Code Enforcement – City of Napa

Commendations 12

• CM1
  Traditional agricultural practices involving the application of toxic chemicals to soil can lead to cumulative chemical effects that contaminate the environment, threaten human health and compromise ecosystems. There is a growing trend among some County farmers that is resulting in a movement away from traditional chemical pesticides and towards a safer pest management approach. This concept of “Sustainable Agriculture” can provide agricultural product in a profitable way without creating pollution or risks to human health or environment. Sustainable Agriculture is "an integrated system of plant production practices that meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs" according to the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program at the University of California, Davis. This Program was created in 1986 by CA legislature in response to concern about: • Protecting human health and wildlife in rural communities; • The environmental impacts of traditional agricultural techniques; • Profitability and success of small and family farming operations; and • Ensuring abundant, affordable and healthy farming product.
• CM2
  Last year, more than 2,120,000 pounds of pesticide were used in Napa County, which ranked 22nd highest in pesticide use out of California's 58 counties. This represents a 10% decrease from the prior year. This is the third straight year that Napa County has experienced decreased conventional agricultural pesticide use. Three of the top five most-used pesticides or herbicides in Napa County: sulfur, glyphosate salt and copper hydroxide, are considered relatively safe to humans. The most commonly used chemical is elemental sulfur, which many believe is relatively safe for human contact and the environment. In fact, elemental sulfur is authorized for use by certified organic farmers. However, some observers still feel that there may be long-term health risks even with elemental sulfur use. Two others in the top five, methyl bromide and simazine, are among chemicals that most concern citizen activists: • Methyl bromide is a soil sterilant in gas form used prior to planting. It has been associated with human birth defects at low doses, and its use is closely regulated under the terms of Proposition 65: the State’s Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1984. • Simazine is a common herbicide used on grapes. It is categorized as a possible human carcinogen and endocrine disrupting chemical. It is a frequent ground water contaminant throughout the U.S. Some vineyard managers believe that most of the useful information on effective pesticide or herbicide choices comes from local dealers, marketing agents or word of mouth from other vineyard managers, rather than from our local government agencies.
• CM3
  Watershed testing for ground and surface water contamination in Napa County done by State agencies over the past twelve years has shown undetectable levels of pesticide or herbicide. These tests are done on a random, unscheduled basis throughout high-risk areas in the county. State requirements vary from one time testing, annual testing or every three-year testing, depending on the chemical. Water is also tested for other contaminants, including pathogens, nutrients and sediment by these random tests. Currently the Department of Environmental Management (DEM) receives State funds of $26,000 per year plus additional tax revenues from local water districts for implementing these environmental health and safety regulations. However, neither DEM nor any other local Napa County agency is testing ground or river water for pesticide contamination at this time. According to the Director, this is in part due to DEM staffing shortages over the past several years. The State may take over the required testing in Napa County if DEM does not comply, and DEM could lose State and water district revenues for this testing. Currently, neither Sonoma nor Solano County agencies are doing local ground water testing; it is being done by the State.
• CM4
  The Agriculture Commissioner, the Director of DEM and the Napa County Public Health Officer have investigated and found that there are no reports of any serious illnesses or injuries related to pesticide use in Napa County. There have been some mild eye and skin irritations or allergic reactions of a temporary nature in some pesticide workers. The Grand Jury finds that there is no data or evidence to link pesticide exposure with any chronic or long-term illness or injury affecting Napa County residents. Specifically, the Grand Jury finds that there is no evidence to indicate a clustering of cancer or higher incidences of cancer among residents in agricultural areas of the county or among agricultural workers.
• CM5
  In last year’s NCFD Budget, there was a large surplus of revenue available at the end of the fiscal year. This is money that was not disbursed, but was “rolled over” into this year’s budget and is kept in an interest bearing Fire Protection Fund (1080). The amount of money in this fund was $3,278,727 as of 1/31/2002 according to the County Auditor.
• CM6
  Bartig, Basler & Ray (B.B &R.) is the certified public accountant firm contracted by the County to provide the independent audit of the county’s annual financial statements. The current contract is for a period of three years for the Fiscal Years Ending (FYE) 2002, 2003 and 2004 and was renewed in 2001 . The County should contract with a different independent audit firm in the next cycle to ensure freshness of opinion.
• CM7
  The County is currently working to implement and comply with Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement No. 34 (GASB- 34), which establishes new financial reporting requirements for state and local governments. In compliance with GASB-34, the Board of Supervisors established with the adoption of Resolution No. 01-83 a policy for budgetary controls that defines the value of fixed assets. The Grand Jury finds that the County’s decision to expense physical assets individually valued at less than $5,000 that excludes those assets from the Balance Sheet will understate the property, plant and equipment assets held by Napa County.
• CM8
  In addition to its duties as the independent auditor, B.B. & R. also provides accounting services to the County, specifically in implementing GASB-34. The Grand Jury recommends that different entities perform the independent audit function and accounting service, especially when establishing Pro-Forma Financial Statements and new accounting standards.
• CM9
  Napa County maintains many trust fund accounts. Problems with trust fund accounting have occurred in the past. Internal reports used by the Auditor-Controller’s Department to manage these Trust Funds demonstrate that the accounting processes are inadequate. The County Board of Supervisors should require that the independent auditor review the Trust Fund accounting system, its internal control structure and procedures, and report to the Board of Supervisors those matters which it considers to be material or worthy of consideration. PROCEDURE I. The Grand Jury obtained the following information: • The County Auditor-Controller was interviewed. • The lead independent audit manger from B.B.& R. was interviewed. II. The Grand Jury reviewed: • County of Napa Management Reports For the Years Ended June 30, 2000 and June 30, 2001. • County of Napa Annual Financial Report For the Fiscal Years Ended June 30, 1999; June 30, 2000; and June 30, 2001. • General Ledger Organization Budget Status, County of Napa For the Periods: 1 to 12, FY 2000; 1-12, FY 2001; and 1 to 6, FY 2002. • General Ledger Organization Revenue Status, County of Napa For the Periods: 1 to 12, FY 2000; 1 to 12, FY 2001; and 1 to 6, FY 2002. • General Ledger Detail Transactions- Napa. For Fiscal Year 2001, Period 1 to 12. • Trust by Program of Trust Fund List(s) as of 6/30/01 and 12/31/01. • An exhibit listing all of the County’s bank accounts prepared by the Treasurer-Tax Collector. • An exhibit prepared by the Auditor-Controller’s Department listing all of the local government entities of Napa County and the identified responsibilities (either accounting services or internal audit) of the Auditor-Controller. • An exhibit of General Fund Budget Transfers for FY 2000-2001. • GASB-34. • Resolution No.01-83. Resolution of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Napa State of California. Policy For Budgetary Controls. • Contracts between B.B.&R. and The County of Napa for audit services for the FYE 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 and FYE 2002, 2003 and 2004.
• CM10
  The Grand Jury commends the volunteers in the NCFD for their long hours of service and training dedicated to the safety and support of our communities. The value of this currently unpaid work force is significant and should be acknowledged by our community. Finding 2 There are problems with volunteer firefighter recruitment and retention in Napa County. Several volunteer stations are short on numbers of volunteers. In recent years, the number of persons interested in volunteer firefighting has been decreasing. Each year, as our County population increases, the volunteer stations in NCFD are called upon to increase their workload. Data confirm that most stations are making more calls each year. The annually increasing call- out rate is wearing on many of the volunteers. Recruiting and staffing of volunteer stations has become more difficult for most of the chiefs (there are a couple of exceptions to this where local community support is very strong). This difficulty is due to a combination of factors, including the rigorous training and certification required by the State, the time commitment necessary, problems with access to affordable housing in Napa County, and the fact that volunteer firefighters are not paid. At some stations, high volunteer turnover rate keeps training sessions to basics. Many younger volunteers eventually quit volunteer work to join paid fire departments or to pursue other paying jobs. Emergency calls during Monday-Friday daytime hours are the most challenging for most volunteer fire stations. Most of the volunteers are not readily available during those hours because they are working at their regular jobs, sometimes located out of area. Evenings and weekends are generally easier to staff. Recommendation 2 The Grand Jury recommends that the County initiate a paid weekday full-time staff of firefighters at certain volunteer stations where necessary. This could include a paid chief and one or two full-time paid firefighters. Calistoga initiated a system like this three years ago with good results; the City of St. Helena Fire Department also has a part-time paid chief. Some volunteer stations may not require this where staff is always readily available. This paid staff would facilitate Monday-Friday daytime calls, do local administrative work, keep up the facilities at the station, organize training/recruiting and most importantly, have a permanent staffing voice that could be more effectively heard by the NCFD administration. This system would decrease response times for emergency calls Monday-Friday daytime at some stations, as weekday staff would be available immediately at the volunteer stations. The NCFD should supplement the proposed full-time paid County fire station staff with a pay-per-call system where other on-call volunteers could handle evening and weekend calls, and would be paid on an hourly basis for all calls. Response Requested From CDF Napa County Board of Supervisors Napa County Executive Officer Finding 3 Central Dispatch located in the City of Napa initially receives most emergency “911” calls. For the unincorporated areas of Napa County, medical emergency and fire calls are then relayed to CDF Dispatch in St Helena. These calls are then relayed again to the appropriate volunteer firefighters via pagers or local community sirens. There have been delays of 8 minutes and longer from when a County resident dials 911 until the call is relayed to the volunteer station staff. A response time of 5 minutes or less to arrive on scene in order to initiate CPR or defibrillation is the goal generally accepted by most rescue agencies. CDF Dispatch is a complex system. When CDF initiated dispatching for the combined six-county CDF Ranger Unit, many observers felt that NCFD dispatching decreased in quality. Dispatchers have made errors when dispatching some NCFD Volunteer station fire engines. This has been either the result of inexperienced CDF Dispatch personnel, or from faulty information listed in the CAD (Computer Assisted Dispatch). There have been incidents of dispatchers sending the wrong fire engines to County fires or medical emergencies because they do not know all the proper dispatch tones or areas of responsibility for the volunteer stations. Some volunteer chiefs have had difficulty getting CDF dispatch administrators or supervisors to acknowledge and address these dispatch errors. Recommendation 3 The Grand Jury recognizes that it is a demanding task for CDF Dispatch to handle the six-county CDF Ranger Unit as well as NCFD dispatching. Nonetheless, all dispatchers need to be proficient in their knowledge of NCFD and required to perform this task at the highest level. Dispatchers need to know the proper tones, stations, roadways and volunteer areas of responsibility for all of Napa County. Dispatch Command needs to assure that Computer Assisted Dispatch (CAD) information is up to date and accurate for NCFD dispatch purposes. As problems arise with unsatisfactory CDF Dispatch performance, NCFD Volunteer chiefs need to be able to communicate effectively with CDF supervisors and get responses and honest efforts at problem solving from these administrators without delay. Response Requested From CDF Napa County Board of Supervisors Napa County Executive Officer Finding 4 CDF training for volunteers has been inconsistent, partly due to the fact that the CDF Training Officers have been transferred or promoted every two years on average. This constant turnover has created prolonged vacancies in the position at times and has led to poor continuity in volunteer training sessions provided by CDF. Many volunteer chiefs describe the CDF Training Officer position as a “stepping stone” where qualified personnel are moved or promoted to other jobs after a short period of time. Some volunteer chiefs complained that CDF training personnel do not always show up when they are scheduled and do not seem to give much priority to volunteer training sessions. Some volunteer chiefs have been told that CDF cannot give training to volunteers in summer months, due to their own CDF staffing needs. One volunteer chief has learned to rely more on neighboring CDF fire station personnel for training than on the CDF administration. He arranges training directly with the CDF stations rather than using the CDF Training Officer. Other chiefs rely mostly on their own local volunteer training programs. The recent appointment of a volunteer firefighter to the CDF County Training Officer position may help alleviate these training problems. This will likely depend on how long he is kept in that position by CDF, and the quality of the volunteer training the CDF allows him to implement. County unincorporated area station volunteers are not paid for either CDF training sessions or local training sessions. Recommendation 4 An improved and more reliable CDF training system should be implemented to make sure CDF fulfills its training agreements with the County for the volunteers. It may be necessary to reconsider the policy of changing the CDF Training Officer position every two years. One solution would be to create a specific County Training Officer position only for NCFD Volunteers, instead of relying on the CDF Training Officer. NCFD Volunteers should get the same high quality of training in a reliable and consistent manner, as do paid firefighters. Paid volunteer training sessions would likely improve County Volunteer participation, morale and performance. The Grand Jury recommends that NCFD pay the volunteers for training sessions. Response Requested From CDF Napa County Board of Supervisors County Executive Officer Finding 5 For most of fiscal year 2000-01, there was only one full-time employee at the CDF Maintenance Station in St. Helena providing all NCFD fire engine, emergency and routine equipment maintenance. Most of the volunteer chiefs think that this employee performs very well and does an excellent job, but he needs more help. There have been incidents of long waits (months) for routine maintenance service due to this staffing shortage. Some chiefs are waiting long periods for equipment testing and having to make do without equipment due to these delays. One full-time person staffs the CDF/NCFD warehouse and on occasion supply needs are slow to be filled. Usually there is no staffing of the warehouse on weekends. No data are published regarding the distribution of supplies to individual volunteer stations. Recommendation 5 A delay of months in some instances for routine maintenance seems excessive. There should be adequate maintenance staff persons available to address NCFD needs for timely equipment routine service. The CDF/NCFD warehouse should be adequately staffed and supplies readily available to the volunteer stations whenever necessary, including on weekends. There should be records available regarding distribution of supplies to individual NCFD Volunteer stations and tracking for the costs of these disbursements. Response Requested From CDF Napa County Board of Supervisors County Executive Officer Finding 6 The concept outlined by the MOU where the volunteer chiefs act as a meaningful Volunteer Chief Advisory Board is not working well. The volunteer chiefs that are content with the current system are content because they are favored by receiving equipment requests and other CDF resources. Other volunteer chiefs are less content and believe that CDF has no interest in volunteer chief participation in running NCFD. Recommendation 6 The Napa County Board of Supervisors (BOS) should reconsider its decision to have CDF administer the NCFD rather than the County. If the BOS chooses to maintain the current CDF administrated system for NCFD, the BOS should have at least one high level County administrator assigned exclusively to work with all of the NCFD Volunteer chiefs. This person should be readily available to the volunteer chiefs, and should communicate with all nine chiefs on an equal basis. This person would act as a liaison between CDF and the volunteer stations and would speak on behalf of the volunteer stations to the County Administrator and BOS in dealing with all the different segments of the NCFD system. This person should also see that funds for equipment are distributed fairly. Response Requested From CDF Napa County Board of Supervisors Napa County Executive Officer Finding 7 In last year’s NCFD Budget, there was a large surplus of revenue available at the end of the fiscal year. This is money that was not disbursed, but was “rolled over” into this year’s budget and is kept in an interest bearing Fire Protection Fund (1080). The amount of money in this fund was $3,278,727 as of 1/31/2002 according to the County Auditor. Recommendation 7 This Grand Jury does not have the resources to examine the reasons for this surplus or to recommend a resolution to the question of excess funding in Fund 1080. The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors appoint a team of County staff including an auditor to look into the issue and make recommendations to the Board including changes to the MOU if necessary. Response Requested From CDF Napa County Auditor/Controller Napa County Board of Supervisors Napa County Executive Officer NAPA RIVER FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT The Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (NFC) has historically been an agency of the County of Napa operating as a division of the Napa County Department of Public Works. In 1998 the voters of Napa County passed an increase of one half of one percent in the sales tax to fund the local share of a $180,000,000 (estimate at the time) Napa Flood Management Plan designed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers with great input from Community Coalition for Napa Flood Management. The NFC sponsored the Plan. In the process, the NFC Board of Directors, formerly the Board of Supervisors was changed to add to the Board of Supervisors the Mayors of each of the County’s Cities and a City Council person from the City of Napa. In 1999 bonds were sold in the amount of $43,650,000 to finance the start of the plan. SUMMARY OF GRAND JURY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Finding 1 Income from the sales tax is running ahead of projections by 7.1 million dollars in three years. Finding 2 In the acquisition files examined by the Grand Jury there was no instance in which the original offer was less than the appraised value. In only one instance was there an appraisal with a range of value and in that instance the initial offer was at the highest of the range. Finding 3 The antagonism and bitterness that resulted from condemnation is the fault of the process and not the fault of FCD personnel. The better the process is understood by the property owner, the less the bitterness. Finding 4 Negotiations for the acquisition of property and relocation expenses are conducted by consultants hired by the FCD and only rarely by FCD personnel. Finding 5 FCD personnel have conducted themselves honorably and with integrity in the land acquisition process, and the grand jury commends them for their conduct. Finding 6 The Grand Jury finds that, other than going permanently out of business, one of the worst things that can happen to a business that is located on property needed for the Project is to be closed from the time of the order of possession until a new location can be found. Temporary closure is devastating to most businesses. Recommendation 6 The Board of Supervisors of the County and the Planning Commission and Planning Staff of the County and the City Councils of the County’s Cities and their Planning Commissions and their Staffs should make every effort to accommodate applications for relocation of businesses closed by the Project, including but not limited to giving priority to such applications over other applications.
• CM11
  The Planning Director is commended by the Grand Jury for his leadership in the Department. Finding 2 The Board of Supervisors is acting responsibly in refusing to allow housing on prime agricultural soils or in environmentally unacceptable locations. Finding 3 The process of environmental review of projects with the potential of causing harmful erosion (in part, new vineyards and replants) should continue to be improved so that critics are comfortable that the process ensures protection of the environment and property owners are assured that there is a process. The recent agreement for the Suscol Springs Vineyard Conversion Project (March) between critics of the process, property owners, and the Department is a foundation for putting this problem behind the County.
• CM12
  The Grand Jury commends the steering committee of the 2001 Napa City Housing Element for the excellent work they did in producing a comprehensive and socially supportive document. The Grand Jury also commends the individual efforts by members of the Continuum of Care for their ongoing work to resolve homelessness in Napa County.