📋
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.
⚠️ 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 9 findings
F1
Page 53
Income from the sales tax is running ahead of projections by 7.1 million dollars in three years.
F2
Page 53
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.
F3
Page 53
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.
F4
Page 53
Negotiations for the acquisition of property and relocation expenses are conducted by consultants hired by the FCD and only rarely by FCD personnel.
F5
Page 54
FCD personnel have conducted themselves honorably and with integrity in the land acquisition process, and the grand jury commends them for their conduct.
F6
Page 54
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.
F7
Page 58
In several instances the appraisal identified a property as having no value because the cost of toxic clean up exceeded the value of the property. In each instance if the FCD found that the current owner had not placed the contamination on the property it offered the full appraised value without deduction of any clean up cost.
F8
Page 58
The FCD has proceeded to attempt to collect the cost of contamination clean up from the original polluter where possible.
F9
Page 59
If the Federal share and the State share are not forthcoming, and in fact pay only that which is now budgeted by the FCD, there will be a short fall of revenues that will increase the cost of the project beyond the amount of the shortfall.
Recommendations 6
-
R2Page 57The Flood Control District should continue to make its original offer at the highest appraised price.
-
R3Page 57While the antagonism and bitterness are not going to go away, a better effort should be made by FCD to educate the property owner about the process and about how the property owner might go about determining the value of the property.
-
R4Page 57FCD personnel should not be involved in original negotiations nor in every negotiation, but should be able to step in when the situation appears hopeless.
-
R6Page 54The 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.
-
R9Page 59The FCD staff should report to the Financial Oversight Committee, the Board of Supervisors, the various City Councils and the public through the media the nature and extent of the shortfall and the contingency plans to meet it. Response Requested From (to Findings 2, 3, 4, 6 and 9) Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Board
-
R04-05Page 558.1M Revenues have exceeded estimates by $7.1 million in three years. The original assumptions included reimbursement from the State of California of $75,000,000 and $30,000,000 from the Corps of Engineers for