City of Napa

Since their response to the 2001-2002 Grand Jury Report, the City and County of Napa have done little to improve the chronic homeless outreach and to mitigate the resulting problems. Response: The Napa City Council and the Housing Authority of the City of Napa do not agree with this finding. “Since their response to the 2001-2002 Grand Jury Report, the City and County of Napa have done little to improve the chronic homeless outreach and to mitigate the resulting problems.” The Napa County Homeless Services Planning Council — Continuum of Care is a volunteer group staffed by representative of the County of Napa, the City of Napa and non-profit agencies and private citizens in Napa County. Co-Chairs for this group are from Napa County Health and Human Services and the Housing Authority. This group has spent the last two years creating a Ten Year Plan to End Chronic Homeless in Napa County. The plan has been endorsed by all municipalities in Napa County as well as by the Napa County Board of Supervisors. In addition, the group hired an expert consultant, HomeBase - Center for Common Concern, to assist in this endeavor. Napa County Health and Human Services and the Housing Authority of the City of Napa provided funding for the consultant. Representatives of the Continuum of Care also served on the panel chosen to write the State of California Ten Year Plan to End Chronic Homelessness. Under the Continuum of Care, the following agencies and programs have received Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funding to address homeless issues, including chronic homeless since 2001 . PROGRAM FUNDED 2001 Progress Foundation Shelter Plus Care $ 245,878.00 Catholic Charities/Family Services $ 409,977.00 2001 TOTAL $ 655,855.00 2002 Buckelew Programs Permanent Supportive Housing $ 149,385.00 Napa County HHS TRAIN Program $ 126,460.00 Napa Legat Aid Homeless Advocacy Project $ 15,000.00 HMIS — Information Services Napa County HHS Grant $ 33,600.00 Napa Valley Community Housing Permanent Supportive Housing $ 15,750.00 81 2002 2003 2003 2004 2004 2005 2005 2006 2006 The Continuum of Care funding process has a very complex funding criteria that limits the amount of funds eligible for a jurisdictions the size of Napa. The Continuum of Care has done well in maximizing the available funds from the various homelessness programs funded under Napa Valley Community Housing HACN/HHS TRAIN HOPE Resource Center Napa Co HHS Buckelew Progress Foundation Buckelew TRAIN HOPE Napa Co HHS Legal Aid Buckelew 2 Buckelew TRAIN HOPE Resource Center HMIS Project Legal Aid Catholic Charities/Family Services Buckelew TRAIN HOPE Resource Center HMIS Project Legal Aid HACN & HHS Permanent Supportive Housing TOTAL Shelter Plus Care Transitional Housing Supportive Services HMIS Permanent Supportive Housing Project Shelter Plus Care TOTAL Permanent Supportive Housing Project Transitional Housing Suportive Services HMIS Homeless Advocacy Project TOTAL Permanent Supportive Housing Project Permanent Supportive Housing Project Transitional Housing Sso HMIS Homeless Advocacy Project Permanent Supportive Housing Project , TOTAL Permanent Supportive Housing Project Transitional Housing Sso HMIS Homeless Advocacy Project Shelter Plus Care TOTAL GRAND TOTAL 2002 - 2006 tA fA PH AH Aw whe i fh 1 ts Br) — PAP FH & PRA WHF Ee 482,522.00 822,717.00 218,520.00 123,439.00 59,062.00 19,950.00 149,398.00 570,369.00 148,768.00 123,439.00 59,063.00 19,950.00 15,000.00 366,220.00 27,000.00 148,768.00 123,439.00 59,062.00 197,950.00 45,000.00 91,724.00 444,943.00 148,768.00 123,439.00 53,437.00 19,950.00 13,500.00 86,307.00 445,401.00 $ 3,305,505.00 the Continuum of Care. HUD has now mandated that Continuums shift emphasis to funding for permanent housing, rather than for services necessary for homeless individuals. In the 2006 application process, one agency voluntarily eliminated itself from the competition for funding 82 and three agencies reduced their requests for funding by ten percent each. This allowed the Continuum to apply for additional funding for permanent housing. To further emphasize the scope of the Continuum of Care, the group reorganized as the Napa County Homeless Services Planning Council ~ Continuum of Care. This name allows the group to work on funding and issues outside of the scope of HUD’s Continuum of Care strategies. In 2004, the Housing Authority of the City of Napa was awarded a five-year grant of $1,435,635.00 under Housing and Urban Development's Mainstream Housing Voucher Program. The Housing Authority was the only California agency to receive the grant in 2004. This grant houses thirty disabled households, many of whom would be homeless without this assistance. Supportive services for this program are provided through partnerships with non-profit agencies in Napa County. The City of Napa Police Department, working together with the Napa County Health and Human Services Agency (HHSA), has developed a homeless street Outreach Worker/Case Manager position that will work closely with agencies providing services to the homeless beginning in FY 2006-07, The Police Department is augmenting the available HUD funds with funds from its own budget to improve the effectiveness of this outreach position. Under the direction of the Napa Police Department Patrol Bureau Commander, the homeless outreach worker/case manager will develop relationships and will work on providing outreach and case management to homeless people with mental illness, substance abuse problems, physically disabled, HIV/AIDS, victim of domestic violence and chronically homeless. The Napa Police Department Homeless Outreach Worker will: 1. Establish contact and identify homeless people on the streets, in shelters, along the Napa River, vehicles and encampments in Napa County. 2. Inform and educate the homeless individual(s) of services and benefits available to them, to assist them in transitioning from homelessness to permanent housing and self- sufficiency. 3. Prepare statistical data and generate reports as required, 4. Conduct neighborhood surveys in areas heavily impacted by the homeless to address community concerns. 5. Provide assistance and referrals to various social service providers in the area. 6. Work closely with TRAIN project case managers, homeless service providers, law enforcement, local businesses, faith based organizations and other entities in need of outreach education or consultation. 7. Perform any other appropriate responsibilities as assigned by the supervisor. The Grand Jury indicated, “Since the 2001-2002 Grand Jury Report, Napa has not been successful in gathering sufficient data about the homeless population to enable it to provide the chronic homeless with help to resolve their specific situation.” Under the Napa County Homeless Services Planning Council - Continuum of Care, a Homeless Services Information Management System has been implemented. This system tracks homeless people as they move through the various agencies and programs throughout Napa County. In addition, every two 83 years, the Continuum of Care group has.conducted a homeless count, as mandated by HUD. The next count is scheduled for later in 2006. The last count was in January 2005. These statistics are used in the Continuum of Care competitive funding applications.

(A) related to the Hope Center. He voted approval for all of the remaining responses along with the other elected and appointed members of these two bodies. . The staff and elected officials of the City wish to recognize the effort put into the report by the Grand Jury members, and while we respectfully disagreed with a number of items we took their

The California Government Codes quoted above may have been violated by the City of Napa as they relate to billing practices, response to public document requests, and the permit review process. ; Response to Finding 4: The City respectfully disagrees with Finding 4. The Government Code sections cited by the Grand Jury regarding “billing practices” are California Government Code sections 66451.2, 66014 and 66016. The City complied with these Government Code requirements for the adoption of fees for development processing pursuant to Policy Resolution 16 (which was adopted on May 30, 2005, and which incorporates the Cost Allocation Plan identified in the City’s Response to Finding 2(a)). The City’s billing practices are implemented in accordance with the adopted fees. The Government Code section cited by the Grand Jury regarding “response to public document requests” is California Government Code section §253(c¢) (a portion of the Public Records Act, Government Code seciions 6250, et seq.). The Grand Jury Report indicates that the City does not provide responses to requests for public records within 10 days. However, the only facts cited by the Grand Jury to support this conclusion are on , which refer to claims that the City was not responsive to requests for documents from the Grand Jury, and testimony and survey comments from private citizens (without citing any examples). As noted in Response to Finding 5, below, the City made reasonable good faith efforts to respond to requests for information from the Grand Jury in compliance with California Penal Code section 925a. in several circumstances, the Grand dury requested information that was not contained on any existing “writing” subject to the Public Records Act; however, the City still undertook reasonable efforts to provide the requested information to the Grand Jury. To the extent requests for public records are submitted to the City, the City acknowledges and complies with its obligations to provide public access to GicitymgnemgnGrand Jury Report\Grand Jury Report 2005-2006 Response.doc 18 public records in accordance with the Public Records Act. in many instances, requests for public records are made at a public counter, and access and/or copies to the records are made immediately by City staff. In other cases, requests for public records may require substantial research, and potentially obtaining records from off-site storage, in which case Government Code section 6253 requires the City to provide a response within 10 days (unless the time for response is extended), and the response is required to indicate the estimated time within which the records will be made available. The Government Code sections cited by the Grand Jury regarding the “permit review process” are California Government Code sections 65920 ~ 65960 (the Permit Streamlining Act). In general, the Permit Streamlining Act establishes timing parameters by which the City processes applications for “development projects.” However, it should be noted that there are important exceptions to the scope of the Permit Streamlining Act; most significantly, the Permit Streamlining Act applies only to quasi- adjudicatory acts, and it does not apply to legislative acts (such as General Plan Amendments and Re- Zonings). (See, Landi v. County of Monterey (1983) 139 Cal App.3d 934.) As required by the Permit Streamlining Act, the City has developed a submittal checklist for development project applications. If an applicant fails to submit an application in accordance with the City’s submittal checklist, the City may determine (within 30 days of submittal of the application) that the application is incomplete. (Government Code Section 65943.) If the City does not find an application to be incomplete within 30 days, the application is deemed complete. After an application is complete, the City is authorized to request the applicant to submit additional information in accordance with the submittal checklist, or to “clarify, amplify, correct, or otherwise supplement the information in the application.” (Government Code Section 65944(a).) The City is authorized to consider this additional information to determine whether to approve or disapprove a development project. in many cases, the processing time for development applications can be attributed to the need for corrections and/or clarifications afier the applications are complete. In the two development application examples, above, for Coffield Subdivision and Cecile Court, there were a considerable number of clarifications and corrections needed. The City and the applicant may also agree to extend the time for City action on an application. (Government Code Sections 65943(d) and 65950 (b).) While the City reviews each development project application on its substantive merits, in accordance with the criteria summarized in the submittal checklist, the City also monitors all applications for procedural compliance with the Permit Streamlining Act. As summarized above, if an applicant believes that the City has not met the timing requirements for processing a particular application, the Act specifies remedies available to the applicant, including the possibility that an applicant may notify the City that the application will be “deemed approved.” (Government Code Section 65956 (b).)

The Penal Code 925(a) previously listed, relating to Grand Jury investigations, has been violated by the staff of the City of Napa. Response to Finding 5: The City respectfully disagrees with Finding 5. The City acknowledges and honors the authority of the Grand Jury to examine the City’s books and records pursuant to California Penal Code section 925a. Accordingly, City officials from whom the Grand Jury requested records or information made a good faith effort to timely respond to the requests. There are no facts set forth in the Grand Jury Report (and the City has no facts) to Support the conclusion of the Grand Jury, on , that: “This Grand Jury encountered stonewalling, delay tactics, and was intentionally given misleading information by some city employees in response to specific document request{s].” Gi\citymgnemgnGrand Jury Report\Grand Jury Report 2005-2006 Response.doc 19 The City is aware of an example of one situation which may have been perceived as a “delay tactic” but it certainly was not intended to be. The example relates to the request for billing records from the Community Development Department (referenced on Grand Jury Report ). The Grand Jury was concerned that approximately 48 of 170 bills identified on the TRACKIT system were not provided to the Grand Jury. However, the 48 bills sought by the Grand Jury were never sent out by the City. Additionally, however, the records requested from the Engineering Division were provided promptly, within five working days of the original request. When the Engineering Division received the request, the information on the documents was in the process of being reviewed. After an initial review of the documents, it was clear to Engineering Division staff that clarifications and corrections were required, and City staff was interested in providing accurate information in response to the Grand Jury’s request. City staff made a reasonable effort to keep the Grand Jury apprised as to the status of the City’s preparation of the requested documents; however, it then became clear that the Grand Jury was more interested in promptly obtaining some information (whether accurate or not), as opposed to obtaining accurate information that was in the process of being prepared. Therefore, the Engineering Division stamped a copy of each document as a “draft” and provided the documents to the Grand Jury as requested.

City employees admitted to discussing details of the investigation amongst themseives, and in a public meeting as reported by the press. This is in direct violation of the signed Grand Jury Secrecy Admonition statement. Response to Finding 6: The City respecifully disagrees with Finding 6. The City acknowledges and honors the obligation of City officials to maintain secrecy regarding questions asked and answers provided during confidential investigations by the Grand Jury. The “Grand Jury Secrecy Admonition to Witnesses” provides, in pertinent part: “You are admonished not to reveal to any person, except as directed by the court, what questions were asked or what responses were given or any other matters concerning the nature or subject of the investigation of the Grand Jury which you learned during your appearance before the Grand Jury...” Although the Grand Jury indicates that “City employees admitted” a violation, the City is not aware of any facts to support this claim. The Grand Jury certainly understands that, since the topics under investigation by the Grand Jury touched so broadly on the operations of the City, many of the “topics” under investigation were regularly discussed by City staff. As an example, the City’s Finance Department could not operate if City staff in the Finance Department were precluded from discussing billing operations during a pending Grand Jury investigation on that topic. In fact, steps were taken by City staff to ensure that, as these topics were being discussed, the confidential specifics remained confidential (regarding the scope of the Grand Jury's investigation, including questions asked by, and answers provided to, the Grand Jury), while the City continued its necessary operations of discussing these broad topics (e.g., billing operations). Thus, perhaps this distinction between confidential specifics versus the regular discussion of the broad topics, led to confusion during testimony by some City employees to the Grand Jury. The Grand Jury is also concerned regarding a quote in the Napa Register from May 11, 2006, referring to the Grand Jury investigation. However, the Register’s reference to the Grand Jury is not attributed to a City official. As indicated in the Grand Jury Report, the Grand Jury’s investigation of the Community Development Department was generally known by the local development community, based on the Grand Jury’s publication of its “Grand Jury Customer Satisfaction Survey.” In any case, during the public meeting reported in the May 11, 2006 Register article, there was no discussion of any confidential information in violation of the Grand Jury Secrecy Admonition to Witnesses. Gi\citymgricmar\Grand Jury Report\Grand Jury Report 2005-2006-Response.doc , 20