Following last month's scorching grand jury criticism of the Community Development Department, the city of Napa is firing back, saying the grand jury did not get many of its facts straight.

In a point-by-point rebuttal, city staff says the grand jury's investigation of planning and building services reached many conclusions that are either unsubstantiated or wrong.

The Napa County civil grand jury criticized the city's billing in relation to building applications and fees, said staffers were unhelpful, and raised the possibility that some municipal billing practices related do not conform with state law.

In nine instances, staff "respectfully disagrees" with criticisms, while others are found "not warranted," "not reasonable" or already corrected.

While disagreeing with much of the grand jury report, City Manager Pat Thompson is recommending steps to address widespread public complaints about the quality of service.

Besides giving customer service training to Community Development employees, the city will do customer satisfaction surveys and meet regularly with the development community. A grievance procedure for citizens with complaints will be established.

Thompson is recommending the creation of a citizens task force to review Community Development operations, including fees and the time it takes to process development applications.

In May, Community Development Director Rich Bottarini conceded that many developers were getting poor service. Applications for parcel maps, variances and the like take longer to process than the California average, he told the council.

"If there were a report card, I'd say we are not doing real well," Bottarini said.

The proposed task force would scrutinize Community Development operations over the coming year. Meetings would be open to the public.

Randy Gularte, a Napa developer, said he would welcome citizen review of Community Development, which processes development applications and issues building permits.

"Some of us feel that, given the fees we're paying, we're not getting the service," he said.

The city approved a major overhaul of development services several years ago, but the promised streamlining hasn't happened, he said.

Steve Silva, a plumbing contractor, called the community task force a good idea. "They need some public oversight and input in the process," he said.

Gularte and Silva both endorsed grand jury findings of problems in Community Development. "I feel it was very accurate," Silva said of the panel's report.

The City Council is scheduled to review staff's proposed grand jury response Tuesday at its 3:30 p.m. meeting at City Hall.

Staff's 26-page response to Community Development criticism comes with a 41-page addendum that lays out how developer fees are established.

In another 40-page report, the city rejects grand jury findings that the city and county have done little to improve outreach services to the chronically homeless.

In its Community Development response, city staff asserts:

* The grand jury was "seriously in error" when it claims that project application fees were raised by 40 percent in 2002. Building permit fees were raised, not fees charged by planning staff to review project applications.

* Project applications have risen 25 percent, while five vacancies in Community Development were left empty as a cost-cutting move. In effect, the city is "going through one of its largest development surges in its history" while understaffed.

Previously, staff reported that it was giving priority to commercial projects with the potential of bringing in big revenue to the city. City expenses currently exceed revenues by millions of dollars a year.

* A recommended independent audit of how Community Development revenues are collected and spent is "unwarranted." Because current fees do not cover department costs, staff is studying whether higher processing fees are needed. Also, street improvement fees may be too low to cover the cost of serving new development.

* The grand jury said developer fees were not reasonable, while in fact Napa charges less than most Bay Area cities.

* A new billing system addresses grand jury concerns that bills do not fully explain developer charges.

* The grand jury criticizes the use of consultants to process developer applications, but they are needed because of the backlog of applications and the shortage of city staff.

* Major recommendations of the 2002 Maximus study to improve Community Development operations have been implemented, but work needs to be done to improve customer service and set performance objectives.

* Staff disagrees with the grand jury assertion that the city may have violated the law regarding billing practices, response to public document requests and the permit review process.