”
• CM4 Page 125
  In 2012 and 2013, the BOS adopted a Strategic Financial Plan, which emphasized setting aside funding for a new jail. The Community Corrections Partnership (CCP) proposed the development of a new 366-bed jail facility and a 50-bed re-entry facility. 112
• CM5 Page 126
  Sept 2013, the county purchased 27 acres at 2300 Napa/Valley Highway, adjacent to Syar Industries, for the purpose of constructing a 72-bed re-entry facility and future jail. The Staff Secure Re-entry Facility would be staffed by Probation and run by Napa County Department of Corrections.
• CM6 Page 126
  October 2013, the BOS applied for SB 1002 conditional funding of $14M for design and construction of a re-entry facility. Resolution 2013-124 states county required to pay a portion of costs.
• CM7 Page 126
  January 2014, Napa county was awarded nearly $14M in revenue lease bonds for constructing adult criminal justice facilities.
• CM8 Page 126
  August 2014 South Napa earthquake caused significant damage to downtown jail. Some inmates are sent to Solano County jail. Repairs to the building are still under construction (as of this writing).
• CM9 Page 126
  August 2015, Napa county applied for additional $20M in state lease revenue bonds under SB 863 for jail construction. Resolution 2015-105.
• CM10 Page 126
  November 2015, the county is awarded partial funding of $2.8 from state lease revenue bonds.
• CM11 Page 126
  June 2016 Election, Napa County voters turned down the quarter-cent sales tax to provide “much of the funding” for a $103M, 256-bed jail.
• CM12 Page 126
  April 2017, BOS applied for SB 844 state lease revenue bond financing.
• CM13 Page 126
  June 2017, County officials break ground on the construction of Re-entry facility. Napa Valley Register reports facility costs are $17M with state providing $13.5M. Remaining money from the county’s General Fund and funds dedicated to criminal justice activities.
• CM14 Page 126
  2017/18 County staff consider ways to fund the estimated gap of $70M to pay for the new jail.
• CM15 Page 126
  February 2018, Napa County Department of public Works posted it was seeking statements of qualifications (SOQs) from qualified architectural firms for design services required for the construction of a new jail. Facts included in the SOQs include: 304-bed jail; completion by fall 2021; 28 beds reserved for medical/mental health; estimated project cost of $128 million. Total funding from SB 844 and SB 863 to total $22.8M with the balance of project costs funded through “cash and debt financing.” 113
• CM16 Page 127
  March 2018, all inmates held in Solano County Jail are returned to the completed basement section in the Hall of Justice.
• CM17 Page 127
  May 15, 2018, Napa County staff presents funding options to the BOS. The gap in funding is presented as $20 million. No Board approval takes place at this meeting.
• CM18 Page 127
  May 22, 2018, the BOS approve the funding to include excess ERAF money, issuance of COPS up to $20 M, MSA fund balance, and intent to use annual MSA revenue for the community grant program.
• CM19 Page 127
  Fall 2018, Re-entry facility estimated completion with occupancy within 90 days.
• CM20 Page 127
  September 2021 (present estimation) new jail completion. The basement in Hall of Justice to be occupied by inmates ready for court appearances. APPENDIX B Jail Tour The grand jury toured the Napa County jail facility, located in downtown Napa, on November 14, 2017. Two subsequent tours allowed jury members to access areas unavailable on the initial tour. The director of the Department of Corrections conducted each tour. In general, and by its own description on the Napa County website (©2017), “the jail is an aging and deteriorating facility and it does not have many of the important facilities and services that maximize safety and health of officers and inmates.” Damage from the August 2014 earthquake is still visible. The Napa jail inmate population on November 14 totaled 196. An additional 47 inmates were housed in Solano County’s jail as a result of the 2014 Earthquake damage. Of the 243 inmates, 200 inmates were male, 43 were female; 172 were pre-sentenced, 71 post-sentenced. Forty-two inmates were assessed as mental health inmates requiring a single cell each. The percentage of felony-convicted inmates is approximately 87 percent. Jury members requested the tour begin at the sally port entry where a new arrestee would enter, followed by the initial booking area. Correctional officers determine risk classification in this area. We observed both single and multi-inmate cells, as well as dormitory-style living areas. At least one cell had boat beds (plastic, canoe-shaped trays designed for sleeping) on the floors, a result of overcrowding. Cells and hallways were clean and mostly free of graffiti. 114 We also observed six medical cells and the medical unit staffed by California Forensic Medical Group (CFMG). On November 14, seven inmates with severe mental health issues were waiting to be transferred back to Napa State Hospital. Kitchen and laundry areas are staffed by inmates who appeared to be performing their jobs well and efficiently. The new Control Room, with a redundant system, has an expected completion of spring 2018. Inmates being transferred from the building to courtrooms travel through a tunnel, or corridor. There are clear lines of demarcation where inmates walk; red emergency call buttons are along the walls, here and in other sensitive areas of the jail. There are two visitation areas, one for inmates and their attorneys, the other for general visitation. Only the conversations between attorney and client (inmates) are unmonitored. Exercise yards are empty of exercise equipment due to safety issues. Overhead netting has been installed to prevent drones from dropping contraband into the yard. Exercise time, mandated at 1 hour per inmate per day, is challenged by the need to segregate inmates by sex or gang affiliation to avoid volatile situations. At the time of our tours, the basement was still under construction. Its estimated time for completion, which would include the return of inmates housed in Solano County, was January 2018. We found all staff we met were collegial. While sharing knowledge of inmates, they expressed respect. Inmate housing areas include: Temporary
• CM21 Page 26
  C1. The Grand Jury commends the County employees who came forward and assisted the Grand Jury with this investigation. REQUEST FOR RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal Code section 933.05, the Grand Jury requests responses as follows: From the following individuals: The Assessor-Recorder-County Clerk: F1, F2, F6, R4. n 17 From the following governing bodies: The Board of Supervisors: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, R1, R2, R3. n INVITED RESPONSES The Grand Jury invites responses from: The Director of Planning, Building and Environmental Services: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, R1, n R2, R3. BIBLIOGRAPHY BOS meeting May 8, 2018 video: http://napa.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=4066 BOS meeting January 25, 2011 video: http://napa.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=1156 California Department of Conservation Williamson Act webpage (includes links to relevant statutes): http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/lca Napa County Williamson Act Application (includes Type-A, Type-H contracts and rules) https://www.countyofnapa.org/documentcenter/view/3384 Napa County Assessor’s Williamson Act webpage: https://www.countyofnapa.org/1088/California-Land-Conservation-Williamson-Act California Board of Equalization Williamson Act webpage (includes links to relevant statutes): http://www.boe.ca.gov/Assessors/pdf/clca_general.pdf
• CM22 Page 100
  The Napa County Grand Jury commends: C1. The California Human Development Corporation and housing center staff for the operations of the Farmworker Housing Centers. REQUEST FOR RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal Code section 933.05, the Grand Jury requests responses as follows: From the following governing bodies: Napa County Board of Supervisors: R1, R2, and R3 The Napa County Grand Jury invites responses as follows: California Human Development Corporation: R3 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 jury. 89
• CM23 Page 90
  NAPA COUNTY GRAND JURY 2017-2018 June 5, 2018 FINAL REPORT Financial Challenges Persist at Napa Valley Unified School District 90 Financial Challenges Persist at Napa Valley Unified School District June 5, 2018 SUMMARY The Napa Valley Unified School District (NVUSD) has experienced operational budget deficits for the past four years. Budget deficits are now projected through 2022 and are estimated to total more than $12 million. The deficits are primarily a result of shrinking student enrollment that has lowered District revenues, and increasing costs associated with two large pension programs, the Public Employee Retirement System (PERS) and the State Teachers Retirement System (STRS). Both of these factors are outside of the District’s direct control. Until 2014, the District enjoyed fifteen years of consistent enrollment increases and the increased funds accompanying those students. However, the District has lost 525 students to date from a peak enrollment of 18,343 in 2014. The enrollment today of 17,818 students is estimated to drop by well over another 1,000 students by 2022 according to the latest demographic projections. District officials and their demographic consultants primarily attribute the loss in enrollment to the lack of affordable housing in the cities of Napa and American Canyon, making it difficult for families with young children to buy or rent in the area. As declining enrollment reduced revenue, sharp unexpected increases in District contributions to STRS and PERS have significantly increased costs. Over the past eight years, pension contributions have nearly doubled. This is primarily because pensions are underfunded by the state, and therefore school districts have been directed to increase their contribution percentage. For the NVUSD, the annual impact of these state-mandated rate increases will exceed $2.5 million per year. In order to bring the school budget into balance, the focus of the NVUSD has been to sharply reduce “rainy day” reserves below the District’s 7.5 percent policy guideline, cut faculty and staff positions, and offer early retirement packages to employees. In the recent FY2018/19 Budget Outlook presentation to the Board of Education in March 2018, the District said that it is looking at eliminating an additional 50 teaching positions as well as making further cuts to staff positions. Furthermore, program cuts such as eliminating seventh- period at middle schools and high schools, campus consolidations, and increasing class sizes are all being considered in the future. The Grand Jury appreciates the difficulty in balancing the school budget, particularly in the context of declining enrollment and mandated cost increases. However, the Grand Jury believes that the school district must go beyond planning on a year-to-year basis and present the community with a comprehensive, five-year financial plan that articulates its vision for the future. We believe the development of a comprehensive, long-term plan will help the community better understand that the District is dealing with the issues and is on a path to fiscal solvency. Furthermore, the Grand Jury believes that the school district should make a serious effort to find ways to increase revenues. In the March 2018 report to the Board of Education, the NVUSD Budget Advisory Committee recommended several ways that the District could add additional revenue. One good example was to increase attendance if only by 1 percent. While other ideas may require further 91 study, some can be implemented quickly. To that end, concrete plans should be developed to insure quick and effective implementation. Finally, the Grand Jury believes that additional means of communication should be identified to make the community more aware of school budget issues and explain what the District is doing about them. The Budget Roadshow and Annual State of the School presentation are a good beginning. Other more frequent forms of communication should be identified.

Observations 2

• OB1 Page 128
  General population Protective custody Maximum security Special housing Medical unit. 115
• OB2 Page 130
  NAPA COUNTY GRAND JURY 2017-2018 June 14, 2018 FINAL REPORT Empty Beds: Juvenile Hall Review 116 Empty Beds: 2017-2018 Napa County Grand Jury Juvenile Hall Review SUMMARY Rehabilitation and treatment, rather than incarceration, is the primary goal of the California juvenile justice system and has been for more than half a century. This is the focus of Napa County Juvenile Hall through its organization, management, and programming. The 2017-2018 Napa County Grand Jury toured the Juvenile Hall facility twice, each time noticing that the number of youth housed was less than 20. Since the facility is capable of housing 50 youths, the space is considerably underutilized. Many counties throughout the state find themselves in similar situations due to declining juvenile arrest and detention rates in California since 2007. Napa County officials were approached by a neighboring county about the possibility of consolidating juvenile hall operations. While this might increase cost efficiency for the municipalities, this would cause new challenges for the juveniles in residence. Specifically, moving juveniles farther away from their homes would make family visits and transportation more difficult. It would also remove them from their local educational programs. Napa ultimately dropped the idea of consolidation. It is hoped that current and future policies and initiatives may increase the utilization of Juvenile Hall. In an interview with management, the grand jury learned that the county-wide criminal justice computer system is now serving all of the member departments except Juvenile Hall. It is expected to be completed by fall of 2018. This custom-designed system will be beneficial to Juvenile Hall. The grand jury finds that the activities and services provided to Napa County Juvenile Hall youth are suited to the current juvenile justice philosophy of rehabilitation, not incarceration.

No Responses Found 2

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