Calistoga City Council
June 7, 2022

two-bedroom cottage with kitchen. Since that time occupancy has stabilized at 70% range annually.

PROJECT SUMMARY & SCOPE
Housing continues to be a challenge for the City of Calistoga, its employers, and workforce. Many of our employees (at Aurora Park Cottages and other hotel properties) commute from other communities such as Santa Rosa, Middletown, and Napa. We have experienced challenges hiring and retaining management level staff due to the shortage of available housing in Calistoga.

Our proposed project intends to move the innkeeper residence/guest reception back to the 1807 Foothill parcel by converting and expanding the two-bedroom cottage with kitchen into a proper guest reception/innkeeper residence building. The 1815 Foothill Blvd. property will be returned to housing stock.

Additionally, we propose increasing the number of rentable units to 10, which is the maximum number of units allowed per the property’s zoning. This would be accomplished by the construction of 4 new one-bedroom cottages on at the currently undeveloped southern end of the parcel. New landscaping to match existing would be extended up to and around the newly constructed cottages.

This project’s scope of work includes the following items:

1. Construct 4 one-bedroom cottages (includes 1 ADA)

2. 6 additional parking spaces (includes 2 ADA) and reconfigure 1 existing

3. Addition and reconfiguration of current two-bedroom cottage w/ kitchen

4. New landscaping at and around new cottages
2 Item #8.1.

Item #8.1.

Item #8.1.

Item #8.1.

Item #8.1.

Item #8.1.

Item #8.1.

Item #8.1.

Item #8.1.

Item #8.1.

Item #8.1.

Item #8.1.

Item #8.1.

Item #8.1.

ATTACHMENT 7
Item #8.1.

Item #8.1.

Item #8.1.

Item #8.1.

Item #8.1.

Item #8.1.

Item #8.1.

Item #8.1.

Item #8.1.

Item #8.1.

Item #8.1.

Brannon Ridge Estates
February 8, 2020
TO:

Paul Coats, Chair
Tim Wilkes
Scott Cooper
Alissa McNair
Doug Allan
Letter to the Calistoga Planning Department from the Owners of 1819 Foothill Blvd.

Reference: Aurora Cottages 4 Unit expansion
Background:

In 1998 Brannon Ridge Estates was subdivided into 4 buildable lots, and a remaining parcel space identified as “Designated Remainder”. Each of the buildable lots is approximately 5 acres. In early 2000, 4 homes were built in the area zoned as RRH.

The space from the original 20 acres known as the “Designated Remainer” is a smaller parcel of land, encased on three sides by properties in the RRH designation. (See City Zoning Map attached)
The 4 lots consist of the following address and estimated current value:

Lot One: 1819 Foothill Blvd ($3.2M)
Lot Two: 1821 Foothill Blvd ($3.4M)
Lot Three: 1825 Foothill Blvd ($1.7M)
Lot Four: 1823 Foothill Blvd ($3.5M)
Designated Remainer: 1807 Foothill Blvd
A Conservation and Scenic Easement was established in 1998. This easement set aside the provisions to maintain the natural and scenic beauty of the existing openness.

An additional easement was established in 1998, driveway, storm drain and utility easement over the 5 lots from Brannon Ridge Estates.

AT ISSUE:

Item #8.1.

1) Building Cottages on the “Designated Remainer” is contrary to the natural environment of the Brannon Ridge Estates, such development is out of place, and would encroach on the natural beauty of the existing space.
a. A large Oak Tree could be endangered (See Exhibits)
2) Drainage would be impeded to the natural dry creek that now exists 3) The Leach field for property Lots 1, 2, 4, could be impeded 4) Shared Road Maintenance would be at Risk for the other owners, the road was built for 4 single family homes, not built for extended commercial traffic 5) Added noise and disturbance to the Residents of Brannon Ridge Estates. (Examples of Past issues:)
a. There has been continued noise disturbance, loud music and talking, coming from the direction of the Cottages, This sound travels directly up our drive b. Trash has been dumped near the side of the road near the leach field c. Our well has been damaged by personal walking near the road d. Repair persons from the Cottages have parked their vehicle on our property, when asked to leave, he refused, saying he was working under the authority of the Patel’s.
e. Our Gate and light have been subject to vandalism.
6) Of Particular concern as the owners of Lot 1, (1819 Foothill), most adjacent to the Designated Remainer Space, Our property extends beyond the shared Road space, and ingress / egress to the Cottages properties would actually have to cross our property, This create a Personal and Financial Liability that we should not be asked to undertake. (See Attached Exhibit)
a. Declaration Number 3, of The Road Easement is to the individual owner of Lots 1,2,3,4, and Designated Remainder, the right to pass is not extended to commercial tenants.
b. As noted in Item 17.35.040 Permit Regulations, Item 3. Specifically states no special use permit would be allowed when the maximum number of rental units that do not adhere to “The nature of ingress and egress” provision. 7) Estimated 10% Property Value Reduction, Cumulative for Lots 1-4, >$1M.

Comments on Proposed Plans:

The property proposal in NOT adequate in size share or location. The four added units are much larger in scope than the existing units. This lot size does not accommodate the size of these proposed units, the back half of the lot is not suitable for building. The four cottages are sized at 600 square feed, the cottages are at 363 square feet, this represent a 65% increase in unit size. Their square footage is 3049, wanting to increase by 1549, for a total of 4598.

Item #8.1.

The set back off the road is not consistent with the existing structures.

The proposed parking space is directly across from our property gate, with the potential added noise and disruption to a previously private street.

Such development creates an Ingress / Egress issue.

We the owners of 1819 Foothill Blvd, ask that this provision be rejected on these grounds, to leave this property as its name implies as the “Designated Remainder of Brannon Ridge Estates, Not an extension of Aurora Cottages.

In Conclusion:

Any such vote by the Planning Commission at this time is premature, as evidenced by the existing ‘DECLARATION OF CONDITIONS, RESTICTIONS AND COVENANTS REGARDING DRIVEWAY, STORM DRAIN AND UTILITY MAINTENANCE OF BRANNON RIDGE ESTATES. This easement outlines the process to which the 5 owners must adhere to the set procedures to approve any changes or improvements of the 40-foot easement, which consist of a 20-foot driveway, and 10 feet extending on each side of the drive. Item 7 of the declaration requires a 7-day written notice of the 5 owners, each having an equal vote with a simple majority to pass for such repairs or improvements. No such meeting has yet been call.

Item #8.1.

EXHIBITS
Land Survey by Hogan Land Services, Santa Rosa, CA,
Long / Short Dashed line at corner represents Lot 1 boundary beyond roadside.

Item #8.1.

Brannon Ridge Estates
Item #8.1.

Item #8.1.

Oak Tree at entrance to Brannon Estates,
Item #8.1.

Item #8.1.

1819 Property Gate / Entrance looking at Designated Remainder Item #8.1.

Dry Creek
Item #8.1.

From: aLan morris
To: Zach Tusinger
Subject: Brannon Ridge Estates please forward to all-thanks Zack Date: Thursday, February 20, 2020 5:45:51 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Brannon Ridge Estates
February 7, 2020;revised 2/19/20
From: Alan and Pia Morris 1821 Foothill Blvd
Reference: Aurora Cottages 4 Unit expansion
Conclusion: The planning Commission should vote against expansion now and at any time in the future.

Background:

The Aurora Park Cotteges (AP)
I. RESOLUTION PC 2020-XX
Resolution PC 2020-XX states: “The property is located within the R-1-10: One-Family Zoning District. The R-1-10 District conditionally allows bed and breakfast inns with up to ten units. The expanded use is consistent with the R-1-10 District development standards and would comply with the parking requirements associated with this use.

Finding: Will not substantially impair or interfere with the development, use or enjoyment of other property in the vicinity.

Substantial evidence: The existing resort property is adequate in size, shape, location, and physical characteristics to accommodate the type and intensity of the proposed structures and associated use. No impacts to surrounding properties are anticipated.”

1.RESOLUTION PC 2020-XX FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION ARE WRONG, LACKING

HISTORICAL CONTEXT AND CONSIDERATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO THE AFFECTED AREA SINCE 2000:

A. “The guest cottages on the property have been in use as visitor accommodations since the 1950s. In 1998, a proposal to substantially alter the Aurora Park Cottages was approved by the City, and included architectural changes, enlarged structures and extensive landscaping. The project was ultimately abandoned by a subsequent owner, and in 1999 a substantially lesscomprehensive plan for exterior changes wasapproved.” It must be noted that before 1999, Brannon Ridge Estates (BRE),4 home development did not exist. A paved road did not exist, nor did the current drainage system. Rather, the land was of a virgin quality.

In 1998 (BRE) was subdivided into 4 buildable lots, and a remaining parcel space identified as “Designated Remainder”. Each of the buildable lots is approximately 4 acres. In early 2000, 4 homes were built in the area zoned as RRH.

The space from the original 20 acres known as the “Designated Remainer” is a smaller parcel of land, encased on three sides by properties in the RRH designation. (See City Zoning Map attached)
The 4 lots consist of the following address and estimated current value:

Lot One: 1819 Foothill Blvd ($3.2M)
Lot Two: 1821 Foothill Blvd ($3.4M)
Lot Three: 1825 Foothill Blvd ($1.7M) Lot Four: 1823 Foothill Blvd ($3.5M) Designated Item #8.1.

Remainer: 1807 Foothill Blvd
A Conservation and Scenic Easement was established in 1998. This easement set aside the provisions to maintain the natural and scenic beauty of the existing openness.

An additional easement was established in 1998, driveway, storm drain and utility easement over the 5 lots from Brannon Ridge Estates.

Conclusion 1.: Development of BRE substantially changed the zoning and character of the adjacent area. Therefore the propoesed expansion would substantially impair or interfere with the use or enjoyment of other property in the vicinity.

2.THE PROPOSED EXPANSION OF AP VIOLATES THE PURPOSE OF BRE RRH ZONING.
“17.14.010 Purpose.

The purpose of the RR Rural Residential Zoning District is to allow the development of single-family residences on large lots that serve as a buffer between the agricultural lands around the city and the urbanized part of Calistoga, ...” Conclusion 2.:AP expansion into the area boardering the BRE homes violates the above buffer requirement around urbanized parts of Calistoga. Nothing could be more urban than hotel rooms with extra parking attached.

3.THE PROPOSED EXPANSION OF AP WITH INCURSION INTO RRH ZONED AREA

IS PROHIBITED
“D. Prohibited Uses. The following uses are prohibited in the RR district:

1. Transient commercial occupancies of dwelling units.” Conclusion 3.: AP expansion would be in violation of RRH zoning code D

4.THE PROPOSED EXPANSION VIOLATES THE PURPOSE OF 17.35.010 C. “17.35.010 Purpose.

A. It is the purpose of this chapter to establish regulations for the location, use, character, parking, signing and processing of applications for bed and breakfast inns and facilities in residential zones within the City....

C. It is further the purpose of these regulations to encourage the restoration of historic structures. An example of an historic structure is one which is listed by Federal, State and/or recognized Napa County agencies as having architectural or historic significance.” Conclusion 4.: Contrary to 17.35.010 purpose, the proposed structures are new construction, not restored historical structures.

5.AP IS CURRENTLY IN VIOLATION OF THE PURPOSE OF 17.35.010 D “D. It is further the purpose of these regulations to provide for bed and breakfast facilities which are accessory to and secondary to the primary residential use of land in residentially zoned areas. The terms “accessory” and “secondary” mean that the establishment of bed and breakfast facilities in residential zones shall not exceed 49 percent of the use of the land and/or building area on and in which the facilities are to be located. (Ord. 667 § 2, 2010; Ord. 421 § 2, 1987; Ord. 416 § 2, 1986; Ord. 396 § 2, 1984; Ord. 390 § 2, 1983).” Initially, AP was owned and managed by resident owners, as 17.35.010 D requires. That was, Item #8.1.

until the Patel organization bought out the previous owner. It must be noted that the Patels own and run numerous commercial hotel/lodging establishments in Calistoga. AP is not a small owner operator, who also lives there. Rather AP is part of a large commercial endevour.

No Patel lives there. Rather, the person residing in a residence on the property is a paid employee of the Patel organization.

Conclusion5.:AP is in current violation of 17.35.010 D. The proposed expansion would further violate the intent of this zoning stated purpose.

6.AP EXPANSION IS IN VIOLATION OF 17.35.010 REGULATION B “B. The establishment of bed and breakfast inns and facilities shall be harmonious with the character of the neighborhood and zone in which they are to be located.” AP expansion would encroach on three of the four properties on BRE zoned RRH.

Conclusion 6.:AP expansion would violate the requirement to be harmonious with the character of the neighborhood and zone in which it is located since the BRE neighborhood consists of four acre single family homes zoned RRH, not a commercial inn zoned R-1-10.

7.AP EXPANSION WOULD VIOLATE CONSERVATION REGULATIONS 19.08.010 Purpose.
“The purpose and intent of these regulations is to protect the public health, safety and community welfare and to otherwise preserve the natural resources of the City of Calistoga.

These regulations have been developed in general accord with the policies and principles of the General Plan, as specified in the land use permit and the open space and conservation element. It is furthermore intended that these regulations accomplish the following:

A. Minimize cut, fill, earthmoving, grading operations and other such manmade effects in the natural terrain;
B. Minimize soil erosion caused by human modifications to the natural terrain; C. Maintain and improve, to the extent feasible, existing water quality by regulating the quantity and quality of runoff entering local watercourses; D. Preserve riparian areas and other natural habitat by controlling development near streams and rivers;
E. Encourage development which minimizes impacts on existing land forms, avoids steep slopes, and preserves existing vegetation and unique geologic features...” Conclusion 7.: Building in the areas designated for expansion would necessarily violate all the above.

8.AP EXPANSION DOES NOT COMPLY WITH 19.08.050 Erosion hazard areas. “All uses not otherwise prohibited within erosion hazard areas shall comply with all of the following requirements:

A. Erosion Control Plans. No otherwise permitted earthmoving activity, grading, improvement, or construction of a structure shall commence within any erosion hazard area until an erosion control plan which complies with the requirements of CMC 19.08.060 has been submitted to and approved by the City.

B. Minimization of Erosion Potential. Site development shall be conducted in a manner, based upon the topography and soil type, which creates the least potential for erosion.

C. Phasing. The site shall be developed in phases of workable size which can be completed in a single construction season, including vineyard or other agricultural crop development.

Erosion and sediment control measures shall be coordinated with the sequence of grading, Item #8.1.

development, and construction operations so as to avoid leaving any portion of a disturbed site unprotected from erosion between October 15th and April 1st.

D. Vegetation Removal. Vegetation removal shall be limited to the minimum amount necessary to accommodate the project and then only as indicated on the approved erosion control plan. The project shall not adversely affect sensitive, rare, threatened, or endangered plants or animals or their habitats as designated by State or Federal agencies with jurisdiction.

E. Temporary Measures. As the permanent vegetation cover is maturing, temporary vegetation or other erosion control measures sufficient to stabilize the soil shall be established on all disturbed areas as needed as each stage of grading is completed. New planting shall be protected by using such measures as jute netting, straw mulching and fertilizing or other means which are specified in the approved erosion control plan.

F. Permanent Measures. Where building permits are required, final clearance shall not be issued until all permanent erosion control measures have been installed which are required by the approved erosion control plan.

G. Maintenance of Erosion Control Facilities. All required erosion control facilities, both temporary and permanent, shall be maintained in accordance with the approved erosion control plan.

H. Completion Deadline for Sediment Retention Devices. All sediment retention devices specified in the approved erosion control plan shall be completed no later than October 1st of the calendar year in which the erosion control plan is approved or clearing and/or grading activity has commenced, whichever is later.

I. Deadline for Winterization and Temporary Measures. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, grading activity associated with “winterization” and installation of temporary erosion control measures specified on the approved erosion control plan, other than sediment retention devices, may continue until October 15th of any calendar year.

J. Grading Deadline. Grading and earthmoving activities shall be limited to the period between April 1st and October 15th except that earthmoving or grading activity may continue between October 15th and April 1st, when weather permits, providing that adequate winterization (temporary) erosion control measures have been installed in accordance with the approved erosion control plan, and fieldchecked by the City Engineer or his designee. It shall be the responsibility of the permittee to contact the City Engineer or his designee for a fieldcheck at least three working days prior to continuing activity within the “No Activity Season.” Conclusion 8.:In the last few years the BRE residents have all had to deal with the results of erosion due to excessive rain on our mountain side community. AP expansion does not even address this important issue and therefore is in violation of this requirement.

9.AP PARKING IS CURRENTLY IN VIOLATION OF 17.36.090 DESIGN REQUIREMENTS. THAT VIOLATION HAS CAUSED ISSUES WITH DRAINAGE

FROM RRH ZONED AREA OF BRE
“C. Adequate and surplus off-street parking is of primary concern in the establishment of bed and breakfast inns and facilities. The requirements and development standards for parking as established in Chapter 17.36 CMC shall apply to all B and B facilities, unless otherwise provided herein.

17.36.090 Design requirements.

Design requirements for parking lots shall be as follows:

A. Surface.

1. Parking lots shall be surfaced with an asphaltic concrete, concrete, building stone, armor coating or equivalent material approved by the Planning and Building and Public Works Directors.”
Item #8.1.

Currently, gravel of some sort covers parking areas. Rain runoff has frequently caused the gravel to move, clogging drainage necessary for BRE and causing major water damage to the BRE drainage system.

Conclusion 9.: Expansion will only exacebate this erosion and sewer blockage causing water backup damage to the BRE properties. This has occurred in the past and has resulted in great expense to the 4 BRE owners. This would only worsen with the proposed expansion.

10.AP IS CURRENTLY IN VIOLATION OF 17.35.020 F GENERAL REGULATIONS “F. Operation of any B and B facility on a permanent basis shall be by the resident property owner(s) or resident manager. No off-site management shall be permitted, unless otherwise provided herein.”
Currently, the Patel organization is perpetrating a sham to get around the above regulation. As noted previously, the Patels own a number of hotels in Calistoga. Their desire to expand AP is mainly due to their desire for economies of scale. Their use of an employee manager is merely a way to subvert the intent of the regulations. Make no mistake, the resident manager may check people in and out, but the operation is run by the Patel organization, which violates “No offsite management shall be permitted”.

Conclusion 10.: AP is currently in violation of the intent of 17.35.020F

OTHER REASONS TO VOTE NAY TO EXPAND AP

1. Decrease in property values of lots 1,2,3,4
The owners of lots 1,2,3,4, who pay a large amount of property tax, purchased their property based on the reasonable expectation of the existing secluded, calm, tranquil nature of their small development. Adding any units to AP would significantly and permanently damage the potential use and enjoyment of the four family homes. This damage would result in 1) a significant decrease in property values 2) restrict the owners ability to sell in the future and decrease their potential selling price, thus decreasing the tax base 3) immediately result in the owner’s petitioning to substantially decrease the property taxes on their homes.

2.Construction of the units would result in an undue burden on the home owners of lots 1-4. 1) Construction vehicles would block use of the driveway to the residents and to the vehicles servicing their property. The driveway is only 1 car wide. Construction vehicles, men and materials will effectively prohibit the egress and ingress to the four residences resulting in various hardships.-who will compensate for that?
2)The driveway and roadway were built to specifications for single family use. Construction vehicles would damage the drive and road-who would pay for that? 3)Construction vehicles and the movement of earth would undermine the drainage system that is needed for proper integrity of all uphill lots-who would pay for that? 4)Construction is likely to damage the adjacent leach field for lots 1,2,4-who will pay for that? 5)Noise pollution during construction would be significant and would result in interfereing with the residents use and enjoyment of their homes. All of you are Calistoga residents and are aware how noise travels in the valley.-who will compensate us for that? Item #8.1.

3.Negative permanent impacts due to increased numbers and usage of proposed cottage expansion:
1) Building Cottages on the “Designated Remainder” is contrary to the natural environment of the Brannon Ridge Estates. Such development is out of place, and would encroach on the natural beauty of the existing space. We all purchased our homes, resonably expecting a secluded, peaceful natural environment. We have abundant wildlife that co exist in our quaint area. Deer, turkey, foxes,etc., populate this tranquil area. Both construction and increased numbers of people would put those species in danger.
a. A large Oak Tree could be endangered (See Exhibits presented by Michael Glover) As with many animals, our oaks are protected.

This violates 19.01.010 purpose :
“A. In enacting this chapter, the Council finds that this City is primarily a residential and tourist community and that the economics of property values is inseparably connected with the rural attractiveness of the area, to which much is contributed by the wooded hillsides and the native and ornamental trees scattered throughout our City. Further, the Council finds that such trees contribute to the health, safety, welfare and well-being of the City and the residents thereof by:

2. The control of damage resulting from soil erosion and flooding; and B. The Council finds that the destruction of trees injures the scenic beauty of the City; causes erosion of topsoil, creates flood hazard and risk of landslides; reduces property values, increases the cost of construction and maintenance of draining systems through the increased flow and diversion of surface waters; and eliminates one of the prime oxygen producers in this area.”
2) Drainage from the two natural seasonal creeks would be impeded.

We have frequently experienced torrential rains. Thanks to climate change, it is forecast that significant rain will increase. Our community, built on the hillsides, has 2 seaonal creeks that provide drainage that culminates near the Cottages. It is likely that these creeks would be impeeded due to the additional buildings. Further, the stripping of vegetated land,that would be required,would significantly decrease the lands ability to soak up and hold excess runoff.

This will result in damage to our drainage and will reult in flooding and debris damage to the cottages and homes across from the cottages on Foothill Blvd. 3) The Leach field for property Lots 1, 2, 4, could be impeded 4)The use of the road would be affected.

The road servicing all the homes only allows for one car at a time. One of us must back up to allow the passage of another vehicle. This is extremely difficult and dangerous on the mountain. As has happened in the past, guests at the cottages often drive up our private road for a look around. This would become a bigger problem with more units. 5) Added noise and distractions to the Residents of Brannon Ridge Estates.

As residents, all of you can relate to how noise floats around in hilly areas. You also know that one of the draws to Calistoga is the beautiful weather,enticing people to enjoy the outdoors and the wineries and brew pubs. Therefore, you understand the noise pollution that will result in extra cottages and drunken guests partying outside. In addition the cars coming and going at all hours of the day and night will degrade enjoyment of the residents. 6)Increased traffic with resulting noise, speeding and accidents Foothill, being a main artery carries all the traffic to and from Santa Rosa as well as all traffic to other areas. Cars wanting to turn into the cottages and our property have to wait for the traffic from the north. Those heading north often pass on the right shoulder boardering the homes on Foothill to get around. This results in an accident ready to happen, including injury, death to pedestrians, since no sidewalk exists. This will only be compounded by traffic from Item #8.1.

more units.
7)Estimated 30% Property Value Reduction. This results in Loss of value for lots 1-4 in excess of $3,000,000 which will Result in decreased tax assesment to the state, county and city of Calistoga. In addition ,BRE residents intend on requesting decreasedproperty tax assessments if the expansion is allowed.

CONCLUSION
All the above are negative consequences to all owners of lots 1,2,3,4 if the extension is allowed. As such, the planning commissioners would be responsible for each element of harm to the property owners. The planning commisioners would be responsible for the resultant property tax decreases due to loss of property value.

Aurora and the planning commissioners would be liable for damage to our roadway and drainage system, as well as erosion exacerbated by development.

Commissioners would be a contributing factor to increased accidents on Foothill Blvd.

Commissioners would ultimately be responsible for higher vacancy rates to all other B&B owners in calistoga. Numerous establishments exist in calistoga and especially lining Foothill Blvd. Many of them are for sale due to high vacancy rates. Adding units to Aurora park can only detract from other B&B’s in the area, driving more to close, thus further decreasing the tax base.

Four extra B&B units would not increase the tax base. That has already occured as a result building Solage, Four Seasons, and other new resorts under construction, remodeling and adding units .

AS A RESULT, WE FIND THAT EXPANSION OF AP SHOULD NOT,NOW NOR EVER, BE APPROVED.

Sent from my iPad
Item #8.1.

[Submitted to planning committee by Steve Patel 1/28/20] RESPONSE BY ALAN & PIA MORRIS AT 1821 FOOTHILL BLVD
OVERALL RESPONSE:

CALISTOGA WILL NOT EXPERIENCE ANY BENEFIT FROM APPROVING THE AP EXTENSION.

CALISTOGA WILL HOWEVER BE FACED WITH NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES:
1) DECREASED PROPERTY VALUES OF BRE AND SURROUNDING RESIDENCES WITH RESULTANT DECREASED PROPERTY TAXES.
2) INCREASED NOISE POLLUTION
3) INCREASED TRAFFIC ON FOOTHILL WITH RESULTANT INCREASED TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS.
4) DECREASED OCCUPANCY PERCENTAGES FOR ALL B AND B’S IN THE AREA 5) DEGRADATION OF THE BEAUTY AND RURAL ASPECT OF CALISTOGA.

PROJECT OVERVIEW

CURRENT OPERATION
Aurora Park Cottages is a seven unit Bed and Breakfast located at 1807 Foothill Blvd (APN 011-290-051-000) in Calistoga. The seven units are made up of 6 one-bedroom cottages and 1 two-bedroom cottage with a kitchen. Guest reception is handled at the Single Family Residence located directly across the street at 1815 Foothill Blvd..

RESPONSE: AP ALREADY COMPRISES 7 UNITS.
1) The R-1-10 District conditionally allows bed and breakfast inns with up to ten units.

Therefore, the request to expand AP by 4 units would result in 11 total units, resulting in violation of code R-1-10. It must be noted that it doesn’t matter that the Patel’s wanted to designate the 2 bedroom unit as guest reception. The code is clear and concise: 10 units.

HISTORY
Our family purchased Aurora Park Cottages, as well as the house at 1815 Foothill Blvd. in early 2015. Aurora Park Cottages (only 6 units at the time) was running at around 45% occupancy.

RESPONSE: THE OCCUPANCY RATE AT AP HAS BEEN HISTORICALLY LOW AND WILL

CONTINUE LOW REGARDLESS OF ANY ADDITIONAL UNITS
THIS IS EVIDENT BY THE FOLLOWING:
1) NEW BUILDING AND EXPANSION OF HOTEL UNITS SUCH AS SOLAGE, INDIAN SPRINGS, FOUR SEASONS,ETC.
2) DECREASE IN VISITORS DUE TO RECENT FIRES.
3) INCREASE IN ILLEGAL VRBO RENTALS.
4) NUMEROUS B AND B’S ON FOOTHILL BLVD. AND THROUGHOUT CALISTOGA. 5) CURRENTLY, AURORA PARK COTTAGES ARE AVAILABLE TO RENT FOR $149/NIGHT.

THIS IS ONE OF THE LOWEST RATES IN CALISTOGA. AS YOU ALL KNOW, SUPPLY AND DEMAND DRIVES ALL BUSINESS. THE $149/NIGHT RATE MEANS THAT THE DEMAND

FOR ANY OF THE UNITS AT AP IS VERY LOW, WHILE THE SUPPLY OF SIMILAR UNITS IS HIGH.

As we became more familiar with the operation, it quickly became evident that the innkeeper/ guest reception facility was not sufficient to meet the demands of today's travelers.

Item #8.1.

While this building was viable for housing an innkeeper, the guest reception area was far too small (really more of a closet) to properly greet and receive guests. Furthermore, this building offered no area for guests to congregate and/or relax other than at their cottage.

In 2016 we moved the innkeeper residence/guest reception across the street to the 1815 Foothill property and converted the former innkeeper residence/guest reception building into a rentable two-bedroom cottage with kitchen. Since that time occupancy has stabilized at 70% range annually.

RESPONSE: I AM NOT SURE BUT I THINK THEY ARE CLAIMING THAT THEIR RISE IN OCCUPANCY IS DUE TO A LARGER AREA IN THE INNKEEPER’S RESIDENCE. AT BEST, THAT IS DISINGENUOUS, AND FALSE. THEIR CLAIM OF 70% OCCUPANCY DOES NOT

MATCH WITH THE PER NIGHT ADVERTISED COST-IT IS ONE OF THE LOWEST FOR CALISTOGA.

PROJECT SUMMARY & SCOPE
Housing continues to be a challenge for the City of Calistoga, its employers, and workforce.

Many of our employees (at Aurora Park Cottages and other hotel properties) commute from other communities such as Santa Rosa, Middletown, and Napa. We have experienced challenges hiring and retaining management level staff due to the shortage of available housing in Calistoga.

Our proposed project intends to move the innkeeper residence/guest reception back to the 1807 Foothill parcel by converting and expanding the two-bedroom cottage with kitchen into a proper guest reception/innkeeper residence building. The 1815 Foothill Blvd. property will be returned to housing stock.

RESPONSE: I THINK THEY ARE CLAIMING THAT THEY WILL IMPROVE THE HOUSING CRISIS IN CALISTOGA BY PLACING THEIR 2 BEDROOM UNIT ON THE MARKET AS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. THE ABSURDITY OF THIS ATTEMPT TO CONVINCE THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO APPROVE THIS EXPANSION IS BEYOND COMPREHENSION. WE ALL KNOW THAT IT IS HIGHLY UNLIKELY THAT THE 2 BEDROOM UNIT IN THE MIDST OF A MULTI UNIT HOTEL COMPLEX COULD BE SOLD. IF IT WERE TO BE SOLD, IT WOULD COMMAND A PRICE THAT LOCAL HOSPITALITY WORKERS COULD NOT AFFORD.

IT APPEARS THAT MR. PATEL THINKS HE CAN MANIPULATE THE PLANNING DIVISION INTO WHATEVER ARRANGEMENT HE THINKS WILL BENEFIT HIM AT THE TIME. THE 2 BEDROOM UNIT IS PART OF AP. IT MATTERS NOT WHAT MR. PATEL DECIDES TO DESIGNATE IT AS.

Additionally, we propose increasing the number of rentable units to 10, which is the maximum number of units allowed per the property’s zoning. This would be accomplished by the construction of 4 new one-bedroom cottages on at the currently undeveloped southern end of the parcel. New landscaping to match existing would be extended up to and around the newly constructed cottages.

RESPONSE: R-1-10 IS A ONE-FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT. THE DISTRICT conditionally ALLOWS BED AND BREAKFAST UNITS WITH UP TO 10 UNITS.

THERE ARE 3 MAIN CONCEPTS 1) ONE FAMILY ZONING 2) CONDITIONALLY ALLOWING BED AND BREAKFAST 3) MAXIMUM OF TEN UNITS.

ONCE BRANNAN RIDGES ESTATES (BRE) WAS DEVELOPED IT CHANGED THE ELEMENTS FOR CONDITIONAL ALLOWANCE OF A B&B. AP IS NOW SURROUNDED BY SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, MOST OF WHICH ARE ZONED RRH. EXPANDING AP DOES NOT, AND WOULD VIOLATE THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF ZONING CODES THAT GOVERN THE AREA. 11 UNITS VIOLATES THE ZONING CODE.

Item #8.1.

This project’s scope of work includes the following items:

1. Construct 4 one-bedroom cottages (includes 1 ADA)

2. 6 additional parking spaces (includes 2 ADA) and reconfigure 1 existing

3. Addition and reconfiguration of current two-bedroom cottage w/ kitchen

4. New landscaping at and around new cottages
RESPONSE:
1) THE CONSTRUCTION WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY CAUSE ISSUES FOR BRE RESIDENTS AND GUESTS AND SURROUNDING RESIDENTS. NOISE POLLUTION, TRAFFIC

CONGESTION, DAMAGE TO THE JOINTLY OWNED DRIVEWAY WOULD BE SUBSTANTIAL AND COULD RESULT IN THE LACK OF USABILITY FOR BRE RESIDENTS.

ALSO, THIS WOULD RESULT IN DECREASING THE PROPERTY VALUES OF BRE AND ALL SURROUNDING RESIDENTS.
2) ADDITIONAL UNITS RESULTS IN ADDITIONAL PEOPLE (ASSUME 2 GUEST PER ROOM=8 ADDITIONAL HOTEL GUESTS) AND ADDITIONAL CARS (ASSUME 4). THIS CAN ONLY RESULT IN INCREASED TRAFFIC ISUES AND ACCIDENTS ON FOOTHILL.

ALSO IT INCREASES THE LIKELIHOOD OF NOISY DRUNKEN BEHAVIOR FROM THE ADDITIONAL GUESTS. IN ADDITION INCREASED STAFF, MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL WOULD BE REQUIRED WITH THEIR VEHICLES, NOISE AND CONGESTION. 3) EXISTING B AND B’S IN THE AREA WOULD EXPERIENCE DECREASED OCCUPANCY

AND OR DECREASED PRICING POTENTIAL, RESULTING IN DECREASED REVENUE FOR CALISTOGA.

Item #8.1.

Item #X.X

CITY OF CALISTOGA
STAFF
REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Samantha Thomas, Associate Planner
DATE: March 15, 2022
SUBJECT: Appeal (AP 2022-2) of Planning Commission Approval of Renewal of Use Permit and Design Review UP 2022-1 and DR 2022-1 for an Application to Expand Aurora Park Cottages, Located at 1807 Foothill Boulevard (APN 011-290-046)
APPROVED FOR FORWARDING:

Laura Snideman, City Manager
ISSUE: Consideration the appeal of a use permit and design review renewal application for a three-guest unit expansion project and associated on-site improvements at the Aurora Park Cottages located at 1807 Foothill Boulevard (APN 011-290-046). The application was originally approved by Planning Commission on February 26, 2020, with an approval of renewal on February 9, 2022.

RECOMMENDATION: Consider adopting a resolution (ATTCH 1) denying Appeal AP 2022-2 thereby upholding Planning Commission approval of application UP 2022-1 and DR 2022-1, finding the project categorically exempt from CEQA, and approving Use Permit Application UP 2022-1 and Design Review Application DR 2022-1.

BACKGROUND: On February 9, 2022, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider a referral from staff to renew a Use Permit and Design Review applications to expand the Aurora Park Cottages (UP 2022-1 and DR 2022-1) (“Project”). At the conclusion of deliberations, a motion was made to approve the use permit and design review with conditions, passing by a 4-0 vote (Chair Copper abstained) (ATTCH 2). The Planning Commission staff report and attachments thereto are provided as attachments (ATTCH 3) to this Staff Report. Due to a private easement dispute with the neighboring property and the applicant, a number of letters and emails were received by staff regarding this application (both before and after the Planning Commission packet went out), and all of them are attached to this staff report (ATTCH 4).

Item #8.1.

City Council Staff Report
Aurora Park Cottages Appeal
March 15, 2022

On February 20, 2022, Michael P. Glover and Curtis J. Wilhelm, an adjoining property owner, filed a timely Application for Appeal (ATTCH 5) of the Planning Commission’s decision.

DISCUSSION: Following is a summary of Staff findings in response to each appeal item (A-D) submitted by Michael P. Glover and Curtis J. Wilhelm.

A. The City Code provisions allowing for Bed and Breakfast establishments state clearly that such uses are to be accessory/secondary to the primary residential use of this residentially zoned property (§17.35.010). Residential use is proposed to account for no more than 600 square feet of this >6000 square foot Project.

This results in at least 90% of the square footage of structures on the property being a commercial bed and breakfast use. This is not allowed – the City Code clearly states that the Bed & Breakfast uses shall not exceed 49% of the use of land and/or buildings (§17.35.010(D)). This is an over commercialization of a residential property. This inappropriate intensification of a commercial use also creates conflicts with the other users of the private residential driveway.

Staff Findings.

1. CMC §17.35.010 D. The purpose of these regulations is to provide for bed and breakfast facilities which are accessory to and secondary to the primary residential use of land in residentially zoned areas. The terms “accessory” and “secondary” mean that the establishment of bed and breakfast facilities in residential zones shall not exceed 49 percent of the use of the land and/or building area on and in which the facilities are to be located.

Findings. Complies – the proposal would permit bed and breakfast use of 10 units totaling 6,110 SF on the 62,727 SF site, or 9.74 percent of the use of the land.

2. Per CMC §17.35.040 (C) 4. The Planning Commission may authorize an exception to subsections (B), (C), and (D) of this section and CMC §17.36.130(C), parking requirements, subject to a major use permit, when the special circumstances as stated above and below exist:
a. A bed and breakfast inn and facility or other visitor accommodation located on the property was authorized by the City on or before January 1, 2010;
Findings: Complies – City records relating to design review for the original B & B cottages indicate that they are vintage 1950s structures with minimal exterior alterations.
b. The property is located within an R-1-10 zone;
Findings: Complies – the project site is located with an R-1-10 zone. c. The property is established with no more than 10 rental units; Findings: Complies – the entitlement permits no more than 10 units. d. Minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet.

Item #8.1.

City Council Staff Report
Aurora Park Cottages Appeal
March 15, 2022

Findings: Complies – the project site is 62,727 square feet.

B. The City did not evaluate the City Code requirements in § 17.35.040(C)(3) for findings necessary to approve additional units, and instead used the more general findings for exceptions to standards without evaluating the Project against the more appropriate and directly applicable findings necessary to approve an increase in rooms above 2 to a maximum of 6. The Planning Commission approved 10 total units without even analyzing it against the City’s own standards for an increase to 6 units. This discussion and analysis were not included in the Staff Report.

Staff Findings.

1. CMC §17.35.040(C)(4) authorizes Planning Commission an exception to §17.35.040(C)(3) when special circumstances exist. With respect to §17.35.040(C)(3) a. – f. findings, note the following:
a. Proximity to State Highway.

Findings: Complies – the project site is located off State Highway 128/Foothill Boulevard which is classified as an arterial street per the City of Calistoga’s General Plan, 2014 Circulation Element. Although the project site is located off State Highway 128/Foothill Boulevard, the project site meets all required setbacks per the R-1-10 zoning district and provided appropriate ingress and egress from State Highway 128/Foothill Boulevard. The proposed addition to the guest services/manager’s residence, the closest building to State Highway 128/Foothill Boulevard, is setback approximately 50 feet, and the nearest of the four new guest cottages is setback approximately 370 feet from State Highway 128/Foothill Boulevard.
b. Historical Character.

Findings: Complies – the proposed designs of the new cottages and the addition to create the guest services/manager’s residence mirror the architectural style, colors, and elements of the existing buildings on the property. In addition, there are no buildings on-site, nor are there any buildings within the vicinity of the Site registered with the Office of Historic Preservation as a California Historical Resource.1
c. Character of proposed site relative to surroundings.

Findings: Complies – the proposed designs of the new cottages and the addition to create the guest services/manager’s residence mirror the architectural style, colors, and elements of the existing buildings on the property. Wood siding, trim, and asphalt shingle roofing would all be designed to match the current materials of the existing cottages. Similarly, the new cottages would be painted with light yellow siding and white trim 1 https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/ListedResources/?view=county&criteria=28 Item #8.1.

City Council Staff Report
Aurora Park Cottages Appeal
March 15, 2022

to match the existing units, and each cottage would feature a deck on the front. The site arrangement of the new cottages would continue the linear layout of the buildings on the property. No trees will be removed, and the project is designed around two large existing oak trees. The existing landscape scheme would be continued to the new cottages as well. The project’s design elements are consistent with Community Identity Element policies that encourage the use of existing materials that have traditionally been used in Calistoga and are consistent with the prior approved development on this property. The existing resort property is adequate in size, shape, location, and physical characteristics to accommodate the type and intensity of the proposed structures and associated use. No impacts to surrounding properties are anticipated.
d. Nature of ingress and egress.

Findings: Complies – Drive aisles are regulated by CMC Chapter

17.36.160 A. and B. Site ingress/egress at Foothill Blvd will remain unchanged. Per the project’s site plan, proposed drive aisle widths vary from 24’-32’ which complies with minimum standards of 24’. e. Adequacy of number and location of parking spaces and maneuvering areas.

Findings: Complies – Parking supply is regulated by CMC Chapter

17.36.140, which requires one (1) space per room, plus two (2) spaces for an onsite manager. As the proposed project would entail ten (10) rooms and a guest services/manager’s residence, a total of twelve (12) spaces would be required. Under the project six (6) new parking spaces, including one (1) ADA space, would be added for a total of fourteen (14) parking spaces. Existing and proposed maneuvering area complies with CMC provisions as described in item d above.
f. Provision of accessible rooms.

Findings: Complies – the use permit and design review application request approval for the construction of four new guest cottages and the conversion of an existing guest cottage to a guest services/residence unit includes one of the new guest cottages to be designated as an accessible unit. All future construction is required to be ADA compliant.

C. The CEQA Categorical Exemption is inappropriate given the property’s designation as Very High Fire Hazard. The Project is not in an urban area and use of this exception is inappropriate given recent and increasing fire risks and ongoing fire studies being conducted by the City. The CEQA Initial Study was recently amended to include evaluation of Wildfire Risks associated with new projects and this Project should be evaluated for such risks, especially in light of its location and proposed increase in commercial activity utilizing a shared private residential driveway for access.

Staff Findings.

Item #8.1.

City Council Staff Report
Aurora Park Cottages Appeal
March 15, 2022

1. The Planning Commission considered exceptions to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) categorical exceptions, and found that none of the exceptions provided in Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines apply as described below:
a. Section 15300.2(a): Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located -a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply in all instances, except where the project may impact on an
environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies.

Findings: Complies – there is no evidence in the record that the Project will impact an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern in an area designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies. Analysis is provided below.
b. Section 15300.2(b): Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of
successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant.

Findings: Complies – there is no evidence in the record that successive projects of the same type in the area will have a significant environmental impact. The Project would result in a cumulative lot coverage of 10 percent or 6,110 square feet of land, and is not anticipated to impact sensitive environments, as the Site is already disturbed from previous development activities and neighboring parcels are developed. As the lot size exceeds 10,000 square feet in size (62,727 square feet), under the R-1-10 Zoning District, the maximum lot coverage is allowed is 35 percent. As such, no cumulative impacts are anticipated. c. Section 15300.2(c): Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.

Findings: Complies – a project is not exempt if the project (1) has some unusual circumstances (such as size or location) which distinguishes the project from the categorically exempt class of projects, and (2) it can be shown that due to such unusual circumstances, there is a reasonable possibility of a significant effect on the environment. As stated previously, the Site is already disturbed from previous development activities, neighboring parcels are developed, and the proposed total lot coverage is allowed under the CMC. The Site is currently Item #8.1.

City Council Staff Report
Aurora Park Cottages Appeal
March 15, 2022

developed and mapped within the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ)2; therefore, as proposed, the Project shall be required to meet all of the conditions of CFC Chapter 49, CBC Chapter 7A and the Residential Code, Section R327 and shall also be subject to additional review and approval by the Fire Department at the time of building or grading permit application.

Per the City of Calistoga’s General Plan, Public Safety Element 2014 Update, new development in Very High and High Fire Hazard Severity Zones is required by state law to utilize fire resistant building materials and provide adequate access for emergency vehicles. California Fire Code Chapter 49 establishes fire safety requirements for new construction in the wildland-urban interface fire area, which have been incorporated into the CMC Chapter 15.36. New construction in these zones is required to adhere to guidelines for defensible space, vegetation
management in a fire-safe manner, financial responsibility for maintenance of landscaping and open parcels (forest), and other measures. In addition, a wildfire behavior model is required to specify building setbacks and fire resistive ratings. The Fire Department routinely inspects properties and homes in the Very High Fire Hazard Area to enforce vegetation management
requirements and publicizes the chipping program provided by the Napa Communities Firewise Foundation, which encourages the removal of dangerous vegetation. The Department is familiar with the locations of all structures in this Area and available access.3 As such, with conditions incorporated, significant environmental impacts would not occur.
d. Section 15300.2(d): Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified EIR.

Findings: Complies – while Napa County does not contain officially designated state scenic highways, there are portions of highways that have been identified as eligible for listing, Highway 128 which is within the vicinity of the Site has not been officially designated or eligible for listing.4
e. Section 15300.2(e): Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which 2 https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/
3 https://www.ci.calistoga.ca.us/home/showpublisheddocument/35598/637430144068400000 4 https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenichighways Item #8.1.

City Council Staff Report
Aurora Park Cottages Appeal
March 15, 2022

is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.

Findings: Complies – regarding hazardous waste sites, no leaking underground storage tanks (LUST) and Cleanup Program Sites have been identified within a 1,000-foot radius of the project area.5
f. Section 15300.2(f): Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.

Findings: Complies – there are no buildings on-site, nor are there any buildings within the vicinity of the Site registered with the Office of Historic Preservation as a California Historical Resource.6 Since the project area is limited to developed site and there are no buildings on-site or within the vicinity registered as a California Historical Resource, no impacts to any historical resources would occur.

Concluding Findings: Complies – because the Project is consistent with the requirements for a Class 3 categorical exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303, and because none of the exceptions to application of a categorical exemption provided in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply (provided above), there is substantial evidence in the record to support a finding that the Project is categorically exempt from CEQA and an EIR is not required.

As such, the Project meets the requirements necessary to qualify for a Class 3 (New Construction of Conversion of Small Structures) categorical exemption under the CEQA Guidelines
D. The facilities must be inspected and those reports should be forwarded to the Planning Commission, pursuant to §17.35.020(H). Review of compliance history should be considered prior to approving any expansion. These inspections and reports are mandatory per City Code.

Staff Findings.

1. Per CMC §17.35.020(H) all facilities shall be inspected on an annual basis by the Planning and Building Department for conformance with use permit conditions and the regulations established in this title. Inspection reports shall be forwarded to the Planning Commission for informational purposes, as necessary.

Findings: Complies – the Building Department and the Fire Department are responsible for conducting the required annual inspection reports. The annual inspection reports on file do not provide any additional information pertinent to the use permit and design review renewal application. If there 5 https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=1807+Foothill+Boulevard%2C+ Calistoga#
6 https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/ListedResources/?view=county&criteria=28 Item #8.1.

City Council Staff Report
Aurora Park Cottages Appeal
March 15, 2022

were compliance issues present, Police, Fire, and/or Building would provide them to Staff. Prior to the last hearing for the project, no concerns were raised from the departments. In addition, Staff checked with Police to confirm any existing issues due to neighbor concerns (private easement disputes) and none were present.

COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL: Pursuant to CMC 1.20.030(B), Council shall consider the grounds for the appeal and the Council may affirm, overturn, or modify the initial decision of the Planning Commission or refer the matter back to the Planning Commission with direction for reconsideration. If the City Council desires to deny the appeal of the project, the Finding for Denial are contained in the attached Resolution (ATTCH 1). If the City Council determines that the findings in CMC Section

17.40.030 D and 17.41.050 cannot be made for the approval of the Project, Council will need to identify the bases for that decision. Therefore, the following options are available to City Council:

1. Adopt a resolution (ATTCH 1) denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission’s approval of UP 2022-1 and DR 2022-1 and the determination of that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.

2. Direct staff to return with a resolution of project denial (upholding the appeal) with findings indicated by the City Council.

3. Revise or modify the decision of the Planning Commission citing findings to better comply with CMC Section 17.40.030 D and 17.41.050.

4. Refer the matter back to Planning Commission with direction.

Staff recommends that the City Council consider the appellant’s appeal of the Planning Commission decision to approve UP 2022-1 and DR 2022-1, consider public testimony and select Option 1.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: This action will not have a significant effect on the environment in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and is Categorically Exempt from the requirements of CEQA under Section 15303 (New Construction of Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA Guidelines.

PUBLIC COMMENTS: To date, no new public comments have been received relating to this appeal.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Draft Resolution denying appeal

2. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

3. Planning Commission Staff Report (with attachments)

4. Supplemental public comments on the Planning Commission application

5. Appeal of Planning Commission decision from Michael P Glover and Curtis J.

Wilhelm
Item #8.1.

Item #X.X

CITY OF CALISTOGA

STAFF REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jeff Mitchem, Planning & Building Director
DATE: March 15, 2022
SUBJECT: Resolution Denying Appeal (AP 2022-2) of Planning Commission Approval of Renewal of Use Permit and Design Review UP 2022-1 and DR 2022-1 for an Application to Expand Aurora Park Cottages, Located at 1807 Foothill Boulevard (APN 011-290-046)
APPROVED FOR FORWARDING:

Laura Snideman, City Manager
ISSUE: Consideration the appeal of a use permit and design review renewal application for a three-guest unit expansion project and associated on-site improvements at the Aurora Park Cottages located at 1807 Foothill Boulevard (APN 011-290-046). The application was originally approved by Planning Commission on February 26, 2020, with an approval of renewal on February 9, 2022.

RECOMMENDATION: Consider adopting Resolution (ATTCH 1) denying Appeal AP 2022-2 thereby upholding Planning Commission approval of application UP 2022-1 and DR 2022-1, finding the project categorically exempt from CEQA, and approving Use Permit Application UP 2022-1 and Design Review Application DR 2022-1.

BACKGROUND: On February 9, 2022, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider a referral from staff to renew a Use Permit and Design Review applications to expand the Aurora Park Cottages (UP 2022-1 and DR 2022-1) (“Project”). At the conclusion of deliberations, a motion was made to approve the use permit and design review with conditions, passing by a 4-0 vote (Chair Copper abstained) (ATTCH 2). The Planning Commission staff report and attachments thereto are provided as attachments (ATTCH 3) to this Staff Report. Due to a private easement dispute with the neighboring property and the applicant, a number of letters and emails were received by staff regarding this application (both before and after the Planning Commission packet went out), and all of them are attached to this staff report (ATTCH 4).

Item #8.1.

City Council Staff Report
Aurora Park Cottages Appeal AP 2022-1
March 15, 2022

On February 20, 2022, Michael P. Glover and Curtis J. Wilhelm, an adjoining property owner, filed a timely Application for Appeal (ATTCH 5) of the Planning Commission’s decision.

DISCUSSION: Following is a summary of each of the Appeal issues raised by the appellant and Staff findings in response to each appeal item (A-D) submitted by Michael P. Glover and Curtis J. Wilhelm.

Appeal Issue A: The City Code provisions allowing for Bed and Breakfast establishments state clearly that such uses are to be accessory/secondary to the primary residential use of this residentially zoned property (§17.35.010). Residential use is proposed to account for no more than 600 square feet of this >6000 square foot Project. This results in at least 90% of the square footage of structures on the property being a commercial bed and breakfast use. This is not allowed – the City Code clearly states that the Bed & Breakfast uses shall not exceed 49% of the use of land and/or buildings (§17.35.010(D)). This is an over commercialization of a residential property. This inappropriate intensification of a commercial use also creates conflicts with the other users of the private residential driveway.

Staff Findings.

1. CMC §17.35.010 D. The purpose of these regulations is to provide for bed and breakfast facilities which are accessory to and secondary to the primary residential use of land in residentially zoned areas. The terms “accessory” and “secondary” mean that the establishment of bed and breakfast facilities in residential zones shall not exceed 49 percent of the use of the land and/or building area on and in which the facilities are to be located.

Findings. Complies – The proposal would permit bed and breakfast use of 10 units totaling 6,110 SF on the 62,727 SF site, or 9.74 percent of the use of the land. REMANDED ITEM: ASSESS “USE OF LAND”

2. Per CMC §17.35.040 (C) 4. The Planning Commission may authorize an exception to subsections (B), (C), and (D) of this section and CMC §17.36.130(C), parking requirements, subject to a major use permit, when the special circumstances as stated above and below exist:
a. A bed and breakfast inn and facility or other visitor accommodation located on the property was authorized by the City on or before January 1, 2010;
Findings: Complies – City records relating to design review for the original bed and breakfast cottages indicate that they are vintage 1950s structures with minimal exterior alterations.
b. The property is located within an R-1-10 zone;
Findings: Complies – The project site is located with an R-1-10 zone. c. The property is established with no more than 10 rental units; Findings: Complies – The entitlement permits are no more than 10 units.

Item #8.1.

City Council Staff Report
Aurora Park Cottages Appeal AP 2022-1
March 15, 2022

d. Minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet.

Findings: Complies – The project site is 62,727 square feet in size.

Appeal Issue B: The City did not evaluate the City Code requirements in §17.35.040(C)(3) for findings necessary to approve additional units, and instead used the more general findings for exceptions to standards without evaluating the Project against the more appropriate and directly applicable findings necessary to approve an increase in rooms above 2 to a maximum of 6. The Planning Commission approved 10 total units without even analyzing it against the City’s own standards for an increase to 6 units. This discussion and analysis were not included in the Staff Report.

Staff Findings.

3. Findings for the 6 special circumstances conveyed in §17.35.040(C)(3) a. – f are contained in the record (Staff Reports and Resolutions) and are conveyed below.
a. Proximity to State Highway.

Findings: Complies – The project site is located off State Highway 128/Foothill Boulevard which is classified as an arterial street per the City of Calistoga’s General Plan, 2014 Circulation Element. Although the project site is located off State Highway 128/Foothill Boulevard, the project site meets all required setbacks per the R-1-10 zoning district and provided appropriate ingress and egress from State Highway 128/Foothill Boulevard. The proposed addition to the guest services/manager’s residence, the closest building to State Highway 128/Foothill Boulevard, is setback approximately 50 feet, and the nearest of the four new guest cottages is setback approximately 370 feet from State Highway 128/Foothill Boulevard.
b. Historical Character.

Findings: Complies – The proposed designs of the new cottages and the addition to create the guest services/manager’s residence mirror the architectural style, colors, and elements of the existing buildings on the property. In addition, there are no buildings on-site, nor are there any buildings within the vicinity of the Site registered with the Office of Historic Preservation as a California Historical Resource.1
c. Character of proposed site relative to surroundings.

Findings: Complies – The proposed designs of the new cottages and the addition to create the guest services/manager’s residence mirror the architectural style, colors, and elements of the existing buildings on the property. Wood siding, trim, and asphalt shingle roofing would all be 1 https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/ListedResources/?view=county&criteria=28 Item #8.1.

City Council Staff Report
Aurora Park Cottages Appeal AP 2022-1
March 15, 2022

designed to match the current materials of the existing cottages. Similarly, the new cottages would be painted with light yellow siding and white trim to match the existing units, and each cottage would feature a deck on the front. The site arrangement of the new cottages would continue the linear layout of the buildings on the property. No trees will be removed, and the project is designed around two large existing oak trees. The existing landscape scheme would be continued to the new cottages as well. The project’s design elements are consistent with Community Identity Element policies that encourage the use of existing materials that have traditionally been used in Calistoga and are consistent with the prior approved development on this property. The existing resort property is adequate in size, shape, location, and physical characteristics to accommodate the type and intensity of the proposed structures and associated use. No impacts to surrounding properties are anticipated.
d. Nature of ingress and egress.

Findings: Complies – Drive aisles are regulated by CMC Chapter

17.36.160 A. and B. Site ingress/egress at Foothill Blvd will remain unchanged. Per the project’s site plan, proposed drive aisle widths vary from 24 feet to 32 feet which complies with minimum standards of 24 feet. e. Adequacy of number and location of parking spaces and maneuvering areas.

Findings: Complies – Parking supply is regulated by CMC Chapter

17.36.140, which requires one (1) space per room, plus two (2) spaces for an onsite manager. As the proposed project would entail ten (10) rooms and a guest services/manager’s residence, a total of twelve (12) spaces would be required. Under the project six (6) new parking spaces, including one (1) ADA space, would be added for a total of fourteen (14) parking spaces. Existing and proposed maneuvering area complies with CMC provisions as described in item d. above.
f. Provision of accessible rooms.

Findings: Complies – The use permit and design review application request approval for the construction of four (4) new guest cottages and the conversion of an existing guest cottage to a guest services/residence unit includes one of the new guest cottages to be designated as an accessible unit. All future construction is required to be ADA compliant.

Appeal Issue C: The CEQA Categorical Exemption is inappropriate given the property’s designation as Very High Fire Hazard. The Project is not in an urban area and use of this exception is inappropriate given recent and increasing fire risks and ongoing fire studies being conducted by the City. The CEQA Initial Study was recently amended to include evaluation of Wildfire Risks associated with new projects and this Project should be evaluated for such risks, especially in light of its Item #8.1.

City Council Staff Report
Aurora Park Cottages Appeal AP 2022-1
March 15, 2022

location and proposed increase in commercial activity utilizing a shared private residential driveway for access.

Staff Findings.

4. The Planning Commission determined that the following categorical exemptions applied to the project:
a. Section 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA Guidelines as the Project is limited to 4 new guest units not to exceed 2,500 square feet in floor area, the conversion of one guest unit to a single-family residence (guest services/manager’s residence) with an addition within the residential zone (R-1-10), accessory structures (i.e., patios), and utility extensions of reasonable length to serve the proposed construction.

The Planning Commission also considered whether any exceptions to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) categorical exceptions were applicable and found that none of the exceptions provided in Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines apply as described below:
a. Section 15300.2(a): Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located -a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply in all instances, except where the project may impact on an
environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies.

Findings: There is no evidence in the record that the Project will impact an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern in an area designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies. Analysis is provided below.
b. Section 15300.2(b): Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of
successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant.

Findings: There is no evidence in the record that successive projects of the same type in the area will have a significant environmental impact. The Project would result in a cumulative lot coverage of approximately 10 percent or 6,110 square feet of land, and is not anticipated to impact sensitive environments, as the Site is already disturbed from previous development activities and neighboring parcels are developed. As the lot size exceeds 10,000 square feet in size (62,727 square feet), under the R-1-10 Item #8.1.

City Council Staff Report
Aurora Park Cottages Appeal AP 2022-1
March 15, 2022

Zoning District, the maximum lot coverage is allowed is 35 percent. As such, no cumulative impacts are anticipated. c. Section 15300.2(c): Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.

Findings: There is no evidence in the record that there is any reasonable possibility that the project will have a significant on the environment. Generally, a finding of significant impact is found where the project (1) has some unusual circumstances (such as size or location) which distinguishes the project from the categorically exempt class of projects, and (2) it can be shown that due to such unusual circumstances, there is a reasonable possibility of a significant effect on the environment. There is no unusual circumstance applicable to the project. As stated previously, the Site is already disturbed from previous development activities, neighboring parcels are developed, and the proposed total lot coverage is allowed under the CMC. The Site is currently developed and mapped within the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ)2; therefore, as proposed, the Project shall be required to meet all of the conditions of CFC Chapter 49, CBC Chapter 7A and the Residential Code, Section R327 and shall also be subject to additional review and approval by the Fire Department at the time of building or grading permit application.

Per the City of Calistoga’s General Plan, Public Safety Element 2014 Update, new development in Very High and High Fire Hazard Severity Zones is required by state law to utilize fire resistant building materials and provide adequate access for emergency vehicles. California Fire Code Chapter 49 establishes fire safety requirements for new construction in the wildland-urban interface fire area, which have been incorporated into the CMC Chapter 15.36. New construction in these zones is required to adhere to guidelines for defensible space, vegetation
management in a fire-safe manner, financial responsibility for maintenance of landscaping and open parcels (forest), and other measures. In addition, a wildfire behavior model is required to specify building setbacks and fire resistive ratings. The Fire Department routinely inspects properties and homes in the Very High Fire Hazard Area to enforce vegetation management
requirements and publicizes the chipping program provided by the Napa Communities Firewise Foundation, which encourages the removal of dangerous vegetation. The Department is familiar with 2 https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/
Item #8.1.

City Council Staff Report
Aurora Park Cottages Appeal AP 2022-1
March 15, 2022

the locations of all structures in this Area and available access.3 As such, with conditions incorporated, significant environmental impacts would not occur.
d. Section 15300.2(d): Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified EIR.

Findings: There is no evidence in the record that the project will result in damage to scenic resources. Napa County does not contain officially designated state scenic highways. While there are portions of highways that have been identified as eligible for listing, Highway 128 which is within the vicinity of the Site has not been officially designated or eligible for listing.4
e. Section 15300.2(e): Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.

Findings: The project site is not listed on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. In fact, there are no leaking underground storage tanks (LUST) and Cleanup Program Sites have been identified within a 1,000-foot radius of the project area.5
f. Section 15300.2(f): Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.

Findings: There are no buildings on-site, nor are there any buildings within the vicinity of the Site registered with the Office of Historic Preservation as a California Historical Resource.6 Since the project area is limited to developed site and there are no buildings on-site or within the vicinity registered as a California Historical Resource, no impacts to any historical resources would occur.
3 https://www.ci.calistoga.ca.us/home/showpublisheddocument/35598/637430144068400000 4 https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenichighways 5 https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=1807+Foothill+Boulevard%2C+ Calistoga#
6 https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/ListedResources/?view=county&criteria=28 Item #8.1.

City Council Staff Report
Aurora Park Cottages Appeal AP 2022-1
March 15, 2022

Concluding Findings: Because the Project is consistent with the requirements for a Class 3 categorical exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303, and because none of the exceptions to application of a categorical exemption provided in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply (provided above), there is substantial evidence in the record to support a finding that the Project is categorically exempt from CEQA and an EIR is not required. As such, the Project meets the requirements necessary to qualify for a Class 3 (New Construction of Conversion of Small Structures) categorical exemption under the CEQA Guidelines.

Appeal Issue D: The facilities must be inspected, and those reports should be forwarded to the Planning Commission, pursuant to §17.35.020(H). Review of compliance history should be considered prior to approving any expansion.

These inspections and reports are mandatory per City Code.

Staff Findings.

5. Per CMC §17.35.020(H) all facilities shall be inspected on an annual basis by the Planning and Building Department for conformance with use permit conditions and the regulations established in this title. Inspection reports shall be forwarded to the Planning Commission for informational purposes, as necessary.

Findings: Complies – There is no evidence in the record that would have required forwarding of past inspection reports to the Planning Commission for informational purposes. The Building Department and the Fire Department did conduct the required annual inspection reports. The annual inspection reports on file do not provide any additional information pertinent to the use permit and design review renewal application. If there were compliance issues present, Police, Fire, and/or Building would provide them to Staff. Prior to the last hearing for the project, no concerns were raised from the departments. In addition, Staff checked with Police to confirm any existing issues due to neighbor concerns (private easement disputes) and none were present.

COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL: Pursuant to CMC 1.20.030(B), Council shall consider the grounds for the appeal and the Council may affirm, overturn, or modify the initial decision of the Planning Commission or refer the matter back to the Planning Commission with direction for reconsideration. If the City Council desires to deny the appeal of the project, the Finding for Denial are contained in the attached Resolution (ATTCH 1). If the City Council determines that the findings in CMC Section

17.40.030 D and 17.41.050 cannot be made for the approval of the Project, Council will need to identify the bases for that decision. Therefore, the following options are available to City Council:

Item #8.1.

City Council Staff Report
Aurora Park Cottages Appeal AP 2022-1
March 15, 2022

1. Adopt a resolution (ATTCH 1) denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission’s approval of UP 2022-1 and DR 2022-1 and the determination of that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.

2. Direct staff to return with a resolution of project denial (upholding the appeal) with findings indicated by the City Council.

3. Revise or modify the decision of the Planning Commission citing findings to better comply with CMC Section 17.40.030 D and 17.41.050.

4. Refer the matter back to Planning Commission with direction.

Staff recommends that the City Council consider the appellant’s appeal of the Planning Commission decision to approve UP 2022-1 and DR 2022-1, consider public testimony and select Option 1.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: This action will not have a significant effect on the environment in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and is Categorically Exempt from the requirements of CEQA under Section 15303 (New Construction of Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA Guidelines.

MINUTE ORDER: Staff recommends that the City Council consider the appellant's appeal of the Planning Commission decision to approve UP 2022-1 and DR 2022-1, consider public testimony, and select Option 1 [discussed earlier in the presentation].

I want to make note of one procedural issue to call to your attention in light of the fact that we have only 3 councilmembers participating on this item. In the event it is the Council’s desire to approve Staff’s recommended action, which entails the adoption of the Resolution attached to the staff report, that action requires 3 affirmative votes for adoption, as required under Government Code section 36936. In the event the Council takes a vote on staff’s recommended action, and there are only 2 affirmative votes, the Resolution would not pass, but the Council can still approve the substance of staff’s recommended course of action by minute order and not by Resolution.

PUBLIC COMMENTS: To date, no new public comments have been received relating to this appeal.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Draft Resolution denying appeal

2. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

3. Planning Commission Staff Report (with attachments)

4. Supplemental public comments on the Planning Commission application

5. Appeal of Planning Commission decision from Michael P. Glover and Curtis J.

Wilhelm
Item #8.1.

CALISTOGA PLANNING COMMISSION

STAFF REPORT
To: Calistoga Planning Commission
From: Jeff Mitchem, Planning & Building Director
Meeting Date: April 27, 2022
Subject: Aurora Park Cottages Expansion

APPEAL REMAND FROM CITY COUNCIL
Renewal of Use Permit and Design Review
Use Permit UP 2022-1 and Design Review DR 2022-1
1807 Foothill Boulevard
ITEM
On remand from City Council, reconsideration of a use permit and design review renewal application for a three-guest unit expansion project and associated on-site improvements at the Aurora Park Cottages located at 1807 Foothill Boulevard (APN 011-290-046).

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Resolution (ATTCH 1) approving Application UP 2022-1 and DR 2022-1, finding the project categorically exempt from CEQA, and approving Use Permit Application UP 2022-1 and Design Review Application DR 2022-1.

BACKGROUND
On February 9, 2022, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider a referral from staff to renew a Use Permit and Design Review applications to expand the Aurora Park Cottages (UP 2022-1 and DR 2022-1) (“Project”). At the conclusion of deliberations, a motion was made to approve the use permit and design review with conditions, passing by a 4-0 vote (Chair Copper abstained). The Planning Commission staff report and attachments thereto are provided as attachments (ATTCH 2) to this Staff Report. On February 20, 2022, Michael P. Glover and Curtis J. Wilhelm, an adjoining property owner, filed a timely Application for Appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision (ATTCH 3). The Appeal was heard by the City Council (ATTCH 4) in public hearing on March 15, 2022 and remanded to Planning Commission for reconsideration.

DISCUSSION
City Council Remand to Planning Commission
As remanded for Planning Commission consideration, City Council specified that Staff are to evaluate and consider how precedent decisions have calculated the 49% use of Item #8.1.

Aurora Park Cottages Expansion (Remand)
Use Permit UP 2022-1 and Design Review DR 2022-1
April 27, 2022

land standard as specified in CMC §17.35.010 D. This remand directive pertains to Appeal Issue A only (as cited in the Appeal submitted by Michael P. Glover and Curtis J. Wilhelm.) Therefore, this Staff Report and Planning Commission consideration of this item applies only to findings for compliance with CMC §17.35.010 D as referred to in Appeal Issue A.

Appeal Issue A: The City Code provisions allowing for Bed and Breakfast establishments state clearly that such uses are to be accessory/secondary to the primary residential use of this residentially zoned property (§17.35.010). Residential use is proposed to account for no more than 600 square feet of this >6000 square foot Project. This results in at least 90% of the square footage of structures on the property being a commercial bed and breakfast use. This is not allowed – the City Code clearly states that the Bed & Breakfast uses shall not exceed 49% of the use of land and/or buildings (§17.35.010(D)). This is an over commercialization of a residential property. This inappropriate intensification of a commercial use also creates conflicts with the other users of the private residential driveway.

Staff Findings.

CMC §17.35.010 D. establishes an explicit threshold for determining whether bed and breakfast facilities are “accessory” and “secondary” uses. That threshold is 49% of the use of the land. As directed by the Council remand, Staff’s objective was to determine how “use of the land” is measured. In response, Staff reviewed precedent case history for legally conforming licensed B&B facilities in the city to assess methodology for that measurement. City records as indicate that as of February 2022, precedent decisions under this chapter consist of three (3) relevant cases that were entitled under the provisions of CMC §17.35.010 D. Those cases utilized two distinct “use of land” methodologies – “Facility Floor Area” and “Facility Floor Area + 50% Common Area.” Below, both of those methodologies are applied to the subject proposal. Accompanying land use diagrams are attached hereto as Attachments 5 and 6.

Methodology 1: Facility Floor Area
Utilizing the “floor area only” measurement for the subject case yields a 7% use of land determination for bed & breakfast use. Refer to Attachment 5 for use area diagram.

Use Area (SF) % Use of Land (62,726 SF)
B&B 4,578 7%
Residential 1,532 2%
Common Area 39,120 63%
Access & Parking 17,496 28%
Item #8.1.

Aurora Park Cottages Expansion (Remand)
Use Permit UP 2022-1 and Design Review DR 2022-1
April 27, 2022

Methodology 2: Facility Floor Area + 50% Common Area
Utilizing the “floor + 50% common area” measurement for the subject case yields a 30% use of land determination for bed & breakfast use. For the precedent cases common area is defined as area equally accessible by occupants of both residential and bed and breakfast facilities. Access and parking and non-accessible open space was not considered “common area”. Refer to Attachment 6 for use area diagram.

Use Area (SF) % Use of Land (62,726
SF)
B&B 19,010 30%
Residential 6,960 11%
Common Area 19,260 31%
Access & Parking 17,496 28%

PUBLIC COMMENTS
No public comments have been received since City Council appeal hearing.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Staff has determined that the proposed project is Categorically Exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA Guidelines.

FINDINGS
To reduce repetition, all the necessary findings to approve the subject application is contained in the attached Resolution.

RECOMMENDATION
Based on the information provided, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution approving use permit application UP 2022-1 and design review application DR 2022-1 renewing UP 2018-12 and DR 2018-9 for a three-guest unit expansion project and associated on-site improvements located at 1807 Foothill Boulevard, with conditions.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Draft Resolution and Conditions of Approval

2. Planning Commission Staff Report, February 9, 2022

3. Appeal of Planning Commission decision from Michael P. Glover and Curtis J.

Wilhelm

4. City Council Staff Report, March 15, 2022
Item #8.1.

Aurora Park Cottages Expansion (Remand)
Use Permit UP 2022-1 and Design Review DR 2022-1
April 27, 2022

5. Use of Land Methodology 1: Facility Floor Area

6. Use of Land Methodology 2: Facility Floor Area + 50% Common Area Item #8.1.

City of Calistoga
Appeal Application Form
For City Use
Oat .

By~ ~~'.k.L.~(,Z!,.'-U-~•-i;
App .
• A copy of the City's Municipal Code excerpt regarding appeals and the appeals procedure summary is attached. • The fee to file an appeal is $200.00 and must accompany this form. • Appeals must be filed with the City Clerk within ten (10) calendar days of the action. • Appeals must address issues raised or decisions made. • In order for your appeal to be determined to be complete this form must be filled out entirely.

Appellant Information (Please Print)
Appellant Name
Michael P. Glover; Curtis J. Wilhelm
Appellant Address City State/Zip Code
1819 Foothill Blvd Calistoga CA 94515
Appellant Phone I Fax I Email
Representative Address City State/Zip Code
1500 First Street, Ste 200, Napa CA, 94559
Representative Phone I Fax I Email
707 261 7000 707 255 6876 [email protected]
I/We the undersigned do hereby appeal the decision of the:
0 Planning Commission D Building Standards Advisory and Appeals Board D Department Director or Department Staff D Other ______________ _ Regarding: Aurora Park Cottages (UP 2022-1 and DR 2022-1) (Title of project or application)
Located at: 1807 Foothill Boulevard, Calistoga CA 94559 (APN 011-290-046) (Address)
Made on: 4/27/2022
(Date decision was made)
The facts of the case and basis for the appeal are: (Additional sheets may be attached) See additional sheet
I/We request that the City Council take the following specific action(s): (Additional sheets may be attached) See additional sheet
Signed:
(Signature) (Date)
Item #8.1.

Additional Sheet in Support of Appeal

1. The facts of the case and basis for the appeal are:

This appeal is filed on behalf of Michael P. Glover and Curtis J. Wilhelm (Appellants), regarding their property located at 1819 Foothill Blvd. Calistoga, California and the proposed Aurora Park Cottages expansion on 1807 Foothill Blvd. This project seeks to expand the Aurora Park Cottages by constructing the following: (1) Three additional one-bedroom cottages; (2) Six additional parking spaces; and (3) converting an existing two-bedroom guest cottage to a front office reception area and manager's unit. The project was originally approved by the Planning Commission on February 26, 2020. A one-year extension was granted, which ultimately lapsed per§ 17.40.040(A) of the Calistoga Municipal Code, requiring the project to be issued "effectively a brand-new use permit and design review project entitlement." (Staff Report, Page 2:53-54.) On March 15, the Board of Supervisors voted to remand this Project to the Planning Commission to evaluate and consider precedent decisions for how staff have calculated the 49% use of land standard as specified in CMC §17.35.0l0(D). The subsequent Planning Commission hearing was held on April 27, 2022, where the Commission voted to approve the Project. Thus, Appellant makes this timely appeal. Please note that for efficiency, the issues raised below are tailored to the issues directly relevant to the April 27 remand hearing in front of the Planning Commission. Appellants preserve all of the factual and legal arguments made during the March 15, 2022 appeal hearing before the Board of Supervisors; the February 9, 2022 hearing before the Planning Commission; and all factual and legal arguments made by Appellants to date. Those arguments are incorporated herein by reference.

The additional arguments we would like the Board of Supervisors to consider are as follows:

1. The Project violates CMC requirements for the bed and breakfast use to be "secondary" to a primary use and that accessory uses shall be constructed or established prior to the construction of a primary building.

R-1-10 zoning districts require a primary one family dwelling unit to be built before accessory buildings or uses are allowed. CMC § 17.16.020((), Allowed Accessory Buildings and Uses, states "accessory buildings and uses are allowed, whose use is clearly incidental and subordinate to the primary use; provided, that no accessory building or use shall be constructed or established prior to the construction of a primary building, or on a lot separate from the primary building." Emphasis added. The primary building allowed to be built in an R-1-10 zoning district is a "one family dwelling unit", defined by CMC § 17.04.200 as a "[d]etached building designed for and occupied exclusively by one family."
No one family dwelling unit currently exists and none is proposed as part of the application. The proposed caretaker's cottage/office/guest reception area is clearly not a one family residence under the Code's definition. The cottage serves at least as much of a commercial use as it does residential, as a guest reception/office to run business operations from. In fact, we see no remaining area on the property on which a one family residence could be constructed.

Even more concerning is that the B&B use clearly is not incidental and subordinate to the residential use. Relying on City Staff's flawed methodology for calculating use, their most favorable methodology provides for maximum residential use of merely 11%. Out of the 10 guest cottages, 9 are purely commercial and one serves a hybrid commercial and residential function as the caretaker's residence but also an office/guest reception. And again, this use does not preexist the commercial use already existing on the property. It is clear under the above facts that the primary Item #8.1.

use of the property is a commercial bed and breakfast (and arguably hotel) use. See below for further discussion of the City's methodology.

2. The Project violates CMC §17.35.0l0(D) requirement that a bed and breakfast use not exceed 49% of the use of the land and/or building area on and in which the facilities are to be located, and City's methodology and interpretation of its Code to meet this threshold is arbitrary and capricious.

CMC §17.35.0lO(D) states "[t)he terms "accessory" and " secondary" mean that the establishment of bed and breakfast facilities in residential zones shall not exceed 49 percent of the use of the land and/or building area on and in which the facilities are to be located." The City uses two methods for calculating bed and breakfast use as a percentage of lot size to determine if the B&B use of the land or use of building area exceeds 49%: facility+ 50% of common, and facility floor area. Both methodologies are flawed, arbitrary and capricious, and in any event fail to meet the Code's standards.

Facility Floor Area. Below is City Staff's calculation of use based on facility floor area. 600 SF IDOSF
........ , .. )
&OOSF &OOSF
OPEN SPACE+

COMMON AREA
19,260SF

ACCESS & PARKING
17,496SF
/

B & B BUILDINGS
4,678 SF RESIDENTIAL / •
3413 SF 363 SF 1&3 SF 313 SF 313 SF 363 SF 1,532 SF ii
USE OF LAND (facility floor area)
CMC 17.35 Bed & Breakfast Inns and Facllltles
·Acces.so,y· and ·Seconda,y· mean that B&B facilities shall not exceed 49 oe1pen1 qf the u$t1 of,,,., /pod BQd,;br building ""'"· B&B Use
Res Use
Common Area
Access & ~~w TOTAL
4,578 SF
1,532 SF

39.120 SF
17 496§f
62,726SF
% OF 621726 SF
7%
2%
63%
28% 100%
I :

This methodology is fundamentally incorrect. It arbitrarily excludes from B&B uses:(1) all of access and parking, which serves essentially no use other than a commercial use for guests; and (2) all open space & common area. The common area surrounding the guest cottages is wholly consumed by pathways, landscaping, parking, and access, the sole purpose of which is for use and enjoyment by guests. Again, there is no other use occurring on the property other than the B&B. Below is a picture of what the common area surrounding the cottages looks like:

Item #8.1.

At the very least, the common area surrounding the cottages should clearly be included as a bed and breakfast use, as well as access and parking. It is also arbitrary to exclude the open space area from bed & breakfast use if guests are permitted to enjoy the open space as part of the sticker price of their stay.

Facility+ 50% of common. Below is City Staff's calculation based on facility area+ 50% of common.

Ft ..--, -

ACCESS & PARKING

11.-SF
B & B BLD + COMMON AREA & CIRCULATION

OPEN SPACE
19,260 SF
19,010 SF
LJLI
USE OF LAND (facility + 50% common)
CMC 17.35 Bed & Breakfast Inns and Facllltlas
·Accesso,y" and ·seconda,y" mean lhat B&B facilities shall not exceed 4 9 porcenr of tho uso of tho land and/or bw7ding aroa.

B&BUse
Res Use
Common Alea
Access & Parking
TOTAL
19,010 SF
6,960SF

19.260 SF
17 496SF
62,T26SF
o/o OF 62,726 SF
30%
11%
31%
28%
100%
This methodology is also flawed, arbitrary & capricious. While it properly considers the area directly surrounding the cottages as a B&B use, it excludes access & parking, which serves no purpose other than a commercial use for guests. If you count access and parking here as would be appropriate, the B&B use is 58% of the property, exceeding the Code's 49% threshold. And again, open space is arbitrarily excluded from the calculation as well.

This flawed methodology provides for merely 11% residential use (much greater than the merely 2% residential use for the floor area methodology discussed above). And even this calculation of Item #8.1.

residential use is arbitrary- the City considers the entire caretaker inn space to be residential despite its mixed use for guest services/caretaker office. Oddly enough, the City seems to argue that 11% residential use of the lot is enough to make the residential use primary, where the B&B use is 3x greater.

It is our position that without a primary use to measure the secondary B&B use against, the City is arbitrarily attempting to compare the B&B use to the overall size of the parcel and this is simply unreasonable. The maximum lot coverage for the parcel is 50 percent and under the City's reasoning all but 1 percent of the buildable area could be used for B&B purposes, since 49% of the usable area would result in only 1 percent based on max lot coverage, available for residential use. This makes no sense and leads reasonable minds to one conclusion : that the B&B use must be compared to the primary use of the property. The problem is there is no other use to compare it to and as a result the City rationale, while creative, is not defensible.

3. The Project would authorize construction of a hotel in a residential neighborhood.

CMC Section 17.04.360 Defines a "Hotel":
"Hotel" shall mean a facility of six or more units located in a single structure or individual structures, which may be connected by corridors or outdoor pedestrian walkways. The facility shall have the primary purpose of providing transient lodging accommodations, as contemplated by Chapter 3.16 CMC, to the general public ... "
The Project meets the above definition of hotel, and with no existing residential use or one-family residence proposed it effectively is a hotel. Further, the proposed 10 separate-building B&B is clearly dissimilar to other B&Bs in the zone, which are single-structure residences which rent out rooms for lodging after their primary residential use was established and remained on the property:

Craftsman Inn
Item #8.1.

Wayside Inn
Enchanted Cottage
Chanric Inn
Hotels are not an allowed use in R-1-10 districts. In any event, it seems clear from the facts discussed above that approving this Project would be authorizing the equivalent of a commercial hotel using nearly the entirety of lot space for its facilities, with no dwelling unit that meets the City's own zoning Code definition of a one-family dwelling unit. In fact, a caretaker's unit is not even an allowed primary use on the property.

Item #8.1.

4. Violation of CMC's B&B spacing requirements.

Applicant also notes that the Chanric Inn, pictured above and marked below in the map by a black icon, is located at 1805 Foothill Boulevard, extremely close in proximity to the Aurora Park Cottages (1807 Foothill Boulevard).
; ll!:i . . -'
Aurora_ Park Cottages
The City's own Code clearly states that in R-1-10 zones, spacing requirements of B&Bs are "not more than one bed and breakfast facility per each side of a City block or one facility per each 500 feet where conventional blocks are not present." Emphasis added. The Project and Chanric are directly next to each other directly in violation of the City's own Code. This is a particularly egregious violation of spacing requirements given that the Project proposes the maximum allowable number of units under the Code and allowed only as a special exception. This also seems to implicate potential cumulative impacts pursuant the California Environmental Quality Act that calls into further question the City's inappropriate reliance of the Categorical Exemption that is being relied upon. (See CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 prohibiting use where similar projects in same location are present.)
Summary.

As the elected officials responsible for implementing the general plan and zoning, the City Council must explain based on substantial evidence how a 100 percent commercial use of a residentially zoned property, requesting its second exception to the City Code for the maximum allowed number of 10 units, adjacent to an existing B&B is consistent with the purpose of this zoning district, required findings, and the City's own policy of approving the smallest feasible alternative.

2. I/We request that the City Council take the following specific action(s):

Overturn the Planning Commission's approval of the project.

Item #8.1.

'
DICKENSON, PEATMAN & iOGABIY I I -INV'Sl€E I DA:J"E
050622 5/5/2022 Appeal - City of Calistoga
Check# / Date
PAY
05/05/2022 GLOM01-000001 1100-000-01
3469 5/6/2022 City of Calistoga

DICKENSON, PEATMAN & FOGARTY
1500 FIRST STREET, $UITE 200
NAPA, CA 94559
(707) 261-7000
DESeRIPTION
200. 00 Appeal - City of Calistoga

RAST REPUBLIC BANK
11-8166/ll210
52 DATE
05/06/2022
3469
! INV AMO,UtilT'I
200.00
200.00
3469
CHECK NO.
3469

CHECK AMOUNT
!: ,.
0 !
':ii "
en
i
Two Hundred Dollars and 00/1 oo,._.,.,..,....,..,. ................ ..,. ..................................................... ,. ...................... * .. **• .. -.\"11 ......... $200.00 ~

0. TO THE
ORDER
OF
City of Calistoga
1232 Washington Street
Calistoga, C.A 9451.5
u• □□ 3 It l:i CJn• 1: ~ 2 ~08 It E,Ei q,: 8000? q ~ 3 5 5 3111 I
~ m
C
.mi .!
AI.ITHOF!IZED SIGNA ~~mi~ TURE ~-- -· • !
Item #8.1.

3 METHODOLOGY 1 – Definitional Standard
USE OF LAND (facility floor area)CMC 17.35 Bed & Breakfast Inns and Facilities “Accessory” and “Secondary” mean that B&B facilities shall not exceed 49 percent of the use of the land and/or building area. % OF 62,726 SF
B&B Use 4,578 SF 7%Res Use 1,532 SF 2%Common Area 39,120 SF 63%Access & Parking 17,496 SF 28%TOTAL 62,726 SF 100%

ACCESS & PARKING
17,496 SF
OPEN SPACE +

COMMON AREA
39,120 SF

RESIDENTIAL
1,532 SF

B & B BUILDINGS
4,578 SF
600 SF 600 SF 600 SF 600 SF 363 SF 363 SF 363 SF 363 SF 363 SF 363 SF Item #8.1.

4 METHODOLOGY 2 – Case History Standard

RESIDENTIAL
6,960 SF
B & B BLD + COMMON AREA & CIRCULATION
19,010 SF

OPEN SPACE
19,260 SF

ACCESS & PARKING
17,496 SF
USE OF LAND (facility + 50% common)CMC 17.35 Bed & Breakfast Inns and Facilities “Accessory” and “Secondary” mean that B&B facilities shall not exceed 49 percent of the use of the land and/or building area. % OF 62,726 SF
B&B Use 19,010 SF 30%Res Use 6,960 SF 11%Common Area 19,260 SF 31%Access & Parking 17,496 SF 28%TOTAL 62,726 SF 100% Item #8.1.

5 METHODOLOGY 3 – Precedent Standard

RESIDENTIAL
8,360 SF
ACCESS
5,380 SF
B & B BLD + COMMON AREA
29,726 SF

OPEN SPACE
19,260 SF
USE OF LAND (facility + 50% common/parking)CMC 17.35 Bed & Breakfast Inns and Facilities “Accessory” and “Secondary” mean that B&B facilities shall not exceed 49 percent of the use of the land and/or building area. % OF 62,726 SF
B&B Use 29,726 SF 47%Res Use 8,360 SF 13%Open Space 19,260 SF 31%Access 5,380 SF 9%TOTAL 62,726 SF 100% Item #8.1.

Marni Rittburg
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

From:

Marni Rittburg
Monday, June 6, 2022 11 :52 AM
Public Comment
FW: Support Letter for Aurora Park Cottages
Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 9:00 AM
To: Jeff Mitchem <[email protected]>
Cc: Marni Rittburg <[email protected]>
Subject: Support Letter for Aurora Park Cottages
~clditionall ri~::¥ ,· .,, ., Meetmg of i.o £ .,.:,..

Distributed
ltemNo. ~ ~ .::l?2..

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mayor Canning & Council Members;
This letter is in support of the three guest unit expansion at Aurora Park Cottages urging the Council to approve their application.

The City Council constantly states that it wants to promote "small town local businesses" for the betterment of the community. Yet, when a long standing business and family that's been a stakeholder in the community for several years wants to improve their business to be competitive, numerous unnecessary hurdles are encountered.

Those challenging this issue are "splitting hairs" over the semantics of what an overnight accommodation is, yet they knew full well that the property existed and operated successfully for several years prior to their arrival. In this everchanging world, business must change and adapt in order to compete which is why this application is before the Council. The neighboring owners had to recognize limited expansion was a possibility before they purchased adjacent to an operating facility. Moreover, this expansion will have a negligible impact on its surroundings thereby making this a reasonable request for the survival of this business.

The Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve this item and the Council should follow its recommendation by approving this item and supporting its local small businesses.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Calistoga, CA 94515
1 AdditionalWn in 5 Meeting of '0 22
Item No.

Distributed
Marni Rittbur
From: Marni Rittburg
Sent: Monday, June 6,2022 11:52 AM
To: PublicComment
Subject: FW: Support Letter for Aurora Park Cottages
From
Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 9:00 AM
To: Jeff Mitchem <[email protected]|istoga.ca.us>
cc:Marni Rittburg <[email protected]>
Subject: Support Letter for Aurora Park Cottages
SAUTION: ThisernEil'origlnatéd'from outside of the_organization. Donot clicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyou recognize the senderandknowthe contentls safe. -
Dear Mayor Canning &Council Members;
Thisletter is in support of the three guest unit expansion at Aurora Park Cottages urging the Council to approve their application.

The City Council constantly states that It wants to promote "small town localbusinesses" for the betterment of the community. Vet, when a long standing business and family that's been a stakeholder in the community for several years wants to improve their business to be competitive, numerous unnecessary hurdles are encountered.

Those challenging this issue are "Splitting hairs" over the semantics of what an overnight accommodation is, yet they knew full well that the property existed and operated successfully for several years prior to their arrival. In this ever— changing world, business must change and adapt in order to compete which is why this application is before the Council. The neighboring owners had to recognize limitedexpansion was a possibility before they purchased adjacent to an operating facility. Moreover, this expansion willhave a negligible impact on its surroundings thereby making this a reasonable request for the survival of this business.

The Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve this item and the Councilshould followits recommendation by approving this item and supporting its localsmall businesses.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Aaron Harkin
Calistoga, CA94515
Item #8.1.

Marni Rittburg
From: Marni Rittburg
Sent:

To:

Monday, June 6, 2022 11 :52 AM
Public Comment
Subject: FW: Aurora Park Expansion
From: Philippe Therene
Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 11:32 AM
To: Jeff Mitchem <[email protected]>; Marni Rittburg <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd: Aurora Park Expansion
C~UTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Resending with the correct email address for Marni, sorry for that - -------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Philippe Therene
Date: Mon, Jun 6, 2022 at 11:26 AM
Subject: Aurora Park Expansion
To: <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Jeff,
My name is Philippe Therene and I am a long time Calistoga resident. My family and I have known the Patel family for many years and we would like to bring our support to their Aurora Park Expansion project. We think it is a good project for Calistoga, with low environmental impact. The additional TOT tax that will be generated for the city will help finance more improvement projects for the city, like fixing roads, supporting senior and youth programs, as well as improving o.ur infrastructure.

Thank you for your consideration.
1 Mam‘ R‘ tburg
From: Marni Rittburg
Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 11:52 AM
To: PublicComment
Subject: F\N: Aurora ParkExpansion
From: Philippe Therene — Sent: Monday, June 6,2022 11:32 AM To: Jeff Mitchern <[email protected]>; Marni Rittburg <MRittburg@ci calistoga.ca.us> Subject: Fwd: Aurora Park Expansion
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not clicklinks or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and knowthe content issafe.

Resending with the correct email address for Marni, sorry for that. -------- -- Fonuarded message - --
From: Philippe Therene — Date: Mon, Jun 6, 2022 at 11:26 AM Subje Aurora Park Expansion
To: <'[email protected]|istoga.oa.us>
Cc: <MRittbur ci.calisto a.us>
Jeff,
My name is Philippe Therene and I am a long time Calistoga resident. My family and I have known the Patel family for many years and we would like to bring our support to their Aurora Park Expansion project. We think it is a good project for Calistoga, with low environmental impact. The additional TOT tax that will be generated for the city will help finance more improvement projects for the city. like fixing roads, supporting senior and youth programs, as well as improving our infrastructure.

Thank you for your consideration.

PhiIi pe Therene
Item #8.1.

Marni Rittburg
From:

Sent
To:

Cc:

Subject:

Attachments:

Mike Lennon
Monday, June 6, 2022 2:46 PM
Public Comment
Mike Lennon
Calistoga Spa Hot Springs - Support for Expansion of Aurora Park Cottages Aurora Park Support Letter Calistoga Spa Hot Springs.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello,
I am submitting a letter of support for the approval of the expansion plan for Aurora Park Cottages under review on the June 7, 2022 Calistoga City Council agenda.

Thank you,
Michael Lennon
General Manager
Calistoga Spa Hot Springs
1006 Washington St. Calistoga, CA 94515
707-942-6269 ext. 400 or
RelaxooRefreshooRejuvenateooReinvigorateooRevitalize
Marni Rittburg
mm: we T
Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 . 6 PM
To: PublicComment
Cc: MikeLennon
Subject: Calistoga Spa Hot Springs - Support for Expansion of Aurora ParkCottages Attachments: Aurora Park Support Letter Calistoga Spa Hot Springs.pdf pxmwonIs er'ri' nriginatédfrdmioutsideE$FtT|e‘or_EanizSt'ion. Db'r'I6bc|lcklinks"oropen,a't'ta'chmen,ts-u,r_I]_e_ss you re_cogrilzeTt[Ie sianderand k’ria'v'v;the"cjo1nte'n‘t IsSafe.

Hello,
I am submitting a letter of supponfor the approval ofthe expansionplan for Aurora Park Cottages under review on the June 7, 2022 Calistoga City Council agenda.

Iluank you,
Michael Lennon
General Manager
Calistoga Spa Hot Springs
I006 Washington SI. Calisloga. CA 94515
707-942-6269 ext. 400 or
Re1aXooRe?'es}1noRejuVenate-oaReiI1Vzgoratc-ooRevitalize Item #8.1.

CALISTOGA SPA

HOT SPRINGS
June 7, 2022
To: Calistoga City Counsel Members,
Re: Resolution Denying Appeal (AP 2022-2) of Planning Commission Approval of Renewal of Use Permit and Design Review UP 2022-1 and DR 2022-1 I am writing in support of the application for a three-guest unit expansion project and associated on-site improvements at the Aurora Park Cottages B&B facility located at 1807 Foothill Boulevard (APN 011-290-046)
In reading the staff report it appears the owners of Aurora Park Cottages have received approval from the Calistoga City Planning Commission and have answered the questions posed in the review process and committed to the proposed amendments to their application.

Sincerely,
Michael Lennon
General Manager
Calistoga Spa Hot Springs
1006 Washington Street Calistoga, CA 94515
(707) 942-6269

CALISTOGA SPA
/>-e$%<>3

HOT SPRINGS
June 7, 2022
To: Calistoga City Counsel Members,
Re: Resolution Denying Appeal (AP 2022-2) of Flaming Commission Approvalof Renewal of Use Permit and DesignReview U1’ 2022-1 and DR 2022-1 1 am writing in support of the application for a three-guest unit expansion project and associatedon-site improvementsat the Aurora Park Cottages B&B facility located at 1807 Foothill Boulevard (APN 011-290-046)
In reading the staffreport it appears the owners of Aurora Park Cottages have received approval from the Calistoga City Planning Commission and have answered the questions posed in the review process and committed to the proposed amendments to their application.

Sincerely,
Michael Lennon
GeneralManager
Calistoga SpaHot Springs
1006 Washington Street Calistoga, CA 94515
(707) 942-6269
Item #8.1.

Marni Rittburg
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Lana Richardson
Tuesday, June 7, 2022 8:19 AM
Marni Rittburg
Public Comment - June 7 council meeting, Public hearing item 8.1 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

City of Calistoga
City Manager - Laura Snideman
Mayor Chris Canning
Vice Mayor Irais Lopez-Ortega City Council Members - Lisa Gift, Gary Kraus, Donald Williams Planning Building Director - Jeff Mitchem
RE: Aurora Park Cottages
I was a partner in the purchase of a 19 acre property in 1998 which included the Aurora Park Cottages (at that time known as Aurora Park Motel). The purchase was with agreement to subdivide the property which would result in 2 separate ventures - 1) the motel property consisting of 6+ acres which included a 2 bedroom house and 6 individual cottages. 2) remruning acreage to be subdivided into 4 parcels by developer partner to build spec homes. At the time of purchase, we had several discussions with City Manager and Planners about long range :plans for the Aurora Park parcel. All of the discussions included utilizing the vacant acreage and building additional units to expand the number of cottages to the maximum allowed. There were no objections to our plan as it was in compliance with the City's municipal code regarding land use as a B&B/Inn. Initially we focused on remodeling the existing rental units, landscaping, parking and meeting requirements for handicap access for one unit.

E~ansion was always the intent for this property and makes it more financially viable. Althou~h I sold my interest before the expansion plans were finalized, there were numerous discussions with City staff and PBD, there was no indication of objections or limits to the expansion. This is consistent as indicated by approval of expansion plans submitted in 2018 by current owners.

Based on my knowledge of this pro_perty and prior ownership, I was surprised to see objections expressed by one neighboring resident. The plans for expanding to a total of 10 cottages is in compliance with the Calistoga's Land Use and B&B ordinances. This current expansion plan is basically the same as the plan that was approved _previously (origjnally UP 2018-12 and DR 2018-9). The project did not commence within the allotted time, most likely somewhat due to the affect of the pandemic, and the UP expired. The appeal by the neighboring resident has been heard by the Planning Commission twice and both times the expansion was approved. I encourage the City Council to deny the appeal AP 2022-2 and uphold the approved expansion per UP 2022-1 and DR 2022-1.

Lana Richardson
Calistoga
1 Marni Rittburg
From: Lana Richardson
Sent: Tuesday, June 7, 2022 8:19 AM
To: Marni Rittburg
Subject: Public Comment - June 7 councilmeeting, Publichearing item 8.1 CAUTION: This email originatedfromoutside of the organization. Donot click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

City of Calistoga
City Manager — Laura Snideman
Mayor Chris Canning
Vice Mayor Irais Lopez—Ortega
IC/[ity Eouncil Members — Lisa Gift, Gary Kraus, DonaldWilliams Planning Building Director - Jeff itc em
RE: Aurora Park Cottages
1was a partner in the purchase of a 19 acre property in 1998 which included the Aurora Park Cottages (at that time known as Aurora Park Motel). The purchase was with agreement to subdivide the property which would result in 2 separate ventures — 1) the motel property consisting of 6+ acres which included a 2 bedroom house and 6 individual cottages. 2) remaining acreage to be subdivided into 4 parcels b developer partner to build spec homes. At the time of purchase, we had several discussions wit City Mana er and Planners about long rangleplansfor the Aurora Park parcel.All of the discussionsincluded uti izing the vacant acreage and bui ding additional units to expand the number of cottages to the maximum allowed. There were no objections to our plan as it was in compliancewith the City’smunicipal code regarding land use as a B&B/Inn. Initially we focused on remodeling the existing rental units, landscaping, parking and meeting requirements for handicap access for one unit.

Ex ansion was always the intent for this property and makes it more ?nancially viable. AlthoughI so d my interest before the expansion plans were ?nalized, there were numerous discussions with City staff and PBD, there was no indication of obections or limits to the expansion. This is consistent as indicated by approval of expansion plans so mitted in 2018 by current owners.

Based on my knowled e ofthis prodperty and iior ownershi , I was surprised to see objections expressed by one neighboring resi em.The p ans for expan ing to a total of 10 cottages is in compliance with the Calistoga’s Land Use and B&Bordinances. This current expansion plan is basically the same as the plan that was approveddpreviously (originally UP 2018~12 and DR 2018-9).

The roject did not commence within the allotte time, most likelysomewhatdue to the affect ofthe pan emic, and the UP expired.The appeal by the neighboring resident has beenheard by the Plarinin Commission twice and both times the expansion was approved. 1encourage the City Council to deny t e appeal AP 2022-2 and uphold the approved expansion per UP 2022-1 and DR 2022-1.

Lana Richardson
Calistoga
Item #8.1.

City of Calistoga

STAFF REPORT
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Derek Rayner, Public Works Director/City Engineer Meeting: City Council - Jun 07 2022
Subject: Consideration of a Resolution to award a Consultant Services Agreement with Bartle & Wells to conduct a Water & Wastewater Rate Study DESCRIPTION:

Consideration of a Resolution that authorizes the City Manager to execute a Consultant Services Agreement with Bartle Wells Associates (BWA) to provide professional services associated with a Water and Wastewater Rate Study in an amount not to exceed $57,500.

RECOMMENDATION:

Consider adopting resolution.

BACKGROUND/SUMMARY:

The City of Calistoga provides water and sewer service to approximately 1,600 residents and businesses within and outside City limits. The city’s water system consists of over 40 miles water mains, Kimball dam/reservoir and Water Treatment Plant, 2 water storage tanks (2.5 million gallons), and three water booster pump stations. The city’s sewer system consists of over 18 miles of sewer collection mains, 3,000 feet of force main, four lift stations and a wastewater treatment plant. In addition, the city operates and maintains a recycle water system that consists of six miles of distribution piping throughout the city, two booster pump stations, and storage of over 46 million gallons.

Purpose and Importance of the Study
The purpose of a water and wastewater rate study is to determine the level of funding required over the next five years to ensure that each utility is meeting financial obligations for ongoing operations and maintenance, debt service, and capital improvements while maintaining prudent reserves. The rate study will follow California’s Proposition 218 requirements that rates be apportioned proportionally to the cost of service provided.

Regular rate studies are critical to a utility’s healthy operation. Utility systems must keep up with rising costs and be able to implement critical capital projects that are mandated or necessary for the health and safety of their customers. Cost escalations related to operation and maintenance costs increases, increased water costs from the state/City of Napa, capital costs, inflation, and material cost increases affect the performance of the utility.

Calistoga has a significant amount of critical capital projects over the next few fiscal years that are cease-and-desist order or state mandated projects required to complete to maintain compliance with permits. Even though many are covered by grants they still require city contributions that need to be incorporated into rate study.

Item #9.1.

Previous Study’s
The City of Calistoga last updated utility rates for water and wastewater was in 2018 (Ordinances 734 and 735) which became effective April 5, 2018 and continues through December 31, 2022. Prior to this, rates were updated January 1, 2014 and effective through December 31, 2017.

It’s important to note that Calistoga customers generally pay higher rates than other surrounding agencies due to the economies of scale. Calistoga owns and operates a significant amount of infrastructure for their utility and these costs are spread over a very small customer base. The city is required to meet all the same high level of state standards as all the other larger agencies and deliver/treat water to a relatively small population in remote location.

DISCUSSION:

On February 24, 2022, the city released a Request for Proposals (RFP) for professional services to complete an updated Water and Wastewater Rate study. The RFP closed on April 4, 2022. The city received proposals from Bartle Wells Associates (staff score 162), RDN (staff score 158), Raftelis (staff score 152) and Lechowicz+ Tseng (staff score 151). A review committee consisting of the two City staff and one consulting civil engineer individually performed initial reviews of all proposals. Based on the combined rankings of the proposals the committee concluded that Bartle Wells Associates (BWA) was the most qualified firm to successfully complete the work.

Scope of Work
BWA scope of work for the rate study will include the following:
• Data collection
• Develop Water, Wastewater and recycled water financial plans • Capacity Fee Study
• Meetings (staff, public and council)
• Proposition 218 process and Public Hearing
BWA scope will include a comprehensive review of the City’s water, wastewater and reclaimed water operations and to develop recommendations for the water, wastewater, and recycled rates to fund each utility’s cost of service. BWA will use a collaborative project approach and work closely with City staff, the City Council and/or subcommittees, and other stakeholders; identify objectives; set milestones; have frequent communication; and remain flexible to resolve unanticipated issues.

Additionally, the rate study will include analysis for potential recycle water rates, new development impact fees, and a drought surcharge that are consistent with many other utility agencies. Upon completion of work, BWA will present its findings in the form of a proposed Five-Year Utility Rate Plan to be included as part of the adopted budget and work plan for adoption.

Schedule
The proposed project schedule shows 33-weeks (about 7.5 months) to complete/adopt the new rates, which would conclude by February 2023, but we have included an extra month as a contingency and expect completion on or before the end of March 2023.

CONSISTENCY WITH CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES:

The recommended action conforms to Council Goal 3: Establish, Improve and Maintain City Infrastructure; Objective 2: Maintain the high level of service and reliability of the City’s infrastructure systems and facilities.

CEQA STATUS:

Item #9.1.

That the recommend action is not a project under the definitions contained in the Guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and is therefore exempt from CEQA.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

The total not to exceed amount for the project is $57,500 and includes a 5% contingency above the cost proposal by BWA to conduct the rate study at $54,530. A total of $80,000 has been budgeted in FY22/23 and split equally ($20,000/ea) between Water and Wastewater funds Accounts 02-4132- 4402, 02-4131-4402, 03-4142-4402, and 03-4141-4402, covering treatment, distribution and collection.

ATTACHMENT(S):

Draft Resolution
BWA Proposal Water and Wastewater Rate Study
CSA Bartle Wells Associates Water and Wastewater Rate Study APPROVAL(S):

Gloria Leon, Administrative Services Director Approved - May 27 2022 Laura Snideman, City Manager Approved - May 29 2022
Marni Rittburg, City Clerk Approved - May 31 2022
Item #9.1.

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XXX

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CALISTOGA,

COUNTY OF NAPA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE CITY

MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT

WITH BARTLE WELLS ASSOCIATES (BWA) TO PROVIDE

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ASSOCIATED WITH A WATER AND
WASTEWATER RATE STUDY IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $57,500 WHEREAS, the City of Calistoga provides water and sewer service to approximately 1,600 residents and businesses within and outside City limits. The City water and sewer rates are established by City Council; and WHEREAS, the Public Works Department has sought proposals for said study; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of a water and wastewater rate study is to determine the level of funding required over the next five years to ensure that each utility is meeting financial obligations for ongoing operations and maintenance, debt service and capital improvements while maintaining prudent reserves; and
WHEREAS, updating the water and wastewater rates to keep up with the rising costs of providing safe and high-quality drinking water and wastewater services is a key component of maintaining the financial viability of the utilities, including maintaining healthy fund balances/reserves for emergencies and applicable bond covenants, debt coverage ratios for bond covenants and strong credit ratings; and WHEREAS, updates to the rate study are also necessary to fund investments in infrastructure maintenance and improvements which are mandated or otherwise necessary for safe and efficient operation of the utilities; and WHEREAS, the City of Calistoga last updated utility rates for water and wastewater in 2018 (Ordinances 734 and 735) which became effective April 5, 2018 and continues through December 31, 2022. Prior to this, rates were updated January 1, 2014 and effective through December 31, 2017; and
WHEREAS, the City staff requested proposals for professional services to complete an updated Water and Wastewater Rate study and received proposals from Bartle Wells Associates, RDN, Raftelis and Lechowicz+ Tseng; and WHEREAS, staff reviewed and ranked the proposals and concluded that Bartle Wells Associates was the most qualified firm to successfully complete the work.

ATTACHMENT 1 Item #9.1.

Resolution 2022-XXX

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CALISTOGA DOES HEREBY find the following:

1. Authorizes the City Manager to execute a Consultant Services Agreement with Bartle Wells Associates in an amount not to exceed $57,500 for a utility rate study related to the water and wastewater enterprise systems.

2. A budget authorization for FY 22/23 not to exceed $80,000 from Water and Wastewater fund balances equally distributed from Accounts 02- 4132-4402, 02-4131-4402, 03-4142-4402 and 03-4141-4402.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 7
th day of June, 2022. I, MARNI
RITTBURG, CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF CALISTOGA, HEREBY CERTIFY the foregoing resolution was introduced and passed at a regular meeting of the Calistoga City Council by the following roll call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

ATTEST: APPROVED:
____________________________ __________________________ Marni Rittburg, CMC, City Clerk Chris Canning, Mayor
Item #9.1.

City of Calistoga
Proposal to Conduct a Water and
Sewer Utility Rate Study
Bartle Wells Associates
Independent Public Finance Advisors
April 4, 2022
ATTACHMENT 2
Item #9.1.

Item #9.1.

2625 Alcatraz Ave, #602
Berkeley, CA 94705
Tel 510 653 3399
www.bartlewells.com
April 4, 2022
City of Calistoga – Public Works Department
1232 Washington Street
Calistoga, CA 94515
Attn: Hamid Heidary, Senior Civil Engineer
Re: Proposal for Water and Sewer Utility Rate Study
Bartle Wells Associates is pleased to submit this proposal to the City of Calistoga to conduct a comprehensive water, wastewater and recycled water cost of service rate and fee study. BWA specializes in providing independent financial advisory and utility rate consulting services to public agencies.  We prepared the City’s previous Water and Wastewater Rate Study and have served more than 500 public agencies in California.

Bartle Wells Associates is very familiar with issues facing California water and wastewater agencies including drought, changes in regulations, and the need to increase investment in rehabilitation and replacement of aging infrastructure.  We have worked with clients across Napa and Sonoma Counties to develop strategic financial plans that address the ever‐increasing cost of operations and long‐term capital needs.  Some recent regional clients include Upper Valley Waste Management Authority, Sonoma Water, the Town of Yountville, and the Cities of American Canyon, Benicia and Petaluma.

Our rate studies are based on a comprehensive analysis of each agency’s customer base and consumption patternsto ensure rate recommendationsreflect local needs and objectives. We also have experience developing drought rates to support financial stability during periods of reduced consumption.  Our study will focus on supporting the long‐range financial stability of the City’s utility enterprises via rate recommendations that are easy to implement and meet the substantive requirements of Proposition 218. Our study will include development of 10‐year utility enterprise financial plans, updated cost ofservice analysessupporting future utility rates, updated capacity charges to recover the cost of infrastructure benefitting new development, and comprehensive rate study reports for each utility.  BWA proposes to assign Alex Handlers as Project Manager.

Alex a principal and vice‐president of BWA and has over 20 years of industry experience.  He will be assisted by Abigail Seaman, Consultant, and Erik Helgeson, Senior Consultant.

Our firm has enjoyed working with the City on prior rate studies and is very interested in assisting the City with the new rate study. We generally accept the terms and conditions as prescribed in the Sample Professional Services Agreement included in Exhibit A to the RFP.  Please contact me if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

BARTLE WELLS ASSOCIATES
Alex Handlers, MPA, CIPFA
Principal / Vice‐President
Tel:  510.653.3399 ext. 109
[email protected]
Item #9.1.

CITY OF CALISTOGA – 2022 WATER AND SEWER UTILITY RATE STUDY `Page 1 Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................................. 1 FIRM OVERVIEW AND OFFICE LOCATION................................................................................................... 1 QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE OF PROJECT TEAM.............................................................................. 3 PROJECT TEAM ................................................................................................................................................ 3 ORGANIZATION CHART.................................................................................................................................... 3 ALEX HANDLERS, PROJECT MANAGER...................................................................................................... 4 ERIK HELGESON, ASSISTANT VICE PRESIDENT .......................................................................................... 4 ABIGAIL SEAMAN, PROJECT CONSULTANT ............................................................................................... 4 SCOPE OF WORK........................................................................................................................................ 5 SPECIFIC PROJECT APPROACH ......................................................................................................................... 5 PROPOSED SCOPE OF SERVICES....................................................................................................................... 5 TASK A. PROJECT INITIATION & DATA COLLECTION.................................................................................. 6 TASK B. WATER, WASTEWATER AND RECYCLED WATER FINANCIAL PLANS ........................................... 7 TASK D. WATER, WASTEWATER AND RECYCLED WATER CAPACITY CHARGES ........................................ 9 TASK D. WATER, WASTEWATER AND RECYCLED WATER RATE STUDIES ............................................... 10 TASK E. RATE IMPLEMENTATION – MEETINGS, REPORTS, PROPOSITION 218........................................ 12 SECTION 4: PROPOSED SCHEDULE ............................................................................................................14 SUPPORTING INFORMATION....................................................................................................................15 PROJECT TEAM RESUMES....................................................................................................................... 15 CLIENT REFERENCES..................................................................................................................................20 CITY OF CALISTOGA ................................................................................................................................ 20 BODEGA BAY PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT .................................................................................................. 20 CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON.................................................................................................................. 21 UPPER VALLEY WASTE MANAGEMENT AGENCY .................................................................................... 21 CITY OF DAVIS ........................................................................................................................................ 21 SECTION 6: CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT.......................................................................................22 SECTION 7: SCHEDULE OF INSURANCE ......................................................................................................23 Item #9.1.

CITY OF CALISTOGA – 2022 WATER AND SEWER UTILITY RATE STUDY `Page 1 Firm Overview and Office Location
Bartle Wells Associates (BWA) is an independent public finance advisory firm with expertise in the areas of utility rates and project financing.  BWA was established in 1964 and has over 50 years of experience advising public agencies on the complexities and challenges in public finance.  We have advised over 500 agencies throughout California and the western United States.   We have a diversity of abilities and experience to evaluate all types of financial issuesfaced by local governments and to recommend the best and most‐practical solutions.

Bartle Wells Associates has a highly‐qualified professional team.  Our education and backgrounds include finance, civil engineering, business, public administration, public policy, and economics.

BWA specializes in three professional services: utility rate and fee studies, strategic financial plans, and project financing.  We are the only independent financial advisor providing all three of these interrelated services to public agencies.

RATE & FEE STUDIES   Our rate studies employ a cost‐of‐service approach and are designed to maintain the long‐term financial health of a utility enterprise while being fair to all customers.   We develop practical recommendations that are easy to implement and often phase in rate adjustments over time to minimize the impact on ratepayers.  We also have extensive experience developing impact fees that equitably recover the costs of infrastructure required to serve new development.

BWA has completed over 1,000 of utility rate and fee studies.  We have helped communities implement a wide range of rate and fee structures and are knowledgeable about the legal requirements governing rates and impact fees including Proposition 218, Proposition 26, and Government Code 66000.   We develop clear, effective presentations and have represented public agencies at hundreds of public hearingsto build consensus for our recommendations.

FINANCIAL PLANS Our financial plans provide agencies with a flexible roadmap for funding long‐term operating and capital needs.  We evaluate the wide range of financing options available, develop a plan that recommends the best financing approach, and clearly identify the sources of revenue for funding projects and repaying any debt.   We also help agencies develop prudent financial policies, such as fund reserve targets, to support sound financial management.  BWA has developed over 1,000 financial plans to help public agencies fund their operating and capital programs, meet debt service requirements, and maintain long‐term financial health.

BWA Key Services
Financial Plans
Rate & Fee Studies
Project Financing
Item #9.1.

CITY OF CALISTOGA – 2022 WATER AND SEWER UTILITY RATE STUDY `Page 2 PROJECT FINANCING   BWA has served as independent financial advisor on over 300 financings.  To date, we have helped California agencies obtain over $5 billion of financing via bonds, bank loans/private placements, lines of credit, low‐rate State Revolving Fund Loans, and other funding programs.  We work only for public agencies.  We are independent financial advisors and do not buy, trade, or resell bonds.  BWA is a registered municipal advisory firm with the SEC and MSRB.   All of our lead consultants are MSRB Registered Municipal Advisors.   Our work is concentrated on providing independent advice that enables our clients to finance their projects on the most favorable terms—lowest interest rates, smallest issue size, and greatest flexibility.

Bartle Wells Associates is a charter member of the National Association of Municipal Advisors (NAMA) and its predecessor, the National Association of Independent Public Finance Advisors.

COLLABORATIVE APPROACH  BWA has a strong track record of building consensus and public acceptance for rate and finance recommendations.  BWA uses a collaborative approach to ensure final recommendations reflect the input and objectives of the agencies we serve.  Our general approach is to work closely with our clients to clarify objectives, evaluate alternatives, gain ongoing input, and remain flexible to resolve unanticipated issues.   We support our clients every step of the way, from project initiation through final adoption and implementation.

COMMUNITY OUTREACH    Rate and fee increases can be controversial.

BWA has assisted many agencies with community outreach efforts aimed at fostering understanding and acceptance for final recommendations.  BWA has substantial experience working with governing boards and City councils, citizen advisory committees, community groups, and other stakeholders.   We have found that gaining community and Board/Council input and buy‐in during the process can pave the way for smoother adoption and implementation of rate increases, rate structure modifications, and increased investment for aging infrastructure.

We also help agencies develop and implement effective public outreach strategies and have worked in partnership our client’s public relations staff and independent public relations firms.  We have a long track record of helping our clients successfully adopt rate increases in challenging political environments.

Bartle Wells Associates is committed to providing value and the best advice to our clients.

Our strength is quality—the quality of advice, service, and work we do for all our clients.

LOCATION
Bartle Wells Associates (510) 653‐3399
2625 Alcatraz Ave #602 [email protected]
Berkeley, CA 94703 www.bartlewells.com
Bartle Wells Associates was established in 1964 and is a California Corporation and certified State of California Small Business.  Our Federal Tax ID number is 94‐1664409.

Item #9.1.

CITY OF CALISTOGA – 2022 WATER AND SEWER UTILITY RATE STUDY `Page 3 Qualifications and Experience of Project Team

PROJECT TEAM
BWA uses a team approach for most projects, typically assigning two or three consultants to each assignment, including at least one principal consultant.  Our general project approach is to work closely with staff and other members of the project team, identify objectives, set milestones, have frequent communication, and remain flexible to resolve unanticipated issues.

Bartle Wells Associates has a highly qualified professional team.  Our educational backgrounds include finance, civil engineering, business, public administration, public policy, and economics.  Bartle Wells Associates has a long track record of completing projects on time and on or under budget.

Bartle Wells Associates will perform all work related to this assignment and does plan to use any subcontractors for this project.  Our consulting staff has availability to assist on this project as needed to ensure all project work and deliverables are completed on schedule.

Alex Handlers, a Principal and Vice‐President of Bartle Wells Associates will serve as Project Manager. He will be assisted by Erik Helgeson, who will provide quality assurance/quality control, and Abigail Seaman, who will provide rate modeling and financial analysis. The organizational chart below illustrates the relationship between project team members and the City.

Our other consulting staff has availability to assist on this project as needed to ensure all project work and deliverables are completed on schedule.

ORGANIZATION CHART
Alex Handlers, MPA, CIPMA
Item #9.1.

CITY OF CALISTOGA – 2022 WATER AND SEWER UTILITY RATE STUDY `Page 4

ALEX HANDLERS, PROJECT MANAGER
Principal & Vice‐President, Bartle Wells Associates
BWA proposes to assign Alex Handers, a principal and vice‐president of the firm, as project manager and principal‐in‐charge for this engagement.  Alex has expertise in the areas of utility rates and finance and has been with BWA for over 20 years.  He has extensive experience developing long‐term financial plans, utility rates, and development impact feesfor utility enterprises and is knowledgeable about the legal requirements of rates and fees.  Alex is also an independent financial advisor who helps public agencies evaluate financing options and secure low‐cost financing for capital projects.   He is an MSRB‐Registered Municipal Advisor, a Certified Independent Professional Municipal Advisor, and a current Board Member of the National Association of Municipal Advisors.  Alex has managed projects for more than 150 public agencies throughout California.

Alex will serve as the primary contact person and manage the day‐to‐day project work. He will be involved in all aspects of the project from kickoff to implementation.

ERIK HELGESON, ASSISTANT VICE PRESIDENT
Consultant, Bartle Wells Associates
Erik Helgeson is an Assistant Vice President of BWA and senior consultant with substantial experience developing long‐term financial models and utility rates based on a cost of service approach. His experience includes working as a senior finance analyst for Denver Water in the rates and charges group and as a utility finance consultant in Colorado and California. His prior experience working at utility gives him a unique perspective on the internal challenges a utility faces when implementing a study’s recommendations. He currently serves on American Water Works Association’s Rates and Charges Committee.

Erik will serve as senior project consultant and will assist in managing day‐to‐day project work.

ABIGAIL SEAMAN, PROJECT CONSULTANT
Consultant, Bartle Wells Associates
Abigail Seaman is a BWA consultant with four years of experience developing long‐ term financial models and utility rates with a strong basis in the cost of service. She has helped many water, wastewater and stormwater agencies achieve revenue stability and customer equity. Abigail and Doug completed the 2016 Water and Wastewater Rate Studies and a 2020 Mid‐Cycle Revenue Analysisfor the Water Fund.

Abigail will serve as the project consultant and will provide project support.

Project team resumes are provided in
Item #9.1.

CITY OF CALISTOGA – 2022 WATER AND SEWER UTILITY RATE STUDY `Page 5 Scope of Work

SPECIFIC PROJECT APPROACH
Bartle Wells Associates’ (BWA) approach to this project is to provide a comprehensive review of the City’s water, wastewater, and recycled water finances and to develop recommendations for the water, wastewater, and recycled water rates needed to fund each utility’s cost of service. BWA uses a collaborative project approach to ensure final recommendations reflect the policy preferences and objectives of the agencies we serve. Our general project approach is to work closely with City staff, the City Council and/or subcommittees, and other stakeholders; identify objectives; set milestones; have frequent communication; and remain flexible to resolve unanticipated issues. We have a long track record of completing projects on time and on schedule and for providing independent, high‐quality advice and work products.

BWA’s methodology for each project is based on an inclusive review of each agency’s unique financialsituation.

We do not have a “one‐size‐fits‐all” rate model. We tailor each study to fit the distinctrequisites of each agency to ensure that all recommendations reflect local needs and objectives. Key issues of this study include:
 Revenue and Expense Projections: BWA will review the revenue and expense projectionsfrom the last study and compare to the most recent data to determine each utility’s current financial standing. Our evaluation will include a comparison of revenues, cost escalator factors, wholesale water purchases, debt estimates, and water consumption.
 Rate Structure: BWA will review the cost‐of‐service study and rate structure adopted in the last study and compare to the latest cost and customer demand data. We will recommend alternative rate structures for Staff and Council to consider and incorporate community feedback into our final recommendations.
 Effective Community Outreach: Water, wastewater, and recycled water rate increases can be controversial, and an effective public outreach plan can help ensure a smooth implementation. We will develop an outreach plan based on the City’s unique customer base.

PROPOSED SCOPE OF SERVICES
Thissection presents a draft work plan and scope ofservicesthat we believe forms a sound basisfor completing the Water, wastewater, and recycled water Rate and Capacity Fee Study.  Bartle Wells Associates will work with the project team to finalize a scope of services that meets the Town’s objectives.  Our scope of work is based on four interrelated components as shown on the figure below.

Item #9.1.

CITY OF CALISTOGA – 2022 WATER AND SEWER UTILITY RATE STUDY Page 6 TASK A. PROJECT INITIATION & DATA COLLECTION

1. Project Team Orientation
To initiate our work, hold a meeting with City staff and others as appropriate, to accomplish the following:
 Identify members of City staff, Council, engineering consultants, and others who will participate in the project.
 Determine the roles and responsibilities of all project participants.  Identify other partiesthat may a significant interest in the project,such as community groups, business organizations, developers, and large customers
 Establish project schedule and key milestone dates.
 Confirm the key goals and expectations of the project team.

2. Investigation and Data Collection
Assemble the information necessary to understand the City’s water and sewer systems, finances, customers and usage, rate and fee structures, capital improvement needs and alternatives, and legal agreements.

Assistance and cooperation of City staff will be needed to assemble the relevant background information.  The objectives of investigation and data collection are to develop a complete understanding of the water enterprise and its finances, and to reach an agreement on basic assumptions to be used in the study as well as key alternatives for evaluation.  Investigation will include, but is not limited to, the following areas:
 Current and historical documents including current and projected budgets, financial statements, and other financial studies or internal finance projections  Capital improvement plans and engineering master plans  Current system capacity including capacity available for growth  Current and historical rates and fees
 Historical and projected growth and demand
 Long‐term infrastructure replacement needs
 Key capital alternatives for evaluation
 Formal and informal financial policies
 Agreements with other agencies and/or organizations.
 Conditions leading up to this project
Task A Deliverables Include:
 Project kickoff meeting
 List of project goals and objectives
 Project schedule and budget
 Project team contact list
 Summary of current and historical rates and finances
 List of key assumptions and alternatives underlying the rate study Item #9.1.

CITY OF CALISTOGA – 2022 WATER AND SEWER UTILITY RATE STUDY Page 7 TASK B. WATER, WASTEWATER, AND RECYCLED WATER FINANCIAL PLANS

1. Develop Forecasts and Projections
Based on evaluation of the data assembled and input provided by the City, prepare forecasts and projections to be used in the development of financial projections for the City’s water, wastewater, and recycled water utilities.  Develop projections for the following areas (and others as appropriate).  Review projections and alternatives with City staff for agreements on assumptions, interpretation of data, and completeness of approach.  Analysis will include, but is not limited to, the following areas:
 Long Term Capital Repairs & Replacements:  Identify future capital improvement program costs or alternatives to include in the financial analysis and determine a reasonable amount to include for future, ongoing capital repairs and replacements.  BWA often recommends that agencies phase in funding for long‐term system rehabilitation.
 Water & Sewer Demand, Supply, & Cost:   With City input, forecast water demand, future conservation projections, and costs of wholesale water purchases.   Identify potential water reduction scenarios for evaluation.
 Cost Escalation Factors:   Review historical cost trends and work with project team to develop reasonable cost escalation factorsfor both operating and capital expenditures.  Work with City staff to identify any anticipated changes in future staffing, benefits, and/or other operating costs.

2. Evaluate Financing Alternatives for Capital Improvements If warranted, Evaluate options for financing capital improvement projects.  Our evaluation will:
 Estimate the amount and timing of any debt, if needed, to finance capital projects.  Evaluate the alternative borrowing methods available including state and federal loan programs, bonds, bank loans and lines of credit, and other options.  Recommend the appropriate type of debt, its term and structure.  Develop debt service estimates to incorporate in the financial projections.

3. Review Minimum Fund Reserve Targets
Evaluate the adequacy of the City’s current utility fund reserves.  If needed, establish prudent minimum fund reserve targets based on the City’s operating and capital funding projections.  Develop an implementation plan for achieving and maintaining the recommended reserve fund levels.

4. Develop 10‐Year Financial Projections
Develop cash flow projections showing the financial position of the water, wastewater, and recycled water enterprises over the next 10 years.  The cash flows will project fund balances, revenues, expenses, and debt service coverage, and will incorporate the forecasts developed with staff input.  After developing a base‐case cash flow scenario, we can develop alternatives for additional evaluation such as capital improvement alternatives, project financing alternatives, the impacts of various levels of water demand, etc.  During this phase, BWA will work closely with the project team to evaluate financial and rate projections under alternative scenarios and assumptions.

Item #9.1.

CITY OF CALISTOGA – 2022 WATER AND SEWER UTILITY RATE STUDY Page 8

5. Evaluate Rate Increase Options
Based on the cash flow projections, determine the annual revenue requirements and project the overall level of required water, wastewater, and recycled water rate increases.  Evaluate rate adjustment alternatives, such as gradually phasing in required rate increases over a number of years.  If appropriate, evaluate different levels of rate increases and their impacts on the City’s ability to fund future operating and capital needs.

6. Develop Financial & Rate Models
Develop user‐friendly water, wastewater, and recycled water financial and rate models designed to be used by City staff to update projections, change assumptions, and evaluate financial scenarios and their impacts on future utility rates.  The models will detail key assumptions and can be used to evaluate alternatives and “what if” scenarios.  BWA has developed numerous rate and financial models for utility enterprises.  We have found that keeping a model asstraightforward as possible, without unnecessary complexity, can increase the model’s usability and improve effectiveness as an in‐house planning tool.

Task B Deliverables Include:
 Summary of long‐term capital improvement plan & key alternatives if appropriate  Evaluation of financing alternatives for capital improvements  Recommendations for minimum fund reserve targets
 10‐year cash flow projections with supporting tables
 User‐friendly water and wastewater financial and rate models designed to enable staff to update projections and evaluate alternative financial scenarios  Evaluation of rate increase options
 Meet with the project team to present findings, discuss alternatives, gain feedback, and develop preliminary recommendations
Item #9.1.

CITY OF CALISTOGA – 2022 WATER AND SEWER UTILITY RATE STUDY Page 9 TASK C. WATER, WASTEWATER AND RECYCLED WATER CAPACITY CHARGES

1. Review Current Capacity Charges
Review the City’s existing water and wastewater capacity charges as well as related policies and procedures.

Work with staff to identify objectives for new or modified capacity charge.

2. Conduct Survey of Regional Capacity Charges
Review and summarize capacity charges of other regional and comparable agencies. Summarize results in easily understandable tables and/or charts.

3. Evaluate Alternative Capacity Charge Methodologies
Identify and evaluate alternative methods for calculating capacity charges.   Discuss advantages and disadvantages with the project team and determine a recommended approach.  BWA often recommends that capacity charges recover costs for both existing and future infrastructure that benefits new development.

Some key fee methodologies may include:
 Buy‐In Approach
 Average or Total Cost Approach
 Incremental Cost Approach
 Buy‐In + Expansion Cost Approach

4. Determine Current Value and Capacity of Utility Assets Calculate the current value of the water assets.  The current value of facilities can be calculated by adjusting the original or depreciated value of each facility or asset into current dollars using the Engineering News‐ Record Construction Cost Index, a widely used measure of construction cost inflation.  If applicable, evaluate an alternative method for valuing pipelines based on the linear feet of different types and diameters of pipeline multiplied by a conservative estimate of the unit cost per linear foot.

5. Allocate Capital Program Costs to Current and Future Users Equitably allocate capital improvement costs to existing and future users based on input from staff and/or its consulting engineers.  Some projects may entirely benefit one group while others will benefit both existing customers and provide new capacity for growth.

6. Develop Preliminary Capacity Charge Recommendations
Based on appropriate and technically sound methodology, recommend revisions to the current capacity charges based on the data developed above.  Review fee for compliance with Government Code Section 66000 et. seq. (AB1600).

7. Recommend a Method for Future Capacity Charge Updates Recommend a method to adjust capacity charges and miscellaneous charges annually or periodically so they remain aligned with future costs.  For example, capacity charges can be adjusted annually based on the change in the Engineering News‐Record’s Construction Cost Index, a widely used measure of construction cost inflation.

Task C Deliverables Include:
 Evaluation of existing connection charges
 Regional development fee survey
 Calculation of capacity charges for the water and recycled water systems  Calculation of capacity charges for the wastewater system Item #9.1.

CITY OF CALISTOGA – 2022 WATER AND SEWER UTILITY RATE STUDY `Page 10 TASK D. WATER, WASTEWATER AND RECYCLED WATER RATE STUDIES

1. Identify & Evaluate Rate Structure Modifications & Alternatives Review the City’s current water, wastewater, and recycled water rate structures and discuss advantages and disadvantages compared to other rate approaches.  Identify potential alternatives and modifications that could help improve rate equity, conservation incentive, or help achieve other City objectives.  Discuss pros and cons of different rate structure options and their general impacts on different types of customers.

Rate structure options will be refined as the study progresses based on input from the City’s project team and City Council Ad Hoc Committee.

2. Conduct Survey of Regional Water, wastewater, and recycled water Rates Review and summarize water and sewer rates of other regional and/or comparable agencies.   Summarize results in easily understandable tables and/or charts.  Confer with staff on agencies to include in the survey.

3. Analyze Water Consumption & Utility Billing Data
Analyze current and historical water usage and utility billing data to determine reasonable and conservative estimates of water and sewer demand to use in developing financial projections and rates.  Water use can fluctuate from year to year depending on various factors such as weather and local and regional conservation efforts.   Ideally, we would prefer to analyze 3 years of utility billing data in order to determine slightly conservative demand projections.   Work with the City to project water, wastewater, and recycled water demand under various normal year and water shortage scenarios.

4. Allocate Costs to Billing Parameters for Each Utility Allocate costs identified in the water, wastewater financial plans to appropriate fixed and variable rate components.  Water rates will be based on an equitable allocation of costs to fixed and variable charges and will include a cost‐basisto support any   Sewer rates will be based on cost allocations to wastewater flow, BOD, and SS to develop underlying unit chargesthat will then be applied to the wastewater discharge characteristics of different customer classes.  Rates will be designed to be equitable to all customers and comply with the substantive requirements of Proposition 218.

5. Develop Preliminary & Final Rate Recommendations with City Input Based on evaluation of rate structure alternatives and the financial plan update, develop draft rate alternatives for City input.  The recommendations may include a multi‐year phase in of both overall rate increases and proposed rate structure adjustments in order to help mitigate the annual impact on ratepayers.   Review preliminary recommendations and key alternatives with the project team and City Council.   Revise recommendations based on input received.  Develop a plan for implementing rate increases and rate structure modifications. Final rate recommendations will be designed to:
a) fund each utility’s long‐term costs of providing service, including operating, capital, and deferred maintenance needs
b) be fair and equitable to all customers,
c) provide a prudent balance of revenue stability and conservation incentive, d) be easy to understand and administer, and
e) comply with the substantive requirements of Proposition 218. f) adhere to industry standards, including the American Water Works Association, and recent legislation Item #9.1.

CITY OF CALISTOGA – 2022 WATER AND WASTEWATER RATE STUDY Page 11

6. Evaluate Rate Impacts on a Range of City Customers
Calculate the impacts of each rate alternative on a range of City customers (e.g. different customer classes, customers with different levels of water use, etc.).  Work with the City’s project team to identify customer and usage profiles to use for calculating the rate impacts.  Discuss additional rate structure adjustments that may reduce the impact on certain customers if warranted.

7. Evaluate & Develop Geothermal Discharge Wastewater Rates Evaluate rate structure alternatives and develop updated geothermal discharge rates to recover costs from customers that discharge geothermal water to the City’s wastewater system.   The proposed rates will be developed based on a cost of service methodology and will be designed to also comply with 2001 Calistoga Spa Settlement Agreement.

Task D Deliverables Include:
 Evaluation of potential rate modifications
 Water and wastewater rate survey
 Analysis of historical utility billing data
 Cost allocations supporting water and sewer rate components  Development of draft rate alternatives for Town evaluation and input  Evaluation & development of geothermal discharge wastewater rates  Meet with the Town to present findings, discuss alternatives, gain input, and develop preliminary and final rate recommendations
Item #9.1.

CITY OF CALISTOGA – 2022 WATER AND WASTEWATER RATE STUDY Page 12 TASK E. RATE IMPLEMENTATION – MEETINGS, REPORTS, PROPOSITION 218 Our proposal includes a total of seven meetings and/or presentations which can be revised based on input from the City.

1. Project Team Meetings/City Council Ad Hoc Committee (Four meetings, remote attendance) Meet with the City’s project team and/or City Council Ad Committee to present and review findings, discuss alternatives and their impacts, gain ongoing input, and develop and hone recommendations. BWA can attend and host these meetings via the City’s preferred web conferencing service.

2. City Council Presentations: (Two City Council meetings) Participate in an initial City Council Meeting to present findings, preliminary recommendations, and key alternatives, and to obtain Council and public input.   Incorporate input and hone recommendations as warranted to ensure final recommendations reflect Council preferences.   Present revised, final recommendations at a subsequent Council Meeting to gain approval to move forward with the Proposition 218 process.

3. Prepare Draft & Final Reports
Develop an administrative draft report summarizing key background issues, study objectives, findings, assumptions, draft recommendations and alternatives, impacts on ratepayers, and the rate and fee surveys.

The report will include:
 brief descriptions of each utility system, service areas, and population,  an overview of historical financial operations,
 discussion of the current utility rates,
 a description of 10‐year water, wastewater, and recycled water capital improvement programs, including potential impacts of State and Federal regulatory requirements,  presentation of 10‐year financial projections and key assumptions,  explanation of cost allocation and derivation of recommended water, wastewater, and recycled water rates,
 impacts of proposed rates on a range of customer types and usage profiles, and  results from the water, wastewater, and recycled water fee surveys.

The report will be written for a non‐technical audience and will clearly explain the rationale for recommendations and key alternatives when applicable.  BWA will submit a preliminary draft report for City review and feedback.  Incorporate input into an administrative draft report for distribution to the City Council.  Incorporate any revisionsinto a final report and provide the City with printed and electronic copies.

4. Proposition 218 Rate Notice
Proposition 218 establishes requirements for adopting or increasing property‐related fees and charges.  In July 2006, the California Supreme Court ruled that water rates are subject to Proposition 218 (Articles XIIIC and XIIID of the state constitution).  Proposition 218 requires that the City: 1) mail notification of proposed rate increases and the date, time, and place of public hearing to all affected property owners (and potentially ratepayers who are renters that pay water bills), 2) hold a public hearing not less than 45 days after the notices are mailed, and 3) subject the rate increases to majority protest; if more than 50% of Item #9.1.

CITY OF CALISTOGA – 2022 WATER AND WASTEWATER RATE STUDY Page 13 property ownerssubmit written protests, the proposed rate increases cannot be adopted.  Water and sewer rates are exempt from the voting requirements of Proposition 218 provided rates do not exceed the cost of providing service and meet the substantive rate requirements of Proposition 218.

Develop a draft Proposition 218 notice for City review.  Incorporate revisions and develop a final notice.

BWA recommends the notice go beyond the minimum legal requirements and provide clear and concise explanation of the reasons for any rate adjustments.  BWA has helped many agencies adopt rates via the Proposition 218 process.   We have found that ratepayers are generally much more accepting of rate increases or rate structure modification when they understand the reasons underlying the adjustments.

5. Public Education and Consensus‐Building
Rate and fee adjustments are often controversial.   BWA has extensive experience developing clear presentations that facilitate public understanding of the need for rate increases.   We understand the importance of building consensus and public acceptance for our recommendations and can assist the City in any outreach and public education efforts.

6. Proposition 218 Hearing (1 Public Hearing)
Attend the Proposition 218 Public Hearing at a City Council Meeting and present a summary of findings and recommendations.  Remain available to respond to Council and public comments.  BWA has extensive experience presenting financial and rate recommendations to non‐technical audiences, dealing with challenging questions, and building acceptance for final recommendations.

Task E Deliverables Include:
 4 project team/Town Council Ad Hoc meetings to discuss findings, alternatives, recommendations and obtain input
 3 City Council meetings to a) present findings and preliminary recommendations and receive input, b) present revised recommendations for additional input, and c) present a summary at the Prop. 218 Public Hearing
 PowerPoint presentations summarizing key findings, alternatives, and recommendations  Draft and final reports summarizing background information, key findings, alternatives, and recommendations
 Draft of required Proposition 218 Notice of proposed rate increases Item #9.1.

CITY OF CALISTOGA
– 2022 WATER AND SEWER
UTILITY RATE STUDY Page 14
Section 4: Proposed Schedule This section presents a preliminary draft schedule for completing the project with an estimated project start date of May 1, 2022, and the first year of proposed rates effective January 1, 2023. BWA will work with the project team to develop key milestones and a final schedule.

PROJECT TASK MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN
Project Initiation
& Data Collection *
Water, Wastewater, and Recycled WaterFinancial PlansRate StudyCapacity Fee StudyDraft & Final Reports/Model C
Project Team Meetings (TBD)City Council and Community Meetings (TBD) Proposition 218 Process
& Hearing (TBD) R
Note: Individual project milestones will be established based on consultation with the project team.C – Project estimated completion date November 2022
R ‐ First Year of Rates Effective January 1, 2023
Item #9.1.

CITY OF CALISTOGA – 2022 WATER AND SEWER UTILITY RATE STUDY Page 15 Supporting Information

PROJECT TEAM RESUMES
ALEX T. HANDLERS, MPA, CIPMA
Experience
Alex Handlers is a principal and vice president of Bartle Wells Associates with expertise in the areas of utility rates and finance.   He has extensive experience developing long‐term financial plans, utility rates, and development impact fees for utility enterprises.  Alex has helped agencies implement a wide variety of water and sewer rate and fee structures and is knowledgeable about the legal requirements of rates and fees.  He has managed projects for over 150 cities, counties, and special districts.

Alex is also an independent financial advisor who helps public agencies secure low‐cost financing for capital projects.  He is an MSRB‐Registered Municipal Advisor, a Certified Independent Professional Municipal Advisor, and a current Board Member of the National Association of Municipal Advisors.  He has expertise helping public agencies evaluate financing alternatives for capital improvement programs and obtain over $2 billion in financing via bonds, COPs, bank loans/private placements, lines of credit, and variousstate and federal funding programs.

Education
M.P.A. ‐ University of Washington
B.A. ‐ Lehigh University
Certifications
Board Member – National Association of Municipal Advisors CIPMA – Certified Independent Professional Municipal Advisor MSRB‐Registered Municipal Advisor (Series 50)
Representative Projects
 City of Benicia:  Developed comprehensive water and wastewater financial plans and rate studies leading to adoption of a 5‐year phase‐in of rate increases and revisions to the water and sewer rate structures designed to reflect the cost of providing service.  Evaluated rate impacts under a range of capital funding scenarios.  Updated the City’s water and wastewater capacity charges levied on new development.  City of Petaluma:   Developed water and sewer financial plans and rate studies.   Recommendations included a gradual phase‐in of rate increases to support each utility’s long‐term operating  and capital improvement programs along with automatic wholesale water rate pass‐throughs and annual inflationary rate adjustments designed to keep future rates aligned with the cost of providing service.  City of San Carlos:  Developed a sewer enterprise financial plan and rate study designed to support sewer collection system capacity improvements, long‐term pipeline replacements, and over $120 million for the City’s share of costs for rebuilding the regional wastewater treatment plant.  Evaluated residential rate alternatives.  Updated the City’s sewer capacity charges levied on new development. Developed solid waste rate recommendations to support future funding requirements and improve rate equity between customer classes and cart sizes.
 City of Morro Bay: Developed water and sewer rate studies.   Developed a financial plan and rate recommendations supporting the construction of a new $125 wastewater treatment plant with water recycling and indirect potable reuse facilities.  Assisted City with securing WIFIA and SRF financing.  City of San Mateo:  Developed a sewer enterprise financial plan and rate recommendations supporting funding for a roughly $900 million wastewater capital improvement program needed to improve wet Item #9.1.

CITY OF CALISTOGA – 2022 WATER AND WASTEWATER RATE STUDY Page 16 weather capacity and rebuild the City’s aging wastewater treatment plant.  Transitioned residential sewer rates from 100% volumetric rates (subject to a minimum charge) to a hybrid 50% fixed & 50% volumetric rate structure.  Developed new sewer capacity charges levied on new development.  City of Redwood City:  Developed water and sewer financial plans and utility rate studies supporting a) construction of a $72 million recycled water project, b) funding for the City’s roughly $400 million share of improvements to the regional wastewater treatment plant, c) increases in wholesale water rates, and d) increased funding for investment in the City’s aging water and sewer infrastructure.  City of Paso Robles:  Developed a comprehensive sewer rate study.  Evaluated a range of fixed and usage‐ based residential rate alternatives.   Final recommendations reflected substantial input from the City’s project team and included multi‐year sewer rate increases and a phase‐in of fixed monthly charges to supplement the City’s usage‐based rates.
 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission:   Developed water, sewer and power enterprise financial projections supporting over $2 billion of bonds issued to fund upgrades the Hetch‐Hetchy regional water system and improvements to the City’s wastewater system and power infrastructure.  Monterey One Water (formerly Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency):  Developed a long‐ term financial plan,sewer rate study, capacity charge study, and update of miscellaneousfees and charges.  Joshua Basin Water District:  Developed long‐term financial plans and water rate studies recommending a gradual increase in water rates coupled with rate structure modifications to provide additional conservation incentive.  Worked with a Citizens Advisory Council and the District’s Board of Directors to evaluate alternatives and develop final recommendations.  City of Mountain View:   Developed 10‐year water and wastewater financial plans and rate studies.

Evaluated water and sewer rate structures and recommended modifications to improve rate equity and compliance with Prop. 218.  Updated the City’s water and wastewater connection fees.  City of North Miami Beach:  Developed water and sewer financial plans and rate studies designed to support each utility’s updated capital improvement programs and a substantial increase in costs for wastewater treatment provided by Miami‐Dade County.
 City of Sunnyvale:  Developed sewer enterprise financial projections and rate recommendations.  Updated the City’s water and sewer capacity charges levied on new development.  Silicon Valley Clean Water:  Developed 10‐year financial plan supporting over $750 million of capital improvements to a regional JPA that provides sewer treatment to Belmont, Redwood City, San Carlos, and the West Bay Sanitary District.  Served as financial advisor on issuance of $200 million of financing via bonds, State Revolving Fund (SRF) loans, and a line of credit.  City of San Bruno:   Developed 10‐year water and wastewater financial plans and rate studies.

Recommended a series of gradual annual rate increases to fund operating and capital needs and increase funding for repair and replacement of the City’s aging water and sewer infrastructure.  Evaluated water and sewer rate structures and recommended modifications to improve rate equity and increase conservation incentive.  Updated water and wastewater capacity charges.  Alameda County Water District:   Comprehensive development fee study; recommended a series of modifications to existing charges to improve revenue recovery, equity and fee administration  City of Fresno:  Developed wastewater enterprise financial plan and Excel‐based financial model used by City staff to update financial and rate projections.  Developed new water connection fees designed to recover costs of existing facilities and future supplemental water supply projects.

Item #9.1.

CITY OF CALISTOGA – 2022 WATER AND WASTEWATER RATE STUDY Page 17 ERIK W. HELGESON
Project Consultant
Erik Helgeson an Assistant Vice President and Senior Consultant with Bartle Wells Associates. His areas of expertise include water rate structure analysis, development of financial plans, utility ratemaking, and policy solutions for water, stormwater and wastewater utilities.  He has eight years of utility finance experience‐ as a finance analyst at Denver Water and now as a utility rate consultant. Erik has extensive expertise in working with executive level staff and assisting in strategic decisions. He serves on the American Water Works Association (AWWA) Rates and Charges Committee and has presented at the Utility Management Conference.

Education
M.B.A., Entrepreneurship – University of Colorado, Denver B.A., Business Administration – Gonzaga University
Representative Projects
 City of Placerville, CA: Analytical support for water financial plans and rate studies.  City of Modesto, CA: Analytical support for water and wastewater financial plans and rate studies  Carlsbad, CA: Played a key role in completing the 2016 water cost of service study. Created a supply‐based cost allocation and supply layered, tiered, water rate design  City of Hemet, CA: Water budget rate design and cost of service study (in progress)  City of Imperial, CA: Lead consultant providing water and wastewater financial plans and rate studies  Modesto Irrigation District: Designed an allocation methodology between the district’s domestic water, irrigation and electric enterprises.
 Madera County, CA: Lead consultant providing rate studies for twenty‐three of the county’s water and sewer special service districts
 San Miguel Community Services District, CA: Lead consultant providing water and wastewater financial plans and rate studies. The District was nearing insolvency and large rate increases were needed to save the District.
 Castle Pines North Metropolitan District, CO: Lead consultant providing annual water and wastewater financial plans and rate study updates
 Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District, CA: Support for annual budget process  City of Willits, CA: Lead consultant providing water and wastewater financial plans and rate studies  The Cities of Pinole and Hercules, CA: Assisted the cities with the co‐financing of a wastewater project with SRF loans. This included the design of the payment and reimbursement process, the administration of the process, and navigating the State requirements.
 Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District, CA: Lead consultant providing 10‐year financial plan update  Sacramento County Water Authority, Sacramento, CA: Lead analyst supporting water financial plan and rate study
 Marin Municipal Water District, Marin, CA: Lead Analyst supporting development of a comprehensive water financial plan and rate study.

Item #9.1.

CITY OF CALISTOGA – 2022 WATER AND WASTEWATER RATE STUDY Page 18 Public Utility Experience
Denver Water, Denver, CO:

Senior Finance Analyst‐ Assisted with the annual cost of service study and financial plan, provided regular revenue reports, and oversaw the gathering and reporting of metricsto support Denver Water’s organizational improvement initiatives. As the lead analyst on the initiative to change the rate design he facilitated research (customer survey and affordability study), performed rate design analysis, and assisted with stakeholder outreach (municipalities, customers, business representatives, non‐profits, and Denver Water executives and Board) which led to the adoption of new rate structures. He coordinated the implementation efforts between various business units to ensure a successful rollout of the new rates and rate structures.

Professional Memberships
American Water Works Association – Member of Rates and Charges Committee Certifications
MSRB‐Registered Municipal Advisor (Series 50)
Item #9.1.

CITY OF CALISTOGA – 2022 WATER AND WASTEWATER RATE STUDY Page 19 ABIGAIL M. SEAMAN
Project Consultant
Abigail Seaman is a project consultant with Bartle Wells Associates.  She works closely with public agencies, engineers, legal counsel, and other consultants to develop water and sewer rates and assessments, and long‐ term financial plans for utility enterprises. Abigail helps agencies evaluate financing alternatives for public works projects, coordinates state and federal grant and loan applications, and evaluates bond refinancing opportunities.

Education
B.A., Economics – University of California, Davis
Representative Projects
 City of Davis: Water rate study update developed with Utility Rate Advisory Committee.  Stormwater advisory services for South Davis Channel.
 City of American Canyon: Comprehensive, multi‐year water and wastewater rate study.  Yolo County: Assessment Engineer’s Report presenting costs per resident for water system consolidation project between North Davis Meadows CSA and City of Davis  City of Calistoga: Long range utility financial plan, water and wastewater rate studies  Sonoma County Water Agency: Wastewater rate study to prepare for the annexation of a district into the City of Santa Rosa’s wastewater system.
 California Rural Water Association: On‐call consultant for water and wastewater rate studies  City of Seaside: Comprehensive water and wastewater rate study  Marina Coast Water District: Water and wastewater capacity fee studies  City of Pacifica: Comprehensive wastewater rate study including debt financing scenarios  City of Alameda: City‐wide capital improvement budget and revenue projections; analysis of historical revenue and expense trends
 Town of Yountville: Water and wastewater rate study, rate structure re‐organization  City of Solvang: Water and wastewater rate studies
 Mariposa County: Water and wastewater rate study for four districts within the County  Eastern Sierra Community Services District: Wastewater capacity fee study  City of Coronado: Breakeven analysis comparing the cost of imported water with project costs to improve City water infrastructure assuming project financing and escalating annual costs Certifications
MSRB‐Registered Municipal Advisor (Series 50)
Item #9.1.

CITY OF CALISTOGA – 2022 WATER AND WASTEWATER RATE STUDY Page 20 Client References

CITY OF CALISTOGA
Water and Wastewater Rate and Capacity Fee Study
BWA developed a comprehensive, long range wastewater financing plan and rate study for the City and the proposed wastewater rates and connection fees were adopted unanimously by the City Council.  These rates and fees supported the City’s $11 million wastewater treatment facility renovation/expansion.

We helped the City secure $5 million in low‐interest State Revolving Fun d loans, a $3 million Small Community Grant, and $3 million from a statewide bond pool to fund the project.   We also worked with the City’s consulting engineer to secure a low‐cost financing package from the US Dept of Agriculture for $5 million of the City’s water projects.

In 2018, we updated the City’s 5‐year water and wastewater financing plan and rate studies.

Contact:

Mike Kirn, City Manager
(707) 942‐2806
[email protected]
Gloria Leon, Administrative Services Director
(707) 942‐2803
[email protected]

BODEGA BAY PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
Water and Wastewater Rate and Capacity Fee Study, Municipal Advisor Bartle Wells Associates conducted a Water and Wastewater Rate Study for Bodega Bay Public Utility District in 2016. The District was facing a water revenue deficit and had a wastewater rate structure based on outdated Residential Unit Equivalent (RUE) estimates.  BWA recommended that the District increase water rates, update water rates to align with AWWA meter flow factors and replace RUE‐based wastewater charges with meter‐ based charges. We calculated the impact of the new rate structure on all customers and developed a notice to ratepayers explaining the change. Rates were successfully implemented in 2018.

BWA recently updated District’s wastewater financial plan to fund significant capital improvement costs with a combination of debt financing, reserves, and rate revenue. We served as Municipal Advisor to help the District secure two bank loans to fund the 2022 Sewer Rehabilitation Project and refinance the District’s existing loans.

Contact:

Janet Ames, District Manager
(707) 875‐3332
[email protected]
Item #9.1.

CITY OF CALISTOGA – 2022 WATER AND WASTEWATER RATE STUDY Page 21

CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON
Water and Sewer Rate Study
BWA completed a highly successful water and sewer rate study engagement with the City of American Canyon in 2018.  In it, BWA updated the rates and capacity fees for both water and sewer utilities.  The City is in a rapidly growing region of the Bay Area and facessignificant capital costs associated with the expansion of utility infrastructure.  Two of the most important goals of this project were developing capacity fees which equitably allocate the cost of future expansion to new users and setting a new tiered water rate structure that encourages conservation while also recovering the appropriate cost of water delivered.  BWA lead meetings with a Citizen’s Advisory Committee, who reviewed and recommended the proposed rates to Council.

Contact:

Jason Holley, City Manager
(707) 647‐5323
[email protected]

UPPER VALLEY WASTE MANAGEMENT AGENCY
Solid Waste Rate Study
BWA was retained by UVA as finance consultant in connection with review of its current solid waste rates and rate methodologies. Bartle Wells reviewed the July 2020 rate proposals submitted by Upper Valley Disposal Service and Clover Flat Landfill and found them to be appropriate with minor adjustments.  The Agency Board unanimously adopted the 2020 rates on June 29, 2020 as recommended by BWA.  BWA continues to serve as financial consultant to UVA through 2020.

Contact:

Steven E. Lederer, Director
(707) 253‐4351
[email protected]

CITY OF DAVIS
Water and Wastewater Rate Studies
BWA has worked with the City of Davis on numerous projects over the last few years. In 2013, BWA worked with the City’s 15‐member Water Advisory Committee (WAC) to review water rate structure alternatives, evaluate various financing scenarios, and develop a gradually phased‐in set of rate increases to support the new Woodland‐Davis surface water project.

In 2014, BWA worked with the newly formed Utilities Rate Advisory Commission (URAC) to update the projections used in the 2013 study and to develop a new water rate structure. The 2014 update included a uniform block volume rate by customer class and a drought surcharge based on the City’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan. BWA worked with the URAC to update the water rate study in 2017. We are currently contracted to conduct the 2019 Water and Wastewater Rate and Cost of Service Studies.

Contact:

Stan Gryczko, Public Works Utilities and Operations Director (530) 757‐5686
[email protected]
Item #9.1.

CITY OF CALISTOGA – 2022 WATER AND WASTEWATER RATE STUDY Page 22 Section 6: Conflict of Interest Statement
In response to your request for statement, BWA confirms that there are no financial, business or other relationships with the City that may have an impact upon the outcome of this contract or the proposed rate study We have no clients that may have a financial interest in the outcome of this contract or the City construction project that will follow.

Item #9.1.

CITY OF CALISTOGA
– 2022 WATER AND SEWER
UTILITY RATE STUDY ` Page 23
Section 7: Schedule of Insurance
Item #9.1.

ATTACHMENT 3
- 1 -

MASTER AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES
This Master Agreement for Consultant Services (the "Agreement") is made and entered into this _____________ day of _______________, 2022, by and between THE CITY OF CALISTOGA, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "CITY") and Bartle Wells Associate [a sole proprietorship, partnership, limited liability partnership, corporation, limited liability corporation] (hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT"). CITY and CONSULTANT may be referred to individually as “Party” and collectively as the “Parties.”

RECITALS
WHEREAS, CITY requires professional services in connection with the project described as Water and Wastewater Rate study;
WHEREAS, CONSULTANT is qualified to perform such services; and WHEREAS, CONSULTANT has agreed to provide CITY with such services on the terms and conditions set forth herein.

NOW, THEREFORE, for the considerations hereinafter set forth, CONSULTANT and CITY agree as follows:

ARTICLE 1 - SCOPE OF SERVICES

1.1. Scope of Services. CONSULTANT agrees to furnish services pursuant to a Task Order in the form set forth in Exhibit A, Task Order, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein (the "Services").

1.2. Compliance with Law. The Services shall be performed in accordance with all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, rules, regulations and orders.

1.3. Time is of the Essence. CONSULTANT agrees to diligently prosecute the Services. In the performance of this Agreement, time is of the essence.

1.4. Professional Competence. CONSULTANT represents that it has the professional skills necessary to perform the Services and that it will perform the Services in a skillful and professional manner. CONSULTANT represents that it has all the necessary licenses to perform the Services and shall maintain them throughout the term of this Agreement.

CONSULTANT agrees that the Services shall be performed in the manner and according to the standards observed by a competent practitioner of the profession in which CONSULTANT is engaged, in the same or similar geographical area in which CONSULTANT practices its profession, and will prepare all work products required by this Agreement in accordance with such standards. CITY and CONSULTANT agree that CONSULTANT is in responsible charge of the Services and CITY shall have no control over the method or means of performance of the Services. Acceptance by CITY of the Item #9.1.

- 2 -
Services does not operate as a release of CONSULTANT from professional responsibility for the Services performed.

1.5. Independent Contractor. CONSULTANT is an independent contractor and not an employee of CITY. CONSULTANT expressly warrants that it will not represent that it is an employee of CITY. Persons employed or utilized by CONSULTANT in the performance of the Services will not be employees or agents of CITY. CONSULTANT is solely responsible for the payment of employment taxes incurred under this Agreement and any similar federal or state taxes.

1.6. Confidentiality. CONSULTANT agrees to maintain in confidence and not disclose to any person, firm, governmental entity, or corporation, without CITY's prior written consent, any trade secret or confidential information, knowledge or data relating to the products, process, or operation of CITY. CONSULTANT further agrees to maintain in confidence and not to disclose to any person, firm, governmental entity, or corporation any data, information, technology, or material developed or obtained by CONSULTANT during the performance of the Services. The covenants contained in this Section 1.6 shall survive the termination of this Agreement for whatever cause.

1.7. Ownership of Material. Any reports and other material prepared by or on behalf of CONSULTANT under this Agreement (collectively, the "Documents") shall be and remain the property of CITY. All Documents not already provided to CITY shall be delivered to CITY on the date of termination of this Agreement for any reason. The Documents may be used by CITY and its agents, employees, representatives, and assigns, in whole or in part, or in modified form, for all purposes CITY may deem appropriate without further employment of or payment of any compensation to CONSULTANT.

1.8. Documentation. CONSULTANT shall keep and maintain full and complete documentation and accounting records, employee time sheets, and correspondence pertaining to the performance of the Services, and CONSULTANT shall make such documents available for review and/or audit by CITY and CITY's representatives at all reasonable times for at least four years after the termination of this Agreement or completion of the Services.

1.9. Testimony. CONSULTANT agrees to testify at CITY's request if litigation is brought against CITY in connection with the Services. Unless the action is brought by CONSULTANT or is based upon CONSULTANT's negligence, CITY will compensate CONSULTANT for the preparation and the testimony at CONSULTANT's standard hourly rates.

ARTICLE 2 - COMPENSATION

2.1. Compensation. Compensation for the Services shall be in accordance with the rate and schedules specified in a Task Order. However, in no event shall the amount the CITY pays to CONSULTANT for work done under a Task Order exceed the total compensation specified in the Task Order (“Cost Ceiling”).

Item #9.1.

- 3 -

2.2. Invoices. CONSULTANT shall submit monthly invoices in a form satisfactory to CITY on or before the tenth day of each month for Services provided during the preceding month. CONSULTANT shall submit time and cost records as necessary to substantiate performance of the Services. Within 35 days after receipt of each such invoice, CITY shall verify the accuracy of the invoice, correct the charges where appropriate and as discussed and mutually agreed with CONSULTANT, and make payment to CONSULTANT in an amount equal to the amount of such invoice, as verified or corrected by CITY. No payment hereunder shall be construed as evidence of acceptance of any of CONSULTANT's work. CITY reserves the right to withhold payment from CONSULTANT on account of Services not performed satisfactorily, delays in CONSULTANT's performance of Services, or other defaults hereunder. CONSULTANT shall not stop or delay performance of the Services under this Agreement on account of payment disputes with CITY.

2.3. Status Reports. Together with each monthly invoice, CONSULTANT shall submit a status report detailing the amount expended on the Services to that date and the remaining amount to be expended before the Cost Ceiling is reached. CONSULTANT shall notify CITY in writing when payments have reached 90 percent of the Cost Ceiling.

2.4. Withholding. In lieu of holding retention, CITY shall withhold CONSULTANT's final payment under a Task Order until the Services provided under that Task Order are complete and CITY has received all Documents. CONSULTANT shall diligently continue and complete performance of the Services if the Services are not complete at the time CONSULTANT has performed services up to the Cost Ceiling.

ARTICLE 3 - TIME OF PERFORMANCE

3.1. Effective Date. This Agreement shall become effective upon execution of the second signature and shall remain in full force and effect until March 31, 2023 (the "Term").

Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Agreement may be extended for successive one-year term(s) upon mutual, written approval by the City Manager or his/her designee and CONSULTANT. Work authorized by a Task Order shall be performed in accordance with the schedule set forth in the Task Order.

3.2. Termination. This Agreement may be terminated at any time by CITY upon written notice to CONSULTANT.

3.3. Final Payment. CONSULTANT shall be entitled to compensation for Services performed up to the time of such termination, it being understood that any payments are full compensation for the Services rendered under this Agreement.

3.4. Other Remedies. Nothing in this Article 3 shall be deemed to limit the respective rights of the parties to terminate this Agreement for cause or otherwise to exercise any rights or pursue any remedies which may accrue to them.

Item #9.1.

- 4 -
ARTICLE 4 - DESIGNATED CONTACTS

4.1. CITY Contact. CITY designates Derek Rayner, Public Works Director as its contact who shall be responsible for administering and interpreting the terms and conditions of this Agreement, for matters relating to CONSULTANT's performance under this Agreement, and for liaison and coordination between CITY and CONSULTANT. In the event CITY wishes to make a change in CITY 's representative, CITY will notify CONSULTANT of the change in writing.

4.2. CONSULTANT Contact. CONSULTANT designates Alex Handlers as its contact, who shall have immediate responsibility for the performance of the Services and for all matters relating to performance under this Agreement. Any change in CONSULTANT's designated contact shall be subject to written approval by CITY.

ARTICLE 5 - INDEMNIFICATION AND INSURANCE

5.1. Indemnification. CONSULTANT shall, to the fullest extent allowed by law, with respect to claims, liability, loss, damage, costs, or expenses, including reasonable attorney's and expert witness fees, awards, fines, penalties, or judgments, arising out of or relating to the Services (collectively "Claims") that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of CONSULTANT, defend, indemnify, and hold harmless CITY, its Officials, officers, employees and agents (the "CITY Parties"), except to the extent the Claims are attributable to CITY Parties' gross negligence or willful misconduct. CONSULTANT shall defend the CITY Parties as required by California Civil Code Section 2778, and with counsel reasonably acceptable to those parties. CONSULTANT shall have no right to seek reimbursement from the CITY Parties for the costs of defense.

If CONSULTANT is a “design professional,” as defined in California Civil Code Section 2782.8(c), CONSULTANT shall indemnify, defend, and hold the Indemnitees harmless against Liability only to the extent such Liability arises out of, pertains to, or relates to CONSULTANT’s negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct. In such an event, the cost to defend charged to CONSULTANT shall not exceed CONSULTANT’s proportionate percentage of fault.

The obligations contained in this Section 5.1 shall survive the termination of this Agreement for whatever cause for the full period of time allowed by law and shall not in any way be limited by the insurance requirements of this Agreement.

5.2. Health and Safety. CONSULTANT may perform part of the Services at sites which contain unknown working conditions and contaminated materials. CONSULTANT shall be solely responsible for the health and safety of CONSULTANT's employees during the performance of the Services.

5.3. Insurance. CONSULTANT and all of CONSULTANTS employees, subcontractors, consultants and other agency shall procure, provide and maintain at all times during the performance of this Agreement, and for such additional periods as described herein, the Item #9.1.

- 5 -
insurance listed below with insurers licensed to do business in the State of California and with a Best's rating of no less than A:VII.

A. Commercial Automobile Liability Insurance. Commercial Automobile Liability Insurance providing bodily injury liability and property damage, to protect against all liability arising out of the use of any owned, leased, passenger or commercial automobile at a minimum amount of $1,000,000 combined single limit and $2,000,000 aggregate. Coverage shall apply to hired and non-owned autos.

B. Commercial General Liability Insurance. Commercial General Liability Insurance, with limits providing a minimum amount of $1,000,000 combined single limit coverage for each occurrence, $2,000,000 general aggregate and $2,000,000 products/completed operations aggregate. The insurance shall cover all operations including but not limited to the following: (1) premises, operations and mobile equipment liability; (2) completed operations and products liability; (3) contractual liability insuring the obligations assumed by CONSULTANT in this Agreement; (4) broad form property damage liability; (5) personal injury liability endorsement, including death; and (6) automobile bodily injury and property damage insurance, including all owned, hired and non-owned equipment.

C. Professional Liability Insurance. Professional Liability Insurance protecting against liabilities arising out of or in connection with negligent acts, errors, or omissions of CONSULTANT and all of CONSULTANTS employees, subcontractors, consultants and other agency in connection with this Agreement, at a minimum amount of $1,000,000 combined single limit coverage and $1,000,000 aggregate, on a "claims made basis" with a continuation of coverage extension for liabilities for two years from the date the Services are substantially complete. Such professional liability policies shall include coverage for liability assumed by the CONSULTANT under this Agreement.

D. Workers Compensation Insurance. Workers Compensation insurance, occupational disease insurance and employer’s liability insurance shall be required with minimum limits as required by law, covering all workplaces involved in this Agreement.

E. Policy Terms. Concurrently with execution of this Agreement, CONSULTANT shall provide CITY with Certificates of Insurance evidencing that CONSULTANT has obtained or maintains the insurance required by this Section

5.3. The Certificates shall be on forms acceptable to CITY. CONSULTANT shall also furnish CITY with original endorsements with the following documentation:
• Precluding cancellation or reduction in coverage before the expiration of thirty (30) days after CITY shall have received written notification thereof from CONSULTANT by United States mail;
• Providing that CONSULTANT's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, and include a “separation of insureds” or “severability” clause which treats each insured separately, Item #9.1.

- 6 -
except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability (cross-liability endorsement);
• Excepting CONSULTANT’S professional liability insurance, naming CITY, its City Council, boards, commissions, committees, officers, employees and agents as additional insureds (“Additional Insureds”); and • Providing that for any claims relating to CONSULTANT's services hereunder, CONSULTANT's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance with respect to CITY, its City Council, boards, commissions, committees, officers, employees and agents, and that any insurance or self-insurance maintained by CITY for itself, its City Council, boards, commissions, committees, officers, employees and agents shall be in excess of CONSULTANT's insurance and shall not be contributory with it.
• It shall be a requirement under this Agreement that any available insurance proceeds broader than or in excess of the specified minimum insurance coverages requirements and/or limits shall be available to the Additional Insured, including but not limited to any umbrella or excess insurance.

Furthermore, the requirements for coverage and limits shall be the greater of:
(a) the minimum coverage and limits specified in this Agreement; or (b) the broader coverage and maximum limits of coverage of any insurance policy or proceeds available to the named insured.

F. Waiver of Subrogation: CONSULTANT hereby grants to CITY a waiver of any right to subrogation which any insurer of said CONSULTANT may acquire against the CITY by virtue of the payment of any loss under such insurance.

CONSULTANT hereby agrees to obtain any endorsement that may be necessary to affect this waiver of subrogation, but this provision applies regardless of whether or not CITY has received a waiver of subrogation endorsement from the insurer. However, the Worker’s Compensation policy required by Section 5.3(D) of this Agreement shall be endorsed with a waiver of subrogation in favor of CITY for all work performed by CONSULTANT, its employees and/or agents.

G. Material Breach. If CONSULTANT fails to maintain insurance coverage or provided insurance documentation which is required pursuant to this Agreement, it shall be deemed a material breach of this Agreement. CITY, at its sole option, may terminate this Agreement and obtain damages from CONSULTANT resulting from said breach. Alternatively, CITY may purchase the required insurance coverage, and without further notice to CONSULTANT, may deduct from sums due to CONSULTANT any premium costs advanced by CITY for such insurance. These remedies shall be in addition to any other remedies available to CITY.

ARTICLE 6 - NOTICES
All notices or other communications required or permitted hereunder shall be in writing, and shall be personally delivered or sent by facsimile or reputable overnight courier and shall be deemed received upon the earlier of: (1) if personally delivered, the date of delivery to the address of the person to receive such notice; (2) if delivered by Federal Express or other Item #9.1.

- 7 -
overnight courier for next business day delivery, the next business day; (3) if sent by facsimile, with the original sent on the same day by overnight courier, the date on which the facsimile is received, provided it is before 5:00 P.M. Pacific Time; or (4) if sent electronically, the date of delivery on the confirmed read receipt. Notice of change of address shall be given by written notice in the manner described in this Article 6. Rejection or other refusal to accept or the inability to deliver because of a change in address of which no notice was given shall be deemed to constitute receipt of the notice or communication sent. Unless changed in accordance herewith, the addresses for notices given pursuant to this Agreement shall be as follows:

If to CITY: Laura Snideman, City Manager
1232 Washington Street
Calistoga, CA 94515
Email: [email protected]
Phone: 707-942-2806
If to CONSULTANT: Alex Handlers
Bartle Wells Associates
Independent Public Finance Advisors
2625 Alcatraz Ave #602
Berkeley, CA 94705
Phone: (510) 653-3399 x 109
Email: [email protected]
ARTICLE 7 - MISCELLANEOUS

7.1. Conflict of Interest Prohibition. CITY and CONSULTANT will comply with the requirements of the CITY’s Conflict of Interest Code adopted pursuant to California Government Code §87300 et seq., the Political Reform Act (California Government Code §81000 et seq.), the regulations promulgated by the Fair Political Practices Commission (Title 2, §18110 et seq. of the California Code of Regulations), California Government Code §1090 et seq., and any other ethics laws applicable to the performance of the Services and/or this Agreement. CONSULTANT may be required to file with the CITY Clerk a completed Form 700 before commencing performance of the Services unless the CITY Clerk determines that completion of a Form 700 is not required, pursuant to CITY’s Conflict of Interest Code. Form 700 forms are available from the CITY Clerk.

CONSULTANT may not perform Services for any other person or entity that, pursuant to any applicable law or regulation, would result in a conflict of interest or would otherwise be prohibited with respect to CONSULTANT’s obligations pursuant to this Agreement.

CONSULTANT agrees to cooperate fully with CITY and to provide any necessary and appropriate information requested by CITY or any authorized representative concerning potential conflicts of interest or prohibitions concerning CONSULTANT’s obligations pursuant to this Agreement.

CONSULTANT may not employ any CITY official, officer or employee in the Item #9.1.

- 8 -
performance of the Services, nor may any official, officer or employee of CITY have any financial interest in this Agreement that would violate California Government Code §1090 et seq. CONSULTANT hereby warrants that it is not now, nor has it been in the previous twelve (12) months, an employee, agent, appointee, or official of CITY. If CONSULTANT was an employee, agent, appointee, or official of CITY in the previous twelve months, CONSULTANT warrants that it did not participate in any manner in the forming of this Agreement. CONSULTANT understands that, if this Agreement is made in violation of Government Code §1090 et seq., the entire Agreement is void and CONSULTANT will not be entitled to any compensation for CONSULTANT’s performance of the Services, including reimbursement of expenses, and CONSULTANT will be required to reimburse CITY for any sums paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement. CONSULTANT understands that, in addition to the foregoing, penalties for violating Government Code §1090 may include criminal prosecution and disqualification from holding public office in the State of California.

Any violation by CONSULTANT of the requirements of this provision will constitute a material breach of this Agreement, and the CITY reserves all its rights and remedies at law and equity concerning any such violations.

7.2. Subcontracting. CONSULTANT may subcontract portions of the Services upon the prior written approval of CITY. CONSULTANT will be solely responsible for payment of such subcontract Services. No contractual relationship will exist between any such subcontractors of CONSULTANT and CITY. CONSULTANT’s subcontractors agree to be bound to CONSULTANT and CITY in the same manner and to the same extent as CONSULTANT is bound to CITY under the Agreement. CONSULTANT’s subcontractors further agree to include the same requirements and provisions of this Agreement, including the indemnity and insurance requirements, with any subsubcontractor to the extent they apply to the scope of the sub-subcontractor’s work. A copy of the CITY indemnity and insurance provisions will be furnished to CONSULTANT’s subcontractors upon request.

7.3. Entire Agreement. This Agreement represents the entire understanding of CITY and CONSULTANT as to those matters contained herein. No prior oral or written understanding shall be of any force or effect with respect to those matters covered hereunder. This Agreement may only be modified by an amendment in writing signed by each party.

7.4. No Assignment. The Services are deemed unique and neither party shall assign, transfer, subcontract or otherwise substitute its interest in this Agreement or any of its obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of the other party. As limited by this Section

7.2, this Agreement is to be binding on the successors and assigns of the parties hereto.

7.5. Severability. If any part of this Agreement is determined to be unconstitutional, invalid or beyond the authority of either party, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this Agreement, which shall continue in full force and effect, provided that the remainder of this Agreement can be interpreted to give effect to the intentions of the parties.

Item #9.1.

- 9 -

7.6. Counterparts. This Agreement may be signed in counterparts and, when fully signed, such counterparts shall have the same effect as if signed in one document.

7.7. Choice of Law. This Agreement and all matters relating to it shall be governed by the laws of the State of California without reference to its choice of laws principles and venue shall be in the appropriate court in Napa County, California.

7.8. Waiver. No failure on the part of either Party to exercise any right or remedy hereunder shall operate as a waiver of any other right or remedy that party may have hereunder. A waiver by either CITY or CONSULTANT of any breach of this Agreement shall not be binding upon the waiving party unless such waiver is in writing. In the event of a written waiver, such a waiver shall not affect the waiving party's rights with respect to any other further breach.

7.9. Mediation. In the event the parties are unable to resolve a dispute arising under this Agreement through good faith negotiations, the parties agree to submit the matter to mediation with a mutually agreeable mediator. Prior to the mediation, the parties shall exchange any documents reasonably necessary to resolve the matter to be mediated.

7.10. Interpretation. In the event this Agreement is ever construed in any dispute between the parties, it and each of its provisions shall be construed without regard to the party or parties responsible for its preparation and shall be deemed to have been prepared jointly by the parties. The rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not be employed in interpreting this Agreement.

7.11. Authority. Each individual executing this Agreement on behalf of one of the parties represents that he or she is duly authorized to sign and deliver the Agreement on behalf of such party and that this Agreement is binding on such party in accordance with its terms.

7.12. Third Parties. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall create a contractual relationship with, or cause of action in favor of, a third party against either the CITY or CONSULTANT. CONSULTANT’s Services hereunder are being performed solely for the benefit of CITY. CITY shall be an express third-party beneficiary of all contracts between CONSULTANT and any subcontractors or subconsultants in connection with any services performed in connection with, or in furtherance of, this Agreement. ***
[Signatures on Next Page]
Item #9.1.

- 10 -
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date set forth above.

CITY OF CALISTOGA
By: Date
Laura Snideman, City Manager

CONSULTANT
By: Date
By: Date
Attest:

By: ___________________________
Marni Rittburg, City Clerk
Approved As To Form
By:

Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney
Item #9.1.

- 2 -
TASK ORDER NO. 1

CITY OF CALISTOGA
AND

BARTLE WELLS ASSOCIATES
SECTION 1 – PURPOSE
The purpose of this Task Order is to authorize and direct Bartle Wells Associates to proceed with the work specified in SECTION 2 below, in accordance with the provisions of the Master Agreement for Consultant Services between the City of Calistoga (“CITY”) and Bartle Wells Associates (“CONSULTANT”) hereto dated ________________ (“MASTER AGREEMENT”) SECTION 2 – SCOPE OF WORK
The items authorized by this Task Order are presented in Attachment “A” – Scope of Services, which is attached hereto and incorporated by this reference.

SECTION 3 – COMPENSATION AND PAYMENT
Compensation shall be as provided in the MASTER AGREEMENT. Compensation for services as set forth in SECTION 2 shall be as set forth in Attachment “B” – Compensation, which is attached hereto and incorporated by this reference. Total compensation for all services provided under this Task Order shall not exceed fifty-four thousand, five-hundred and thirty dollars ($54,530) (“Cost Ceiling”).

SECTION 4 – TIME OF PERFORMANCE
The services described in SECTION 2 of this Task Order shall be completed by March 31, 2023 or as extended in writing by the City Manager.

SECTION 5 – ITEMS AND CONDITIONS
All terms and conditions contained in the MASTER AGREEMENT are incorporated by reference and remain in full force and effect.

Approved this _______ day of _____, 2022.
[Signatures on Next Page]

EXHIBIT A
Item #9.1.

- 3 -

CITY OF CALISTOGA
By: Date
Laura Snideman, City Manager
Approved As To Form
By:

Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney

CONSULTANT
_______________________________
By: Date
By: Date
Item #9.1.

City of Calistoga
Water and Sewer Utility Rate Study
Cost Proposal
Bartle Wells Associates
Independent Public Finance Advisors
April 4, 2022
ATTACHMENTS "A & B"
Item #9.1.

2625 Alcatraz Ave, #602
Berkeley, CA 94705
Tel 510 653 3399
www.bartlewells.com
April 4, 2022
City of Calistoga – Public Works Department
1232 Washington Street
Calistoga, CA 94515
Attn: Hamid Heidary, Senior Civil Engineer
Re: Cost Proposal for Water and Sewer Utility Rate Study In response to your request, Bartle Wells Associates (BWA) is pleased to submit this cost proposal to conduct a comprehensive water, wastewater and recycled water rate and fee study for the City of Calistoga. This cost proposal is based on our April 4, 2022 rate study proposal submitted to the City in a separate document and covers Section 10 outlined in the Request for Proposals.

We are very interested in working with the City on this project and hope this proposal provides a suitable basis for our selection. Please contact me at (510) 653.3399 ext. 109 or [email protected] if you have any questions or would like additional information.

Sincerely,

BARTLE WELLS ASSOCIATES
Alex Handlers, MPA, CIPMA
Principal / Vice-President
Tel: 510.653.3399 ext. 109
[email protected]
Item #9.1.

PROPOSED PROJECT BUDGET
This section shows a breakdown of projected hours and the estimated budget for each task. The budget can be refined with the project team to meet the City’s study objectives.

Estimated A. Handlers Total
Hours @ $265/hr
A. Seaman
@ $165/hr Cost
TASK A. PROJECT INITIATION & DATA COLLECTION 25 10 15 $5,125

1. Project Team Orientation

2. Investigation & Data Collection
TASK B. WATER & WASTEWATER FINANCIAL PLANS 65 25 40 $13,225

1. Develop Forecasts & Projections

2. Evaluating Financing Alternatives for Capital Improvements

3. Review Minimum Fund Reserve Targets

4. Develop 10-Year Financial Projections

5. Evaluate Rate Increase Options

6. Develop Financial & Rate Models
TASK C. WATER & WASTEWATER CAPACITY CHARGES 36 16 20 $7,540

1. Review Current Capacity Charge

2. Conduct Survey of Regional Capacity Charges

3. Evaluate Alternative Capacity Charge Methodologies

4. Determine Current Value and Capacity Utility Assets

5. Allocate Capital Program Costs to Current and Future Users

6. Develop Preliminary Capacity Charge Recommendations

7. Recommend a Method for Future Capacity Charge Updates TASK D. WATER & WASTEWATER RATE STUDIES 60 20 40 $11,900

1. Identify Rate Structure Modifications & Alternatives

2. Conduct Survey of Regional Water & Sewer Rates

3. Analyze Utility Consumption & Billing Data

4. Allocate Costs to Billing Parameters for Each Utility

5. Develop Preliminary & Final Rate Recommendations

6. Evaluate Rate Impacts on Customers
TASK E. RATE IMPLEMENTATION (MEETINGS/PRESENTATIONS, REPORTS, & PROP. 218) 76 32 44 $15,740

1. Project Team Meetings (4)

2. City Council Presentations, Community Meetings, Proposition 218 Hearing (3)

3. Prepare Draft & Final Reports

4. Proposition 218 Rate Notice

5. Public Education and Consensus-Building
TOTAL ESTIMATED HOURS 262 103 159 $53,530

ESTIMATED DIRECT EXPENSES
Travel/copies/binding/phone/fax/mail/miscellaneous $1,000 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $54,530

PROJECT TASK
Item #9.1.

AVAILABILITY & FEES

1. Bartle Wells Associates is prepared to begin work upon the City’s authorization to proceed.

2. During the project development period, we will be available at all reasonable times and on reasonable notice for meetings and for consultation with City staff, attorneys, consulting engineers, and others as necessary.

3. Bartle Wells Associates will perform all work related to the assignment. Alex Handlers, a firm Principal and Vice-President will be assigned as project leader on this assignment. He will serve as the lead contact person for BWA and will be involved with the project a day-to-day basis.

4. The fees for services outlined in this proposal will not exceed $53,530 plus direct expenses estimated not to exceed $1,000. The fee is based on the following assumptions:
a. The project will be completed by January 1, 2023 or other mutually agreeable date based on input from the City. BWA will work to meet all City scheduling requirements and deadlines. b. All necessary information will be provided by the City and/or its other consultants in a timely manner.
c. Development of a preliminary draft, an administrative draft, and a final version of tables and reports. Time and expenses involved in additional revisions of assumptions, tables, and reports may constitute additional services if not achievable within the budget. d. The fee is based on a total of up to seven meetings and/or presentations at the City.

5. Progress payments and direct expenses are payable monthly on a time and materials basis as the work proceeds as provided in the attached Billing Rate Schedule, which will remain in effect for the duration of this project.

6. In addition to the services provided under this proposal, the City may authorize Bartle Wells Associates to perform additional services for which the City will compensate us based on consultants' hourly rates at the time the work is performed, plus direct expenses. Additional services may include, but are not limited to:
§ Changes in project scope
§ Delays in project schedule resulting in additional revisions § Any other services not specified

7. Bartle Wells Associates will maintain in force, during the full term of the assignment, insurance as provided in the Certificate of Insurance attached.

8. Bartle Wells Associates is an independent public finance advisory firm that is registered as a Municipal Advisor with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC Registration No. 867-00740) and the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB ID K0414).

9. If the project is terminated for any reason, Bartle Wells Associates is to be reimbursed for professional services and direct expenses incurred up to the time notification of such termination is received.

10. This proposal may be withdrawn or amended if not accepted within 90 days of its date.

Item #9.1.

BARTLE WELLS ASSOCIATES
BILLING RATE SCHEDULE 2022
Rates Effective 1/1/2022
Professional Services
Financial Analyst I .........................................................................................$110 per hour Financial Analyst II ........................................................................................$140 per hour Consultant ....................................................................................................$165 per hour Senior Consultant .........................................................................................$200 per hour Senior Project Manager ................................................................................$230 per hour Principal Consultant......................................................................................$265 per hour The hourly rates for professional services include all overhead and indirect expenses.  Bartle Wells Associates does not charge for administrative support services.  Expert witness, legal testimony, or other special limited assignments will be billed at one and one‐half times the consultant’s hourly rate.

The above rates will be in effect for the duration of this project.

Direct Expenses
Subconsultants will be billed at cost plus ten percent.  Other reimbursable direct expenses incurred on behalf of the agency will be billed at cost plus ten percent. These reimbursable costs include, but are not limited to:
 Travel, meals, lodging  Automobile mileage
 Printing and photocopying  Messenger services and mailing costs  Special statistical analysis  Graphic design and photography  Outside computer services  Special legal services
 Bond ratings  Legal advertisements
Insurance
Bartle Wells Associates maintains insurance in the amounts and coverage as provided in the attached schedule of insurance.   Additional or special insurance, licensing, or permit requirements beyond what is shown on the schedule of insurance are billed in addition to the contract amount.

Payment
Fees are typically billed monthly for the preceding month and will be payable within 30 days of the date of the invoice.   A late charge of 1.0 percent per month may be applied to balances unpaid after 60 days.

Item #9.1.

Marni Rittburg
From:

Sent
To:

Subject:

Tuesday, June 7, 2022 3:56 PM
Public Comment
public comment re water rate study
AdditiollJ\) Writings ...., -, Meeting of {£' ~ ;f_ / ...µ <:,.1~ lremNo. 'i~;J_, , Dis1ributed OILDa1s , (;t/ Z 2-
CAUIION: This email originated from outside of t he organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and koow the content is safe.

Mayor Canning and City Council members,
I understand that the Council will be awarding a consulting contract for the water/wastewater rate study. I have every confidence that a wise selection will be made. At that point, the goals and values that will guide the selected firm in this undertaking will come from City leadership.

The failures inherent in the current pricing model are two-fold. First, it effectively has modest consumers and those who actively conserve water subsidizing those who do not conserve. Second, it offers virtually no financial incentive to conserve.

I would like to offer an example of the first problem. If you divide the total bill by the number of water units used, a resident using 8 water units in a billing cycle pays nearly three times as much per unit as the homeowner using 40 units of water in the same period. (@$45/unit v. $15/unit). It is hard not to conclude that the less well-off are subsidizing the wealthy, and that those already conserving water receive no benefit from their noble effort.

Further, a structure in which the vast majority of cost is fixed with only a small percentage for actual water consumption is not an environmentally sound model. At under $10 per unit, it is too easy not to care about conservation.

The City is doing a wonderful job educating the community about reducing waste being more mindful about water consumption. But a financial incentive is still critical to achieving the desired goal. I know I am not alone in my willingness to pay significantly more for water usage in exchange for a 50% reduction in fixed charges. Were such a structure to succeed in reducing water usage so radically as to create a revenue problem (a problem that would indicate success!), I would suggest there might even be a model with built-in triggers for usage fee increases.

This is such a wonderful opportunity. I hope the Council will consider the future of our water resources and the wellbeing of all Californians when framing goals for this important endeavor.

Sincerely,
Antoinette Mailliard
1 Item #9.1.

CITY OF CALISTOGA

STAFF REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Gloria Leon, Administrative Services Director
DATE: June 7, 2022
SUBJECT: Draft Fiscal Year 2022-23 Budget
Approved by:

Laura Snideman, City Manager

DESCRIPTION
Draft Fiscal Year 2022-23 Budget.

RECOMMENDATION
Provide initial feedback on the draft Fiscal Year 2022-23 Budget.

BACKGROUND
In June 2021, the Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget was presented to and adopted by the City Council. On April 5, a Mid-Year Financial Update was presented to the Council. At that time, several budget adjustments were brought forward and adopted.

The City Council holds budget workshops to craft and review the proposed finances of the City. Two Council workshops were held, one on May 18 and one on May 24 to review net-new General Fund discretionary budget requests for Fiscal Year 2022-23, including a separate matrix for capital projects. At these workshops, the City Council received presentations on each of the department budgets and allowed public comment. The City Council then gave informal direction to City staff which is incorporated into the budget.

The attached budget proposal reflects City Council direction to date.

Additional city council and public review is requested on the draft FY 2022-23 budget.

The budget is also scheduled again for consideration during the June 21 city council meeting.

Item #9.2.

DISCUSSION
In the development of the Fiscal Year 2022-23 Budget, staff made a number of revenue and expenditure assumptions. All of these assumptions were based on the projections and economic conditions known between January and March 2022 and third-party consultants, and reflect the adjustments approved by the City Council during the current fiscal year. In addition, pent up demand for travel is likely and therefore, it is anticipated there will be a gradual return to historical TOT and sales tax revenue rates.

City departments were provided with a base budget for Fiscal Year 2022-23 that included estimated increases in personnel costs, increases related to existing professional service contracts, and inflationary increases for operational expenditures. The current year revised budget and projections were also provided.

The City Manager and the Administrative Services Director met with each department individually to understand the budget options submitted for Council consideration during the budget study sessions and receive any feedback on the initial budget projections.

The proposed Fiscal Year 2022-23 Budget contains cuts in expenditures and Capital Improvement Projects over what was initially requested by most of the departments.

However, several Capital Improvement Projects (CIP’s) are recommended for funding.

These are urgently needed projects that are a result of deferred maintenance. Also, the City must continue to respond to a Cease-and-Desist Order (CDO) from the State related to operations of the wastewater treatment plant. The high cost and accelerated schedule to address issues presents a severe challenge to the Wastewater Fund and time commitment of staff.

Staff will be recommending several adjustments to the Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget which are incorporated in today’s draft budget and will be brought back on June 21st for City Council approval.

This proposed budget continues to maintain the existing level of service and reliability to the community through our infrastructure systems and facilities. However, as previously indicated, there are many facilities that are not receiving maintenance and replacement as they should.

General Fund
The General Fund is the primary operating fund of the City and is used to account for most day-to-day activities. Revenue sources include, and are not limited to, transient occupancy tax, property tax, sales tax, current fees for services and licenses and permits.

Details of these revenues including estimates for Fiscal Year 2021-22 and proposed estimates for Fiscal Year 2022-23 can be found in the Fiscal Year 2022-23 draft budget document.

The City Council adopted goals and objectives for Fiscal Year 2022-23 which calls at a minimum for a 50% reserve in its General Fund (or $7,464,206). Based on staff recommendations the City will end Fiscal Year 2022-23 with a fund balance of $6,472,975 Item #9.2.

which is 43.4%, approaching 50% and higher than the 30% pandemic-related target for the Fiscal Year 2021-22. Based on direction from the city council, the first draft of the budget includes a transfer of $45,000 to the water enterprise funds, to cover low-income subsidies. In addition, a loan of $1,000,0000 to the water capital fund and a $500,000 loan to the wastewater capital fund for capital improvement projects is included in the budget. Staff will come back at a later date with a resolution to incorporate the terms of these two loans.

The Fiscal Year 2022-23 budget assumes that transient occupancy tax will be approximately 1% increase from Fiscal Year 2021-22. Property tax is projected to increase by 9.2% and sales tax will increase by 9.7% based on figures provided by third party consultants.

Overall revenues will increase by 1.6% (excluding transfers in) for Fiscal Year 2022-23 when compared to Fiscal Year 2021-22.

Items from the May 18 workshop included in the General Fund budget, unless otherwise noted:
• $25,000 to promote economic diversity
• $508,000 annual contribution to the Chamber of Commerce, increase of $102,000 • $20,700 Up Valley Center for additional senior services; increase of $10,000 • $5,000 Replace Pool Umbrellas
• $100,000 Downtown Parklets
• $5,900 Community Soccer Goals
• $30,000 Administrative projects in the City Manager Department • $39,000 one-time and $17,500 on-going annual maintenance fee for 6 Flock Public Safety Cameras; The $39,000 will come from police grants. • $10,000 Fire Department Icemaker, Dishwasher, Washer and Dryer • $2,800 Napa United League fee increase
• $40,000 Recreation Needs Assessment
• $1,000 Sponsor essay contest
• $50,000 Housing Element Update
• $19,000 Police Radio Single Repeater Base Station to be funded from police grants
• $5,000 Fire Department Dry Suits
• $100,000 On-Call Master Services Agreement
• $81,000 Development Impact Fee Study
• $70,000 Contract Planning CEQA Services
• $435,000 Logvy Park Project; $105,000 General Fund and $330,000 grant • $342,00 Brannan Street Light Crosswalk; General Fund $77,000 and $265,000 grant
• $152,846 Rancho De Calistoga Generator; $85,763 general fund and $67,083 grant
• $917,001 Pavement Maintenance; $257,001 general fund; $110,000 SB1 funds and $550,000 Measure T
Item #9.2.

• $75,000 Car Charging Station
• $110,000 Sidewalk improvement program
• $100,000 Firing Range Backstop; Police one-time impact fees • $75,000 Fence Bike Path at Lower Yard
• $40,000 Pioneer Cemetery
• $10,000 Community Center AV Upgrade
• $45,000 ATC Bike and Pedestrian project
• $100,000 Heather Oaks Project
• $70,000 Repaint City Hall
• $45,000 Repaint Fire Station
• $35,000 Repaint Police Station
• $14,000 Reclassify Dispatch Supervisor position to Dispatch Manager • $63,816 2 part-time administrative police department positions General fund Operating Expenditures for Fiscal Year 2022-22 are projected to increase by $1,698,509 or 13% over Fiscal Year 2021-22 due to additional staffing needs, and increases in cost of doing business, such as fuel, insurance, and benefits.

Water Operations
The Water Distribution Division maintains 40 ½ miles of water mains, 752 valves and 184 fire hydrants. The Division responds to water leaks, after-hours service calls, and reads over 3,000 water meters every other month for billing purposes.

The Water Treatment Division operates the Kimball Water Treatment Facility, Water Tanks at Feige Canyon, High Street and Mt. Washington. There are two North Bay Aqueduct (NBA) pump stations to ensure that potable water is delivered to the City’s residents. NBA water is treated by the City of Napa under a “treat and wheel” agreement.

The Kimball Water Treatment Facility can treat up to 400,000 gallons per day.

In March 2018, the City Council adopted a Five-Year Water Rate which provides revenue for capital improvements, increased operational costs, and to meet debt reserves.

Effective January 1, 2023 there are no more water rate increases programmed. With the water conservation program in place and less usage demand, staff is anticipating a very small increase in revenues (1% or less) compared to Fiscal Year 2021-22.

Operating expenditures are anticipated to decrease by 2% from Fiscal Year 2021-22, due to staff over estimating water purchase costs and less expenditures in the water conservation program in Fiscal Year 2021-22.

The Water Operations Enterprise Revenue Fund is anticipating an ending balance of approximately $1,029,910 as of June 30, 2022. Based on activity during the fiscal year, it is anticipated that the water fund balance will end with a surplus balance of $751,612 by June 30, 2023. The water operations fund will transfer $265,093 to the water capital fund for capital projects.

Item #9.2.

Water Capital
The Water Capital Fund is expected to end Fiscal Year 2021-22 with a working capital balance of $0. The City anticipates water connection fees in the amount of $350,000 for Fiscal Year 2022-23. The Water Operations Fund will transfer $265,093 for Water Capital Projects. There will also be a general fund loan of $1,000,000 to the water capital fund.

City staff continues to be successful in obtaining grants. The following projects will be funded by hazard mitigation grants, Measure A and water impact fees:

Name of
Project
HAZMIT GF Loan Water Impact
Fees
Measure A
Portable
Generator
$44,145 $14,715
Kimball Intake
& Drain Valve
$50,000 $50,000
Generator &
Transfer Switch
$492,175 $164,058
Pope Street
Generator
$184,983 $61,661
Relocate
Dunaweal
Booster
$600,000 $554,434 $109,566
The Fiscal Year 2022-23 Budget shows an ending working capital balance of $0.

Projects in the amount of $3,249,737 are recommended by the Public Works Department for the Fiscal Year 2022-23. Other projects for recommendation include the Automatic Meter Read Program, Water Main Replacement, THM/HAA5 removal and mitigation, Raise Utility Highway 29, and water plant improvements.

The City Council’s objective is to increase the Water Fund reserves at a minimum of 20% and increase the CIP and Equipment replacement Fund reserves to meet anticipated needs over the next three fiscal years. At the minimum 20% in reserves would mean a fund balance of $720,607 (excludes depreciation), the combination of ending fund balances for the Water Operations Fund and the Water Capital Fund at Fiscal Year 2022- 23 is a balance of $751,612, therefore slightly meeting the 20% objective.

Wastewater Operations
The Wastewater Collection Division maintains about 19 miles of sewer mains, 321 manholes, 4 lift stations, and about six miles of recycled water mains with two booster stations. City staff efforts include making repairs, responding to sewer main back-ups and pump failures, installing new mains, and performing routine line cleaning.

The Wastewater Treatment Division operates and maintains the Calistoga Wastewater Treatment Facility and disposal system. The City’s Wastewater Treatment Plant is permitted to treat a maximum daily dry weather flow of 840,000 gallons of sewage per Item #9.2.

day and in excess of 4.0MGD during peak wet weather flow under an NPDES permit issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Current dry weather flows are approximately 450,000 gallons per day and there is approximately 48 million gallons of storage capacity.

In March 2018, the City Council adopted a Five-Year Water Rate which provides revenue for capital improvements, increased operational costs, and to meet debt reserves.

Effective January 1, 2023, there are no more wastewater rate increases programmed.

Staff is anticipating a modest 2% increase from Fiscal Year 2021-22 in operating revenues.

Operating expenditures are anticipated to increase by 12% from Fiscal Year 2021-22.

This is due to filling one plant operator vacancy, contract services, fuel, electricity, repairs, maintenance and operational increases, additional vehicles and equipment.

The Wastewater Operations Fund are expected to end Fiscal Year 2021-22 with a surplus balance of approximately $1,975,031. The Fiscal Year 2022-23 Budget shows an ending fund balance of $1,595,968. Both the debt service payment and the equipment will be covered by the Wastewater Operations Fund. The Wastewater Operations Fund will transfer $500,000 to the Wastewater Capital Fund for capital projects.

Wastewater Capital
The Wastewater Capital Fund is expected to end Fiscal Year 2021-22 with a balance of $82,259. The Wastewater Operations Fund will transfer $500,000 to the Capital fund to cover several capital projects for Fiscal Year 2022-23. In addition, the general fund will loan $500,000 to the Wastewater Capital Fund.

The City anticipates wastewater connection fees in the amount of $600,000 for Fiscal Year 2022-23. The Wastewater Capital Fund is expected to end Fiscal Year 2022-23 with a balance of $36,550.

Because of the limited one-time impact fees, many projects submitted by the Public Works Department have been eliminated from the draft budget. Projects in the amount of $3,412,837 have been recommended by the Public Works Department. They include Sewer Lateral Replacement, Rancho De Lift Station Upgrades, Sewer Main Replacements, Sewer Main Extension Reimbursement, Raise Utility Highway 29, Geothermal Water Meters, Generator Upgrade, Portable Generator, Various Plant Repairs. and Riverside Ponds River Restoration. All projects will be funded through onetime impact fees and grant funds for the Riverside Pond Restoration.

The Riverside Ponds River Restoration, Generator Upgrades and Portable Generator will be funded 75% by Hazard Mitigation Grants. The remaining 25% will be covered by onetime impact fees, and in the case of the Riverside Ponds Project by IRWMP grant funding.

American Rescue Plan Act funds in the amount of $700,000 will assist with the liner under plant repairs.

Item #9.2.

The City Council’s objective is to increase the Wastewater Fund reserves at a minimum of 20% and increase the CIP and Equipment Replacement Fund reserves to meet anticipated needs over the next three fiscal years. At the minimum 20% in reserves would mean a fund balance of $537,849 (excludes depreciation); the combination of ending fund balances for the Wastewater Operations Fund and the Wastewater Capital Fund at Fiscal Year 2022-23 is a balance of $1,632,518, therefore meeting the 20% objective in reserves.

Special Revenue Funds
These are separate funds which segregate revenues and expenditures restricted for specific purposes such as a specific grant program, restrictions by City Council ordinances, special property assessments or just the need for separate budgeting and accounting of revenues for a specific purpose. The City will end the Fiscal Year 2022-23 with a combined fund balance of $13,363,017. SB1 and Measure T will provide for pavement maintenance projects, police grants will cover cameras and radio repeater, police fee will fund the Backstop Firing Range, city administrative fees will fund facility improvement projects and oat hill mine trail will be funded with cultural funds. Most of the revenue sources for these funds will remain in the funds until projects are earmarked.

Equipment Replacement Fund
This fund accounts for all of the operating and maintenance costs related to the City’s computer network, workstation system, maintenance, and purchase of vehicles, as well as fixed and maintenance costs related to information technology that benefit all other City funds and programs.

City staff is recommending the renewal of subscriptions for Citzenserve, Perfect Mind, Auto Cad, Anti-Virus software, sweeper, replacement of Truck # 4569, and new agenda software, Granicus. Staff is also recommending replacement of several computers, Wonderware software, and GIS software updates. The General Fund will transfer $708,172 to this fund for equipment and maintenance. In addition, the General Fund will transfer $500,000 as reserves for future IT needs. This fund will have a fund balance of $1,506,024 at the end of Fiscal Year 2022-23 for unanticipated expenditures and reserves.

The City of Calistoga started to set aside funds for a financial software system back in July of 2018. Through June 30, 2022, $250,000 has been set aside and an additional $50,000 is being recommended for the software for Fiscal Year 2022-23.

The City Council’s objective is to increase the Equipment Replacement Fund reserves to meet anticipated needs over the next three fiscal years. At the minimum 20% in reserves would mean a fund balance of $97,375; the ending fund balance for the Equipment Replacement Fund is $1,506,024; therefore, meeting the 20% reserve.

Capital Projects
Departments were asked to provide input on what they saw as needed projects to undertake in Fiscal Year 2022-23. You will find in the attachments what those requests Item #9.2.

were. Staff further refined the list from the budget workshop and is recommending $9,610,420 in capital projects and $1,627,505 in equipment and information technology projects and reserves be approved for Fiscal Year 2022-23. Several large projects recommended by the public works staff are $947,001 to be used for pavement maintenance; $435,000 for Logvy Park Improvements; $500,000 for sewer main replacements; $700,000 for a liner at the treatment plant and $500,000 for Riverside Ponds River restoration. The general fund, Measure T, and road maintenance SB1 will provide the funding for the pavement maintenance in the amount of $660,000. In addition, transportation one-time impact fees for road maintenance of $42,999.

Balance Summary for Fiscal Year 2022-23
Attachment 2 shows a detailed revenue and expenditure analysis for each of the major funds. The following summary table shows the list of the major funds and anticipated fund balance at the end of June 2023.

General
Fund
Water
Fund
Water
Capital
WWTP
Fund
WWTP
Capital
Revenues 15,959,812 4,059,053 350,000 3,770,800 600,000 Expenditures 14,928,411 4,322,309 - 3,704,243 -
Net
Surplus/Deficit 1,031,401 (263,256) 350,000 66,557 600,000 Other Sources 994,680 200 1,719,303 - 1,767,128
Capital Projects
Expenses (3,007,846) - (3,249,737) - (3,412,837)
Equipment
Purchases - (109,667) - (157,999) -
Debt Payments (373,902) (304,481) (134,659) (802,621) - Transfers In 1,357,109 24,000 315,093 - 500,000
Transfers Out (1,953,172) (265,093) - (500,000) -
Loan to
Enterprise Funds (1,500,000) - 1,000,000 - 500,000
Add non-cash
Depreciation - 640,000 - 1,015,000 -
Total Net Chg
FY 22-23 (3,451,730) (278,297) - (379,063) (45,709)
Beg Fund
Balance
07/01/22 9,924,705 1,029,910 - 1,975,031 82,259
End Fund
Balance
06/30/23 6,472,975 751,613 - 1,595,968 36,550
Item #9.2.

Next Steps
Staff looks forward to addressing questions and returning to the City Council with a final budget.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Draft Fiscal Year 2022-23 Budget

2. Part 2 - Draft Fiscal Year 2022-23 Budget

3. Major Capital Projects Budget

4. Equipment and Information Technology Projects
Item #9.2.

City of Calistoga
Public Hearing Budget
June 7, 2022
Fiscal Year
2022-23
Operating & Capital
Improvement Budgets
Attachment 1
Item #9.2.

City of Calistoga
Actual
FY 17-18
!Operating Revenues
Property Tax 1,815,586
Sales Tax 1,141,596
Transient Occupancy Tax 5,888,876
Other Taxes 444,238
Licenses and Permits 310,560
Fines, Forfeitures & Penaltiei 35,320
Interest and Use of Property 84,357
Revenues From Other
Agencies 699,661
Grants - Operations - Charges for Services 1,004,891
Other Revenues 431 900
I Total Ooeratina Revenues 11,856,985
!operating Expenditures
Support Services 1,955,735
City Council & City Clerk 179,073
Fire Services 1,545,594
Planning & Building 723,244
Police Services 2,731 ,297
Public Works 1,226,672
Recreation Services 630,744
GASB 68 Pension 1,000,000
I Total Ooerating Expenditures 9,992,359
General Fund
Sources and Uses
Actual Actual
FY 18-19 FY 19-20
1,950,682 2,226,521
1,180,946 954,456
6,415,794 4,704,800
449,022 428,295
154,227 216,744
32,205 113,953
153,660 120,136
739,258 834,768
- -
1,018,856 760,478
361.666 131 693
12,456,316 10,491,844
2,574,587 2,589,159
219,730 149,789
1,621 ,328 1,951 ,395
694,548 707,838
2,768,525 3,092,155
1,398,494 1,370,344
790,422 801 ,790
1,000,000 -
11,067,634 10,662,470
Fiscal Year 22-23 Budget
Adopted Revised Proposed
Actual Budget Budget Budget
FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 21-22 FY 22-23
2,421 ,920 2,147,608 2,147,608 2,344,879
1,028,805 1,111,000 1,336,905 1,466,973
5,357,173 5,075,861 9,700,000 9,600,000
552,146 445,878 445,878 449,896
191,910 151,000 151,000 150,000
17,039 25,000 25,000 14,000
19,327 43,000 32,000 32,000
899,326 915,275 951 ,720 1,046,564
2,313 - - - 1,460,960 824,750 862,250 805,500
144 228 50 000 50 000 50 000
12,095,147 10,789,372 15,702,361 15,959,812
I
2,352,641 2,794,496 2,856,394 3,488,063
191,319 182,398 187,689 265,817
2,371 ,176 2,428,303 2,685,595 2,640,379
606,802 896,780 937,547 1,398,760
2,983,290 3,375,825 3,598,774 3,848,002
1,473,476 1,903,635 1,942,781 2,195,922
770,952 958,153 970,037 1,09 1,469
- - - -
10,749,656 12,539,590 13,178,817 14,928,411
Net Operating Surplus/ (Deficit) 1,864,626 1,388,682 (170,626) 1,345,491 (1 ,750,218) 2,523,544 1,031 ,401 Other Sources
Deutsche Lease Financing 85,571 5,894 47,540 - 30,000 30,000 - I Fema Reimbursement 407,960 - 748,576 80,000 265,932 - I ARPA Funds - - - - - - 627,597
Grants - Improvements 473,102 828,715 300,000 - 292,867 292,867 Js1,os3 I !Other Uses
I Special Projects - - - 120,000 165,303 50,000
Capital Improvement Projects
Streets 1,985,782 1,734,409 507,871 364,491 917,000 896,322 1,080,000 Parks 196,725 70,199 53,769 119,737 265,000 37,000 710,000 Buildings 153,791 43,807 339,146 19,636 170,000 456,569 355,000 Other 358 996 -:i.,:;9 540 319 462 379 379 502 867 340 021 812 846 I Tnt:tl Caoital l"roiects 2 ~nl: ',UA 2 207 955 1220248 883,243 1 Rli4 867 1.729 912 2 957 846 Item #9.2.

City of Calistoga Fiscal Year 22-23 Budget
General Fund
Sources and Uses
Adopted Revised Proposed
Actual Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget Budget
FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 21-22 FY 22-23 I Transfers From or (To) Other Funds
Gas Tax Fund 95,000 78,226 95,000 95,000 95,000 95,000 95,000 Road Maintenance Rehab Fun 30,692 61,860 35,240 (32,798) 106,500 73,702 110,000 Measure T Fund . 243,354 342,465 19,009 563,500 563,500 590,000 Police Grants Fund 70,069 78,828 85,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 Recreation Donations 12,000 6,000 15,464 5,275 3,000 3,000 6,000 Mobile Home Park Fund 7,500 7,030 7,090 8,110 8,110 8,110 8,110 MTC Grants Fund 14,275 1,105 . . - Affordable Housing (75,886) (3,521) . . - . - Affordable Housing 75,000 - . . . . - CDBG Revolving Grants . - 4,568 9,165 . . - Abandoned Vehicle Fund 4,600 4,600 4,600 4,600 1,816 1,816 - Cultural Recreational Fund 181,734 - 19,296 74,945 195,000 125,000 110,000 Adj. YE (Adj Trnsfrs- Auditors) (53,435) - - .

City Administrative Fee . . 181,141 19,636 100,000 75,000 170,000 Transportation Impact Fees . . - 25,689 30,000 30,000 42,999 Police One Time Impact Fees . . - - . - 100,000
General Fund Loan to
21 ,200 (1 ,500,000) Enterprise Funds . . . . .

Water Operations . (116,464) (18,626) (25,816) (24,000) (44,000) (45,000) ARPA Funds . . . - . - (700,000)
Equipment Fund (109,999) (160,019) (81 ,959) (64,154) (110,157) (174,592) (1 ,208,172) MTC Fund - - . 840 . . .

Berrry Street Project (246,900) (6,101) (3,342) . . . .

Debt Service Fund (373,902' (373,902' (373,902' (373,902) (373,902 (373,902' (373,902' I Net All Transfers (315,817) (429,004) 312,035 (141,636) 719,867 507,634 (2,469,965) Net Fund Surplus or (Deficit) (179,852) (413,668) (731,299) 1,069,188 (2,602,351) 1,724,762 (3,451,730) Beginning Fund Balance 8,455,573 8,275,721 7,862,053 7,130,755 6,819,456 8,199,943 9,924,705 Ending Fund Balance 8,275,721 7,862,053 7,130,755 8,199,943 4,217,105 9,924,705 6,472,975 l~und Balance Allocation to
Emergencies and General
7,775,721 7,362,053 6,630,755 7,199,943 3,717,105 9,424,705 5,972,975 Contingency General Liability Claims 500,000 500,000 500,000 1,000,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 j--Total Reserves 8,275,721 7,862,053 7,130,755 8,199,943 4,217,105 9,924,705 6,472,975 Emergency & Contingency
Reserves As A Percent of 77.8% 66.5% 62.2% 67.0% 29.6% 71.5% 40.0% Operating Expenditures
All Reserves As A Percent of
Operating Expenditures • 82.8% 71.0% 66.9% 76.3% 33.6% 75.3% 43.4% Policv 50%
Item #9.2.

City of Calistoga
Project Description Actual # FY 18-19
Streets
5402 Pavement Maintenance 858,508
5610 Pavement Maintenance -Recons' -
'440 Garnett Creek Bridge 3,324
5~'<0-4915 Culvert Repair Grant Street 830,029
5599 Culvert - Feige Access Road - 5544 Way Finding Signage 42,548 New AT AC Bike & Pedestrian Safety
New Car Charging Station - SUBTOTAL STREETS 1,734,409
Parks
5570 Parl<lets 25,270
5569 Logvy Park -
5581 Pioneer Park Improvements 41,880
5585 Pedestrian Bridge at Oak Street - 5590 Tennis Court Improvements - 5604 Lincoln Bridge Utility Reimb Ag - NEW Path at Heather Oaks - New Fence Bike Path at Lower Yard - 5560 Pioneer Park Pedestrian Bridge 3,049 SUBTOTAL PARKS 70,199
Bulldlll9$ & Facllltles
5408 PW Corp Yard 10,418
5451-4915 Community Pool Facility 8,093
a501 City Hall Remodel -
5592 Fairgrounds -
5502 Facility Improvements 25,296
Community Center & Sharpsteen
5507-4915 Facility Improvements - Police -
5636 Office Modular for P&R -
5625 FireStation Exterior Paint -

SUBTOTAL BUILDINGS &
43,807 FACILITIES
General Fund
CIP Project Summary
Adopted
Actual Actual Budget
FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22
494,340 364,215 887,000
- - 30,000
- - -
2,870 276 -
10,661 - -
- - -
- - -
- - -
507,871 364,491 917,000
- 66,329 10,000
8,244 - 40,000
- 5,349 15,000
26,229 1,170 200,000
19,296 - -
- 46,889 -
- - -
- - -
- - - 53,769 119,737 265,000
99,500 - -
47,540 - 70,000
11,141 - 40,000
180,965 - -
- 19,636 25,000
- - -
- - -
- - 35,000
339,146 19,636 170,000
Fmal Proposea
Actual Budget Adj Budget Budget
03/31/22 FY 21-22 FY 21-22 FY 22-23
40,333 (21,000) 866,000 917,001 ' - - 30,000 42,999
- - - -
322 322 322 -
- - - -
- - - -
- - - 45,000
- - - 75,000
40,655 (20,678 896,322 1,080,000
I
- - 10,000 100,000
7,050 (30,000) 10,000 435,000
- - 15,000 -
1,320 (198,000) 2,000 -
- - - -
- - - -
- - - 100,000
- - - 75,000
- - - -
8,370 (228,000) 37,000 71 0,000
- - - -
146,800 80,000 150,000 - - (40,000) - 70,000
27 75,000 75,000 150,000
- (25,000) - 30,000
- - - 35,000
- 231,569 231 ,569 25,000
- (35,000) - 45,000
146,827 286,569 456,569 355,000
Item #9.2.

City of Calistoga
Project Description #
Other Improvements
5200-4915 Pioneer Cemetary
5521-4905 Fairway Path Extension
5530-4915 Access Facility & Sidewalk
Improvements
5561 Tubbs Fire
5562 Railroad Tracks Repurpose
5582 Fire Station Enclosures
-"'384 Microgrid Concept
~565 Oat Hill Mine/Silverado Gateway
5591 Downtown Beautification
5593 Emergency Notification System
5603 Cedar Street Bike Path
5596 Kincade Fire
:i611 Glass Fire
5619 COVID-19
5620 LNU Fire
5602 Rancho De Calistoga Generator
NEW Vegetation Management
New Backstop for Firing Range
New Master Services Agreement

SUBTOTAL OTHER
Total All General Fund Projects
Actual
FY 18-19
-
-
105,768
3,192
-
235,664
-
14,916
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
.
-
-
.
359,540
General Fund
CIP Project Summary
AOOpted
Actual Actual Budget
FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22
19,910 20,000 40,000
- - 40,000
48,287 - 100,000
- - -
- 6,032 -
- - - 26,000 - - 40,977 59,650 100,000
7,558 - 15,000
130,493 - .
- 3,914 .
32,622 . -
- 94,460 .
13,615 37,888 .
. 3,240 -
- 154,195 207,867
. . - . - .
- . -
319,462 379,379 502,867
2,207,955 1,220,248 883,243 1,854,867
t-lna l Proposed
Actual Budget Adj Budget Budget
03/31/22 FY 21-22 FY 21 -22 FY 22-23
- - 40,000 40,000
- - 40,000 40,000
20,625 - 100,000 110,000
- - - -
- - - -
- - - - - - - -
- (25,000) 75,000 110,000
- - 15,000 .
. - . .
. . . -
. - . .
. . . -
12,240 15,000 15,000 - . . . .
55,021 (152,846) 55,021 152,846
. - - 160,000
- . - 100,000
. - . 100,000
87,886 1162,8461 340,021 812,846
283,738 (124,955) 1,729,912 2,957,846
Item #9.2.

City of Calistoga
Project
# Description
Special Projects
4670 I Housing Element Update
Total Special Projects Costs
Funding Sources for Special Projects
General Fund
Grants
Community Development Fund
Total Funding Sources
General Fund
Special Projects Summary
Actual Actual Actual
FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19-20
. . .
. . -
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .

Fiscal Year 22-23 Budget
Final Proposed
Actual Budget Budget
FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 22-23
. 165,303 50,000
- 165,303 50,000
. 80,303 50,000
- 85,000 .
. -
. 165,303 50,000
Item #9.2.

City of Calistoga
Actual Actual
FY 17-18 FY 18-19
Department: Support Services
Program: Community Support and Enric hment Grants
Account Code: 01-4107

SERVICES & SUPPLIES
4479 The Family Center - Health - ,-
10,000 10,000
4479 The Family Center- Outreach 20,000 20,000
4479 The Family Center- Immigration
Assistance 30,000 30,000
4479 The Family Center- Youth & Seniors - - 4446 One Napa Valley Initiative . - 4447 Fairgrounds In-Kind Parade 7,500 1,500 4487 Boys and Girls Club - 45,484
4451 The Family Center (Youth Diversion
Program) - 25,000
4453 Petaluma Animal Services - 26,250
4454 Community Survey - 1,200
4442 Napa County Housing Authority - 30,560
4555 Calistoga Affordable Housing - 10,000
4463 Community Action Senior Nutrition
Program - - 4556 Preschool 5,000 - 4559 Active Transportation - - 4558 NVTA Annual Membership - - 4554 Fair Housing Napa Valley - 12,000 4567 Napa Countywide Climate Action - - Community Enrichment Grants - 4482 Calistoga Art Center 4,877 3,841
4483 Calistoga Cares - - 4467 Community Christmas Bazaar 1,500 7,500 4495 Calistoga Pet Clinic - 1,000
4485 Calistoga After School 4,000 3,000
4491 Community Gardens 5,000 -
4551 Hearts & Hands 8,687 5,000
4552 Rianda House - - 4562 Little League - - 4566 Essay Contest - - 4568 Green Committee - - 4569 Brannan Center - - 4570 Leadership 4571 Dog Park
4565 Community Gardens -
Subtotal Community Enrichment Grants 76,064 20,341
TOTAL PROGRAM BUDGET 148 564 232.335
Fiscal Year 22-23 Budget
Ado pted Final Proposed
Actual Actual Budget Budget Budget
FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 21-22 FY 22-23
210,000 40,600 30,000 30,000 30,000
20,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000
15,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000
1,300 5,700 5,700 10,700 20,700
- - 3,333 3,333 3,333
918 - - 7,500 7,500
45,405 40,000 45,500 50,500 50,500
25,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000
40,000 24,000 24,000 24,000 24,000
- - - - - 45,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000
10,000 - 16,000 16,000 16,000
- - 3,500 3,500 3,500
- - - -
1,000 - - - - 7,288 7,288 7,288 7,288 7,400
12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000
- - 4,904 - 11,500
19,000 - 25,000
4,923 - - - - 1,000 - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -
- - - - -
2,881 1,000 - - -
- 4,500 - 4,750 - - 1,500 - 2,00U - 1,350 - - - -
- 2,300 - - 1,000
- - 30,000 30,000 30,000
- 7,617 - - -
- - -
- 1,000 - - 500 - 1 250 - 10,154 17,417 49,000 39,000 56,000 443 065 287 005 336.321 343 821 370,933
Item #9.2.

City of Calistoga
Department: Support Services
Program: City Manager
Account Code: 01-4114

PERSONNEL SERVICES
4301 FULL-TIME SALARIES
4302 OVERTIME
4303 FICNMEDICARE
4309 SPECIAL PAY
4310 PERS
4311 MEDICAL/DENTAL
431 2 WORKERS COMP
4313 OTHER BENEFITS
4314 SHARE THE SAVINGS

SUBTOTAL

SERVICES & SUPPLIES
4401 MATERIALS & SUPPLIES
4402 CONTRACT SERVICES
4403 UTILITIES
4405 TRAINING & MEETINGS
4410 ADVERTISING
441 5 POSTAGE
4430 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS
4650 TRAINING & MEETINGS
4510 EQUIP FUND RENTAL

SUBTOTAL

TOTAL PROGRAM BUDGET
·~
Actual Actual Actual
FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19-20
138,995 192,360 151,720
106 1,252 20
8,890 12,017 9,725
2,262 2,625 4,434
14,478 7,463 11 ,508
17,248 18,219 15,351
7,376 7,619 7,637
528 454 1,168
1 575 1 454 - 191,458 243,463 201,563
354 647 807
18 583 690
2,295 2,580 2,402
1,267 2,714 21
- 500 352
175 - 2,382
2,599 2,294 1,297
4,272 6,138 936
6 962 6 096 6 885
17,942 21,552 15,772
209 400 265 015 217 335
Fiscal Year 22-23 Budget
Adopted Final Proposed
Actual Budget Budget Budget
FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 21-22 FY 22-23
153,954 211,006 176,006 297,828
306 - - - 8,746 16,408 14,408 22,784
1,874 3,480 - -
11,407 14,021 9,021 25,193
11,512 17,887 15,887 39,215
7,522 11,368 9,268 15,785
423 550 250 1,165
- - - - 195,744 274,720 224,840 401,970
202 750 750 788
- - - 30,000
2,826 2,500 2,500 2,625
- - 4,500 -
- - - -
9 300 300 315
167 1,500 1,000 4,000
- 1,000 1,500 3,000
7 110 7 516 7 516 14 151
10,314 13,566 18,066 54,879
206 058 288.286 242 906 456 849
Item #9.2.

City of Calistoga
Department: Support Services
Program: Legal Services
Account Code: 01-4113

SERVICES & SUPPLIES
4402 City Attorney --,-
44!0 Special Legal Counsel & Litigation

SUBTOTAL

TOTAL PROGRAM BUDGET
Actual Actual Actual
FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19-20
191 ,280 452,598 179,292
1 487 - -
192,767 452,598 179,292
192 767 452,598 179 292
Fiscal Year 22-23 Budget
Adopted Final Proposed
Actual Budget Budget Budget
FY 20-21 FY 21 -22 FY 21-22 FY 22-23
255,849 200,000 250,000 270,000
- - - - 255,849 200,000 250,000 270,000
255 849 200 000 250 000 270,000
Item #9.2.

City of Calistoga
Department: Support Services
Program: Economic Vitality
Account Code: 01-4176

PERSONNEL SERVICES
4301 FULL-TIME SALARIES
4303 FICNMEDICARE
4305 INCENTIVE PAY
4310 PERS
4311 MEDICAL/DENT AL
4312 WORKERS COMP
4313 OTHER BENEFITS

SUBTOTAL

SERVICES & SUPPLIES

CALISTOGA CHAMBER OF
~
4402

COMMERCE - VISITORS BUREAU
4410 ADVERTISING

SUBTOTAL

TOTAL PROGRAM BUDGET
Actual
FY 17-18
17,845
925
552
1,707
2,301
1,014
70 24,414
400,000
3 498
403,498
427 912
Actual Actual
FY 18-19 FY 19-20
29,094 23,821
1,509 1,351
437 870
598 1,722
2,370 2,797
948 912
52 73
35,008 31,546
450,000 468,000
1 578 - 451 ,578 468,000
486 586 499 546
Fiscal Year 22-23 Budget
Adopted Final Proposed
Actual Budget Budget Budget
FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 21-22 FY 22-23
26,471 36,136 31,136 55,180
1,344 2,831 2,331 4,221
348 870 870 - 1,903 2,125 1,125 4,695
1,306 2,349 1,349 6,550
1,114 1,961 1,461 2,925
63 74 74 225
32,549 46,346 38,346 73,796
303,500 406,000 406,000 508,000
- - - -
303,500 406,000 406,000 508,000
336 049 452.346 444 346 581 796
Item #9.2.

City of Calistoga
Actual
FY 17-18
Department: Support Services - Finance Department
Program: Finance
Account Code: 01-4108

PERSONNEL SERVICES
4301 FULL-TIME SALARIES 147,265 4302 OVERTIME 294 4303 FICA/MEDICARE 11 ,639 4305 INCENTIVE PAY 4,886 4308 PART TIME SALARIES 12,793 4310 PERS 31 ,512 4311 MEDICAUDENTAL 18,355 4312 WORKERS COMP 9,335 4313 OTHER BENEFITS 1 434 SUBTOTAL 237,513

SERVICES & SUPPLIES
4401 MATERIALS & SUPPLIES 3,885
4402 CONTRACT SERVICES
Accounting Services 17,799
Business License System
Revenue Enhancement
Program
4403 UTILITIES 2,295
4405 TRAINING & MEETINGS - 4415 POSTAGE 1,406
4430 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 1,214
4510 EQUIPMENT FUND RENTAL 10 117
SUBTOTAL 36,716
TOTAL PROGRAM BUDGET 274 229
Actual Actual
FY 18-19 FY 19-20
152,087 189,034 . 517
12,028 14,083
11,712 6,341
12,032 8,095
40,085 45,422
17,649 19,665
9,039 8,518
1,305 1 566
255,937 293,241
3,558 4,191
29,577 25,640
2,580 2,1 53
122 111
2,016 1,891
1,049 1,159
8605 9 631
47,507 44,776
303444 338 017
Fiscal Year 22-23 Budget
Adopted Final Proposed
Actual Budget Budget Budget
FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 21-22 FY 22-23
176,539 21 1,959 206,959 229,281
382 . . -
12,391 16,929 17,094 18,141
5,865 9,337 9,406 7,854
- - . .
56,286 64,877 65,516 69,801
15,739 30,213 30,213 37,744
8,695 11,729 11,843 12,568
1 652 743 743 786
277,549 345,787 341,774 376,175
5,291 3,840 3,840 4,100
-
28,465 27,295 27,295 29,495
-
-
2,826 2,700 2,700 3,000
- 1,125 1,125 1,425
1,263 2,100 2,100 2,400
1,303 1,024 1,024 1,039
10 209 12 673 12 673 13 350
49,357 50,757 50,757 54,809
326 906 396 544 392,531 430 984
Item #9.2.

City of Calistoga
Department: Support Services
Program: Non Departmental
AccountCode: 01-4119

SERVICES & SUPPLIES
4401 MATERIALS & SUPPLIES
4402 CONTRACT SERVICES
NCTPA Support
LAFCO Support
Napa Cty- Prop Tax Collection
Other
4414 AUDITING SERVICES
4415 POSTAGE
4430 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS
443 1 FEES
4465 STAFF DEVELOPMENT
4466 STAFF CELEBRATION
4499 CONTINGENCY
4499 SEPARATION EXPENSES
4510 EQUIP. FUND RENTAL

SUBTOTAL

TOTAL PROGRAM BUDGET
Actual Actual
FY 17-18 FY 18-19
4,334 5,105
32,655 31 ,560
39,860 34,365
2,966 2,389
6,628 7,013
7,133 5,627
1,000 327
4,912 2,809
1,000 1,100
- -
37 023 35 952
137,511 126,247
137,511 126 247
Fiscal Year 22-23 Budget
Adopted Final Proposed
Actual Actual Budget Budget Budget
FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 21-22 FY 22-23
3,315 2,244 4,625 4,625 4,625
32,743 37,449 44,600 44,600 44,600
-
-
-
- 44,261 57,040 51,825 51,825 53,825
2,205 2,209 2,400 2,400 2,400
6,470 6,452 6,905 6,905 6,905
3,409 4,688 6,000 6,000 8,400
- - 3,000 3,000 3,000
2,603 2,259 3,200 3,200 3,200
9,119 25,493 15,000 15,000 15,000
- - 25,000 25,000 25,000
42 768 44 808 42 011 42 011 45 657
146,893 182,642 204,566 204,566 212,612
146 893 182 642 204.566 204 566 212 612
Item #9.2.

City of Calistoga
Department: Support Services
Program: Risk Management
Account Code: 01 ~ 170

PERSONNEL SERVICES
•301 FULL-TIME SALARIES
4303 FICNMEDICARE
4305 INCENTIVE PAY
43 10 PERS
4311 MEDICAL/DENTAL
4312 WORKERS COMP
4313 OTHER BENEFITS

SUBTOTAL

SERVICES & SUPPLIES

INSURANCE DEPOSITS &
4411 PREMIUMS
Liability Deposit
Property Deposit
Cyber Insurance
Volunteer Insurance
Public Employee Bond
Workers Comp Adjustment
4435 Claims Reserve/Payments

SUBTOTAL

TOTAL PROGRAM BUDGET
~
Actual Actual
FY 17-18 FY 18-19
33,108 45,133
1,989 2,621
1,529 2,208
5,442 5,965
3,175 3,263
1,857 1,782
118 101
47,21 8 61,073
,~-,--~
219,209 277,634
58, 158 61 ,998
- - 797 802
950 950
40,772 75,663
25 602 18 823
345,488 435,870
392 706 496,943
Fiscal Year 22-23 Budget
Adopted Final Proposed
Actual Actual Budget Budget Budget
FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21 -22 FY 21-22 FY 22-23
46,550 51,715 65,093 58,093 90,934
2,783 2,876 5,202 5,241 7,073
2,355 1,591 2,902 2,916 1,518
7,939 10,316 11,828 11,944 15,789
3,642 2,549 3,854 3,854 9,219
1,898 2,308 3,604 3,631 4,900
141 131 150 150 343
65,308 71 ,486 92,633 85,829 129,776
244,058 282,262 296,375 297,302 327,032
132,560 185,419 194,690 194,690 214,159
- - - 5,940 6,534
816 843 865 900 927
998 1,325 1,200 1,200 1,300
38,379 21 ,1 54 40,000 40,000 45,000
19457 2,404 40 000 35 000 40000
436,268 493,407 573,130 575,032 634,952
501 576 564 893 665,763 660 861 764,728
Item #9.2.

City of Calistoga
Department: Support Services
Program: Personnel
Account Code: 01-4172

PERSONNEL SERVICES
4301 FULL-TIME SALARIES
4302 OVERTIME
4303 FICNMEDICARE
4305 INCENTIVE PAY
4310 PERS
4311 MEDICAUDENTAL
4312 WORKERS COMP
4313 OTHER BENEFITS

SUBTOTAL

SERVICES & SUPPLIES
4401 MATERIALS & SUPPLIES
4402 CONTRACT SERVICES
Personnel Services
~-•- _ ,_
Pre-Employment Check & Testing
Preventative Medical
CalPERS Medical
Other (Unemployment claims)
Classification & Comp Study
4405 TRAINING & MEETINGS
4410 ADVERTISING
4415 POSTAGE
4424 HEALTH

SUBTOTAL

TOTAL PROGRAM BUDGET
Actual Actual
FY17-18 FY 18-19
49,341 63,229
53 626
3,339 4,203
1,299 1,527
5,186 2,886
6,292 6,457
3,071 3,022
187 163
68 768 82 113
48 423
76,226 103,265
2,579 1,024
8,119 8,369
1,812 883
15 094 15 342
103,878 129,306
172 646 211419
Fiscal Year 22-23 Budget
Adopted Final Proposed
Actual Actual Budget Budget Budget
FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 21-22 FY 22-23
67,1 75 73,788 97,739 98,559 131,860
145 429 - - - 4,547 4,71 1 7,560 7,623 10,087
1,471 1,594 1,088 1,088 - 5,072 5,689 6,885 6,952 10,924 7,910 6,755 9,360 9,360 20,903
3,331 3,760 5,238 5,281 6,989
234 241 300 300 498
89 885 96 967 128 170 129 163 181 261
439 284 600 600 600
143,616 51,688 80,500 125,500 150,000
2,254 536 1,000 1,000 1,000
8,312 15,190 7,500 22,500 25,000
2,1 47 415 1,1 00 1,100 1,100
16 782 28 159 31 800 37 500 41 200
173,550 96,272 122,500 188,200 218,900
263 435 193 239 250 670 317,363 400,161
Item #9.2.

City of Calistoga
Department: City Council
Program: City Council
Account Code: 01-4110

PERSONNEL SERVICES
4303 FICA/MEDICARE
4308 ELECTED PART TIME SALARIES
4311 MEDICAL/DENTAL
4312 WORKERS COMP
4313 OTHER BENEFITS

SUBTOTAL

SERVICES & SUPPLIES
4401 MATERIALS & SUPPLIES
4402 CONTRACT SERVICES
4410 ADVERTISING
4665 VICE MAYOR DUNSFORD
4666 COUNCILMEMBER KRAUS
4667 CNCLMBR/MAYOR CANNING
COUNCILMEMBER LOPEZ4668 ORTEGA
4669 COUNCILMEMBER GIFT
4674 COUNCILMEMBER WILLIAMS

SUBTOTAL

TOTAL PROGRAM BUDGET
-~
Actual Actual
FY 17-18 FY 18-19
463 459
12,000 12,100
35,317 34,586
646 589
172 139
48,598 47,873
637 1,107
- - 2,347 3,235
65 65
- -
2,250 3,165
2,161 2,524
- - 1 741
7,585 11,837
56183 59,710
Fiscal Year 22-23 Budget
Adopted Final Proposed
Actual Actual Budget Budget Budget
FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 21-22 FY 22-23
388 364 918 918 918
12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000
40,863 48,839 51,004 51,004 56,440
542 623 636 636 636
139 139 139 139 269
53,932 61,965 64,697 64,697 70,263
464 335 400 400 420
- - - - 25,000
383 3,791 3,800 7,500 3,990
130 - - - - - - 250 250 263
2,706 835 1,000 1,000 1,050
2,334 50 2,500 2,500 2,625
- - 250 1,150 263
206 - 250 250 263
6,223 5,011 8,450 13,050 33,873
60155 66 976 73147 77 747 104.136
Item #9.2.

City of Calistoga
Department: City Clerk
Program: City Clerk
Account Code: 01-4111

PERSONNEL SERVICES
4301 FULL-TIME SALARIES
4302 OVERTIME
4303 FICA/MEDICARE
4305 INCENTIVE PAY
4310 PERS
4311 MEDICAL/DENTAL
4312 WORKERS COMP
4313 OTHER BENEFITS

SUBTOTAL

SERVICES & SUPPLIES
4401 MATERIALS & SUPPLIES
4402 CONTRACT SERVICES
4405 TRAINING & MEETINGS
4410 ADVERTISING
4415 POSTAGE
4430 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS
4650 TRAINING & MEETINGS
4510 EQUIPMENT FUND RENTAL

SUBTOTAL

I TOTAL PROGRAM BUDGET
-
Actual Actual Actual
FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19-20
62,991 68,268 42,170
106 1,252 12
4,828 5,388 3,230
1,494 2,179 767
7,865 4,576 3,559
7,982 8,173 6,306
3,388 3,331 3,494
235 223 136
88,889 93,390 59,674
3,463 5,001 2,995
18,085 18,809 20,340
5,777 4,270 1,714 . 459 941
362 340 108
423 240 314
1,834 650 (410)
3 662 3 063 3 914
33,606 32,832 29,916
122 495 126 222 89,590
Fiscal Year 22-23 Budget
Adopted Final Proposed
Actual Budget Budget Budget
FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 21-22 FY 22-23
42,977 57,867 58,437 66,295
184 - . -
3,672 4,427 4,470 5,072
290 . . .
4,204 4,869 4,917 5,589
4,603 7,523 7,523 10,254
2,697 3,067 3,097 3,514
171 219 219 228
58,798 77,972 78,663 90,952
2,021 2,000 2,000 3,000
19,081 10,750 10,750 11,650 . - - .
2,119 1,800 1,800 1,800
49 350 350 350
519 425 425 425
604 2,700 2,700 3,000
3,342 3 204 3 204 3 554
27,735 21 ,229 21 ,229 23,779
86 533 99 201 99 892 114,731
Item #9.2.

City of Calistoga
Department: City Clerk
Program: Elections
AccountCode: 01-4133

SERVICES & SUPPLIES
4401 MATERIALS & SUPPLIES
4402 CONTRACT SERVICES
4410 ADVERTISING
4415 POSTAGE
4650 TRAINING & MEETINGS

SUBTOTAL

I TOTAL PROGRAM BUDGET
Actual
FY 17-18
-
-
-
-
395
395
395
Actual Actual
FY 18-19 FY 19-20
- 44
23,327 -
9,522 -
949 -
- - 33,798 44
33 798 44
Fiscal Year 22-23 Budget
Adopted Final Proposed
Actual Budget Budget Budget
FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 21-22 FY 22-23
70 150 150 250
37,079 8,000 8,000 38,500
588 200 200 6,000
23 100 100 600
50 1 600 1 600 1 600
37,810 10,050 10,050 46,950
37,810 10 050 10,050 46,950
Item #9.2.

City of Calistoga
Department: Fire Services
Program: Fire Operations
Account Code: 01-4117

PERSONNEL SERVICES
4301 FULL-TIME SALARIES
4302 OVERTIME
4303 FICA/MEDICARE
4308 PART TIME SALARIES
4309 SPECIAL PAY
4310 PERS
431 1 MEDICAL/DENTAL
4312 WORKER'S COMP
4314 SHARE THE SAVINGS
4316 401 A Employer
4313 OTHER BENEFITS

SUBTOTAL

SERVICES & SUPPLIES
4401 MATERIALS & SUPPLIES
4402 CONTRACT SERVICES
4403 UTILITIES
4404 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE
4405 TRAINING & MEETINGS
4408 UNIFORM ALLOWANCE
4415 POSTAGE
4417 FUEL & OIL
4420 MEDICAL SUPPLIES
4430 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS
4510 EQUIP FUND RENTAL

SUBTOTAL
Other
4821 SPECIAL EQUIPMENT

SUBTOTAL

TOTAL PROGRAM BUDGET

ESTIMATED PROGRAM REVENUES
3243 Fire Services Reimbursements

TOTAL PROGRAM REVENUES
-
--,-
Net Program Subsidy by General Fund
Actual
FY 17-18
469,568
192,449
63,339
199,858
8,369
199,187
130,128
42,057
.
-
2 068
1,307,023
14,822
42,987
14,160
44,930
6,542
16,458
171
11,084
7,934
-
48410
207,498
-
.
1,514,521
476,787
476,787
1,037,734
Actual Actual
FY 18-19 FY 19-20
602,743 655,690
182,291 255,01 2
60,864 82,489
151,549 270,239
21 ,863 12,001
235,918 253,427
103,051 103,201
45,215 50,823
. .
. .
2 401 2 677
1,405,895 1,685,559
20,894 20,338
41 ,939 53,527
15,588 20,354
23,890 43,685
2,698 5,814
14,370 9,680
174 117
11,715 12,119
6,521 11,571
- .
46 699 51,735
184,488 228,940
-
. .
1,590,383 1,914,499
515,149 356,491
515,149 356,491
1,075,234 1,558,008
Fiscal Year 22-23 Budget
Adopted Final Proposed
Actual Budget Budget Budget
FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 21-22 FY 22-23
674,048 1,037,068 1,047,285 1,116,113
561,346 179,019 369,019 179,019
109,718 106,950 107,922 115,665
275,107 169,538 171,985 175,896
6,879 8,809 12,459 9,393
304,324 363,980 367,644 396,808
113,578 189,496 189,496 154,542
57,998 74,096 74,770 80,134
3,600 3,600 3,600 3,600
- - 45,324 27,938
2 742 4 142 4 142 4 679
2,109,340 2,136,698 2,393,646 2,263,787
11,053 18,500 18,500 22,800
41 ,276 47,825 47,825 85,125
23,438 18,000 18,000 20,000
56,990 49,900 49,900 59,900
9,328 8,900 8,900 9,700
7,444 12,500 12,500 17,400
164 250 250 300
13,343 14,500 14,500 18,500
4,538 10,000 10,000 10,700
- - - 450
57 612 69 416 69 416 80 189
225,186 249,791 249,791 325,064
. . .
. . . .
2,334,526 2,386,489 2,643,437 2,588,851
1,037,962 420,000 420,000 420,000
1,037,962 420,000 420,000 420,000
1,296,564 1,966,489 2,223,437 2,168,851
Item #9.2.

I
City of Calistoga
Department: Fire Services
Program: Emergency Services
Account Code: 01-4138

PERSONNEL SERVICES
4301 FULL-TIME SALARIES
4303 FICA/MEDICARE
4305 INCENTIVE PAY
4310 PERS
4311 MEDICAL/DENTAL
4312 WORKER'S COMP
4313 OTHER BENEFITS

SUBTOTAL

SERVICES & SUPPLIES
4401 MATERIALS & SUPPLIES
4402 CONTRACT SERVICES
4403 UTILITIES
4405 TRAINING & MEETINGS
4415 POSTAGE & REPRODUCTION

SUBTOTAL

TOTAL PROGRAM BUDGET
Actual
FY 17-18
15,360
1,097
90 5,289
1,750
781
48 24,415
840
2,238
3,580
-
6,658
31,073
Actual Actual
FY 18-19 FY 19-20
16,836 19,280
1,111 1,160
180 274
7,321 8,202
1,788 1,779
792 841
50 54
28,078 31 ,590
- 908
2,278 4,278
- 589 120
- - 2,867 5,306
30 945 36,896
Fiscal Year 22-23 Budget
Adopted Final Proposed
Actual Budget Budget Budget
FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 21-22 FY 22-23
16,907 20,709 20,913 23,071
1,069 1,603 1,618 1,783
120 240 240 240
10,400 11 ,556 11,670 12,873
1,757 1,936 1,936 2,062
924 1,110 1,121 1,235
54 60 60 64
31,231 37,214 37,558 41 ,328
3,141 1,600 1,600 - 2,278 3,000 3,000 3,700
- - - 1,500
- - - 5,000
- - - -
5,419 4,600 4,600 10,200
36,650 41,814 42,158 51,528
Item #9.2.

City of Calistoga
Actual Actual
FY 17-18 FY 18-19
Department: Planning & Building
Program: Planning Commission
Account Code: 01-4109

SERVICES & SUPPLIES
4401 MATERIALS & SUPPLIES:
4402 CONTRACT SERVICES
4405 TRAINING & MEETINGS
4410 ADVERTISING
4443 COMMISSION STIPEND

SUBTOTAL

TOTAL PROGRAM BUDGET
Department: Planning & Building
-
840
-
401
1,700
2,941
2 941
Program: Active Transportation Advisory Committee
Account Code: 01-4120
SERVICES & SUPPLIES - ~
4401 MATERIALS & SUPPLIES: - SUBTOTAL -

TOTAL PROGRAM BUDGET -
112
2,040
-
842
3,700
6,694
6 694
-
-
-
Actual
FY 19-20
-
2,357
-
763
2,450
5,570
5 570
-
-
-
Fiscal Year 22-23 Budget
Adopted Final Proposed
Actual Budget Budget Budget
FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 21-22 FY 22-23
- - - 200
1,905 1,680 1,680 1,680
- - - - 1,837 800 800 800
3,100 3,150 3,150 3,150
6 842 5,630 5,630 5,830
6 842 5 630 5 630 5 830
- - - -
- - - -
- - . -
Item #9.2.

City of Calistoga
Department: Planning & Building
Program: Planning
Account Code: 01-4115

PERSONNEL SERVICES
4301 FULL-TIME SALARIES
4302 OVERTIME
4303 FICA/MEDICARE
4305 INCENTIVE PAY
4310 PERS
431 1 MEDICAUDENTAL
4312 WORKERS COMP
4313 OTHER BENEFITS

SUBTOTAL

SERVICES & SUPPLIES
4401 MATERIALS & SUPPLIES
4402 CONTRACT SERVICES
4403 UTILITIES
4404 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE
4405 TRAINING & MEETINGS
4408 UNIFORM
4415 POSTAGE
4430 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS
4650 TRAINING & MEETINGS
4510 EQUIP FUND RENTAL

SUBTOTAL

TOTAL PROGRAM BUDGET
EST/MA TED PROGRAM REVENUES 3219 Other Licenses & Permits 3244 Planning Services
3261 Other Filing Fees
~
3299 CDBG Reuse Loan Support (44)
Mobile Home Park - Adm Support 3299
1271

TOTAL PROGRAM REVENUES
Net Program Subsidy By General Fund
Actual
FY 17-18
193,847
3 14,888
2,634
33,005
24,713
10,282
671
280,043
,-- -
4,078
2,573
2,295
-
1,462
-
541
693
440
10,407
22,489
302 532
12,642
45,417
3,957
-
1,500
63,516
239,016
Actual Actual
FY 18-19 FY 19-20
192,165 218,183
- 162
14,445 16,430
4,506 4,897
16,277 13,590
30,781 31,443
9,214 9,894
675 642
268,063 295,241
1,911 2,708
- 2,210
2,580 2,402
- -
745 1,057
- -
1,060 1,024
698 195
818 472
7,401 8,433
15,213 18,501
283,276 313,742
7,103 12,339
49,967 42,660
3,899 2,100
- 4,568
1,030 850
61,999 62,517
221,277 251,225
Fiscal Year 22-23 Budget
Adopted Final Proposed
Actual Budget Budget Budget
FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 21-22 FY 22-23
133,119 249,821 252,282 344,365
43 - - 1,200
10,375 19,421 19,609 26,746
4,682 4,050 4,050 4,050
10,835 19,030 19,217 26,240
19,763 51 ,734 41,734 72,584
6,510 13,455 13,586 18,530
465 939 939 1,285
185,792 358,450 351,41 7 495,000
1,001 1,000 1,000 1,050
59,548 100,000 150,000 280,750
2,826 2,575 2,575 2,575
297 - - -
- 500 500 -
- - - -
905 750 750 750
199 1,000 1,000 1,000
- - - - 7,595 15,629 15,629 24,969
72,371 121,454 171,722 311 ,094
258,163 479,904 523 139 806,094
9,684 6,000 6,000 6,000
46,977 45,000 45,000 45,000
600 2,250 2,250 2,250
9,165 1,500 1,500 1,500
1,060 1,060 1,060 1,060
67,486 55,810 55,810 55,810
190,677 424,094 467,329 750,284
Item #9.2.

City of Calistoga
Department: Planning & Building
Program: Building Services
Account Code: 01-4125

PERSONNEL SERVICES
4301 FULL-TIME SALARIES
4302 OVERTIME
4303 FICA/MEDICARE
4305 INCENTIVE PAY
4310 PERS
4311 MEDICAUDENTAL
4312 WORKERS COMP
4313 OTHER BENEFITS

SUBTOTAL

SERVICES & SUPPLIES
4401 MATERIALS & SUPPLIES
4402 CONTRACT SERVICES
4404 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE
4405 TRAINING & MEETINGS
4406 UNIFORM ALLOWANCE
44 17 FUEL & OIL
4430 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS
4510 EQUIP RENTAL FUND
4822 COMPUTER WORK STATION

SUBTOTAL

TOTAL PROGRAM BUDGET

ESTIMATED PROGRAM REVENUES
3212 Building Permit Fees
3263 Plan Check Fees
3299 Mobile Home Park Inspections (27)

TOTAL PROGRAM REVENUES
Net Program Subsidy By General Fund
Actual Actual
FY 17-18 FY 18-19
177,663 188,181
3 .
13,424 14,183
856 1,989
26,097 17,198
29,087 28,741
10,183 9,628
624 634
257,937 260,554
5,245 1,675
132,980 126,646
- -
1,865 1,696
448 -
1,141 785
60 725
18,095 12,497
- 159,834 144,024
417,771 404578
291,063 135,636
120,731 87,425
6,000 6,000
417,794 229,061
(23) 175,517
Fiscal Year 22-23 Budget
Adopted Final Proposed
Actual Actual Budget Budget Budget
FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 21-22 FY 22-23
223,433 191,287 239,763 229,763 290,551
162 43 - - 1,800
16,893 14,569 18,672 18,855 22,707
2,069 1,847 4,317 4,343 4,478
17,299 17,516 19,887 20,083 23,929
30,387 26,707 42,146 34,146 72,977
10,220 9,524 12,936 13,063 15,732
766 672 1,170 1,170 1,348
301 ,229 262,165 338,891 321,423 433,522
7,043 1,812 2,400 2,400 3,900
63,200 62,714 50,000 65,000 125,000
- 145 750 750 750
2,020 300 3,000 3,000 4,950
97 245 500 500 500
761 1,196 600 600 1,800
840 360 460 460 760
13,336 12,860 11,445 11,445 15,654
- - 3,200 3,200 .
87,297 79,632 72,355 87,355 153,314
388 526 341 797 411,246 408,778 586 836
184,530 148,604 130,000 130,000 130,000
95,519 80,090 97,500 112,500 97,500
6,240 7,050 7,260 7,260 7,260
286,289 235,744 234,760 249,760 234,760
102,237 106,053 176,486 159,018 352,076
Item #9.2.