American Recovery and Reinvestment ACT

Recommendations 14

• R1

  Page 249
  Formal reporting procedures to the BOS be instituted requiring that the Board receive quarterly ARRA expenditures updates from the Auditor-Controller and CEO at the first BOS meeting immediately after each report is submitted to the State. Response, Auditor-Controller: The recommendation has been implemented. At the April 13, 2010 BOS meeting, the Auditor-Controller and CEO presented a fiscal summary of each award to date. The summary included information on each award as follows: the program name, the project description, the amount awarded, the payments received and the project status. This report is also uploaded on the County’s website for public viewing and will be updated quarterly, corresponding with the State reporting requirements. Response, CEO and Director of Community and Intergovernmental Affairs: The recommendation has been implemented. The CEO and Manager of Community and Intergovernmental Affairs have scheduled, along with the Auditor-Controller, a quarterly update on the status of ARRA funding for the Board of Supervisors. These updates will occur after the reports have been submitted to the State Inspector General. Response, Napa County Board of Supervisors: 19 The recommendation has been implemented. The Board of Supervisors received the first of these quarterly reports at the April 13, 2010 BOS meeting.
• R2

  Page 250
  The CEO provide quarterly ARRA expenditures updates for residents via the County website immediately following the BOS review. Response, CEO and Director of Community and Intergovernmental Affairs: The recommendation has been implemented. The County’s website will be updated to reflect the latest report that has been presented to the Board of Supervisors. The website will be updated quarterly immediately following the report to the Board of Supervisors.
• R3

  Page 250
  The Auditor-Controller develop written policy and procedures that pertain specifically to ARRA. Response, Auditor-Controller: The recommendation has been implemented. The Auditor-Controller does not set County polices. However, she has established internal County- wide accounting procedures specifically regarding ARRA. As a new grant is awarded, a meeting is set between staff of the Auditor-Controller and key fiscal and program staff of the department receiving the award. The accounting procedures are disseminated and the award deadlines, reporting requirements and expectations are understood. Monthly reviews are completed and quarterly reports are reconciled prior to submission to the State. NAPA COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE FACILITIES Napa County Department of Corrections/County Jail The 2009-2010 Grand Jury published its final report on the Napa County Department of Corrections/Jail on May 13, 2010. The 2009-2010 Grand Jury did not ask the Napa County Department of Corrections, Board of Supervisors, District Attorney or Adult Probation Department to respond to findings, as the law requires. A request to each department to respond to the findings was made by the 2010-2011 Grand Jury. Each department responded to the 2010-2011 Grand Jury’s request. Responses to findings and recommendations were received from the following: 20 • Napa County Department of Corrections • Napa County Board of Supervisors • Napa County District Attorney’s Office • Napa County Adult Probation Department 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 received and found to meet statutory requirements.
• R4

  Page 276
  Prepare and publish a budget summary each year with sufficient detail which can be easily understood by the public. Response, Board of Directors: The NCTPA Board of Directors has not implemented this recommendation. NCTPA plans to publish a budget summary for FY 10/11 as part of the budget hearing process for establishing next year’s budget FY 11/12 with sufficient detail so that it can be easily understood by the public.
• R5

  Page 276
  Develop a plan for the Agricultural Worker Vanpool Program to be self sufficient after June 2011. Response, Board of Directors: The NCTPA Board of Directors state this recommendation needs further analysis. The original application submitted in 2008 contained a plan for the Agriculture Worker Vanpool Program to become self-sufficient after June 2011. NCTPA has kept the Board abreast of the progress made to date and has agreed to revaluate the program at its January 2011 meeting. 46
• R6

  Page 277
  Establish a plan to seek ongoing funding for street and roadway repair and maintenance. Response, Board of Directors: The NCTPA Board of Directors has implemented this recommendation. NCTPA, through its participation with the Metropolitan (MTC), which serves as the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the bay area’s nine counties, seeks ongoing funding for street and roadways, land- planning oversight and many other functions listed in the Grand Jury’s report. Each year NCTPA helps to identify, plan and program Federal and State funds that are available to the region through formula and street classification established by the MTC. Napa County is one of a few counties within the nine county Bay Area that does not have a dedicated transportation sales tax, responsible for delivering voter-approved transportation sales tax measures throughout the state. Without such dedicated funding it is extremely difficult to deliver many of the region’s priority transportation projects. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission administers and allocates by formula all of the available Federal and State monies it receives that then NCTPA plans, programs and distributes to its member jurisdictions. NCTPA also serves to distribute by issuing Calls for Projects for available funding for state and local programs such as the Transportation for Clean Air administered by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). However, it is worth noting that some programs are established with very specific criteria and conditions that must be met in order to qualify. Federal funds require a local match of either 10 to 20% of the total project costs. Use of federal funds also triggers full compliance of all federal requirements such as Timelines; Procurement: Environmental: Reporting; etc. ARRA serves as a prime w=example in both project delivery and source of funding to which Napa County delivered 100% of its allocation. NAPA COUNTY WATER Our Precious, Critical Resource The 2009-2010 Grand Jury published its final report on Napa County Water on May 31, 2010. Responses were received from the following: • Napa County Board of Supervisors • Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 47 • Napa Sanitation District • City American Canyon Public Works Department • City of Calistoga Public Works Department • City of Napa Public Works Department • City of St. Helena Public Works Department • Town of Yountville Public Works Department • Mayor, City of American Canyon • Mayor, City of St. Helena • Mayor, Town of Yountville • City Council, City of Calistoga • City Council, City of St. Helena 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.
• R7

  Page 294
  Board of Supervisors develop regulations to ensure adequate groundwater supply for future needs. Response, City of Napa: This recommendation requires further analysis as it relates to the City’s groundwater resources. The City is responding to these recommendations to the extent that they pertain to matters under the control of the City. While these recommendations imply that Napa County is solely responsible for groundwater resources, in fact the City of Napa is responsible for groundwater resources underlying City owned property and within City limits. Historically, the City has voluntarily honored County policies related to groundwater, and the City has not approved the use of groundwater as a primary source for urban development within the City limits. Currently, the City is exploring groundwater options for dry- year and emergency back-up. This is a necessary step to ensure locally controlled water sources are available in the event of an emergency or when State water is unavailable. Hydro-geologic studies and management plans will be required as part of the City’s future use of groundwater.
• R8

  Page 294
  The City of Napa and NSD identify a process for, and develop an implementation plan to, integrate NSD and PWD into a single department. Response, Napa Sanitation District: This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. This recommendation, rooted in concerns noted in the report about a loss of revenue to the City of Napa when customers transition to recycled water use, appears to conclude that this contributes to competition between the two agencies and acts as a barrier to recycled water expansion. As noted in the Grand Jury report in the Findings the city of Napa and NSD have an agreement to manage the transition of City potable water customers to recycled water. This agreement addresses this concern straight on, providing compensation to the City for lost revenues. NSD has been and continues to be in full support of this agreement. NSD has not seen any evidence that there is competition for customers, as City supports the conversion to recycled water and NSD supports the compensation agreement. In fact, City, County and NSD staff and elected officials meet regularly to discuss coordination and cooperation regarding the expansion of recycled water delivery. In addition, the City cites expansion of recycled water use as a way to manage City water demand in its 2005 Urban Water Management Plan update. We do not see NSD’s status as an independent agency as an impediment to expanding the recycled water system. Additionally, it must be noted that the delivery of recycled water is only one part of NSD’s operation, and that the majority of its budget and staff effort is related to the collection and treatment of wastewater. Response, City of Napa: This recommendation requires further analysis. While the City of Napa agrees that there may be significant merit to the consolidation of services, the City is not in a position to implement this recommendation unilaterally. The City is willing to explore the potential benefits of consolidation (i.e. economics of scale, coordination of services, planning) that could result from a merger. If the Napa Sanitation District wishes to participate in a joint effort to identify the feasibility and advisability of a consolidation the City could begin such an effort within the next six months.
• R9

  Page 295
  The County and all municipalities continue development and expansion of recycled water projects to alleviate future water shortages. Response, City of American Canyon: Agree. The City is currently delivering recycled water to several community parks and a commercial vineyard. We plan to continue to expand the system in accordance with the recycled water implementation plan and as funding becomes available. Response, City of Calistoga Public Works Director: The recommendation has been substantially implemented per California Penal Code 933.05(a)(1). Calistoga has provided disinfected tertiary- 65 treated recycled water to customers for many years. Calistoga seeks to expand the use of recycled water to new customers, when it is economic and feasible to do so. In some cases, the use of recycled water is specified as a mandatory condition of approval for new development projects. For example, the large and prominent Solage resort, which opened in 2007, is a relatively new and significant recycled water user. In 2009, Calistogans used approximately 761 acre-feet of potable water, while using 320 acre- feet of recycled water. Calistoga expects the beneficial re-use of recycled water to continue and expand modestly into the foreseeable future. Response, City of Napa: This recommendation has been implemented. The City of Napa encourages the use of recycled water where feasible and cost effective to offset potable water use. In 1998, the City and NSD entered into an agreement for NSD to convey water in the southern portion of the City’s service area. This area includes many of the City’s large irrigation customers such as Kennedy Golf Course, Kennedy Park, Napa Valley College, Napa Corporate Park and Napa State hospital. To date, many of these customers have converted to recycled water saving the City over 300 acre-feet of water per year. The City has planned for the conversion of Napa State Hospital in the near future. The approval of the Ritz-Carleton project included a water mitigation requirement that can be met by converting the irrigation system at the Napa Valley Corporate Park to recycled water. The proposed St. Regis project includes provisions for converting the project as well as irrigation on the Stanley ranch property to recycled water. The City is fully in support of this requirement. Response, City of St. Helena: Pursuant to 933.05(b)(4) the recommendation will not be implemented because it is unreasonable. While the City recognizes recycled water should be put to beneficial use, the production rate of recycled water would not be satisfactory to “alleviate future water shortages”. Additionally the demand for recycled water is likely to be highest during the driest months when flows into the sewage treatment plant are at the lowest. This means that recycled water could not be a meaningful factor in augmenting supply of non-potable use without the addition of a 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 not fiscally justifiable to rate payers. Not to mention a significant capital cost. Response, Napa Sanitation District: 66 NSD agrees that development and expansion of recycled water delivery can improve the availability and reliability of potable water systems. Additionally, recycled water is itself a reliable source of water for the region that will be available even when there are potable water shortages. Promoting the expanded use of recycled water is sound public policy, which NSD supports. The recommendation has been implemented. NSD shares the desires of potential recycled water users to participate in the pursuit of opportunities to expand the recycled water system. In fact, since 1990, NSD has spent roughly $1.2M on planning and environmental studies in support of expanding its recycled water distribution system. NSD has developed strategies and policies through its Recycled Water Strategic Plan and other policy documents that promote the continued development and expansion of recycled water projects with local partners. NSD stands ready to cooperate with local partners and potential end users to develop feasible recycled water projects.
• R10

  Page 297
  The County, all municipalities, and NSD investigate the process and economics for the formation of a countywide utility district to benefit the County residents and holistically manage the availability, distribution, and economics of potable and recycled water. Response, City of American Canyon: Disagree. Each water agency in Napa County operates its own water system according to state and federal regulations and in accordance with the needs and desires of each community, and at the direction of their respective elected governing bodies. While there might be financial benefit from the economy of scale afforded by a countywide water agency, a one-size-fits-all approach to water supply, demand, and conservation issues would not be appropriate for the diversity of Napa County cities and their community goals and objectives. Response, City of Calistoga Public Works Director: The recommendation will not be implemented per California Penal Code (a)(4), as it is not warranted nor reasonable. Calistoga’s existing systems of partially interconnected utility systems, water supply agreements, and constructive cooperation among the County and the municipalities, is adequate to meet the needs of Calistoga. Calistoga has a well-developed, two-source potable water supply system, which is sized to meet the City’s needs to grow in accordance with its General Plan. Calistoga’s recycled water system provides a substantial amount of tertiary-treated recycled water to approximately two dozen customers, and Calistoga is implementing plans to expand the system when it is economic and feasible 67 to do so. Given the geographic remoteness of Calistoga from the other (larger) municipalities in the County, Calistoga believes its current utility systems are sufficient to meet community requirements. Response, City of Napa: The City does not intend to implement this recommendation since it is not warranted. The City understands that the underlying goal of this recommendation is to establish systems that would more effectively manage potable and recycled water throughout the County, and the City certainly agrees with this goal. However, in order to effectively manage water resources and water use, and meet the expectations of residents with within the community, it is important to be able to coordinate land use planning with the construction of necessary improvements. If a countywide utility district was formed, it would create a disconnect between the agency responsible for regulating land use (the City) from the agency responsible for providing public improvements to the residents and businesses generated from the land use decisions (the utility district). The City agrees that all municipalities, the County, and NSD should wok cooperatively to communicate, coordinate, and implement joint projects and/or countywide efforts as it relates to water resources. Monthly Water Technical Advisory Committee meetings provide the forum for this to occur. In addition, each municipality is represented on the Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Board which functions in part as the countywide district related to water issues. Response, City of St. Helena’s Mayor: Disagree partially with the finding [recommendation]. The recommendation requires further analysis by December 1, 2010. While it is cost prohibitive at this time for the City to solely provide recycled water, the Public Works Director will work with other municipalities in the County to investigate the process and economics for the formation of a countywide utility district to benefit the County residents and holistically manage the availability, distribution, and economics of potable and recycled water. Response, Napa Sanitation District: This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted at this time. NSD has a long history of working cooperatively with the area jurisdictions on issues related to potable and recycled water. NSD has taken a very active role in investing in recycled water infrastructure and in pursuing partnerships to expand the recycled water distribution system. The combination of all potable and recycled water purveyors into one utility district would have significant hurdles to overcome. Rates and service levels are set at the local level based on infrastructure investments, outstanding debt levels, and local values. The combination of these systems into one utility district would create significant conflict and problems that, we believe, would be greater than any benefits derived from consolidation. Being a separate district allows us to be responsive to local resident needs and priorities, and to set the levels of service and the rates for those services according to local resident desires. NSD is in sound financial condition and has a professional competent management team that operates NSD efficiently and effectively. At this time, we do not believe that the formation of a utility district would provide sufficient additional benefits to the customers of NSD.
• 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.