📋
Extracted from Consolidated Report

This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.

Napa County Grand Jury • 2024-2025

County of Napa

Published: June 30, 2025 66 pages
View PDF View Full Original

Findings 12 findings

F1 Page 94
Although Skyline Academy was scheduled to open at the end of 2023, the Jury’s investigation detected limited organized effort toward the opening, no urgency, and minimal forward progress. The Chief Probation Officer disagrees with the finding. Contrary to this finding, the Skyline Academy opened as a pilot program in Juvenile Hall in January 2024 and has since served seven in-custody youth with enhanced evidence-based programming, prosocial activities, and targeted interventions addressing criminogenic needs. This initiative required a substantial coordinated effort among multiple agencies, community partners, and stakeholders, all working towards a common goal. The project's success necessitated extensive infrastructure work, including approvals, funding allocations, and conceptual designs. Construction in a detention facility demands multiple levels of legal compliance and design review, which naturally take time to work through county and state processes. The preparatory phase involved significant data mining, financial and resource reviews, and reallocation of staffing resources, alongside efforts to recruit for hard-to-fill positions. Recognizing that the heart of every successful program lies in its people, the project emphasized staff involvement. Experts in their respective fields were given the opportunity to contribute through a committee-based approach, ensuring buy-in and long-term sustainability. The pilot program aimed to keep youth local, focusing on their rehabilitative goals, and provided staff and providers the chance to engage with the youth prior to the formal program launch. This approach allowed the youth to have a voice in their own rehabilitation process. The pilot program has been serving seven Napa County youth who would have otherwise been transferred outside of the county, away from their families. The pilot program underscores the commitment to building a culture of support, safety, rehabilitation, and opportunity for the youth. The program continues to develop and is scheduled to formally open by the end of Summer 2024, reflecting a deep commitment to fostering a supportive and rehabilitative environment for youth in need.
F2 Page 94
Repeated requests for details on the development of Skyline Academy went unmet, leading the Jury to conclude that no formal project plan is being implemented. The Chief Probation O cer partially disagrees with the finding. ffi All requests for information made directly from the Chief Probation O cer were provided timely, which is the expectation, and all sta will be notified via memo of this standard. The definition or ffi expectations of a formal project plan may be interpreted di erently, as the focus was on ff designing and developing a program that meets the individual needs of youth, creating linkages ff 87 | P age to robust community supports, engaging a variety of stakeholders, organizing construction projects, completing contracts and requests for proposals, creating new logos, increasing youth literacy and educational opportunities through new tablets for youth and career-technical education, painting murals to soften the look of the facility, seeking ways to expand opportunities for youth both inside and outside of the program, increasing mental health services, and creating programming infrastructure that is culturally relevant and in the native language of the youth and their families when possible. The development and implementation of the pilot program involved numerous stakeholders and was structured through the department’s strategic planning initiative, intentionally designed to leverage a committee structure. This collaborative approach ensured that subject matter experts within the department had the authority and ability to contribute to the design, creation, and implementation of the program, resulting in a more innovative and community-focused initiative. The pilot phase was led by a committee of sta and has allowed for valuable learning and adjustments, ensuring that the final program is well-suited to the needs of the youth and families ff they serve. By fostering a collaborative environment and involving various experts in leadership roles, the program aims to deliver targeted and e ective interventions for youth. The formal program documents are being finalized, with full implementation scheduled by the end of ff Summer 2024, reflecting a steadfast dedication to building a supportive, accountable, and rehabilitative culture for youth.
F3 Page 95
The Jury found that normal operations in the Prospect wing of Juvenile Hall (which houses short-term youth) have been resumed following the suspension of Covid restrictions. The Chief Probation O cer agrees with the finding. ffi
F4 Page 98
The Jury found that an annual golf tournament held in Napa County has consistently been allowed to not comply with the permit application rules. The County Executive Officer and Planning Building and Environmental Services Director disagree with the finding. The annual golf tournament is not considered a Temporary Event and therefore not subject to the County’s Temporary Events License Permit and related review procedures, and submittal and processing deadlines. The annual golf tournament is reviewed and authorized under a Site Plan Approval, which is governed by the Use Permit for the Resort that has been in place since 1964. The Board of Supervisors agrees with the County Executive Officer and the Planning Building and Environmental Services Director.
F5 Page 98
The Napa County permit matrix to be a complex five-page document that is confusing to the average applicant. The County Executive Officer and Planning Building and Environmental Services Director partly disagree with the finding. The permit matrix was intended to be an internal guidance document for staff to facilitate their review of building permit applications. It was not intended for public use and as such was not written in layman’s terms. As part of the goals for the Building Division for fiscal year 24/25 detailed above, Staff will be reviewing the information and content on the web site and preparing enhancements to the available documents that will provide a better understanding of the permitting process. The Board of Supervisors agrees with the County Executive Officer and Planning Building and Environmental Services Director.
F6 Page 98
The PBES is currently without a formal process for customers to provide feedback, either in person or on the website. The County Executive Officer and Planning Building and Environmental Services Director partially disagree with the finding. Staff has conducted one-on-one meetings and group discussions with industry professionals and builders regarding the permitting process this past year in order to obtain feedback regarding our online digital permitting process. This approach not only provided us feedback on the process of permitting it also gives the building staff an educational opportunity to discuss 91 | P age particular permitting requirements and develop productive relationships with the design and building construction community. The Building Division intends to expand upon these efforts to conduct surveys of the permitting process which will be sent out to applicants who have used the system in the past year. The Board of Supervisors agrees with the County Executive Officer and Planning Building and Environmental Services Director.
F7 Page 99
The PBES does not assign specific field inspectors for entire projects leading to potential conflicting opinions about required corrective actions. The County Executive Officer and Planning Building and Environmental Services Director partially disagree with the finding. Building inspectors are assigned to a mapped district. Every effort is made to have the same inspector conduct inspections for the same project; however, individual inspectors may be unavailable. As such, rather than delay the progress of construction, other inspectors may be called upon to provide a timely inspection. Additionally, workload in one area may be greater, so two inspectors may be needed to cover the demand for that district. With that said, the inspectors strive for consistency and are all trained on the California Building Code. With regard to inspections related to correction notices, on occasion an inspector may not be available for a follow-up inspection, and a different inspector may be assigned to conduct the inspection. The inspector will typically focus solely on the items the prior inspector noted and confirm those they have been corrected. If they see additional items that the prior inspector may have inadvertently overlooked, they are advised to honor the prior inspector's corrections unless they observe a life safety violation. The Board of Supervisors agrees with the County Executive Officer and Planning Building and Environmental Services Director.
F8 Page 109
County emergency notifications using the alert technology Everbridge are not reliably reaching all enrolled citizens, and it is unknown exactly how many residents are receiving messages. The Board of Supervisors and the Sheri agree with the finding. ff However, the County is interested in understanding the evidence the Jury used to support this finding that not all enrolled citizens are receiving messages after the August 2023 data migration. While there are known examples of this issue from before the large data migration in August of 2023, evidence that the problem continued afterward have not been found. The Nixle system did not have a “confirm receipt” feature similar to Everbridge, making it impossible to 71 One key difference between the two systems is that messaging that solicits a response can be sent in Everbridge while Nixle does not have that capability. 102 | Pa ge conduct a comparable test with Nixle. The Board of Supervisors and the Sheri agree that the Everbridge notification system was not reliable at reaching all enrolled citizens prior to the data ff migration. It is important to note that no system can guarantee an exact number of subscribers reached for any given communication. Factors such as cell phone coverage, mobile device settings, and whether mobile devices are on or o , without power, etc., can impact message delivery. Due to these factors, Napa County OES, the CEO’s O ce, and the Sheri ’s O ce have established ff redundancy systems. These include partnerships with local radio stations, community outreach ffi ff ffi for emergency broadcast information, Genasys software for evacuations, Hi-Lo Sirens during evacuations, door-to-door notifications in evacuated areas, traditional media outlets, and social media accounts managed by Napa County, Napa Sheri ’s O ce, County fire, and municipal partners. ff ffi While Everbridge certainly damaged trust during the initial transition from the Nixle platform, the current reach and data from both test alerts and real-world alerts indicate that the technology is now working at the same level of reliability as the previous opt-in service.
F9 Page 110
The Everbridge emergency notification mobile app for phones and other mobile digital devices is not performing reliably for citizens. The Sheri , OES, Board of Supervisors, and CEO disagree wholly with the finding. During the investigation to identify why some previous Nixle subscribers were not reliably ff receiving alerts, the team discovered that the issue was related to the software “bridge” rather than a full data migration solution (as mentioned in the response to Finding 8). The team also learned that there were no reports of failures from users who downloaded and used the Everbridge mobile application. The County does not agree that the system is currently not performing reliably and would be interested in any evidence or examples of subscribers who signed up through Everbridge, or whose subscriber information was part of the large data migration in 2023, not reliably receiving messages at this time. Upon obtaining such information, the County and Everbridge can investigate and correct any ongoing issue.
F10 Page 110
The enrollment process for Everbridge is cumbersome and not well understood by the citizenry. The Board of Supervisors and the Sheri agree with the finding. ff The enrollment process prior to January 2024 was more cumbersome. However, as part of the continuing e orts between OES and Everbridge to improve the system’s capabilities, beginning in January 2024, residents can now subscribe by simply texting their zip code to 888-777, which ff enrolls them into the Nixle platform. Everbridge now automatically ports over (data migration, not a software bridge) Nixle subscriber data into the Everbridge system on an hourly basis. 103 | Pa ge Before this new solution, residents using this simple subscriber method would only be added to Nixle, and the system would rely on the problematic software “bridge” mentioned in Response to
F11 Page 111
Everbridge has not fulfilled all of its contractual obligations with Napa County. The Board of Supervisors and the Sheri disagree wholly with the finding. The contract executed between Napa County and Everbridge has been reviewed by the County, ff with assistance from County Counsel, and no breach of contract has been identified at this time. As indicated in Response to Finding 7, the issues caused by the initial transition from the Nixle platform to the Everbridge platform were problematic, but the parties were able to promptly resolve those issues. Should OES be made aware of any concerns or evidence supporting the Jury’s concerns that issues are continuing, OES will promptly work with Everbridge to resolve them. Since July of 2023, the sta at Everbridge has been responsive to the County’s concerns and have worked diligently on addressing the challenges identified by the OES team. We are confident that any ff ongoing issues will be similarly corrected by Everbridge.
F12 Page 111
Napa County’s staff have improved measures to facilitate communication with citizen’s diverse languages and for those having disabilities or special needs. The CEO and Board of Supervisors agree with the finding. Recognizing the diverse community the County serves, sta remain dedicated to ensuring e ective communication for all residents. The O ce of Emergency Services (OES) continues to ff prepare a bi-weekly translation schedule for emergency communications, guaranteeing that ff ffi critical information reaches non-English speaking populations promptly. Additionally, sta have initiated work on creating a comprehensive language access plan. This endeavor involves close ff collaboration with members of the Board of Supervisors and department heads, with a goal of establishing guidelines and resources that promote inclusivity and accessibility in all county communications. By prioritizing language access, sta strive to enhance engagement and participation among diverse communities throughout Napa County. ff

Recommendations 20

Commendations 2