⚠️ 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 and Recommendations 4 findings
F1
There is no unified service for water delivery in Napa County. There are numerous water systems. Some of these are privately held and some are operated with public funding. There are a number of agencies and interest groups formed to oversee water delivery. Consultants are engaged by many of these groups to solve problems. The Grand Jury estimates that well over a million dollars have left Napa County to pay consultants within the last fiscal year.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
of the Water Report in the 2002-2003 Napa County Grand Jury Report. CITY OF NAPA: 1 Deis (Signature ED HENDERSON, Mayor (Type name and title) ATTEST: (Signature) PAMYLA NIGLIAZZO, City Clerk (Type name and title) COUNTERSIGNED: (Signature) PATRICIA S. THOMPSON, City Manager (Type name and title) On August 27, 2003 the City of St. Helena forwarded its response to its portion of the 2003-2004 Grand Jury Report under separate cover. The following agencies: City of American Canyon, City of Calistoga, City of Napa, Town of Yountville, Napa Sanitation District, County of Napa, and the Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District along with the City of St. Helena have jointly responded to Grand Jury Finding 1 and Recommendation 1 - Formation of a Napa Water Agency. As mentioned in the first paragraph of this correspondence, this letter serves as a Joint Response from the agencies noted. Sincerely, Best John Bert Johansson City Manager City ManagerBJ/GJ 2003-04 Joint Response Signature Page Town of Yountville Subject: Response to Grand Jury Finding 1 and Recommendation 1 - Formation of a Napa Water Agency Joint response approved by Yountville Town Council September 16, 2003 by the following vote: Saucerman, Steiger, Knight, and Carlson Ayes: Noes: None Absent: Dutton Sincerely, Jan R. Clou Kevin R. Plett Town Administrator Town of Yountville • 6550 Yount Street • Yountville • California • 94599 Telephone (707) 944-8851 • FAX (707) 944-9619 935 HARTLE COURT P.O. BOX 2480 Dedicated to Preserving the Napa River for Generations to Come NAPA, CALIFORNIA 94558-0522 TELEPHONE (707) 258-6000 FAX (707) 258-6048 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, on this 177 day of September, 2003, the Napa Sanitation District, per Board action Minute Resolution No. 03-080 at the September 17, 2003 meeting, hereby agrees to the joint response from the City of American Canyon, City of Calistoga, City of Napa, City of St. Helena, Town of Yountville, the Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District), the Napa Sanitation District (NSD), and Napa County Department of Public Works regarding Finding 1 and Recommendation 1 of the Water Report in the 2002-2003 Napa County Grand Jury Report. NAPA SANITATION DISTRICT der ED HENDERSON, Chairman ATTEST: 1880 CHERYL SCHUH, Board Secretary ATTACHMENT A NAPA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT 1001 SECOND STREET • SUITE 145 • NAPA, CALIFORNIA 94559-3030 ROBERT J. PETERSON, P.E. PHONE 707-259-8600 FAX 707-259-8619 www.co.napa.ca.us/Departments/PublicWorks Director of Public Works September 16, 2003 The Honorable Scott Snowden Presiding Judge Napa County Superior Court 825 Brown Street Napa, CA 94559 Subject: Response to Grand Jury Finding 1 and Recommendation 1 – Formation of a Napa Water Agency Dear Judge Snowden and Members of the Grand Jury: This letter serves as a joint response from the City of American Canyon, City of Calistoga, City of Napa, City of St. Helena, Town of Yountville, the Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District), the Napa Sanitation District (NSD), and Napa County Department of Public Works regarding Finding 1 and Recommendation 1 of the Water Report in the 2002-2003 Napa County Grand Jury Report. We would like to commend the Grand Jury Committee in their willingness to take on the monumental task of reviewing the many complex and diverse water purveyors in Napa County. The 2002-2003 Napa County Grand Jury Final Report, Finding 1 and Recommendation 1 of the Water Report is attached to this response for reference. RESPONSE TO FINDING 1 The Grand Jury is correct in that there are a number of independent water systems serving the residents of Napa County. As is typical in all other counties in California, these systems have evolved over time to meet the individual needs of each separate city or town. However, the five Cities, the District, NSD, and Napa County Public Works disagree with the statement that "there is no unified service for water delivery in Napa County" and would like to clarify that there is considerable coordination and cooperation among the cities and NSD regarding potable water and recycled water deliveries. All water agencies in the County are The Honorable Scott Snowden September 16, 2003 operated independently and the Cities, District, NSD, and County agree that they should remain as autonomous entities and not be governed by a single water agency. Each water agency in the County operates its water system according to the need and desire of its community and at the direction of the board or council that governs its operations and actions. This form of management allows for each community to have local control and prevents a larger population or neighboring community from dictating local needs and desires. This does not prevent unity in water delivery in Napa County. Where economics and geographic location have allowed, agencies have interconnected their water systems and have worked cooperatively and jointly to deliver potable water and recycled water to their customers. All five cities have interconnected piping systems giving them the ability to exchange potable water and pursue joint projects to develop new water supplies. One water supply common to all five cities is the State Water Project (SWP) water received through the North Bay Aqueduct (NBA), which is operated by the State Department of Water Resources (DWR). The District contracts with DWR for this water and subcontracts this water to all five cities. The SWP contract is substantial, supplying more than half of the cumulative water supply needs of the cities. The District acts as the coordinator of the NBA water delivery and interacts and negotiates with DWR on the cities' behalf regarding the operation and changes to the SWP. The District is a member of the State Water Contractors Association and through this association provides oversight and review of the SWP to ensure DWR is operating the water system appropriately and is pursuing improvements and new supplies on the members' behalf. The District, the Cities of American Canyon, Calistoga, Napa, St. Helena, the Town of Yountville, NSD, and the County of Napa believe this cooperative effort and coordination among agencies provides the unity of potable water service and recycled water delivery the Grand Jury has recommended in the County of Napa. The District, the County, NSD, and these five cities also believe that maintaining independence is appropriate and ensures that the residents of each agency have financial, operational, and planning control of their respective water systems serving their local residents. RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION 1
F2
Public awareness of water issues needs to be heightened. Flowing water is constrained by inventory, funding, pipe capacity, entitlement programs and citizen consent. Response - Napa Berryessa Resort Improvement District/Lake Berryessa Resort Improvement District: The Napa Berryessa (NB) and Lake Berryessa (LB) Resort Improvement Districts agree with Finding 2 on of the Grand Jury Report. Public awareness of water issues is important to these districts as they are in all water agencies. It is important for these districts to heighten public awareness of water issues due to the funding constraints of both districts and the need for their respective communities to understand their needs and challenges with regard to maintaining and improving their water systems to meet the ever changing drinking water quality regulations required by the State.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
Water consumption should be reduced. Landscaping practices should accommodate environmental conditions. Reclaimed water should be used for irrigation and landscaping whenever possible. . Potable water, including well water, should be designated for indoor, as well as • outdoor, use. Water saving ideas should be promoted and publicly rewarded throughout the • County. Water use in excess of a base line amount should not be subsidized. • Response - Napa Berryessa Resort Improvement District/Lake Berryessa Resort Improvement District: The Napa Berryessa (NB) and Lake Berryessa (LB) Resort Improvement Districts have very different water supply challenges that other water districts in the County of Napa. LB and NB have a stable water supply and are not subject to cutbacks in supply during drought years. These two districts will not be implementing Recommendation 2 in the Grand Jury Report because their specific water system needs do not include a need for additional water supply. These districts suffer from a very small customer base that has not grown to the size originally planned and therefore suffer from spreading the financial cost of operating water and wastewater facilities over very small customer bases. The vast majority of the costs to operate these water systems are fixed, or do not vary with the amount of water delivered. Therefore, LB and NB need to sell enough water to generate adequate revenue to be financially solvent agencies. Revenue is needed to replace aging infrastructure that while sized to deliver adequate volumes of water, was constructed in the 1960's and is in need of repair and replacement. The districts need vacant lots within their service areas to be developed so additional customers can come on line within their communities to assist with the financial needs of the infrastructure replacement. September 16, 2003 ATTACHMENT D Napa Valley Workforce Investment Board August 27, 2003 CEI \mathbb{V} E E SEP 16 0000 The Honorable Scott Snowden Presiding Judge NAPA COUNTY Napa County Superior Court EXECUTIVE OFFICE 825 Brown Street Napa, CA 94559 Dear Judge Snowden, This letter transmits the Napa Valley Workforce Investment Board's (NVWIB) response to the Grand Jury findings, stated in the July 2003 report. The NVWIB is an advisory board on workforce development issues in the County. As such, NVWIB provides oversight of Job Connection activities, including functions performed by the Training and Employment Center (TEC), a division of Health and Human Services. The Grand Jury reviewed TEC this past year and reported 4 findings. The Grand Jury findings and the NVWIB responses are attached to this letter. The NVWIB works closely with Health and Human Services/TEC management and is committed to providing workforce services in the most effective and efficient way. The NVWIB appreciates the attention and interest the Grand Jury gave TEC and Job Connection and looks forward to implementing the enhancements referenced in the responses. Please feel free to contact me at (707)255-2729, or Craig Smithson, NVWIB Executive Director, at (707)429-8413 if you have any questions or need for clarification. Sincerely, Arvin Chaudhary, Vice Chairman Napa Valley Workforce Investment Board 650 Imperial Way, Suite 101, Napa, California Fax (707) 253-4693 Phone: (707) 253-4697 TRAINING AND EDUCATION CENTER REPORT
F3
Of those WIB members interviewed, a majority was uncertain of their roles, how Job Connection worked, or how WIB evaluated the performance of TEC in running the One-Stop Center. The majority of those interviewed felt the federal and state performance standards and formulas were incomprehensible. A newly Response: NVWIB has reviewed the finding and understands the implications. developed new member Orientation was implemented on August 26, 2003.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
WIB needs to provide new members with better orientation so they can play a more effective role in determining and evaluating policy. The Grand Jury suggests an initial "new member" meeting, scheduled at a time other than regular WIB meeting, to acquaint new members with WIA and their roles as members. They should also be given a brief tour of Job Connection. In addition, a long-term member should act as a mentor, advising the new member during is or her first year. Response: The Board of Supervisors recently appointed four (4) new members to the WIB. Those members will receive a complete orientation on August 26, 2003, and given an opportunity to tour the Job Connection's Employment Network Center. Orientation manuals are also given to new members as a handy reference guide to programs and services.
F4
The Grand Jury was pleasantly surprised to find such valuable resources for the community available at the Job Connection. Attempts should be made to better market these resources to make Napa County residents aware of the benefits available. The focus of this marketing should be: awareness of the self-service Core services, name recognition for Job Connection, use of on-the-job training for employers, and benefits available to companies 650 Imperial Way, Suite 101, Napa, California Phone: (707) 253-4697 Fax (707) 253-4693 through the One-stop Center. Second, there is a great need to extend services to low-income and low-skilled workers throughout the Valley, including the Latino population. A better outreach programs need to be developed to inform these individuals who can truly benefit from WIA programs. NVWIB agrees with these findings and concurs with HHS's response: Job Response: Connection is a valuable service to the community to both job seekers and employers. Outreach and marketing have been more targeted to audiences suitable for programs funded under special projects, such as the Nurses Workforce Initiative and the Knowledge Administrator Training program. These projects provided funding for building capacity in these occupational areas and also had performance expectations specific to numbers of people served. WIA formula funds have been decreasing over the past several years, thus limiting HHS/TEC's ability to enroll large numbers of people. Consequently, recruitment and outreach did not seem prudent. Additionally, there have not been funds to support enhanced employer/business services, therefore, marketing toward this group did not seem warranted. With this being said, the value added to the community of the Job Connection services would be greatly enhanced by increasing its visibility to all parts of the Valley and to business.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
Work with local service organizations and small business groups to inform more companies about available services. Develop a relationship with the county's newspapers and other media to obtain coverage about services and special training programs. Publicity should be generated at the beginning of the fiscal year, when sufficient funds are available to serve those responding to that publicity. Religious newsletters and local market bulletin boards may be used to reach the public. Job Connection should access free public service announcements when available. Response: The WIB recently established a new Business Services Committee that will be responsible for providing guidance to the Job Connection's outreach and recruitment efforts. Part of the marketing strategy will include the implementation of a "Speakers' Bureau", composed of private sector WIB members. The "Speakers' Bureau" will provide marketing presentations to business and community groups throughout Napa Valley. Additionally, the WIB and the Job Connection have agreed to expand outreach and recruitment efforts to reach more Napa Valley residents and businesses in need of workforce services. The goal of reaching more of our residents is contained in the revised scope of work in the Memorandum of Understanding between the WIB and HHS/TEC for 2003-04. The NVWIB works closely with Health and Human Services/TEC management and is committed to providing workforce services in the most effective and efficient way. The NVWIB appreciates the attention and interest the Grand Jury gave TEC and Job Connection and looks forward to implementing the enhancements referenced in the responses. Imperial Way, Suite 101, Napa, California Fax (707) 253-4693 Phone: (707) 253-4697 CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON Administration Gateway to the Napa Valley RECEIVED September 5, 2003 SEP 9 2003 The Honorable Scott Snowden Presiding Judge STEPHEN A. BOUCH Napa County Superior Court COURT EXECUTIVE OFFICER 825 Brown Street Napa, CA 94559 Subject: Response to Grand Jury Finding 1 and Recommendation 1 - Formation of a Napa Water Agency Dear Judge Snowden and Members of the Grand Jury: This letter serves as a joint response from the City of American Canyon, City of Calistoga, City of Napa, City of St. Helena, Town of Yountville, the Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District), the Napa Sanitation District (NSD), and Napa County Department of Public Works regarding Finding 1 and
Conclusions 2
-
CL1The City of American Canyon, City of Calistoga, City of Napa, City of St. Helena, Town of Yountville, the Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District), the Napa Sanitation district (NSD), and Napa County Department of Public Works disagree with a portion on Finding 1 regarding unified service for water delivery in Napa County and have explained above why the agencies jointly feel that the appropriate level of unified service already exists. This group of agencies believes that expansion or contraction of this unity of water service can take place under the current powers of the Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. The City of American Canyon, City of Calistoga, City of Napa, City of St. Helena, Town of Yountville, the Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District), the Napa Sanitation District (NSD), and Napa County Department of Public Works will not be implementing Recommendation 1 creating a new water agency as recommended by the Grand Jury because the recommendation is not warranted and would be a duplication of service already provided by the Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. We have reviewed the duties conducted by neighboring county water agencies and have found that the District has the ability to perform all the duties of these neighboring county water agencies and can expand or contract the level of effort provided by the District at the will of the Board of Directors and participating agencies as explained in the response above. The agencies listed above will be responding to other portions of the 2002/2003 Grand jury Report separately as appropriate or as requested by the Grand Jury. response has adequately addressed Finding We hope this and
-
CL2The City of American Canyon, City of Calistoga, City of Napa, City of St. Helena, Town of Yountville, the Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District), the Napa Sanitation district (NSD), and Napa County Department of Public Works disagree with a portion on Finding 1 regarding unified service for water delivery in Napa County and have explained above why the agencies jointly feel that the appropriate level of unified service already exists. This group of agencies believes that expansion or contraction of this unity of water service can take place under the current powers of the Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. The City of American Canyon, City of Calistoga, City of Napa, City of St. Helena, Town of Yountville, the Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District), the Napa Sanitation District (NSD), and Napa County Department of Public Works will not be implementing Recommendation 1 creating a new water agency as recommended by the Grand Jury because the recommendation is not warranted and would be a duplication of service already provided by the Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. We have reviewed the duties conducted by neighboring county water agencies and have found that the District has the ability to perform all the duties of these neighboring county water agencies and can expand or contract the level of effort provided by the District at the will of the Board of Directors and participating agencies as explained in the response above. The agencies listed above will be responding to other portions of the 2002/2003 Grand jury Report separately as appropriate and requested by the Grand Jury. We hope this response has adequately addressed Finding 1 and Recommendation 1 within the report and would respectfully direct the Grand Jury to each agency if additional questions or follow-up to this response are necessary. Very truly yours, Don Colcliaser Don Colcleaser, Mayor The City of American Canyon
Agency Responses 1
Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.
* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.