⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings 13 findings
F1
Construction of the Mt. Washington water storage tank is a build out of the City's water infrastructure. It supports growth and will store NBA water, both of which are counter to the letter and spirit of Measure A.
F2
Construction of the Mt. Washington water storage tank should have been listed in the 1998 Ordinance as an "approved project" or should have gone through the "replacement project" process.
F3
Solage Resort Drainage Project should not have been paid with Measure A funds as the City of Calistoga had no duty to pay that $600,000 cost.
F4
As the defense of a lawsuit by a municipality is a general governmental function, the legal fees paid by the City of Calistoga for the Kimball Creek Bypass litigation was an improper use of Measure A funds. The invoices for the fees paid by the City of Calistoga for the Kimball Creek
F5
Bypass litigation provided inadequate information to allow the FPWIA to make an informed determination as whether the billings were reasonable and appropriate. The City of Calistoga should have acknowledged its breach of public trust much
F6
earlier in the bypass litigation. The Measure A Ordinance did not explicitly describe how the approval process
F7
should operate and as a result the Organizational Chart was arbitrarily drawn. To the degree the chart is used as a schematic model for Measure A projects, its flaws are transferred into the approval process.
F8
The County Public Works Director improperly certified the legality of several Calistoga Measure A projects.
F9
County Counsel is on the Flood Protection Funding Flow Chart to put agreements into proper form, but has no formal role reviewing proposals for compliance with Measure A. In practice County Counsel sometimes reviews proposals but does not review all proposals, and even as to reviewed proposals, County Counsel renders no formal opinion as to compliance with Measure A.
F10
The approval process is ineffective since the Flood Protection Water Improvement Authority (Board of Supervisors) has approved projects that lack compliance to Measure A requirements. Greater care should be taken to examine in reasonable detail the compliance of projects and their expenses.
F11
The Financial Oversight Committee exemplifies the disability of the system by being placed at the end of the approval process. The Ordinance intended the Financial Oversight Committee to "Ensure ongoing community input in the finalization of all projects..." (Emphasis added.)
F12
The Financial Oversight Committee is the community "watchdog" for Measure A projects and should constantly monitor the projects in all stages, instead of only after the termination of those projects.
F13
The Financial Oversight Committee is improperly constituted and has passively performed its role.
Recommendations 11
-
R1Flood Protection and Water Improvement Authority (Board of Supervisors) more carefully evaluate Measure A proposals and take steps to ensure that all proposals for the expenditure of Measure A tax revenue meet Measure A requirements from a legal standpoint as well as from a technical standpoint.
-
R2Flood Protection and Water Improvement Authority redefine the approval process and the corresponding County flow chart, so that after "the Auditor/Controller ensures adequate Measure A funds exist to meet request" and before "County Counsel prepares funding agreement," both the Director of Public Works and County Counsel certify that the requested expenditure meets Measure A requirements, rather than just the Director of Public Works so certifying.
-
R3Flood Protection and Water Improvement Authority redefine the approval process and the corresponding County flow chart, so that after "the Auditor/Controller ensures adequate Measure A funds exist to meet request" and before the proposal is "presented at meeting of Flood Protection and Water Improvement Authority," the Financial Oversight Committee be given a copy of the proposal to, pursuant to their charge, review and "advise the public whether it is consistent with the purpose, spirit, intent, and language of Measure A."
-
R4County Counsel certify every proposed expenditure as in compliance with Measure A.
-
R5Financial Oversight Committee receives the information on proposed expenditures prior to approval by the Flood Protection and Water Improvement Authority.
-
R6Immediate, concerted and ongoing effort to fill Financial Oversight Committee vacancies by Financial Oversight Committee and Board of Supervisors; specifically, the vacancies for representatives from: Board of Supervisors Business Community Local Media Napa County Taxpayers Environmental Community Agricultural Industry Health and Human Services
-
R7Auditor-Controller prepare an annual audit as per Section 23 of Ordinance in addition to the annual Financial Oversight Committee audit.
-
R8Financial Oversight Committee be granted authority to require jurisdictions requesting Measure A funds to present proposed expenditures to that Committee prior to final approval by Flood Authority.
-
R9Financial Oversight Committee receive and examine itemized invoices billed to Measure A projects in addition to the summarized data currently provided it.
-
R10Financial Oversight Committee establish subcommittees in order to more effectively fulfill its responsibilities under the Ordinance, namely: a. Provide the public with information regarding the manner in which Measure A tax proceeds have been spent; b. Prepare an annual audit regarding the use of Measure A proceeds; c. Review the financial impact of each project and advise the public whether it is consistent with the purpose, spirit, intent and language of Measure A; d. Inform the public of any expenditure which is inconsistent with the purpose and intent of Measure A; e. Make recommendations to the Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District regarding proposed replacement projects if a project indentified in Measure A is determined not feasible.
-
R11Any further requests by the City of Calistoga for Measure A funds for the Mt. Washington tank and Solage projects be denied and the City be required to return any unspent Measure A tax revenue forwarded to it for these matters.
No Responses Found 5
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
Calistoga
City
County of Napa
Agency
Napa County
County
Napa County Auditor-Controller
Elected County Office
Napa County Board of Supervisors
Elected County Office
* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.