📋
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 • 2011-2012

Environmental Impact

Published: June 21, 2012 129 pages
View PDF View Full Original

Findings 16 findings

F1 Page 131
Construction of the Mt. Washington water storage tank is a build out of the City’s water infrastructure. It supports growth and will store NBA water, both of which are counter to the letter and spirit of Measure A.
F2 Page 131
Construction of the Mt. Washington water storage tank should have been listed in the 1998 Ordinance as an “approved project” or should have gone through the “replacement project” process.
F3 Page 131
Solage Resort Drainage Project should not have been paid with Measure A funds as the City of Calistoga had no duty to pay that $600,000 cost.
F4 Page 131
As the defense of a lawsuit by a municipality is a general governmental function, the legal fees paid by the City of Calistoga for the Kimball Creek Bypass litigation was an improper use of Measure A funds.
F5 Page 131
The invoices for the fees paid by the City of Calistoga for the Kimball Creek Bypass litigation provided inadequate information to allow the FPWIA to make an informed determination as whether the billings were reasonable and appropriate.
F6 Page 131
The City of Calistoga should have acknowledged its breach of public trust much earlier in the bypass litigation .
F7 Page 131
The Measure A Ordinance did not explicitly describe how the approval process should operate and as a result the Organizational Chart was arbitrarily drawn. To the degree the chart is used as a schematic model for Measure A projects, its flaws are transferred into the approval process.
F8 Page 131
The County Public Works Director improperly certified the legality of several Calistoga Measure A projects.
F9 Page 131
County Counsel is on the Flood Protection Funding Flow Chart to put agreements into proper form, but has no formal role reviewing proposals for compliance with Measure A. In practice County Counsel sometimes reviews proposals but does not review all proposals, and even as to reviewed proposals, County Counsel renders no formal opinion as to compliance with Measure A.
F10 Page 131
The approval process is ineffective since the Flood Protection Water Improvement Authority (Board of Supervisors) has approved projects that lack compliance to Measure A requirements. Greater care should be taken to examine in reasonable detail the compliance of projects and their expenses.
F11 Page 131
The Financial Oversight Committee exemplifies the disability of the system by being placed at the end of the approval process. The Ordinance intended the Financial Oversight Committee to “Ensure ongoing community input in the finalization of all projects...” (Emphasis added.) 22
F12 Page 132
The Financial Oversight Committee is the community “watchdog” for Measure A projects and should constantly monitor the projects in all stages, instead of only after the termination of those projects.
F13 Page 132
The Financial Oversight Committee is improperly constituted and has passively performed its role.
F14 Page 205
County projections forecast a 23% population reduction with evidence-based practices. If achieved, this could translate into a cost savings for the taxpayers of Napa County since the cost of the monitoring and treating out-of-custody offenders is less than the cost of incarceration.
F15 Page 205
The County’s Criminal Justice team is challenged on a daily basis to manage the prisoner population to stay within the bed-rated capacity.
F16 Page 205
Commitments of State financial support have been very limited, funding provisions included in the Assembly Bills expire in June 2012. A long-term solution is dependent on future legislation. 16

Recommendations 11