Created with a trial version of Syncfusion Essential DocIO.
5.60.040 - Permit—Fees.
A. An application fee in the amount adopted by resolution of the board shall be paid by each applicant at the time of application and upon annual renewal thereafter.
B. A permit fee in the amount adopted by resolution of the board shall be paid by each applicant at the time of issuance of the permit and upon annual renewal thereafter.
5.60.050 - Permit issuance or denial; grounds for denial.
A. Upon submittal of a complete application, the caregiver coordinator shall forward the application to the industry specialist who shall conduct a background investigation to determine an applicant's fitness to conduct the occupation of caregiver.
B. Except as otherwise provided in this code, upon completion of the investigation of an individual applicant, the county shall issue a permit unless:
1. The applicant has any misdemeanor or felony conviction for violation of the Penal Code Sections included on the list of disqualifying crimes;
2. The applicant has knowingly made a false or misleading statement of a material fact or omission of a material fact in the application;
3. The applicant has had a similar type of registration, license, permit, or certificate previously denied, suspended for a total of six months, or revoked, within five years immediately preceding the date of the filing of the application, and the applicant can show no material changes in circumstances since such denial, suspension, or revocation;
4. The applicant is on informal or formal probation in any jurisdiction;
5. The applicant has had a felony conviction within ten years immediately preceding the date of the application; or
6. After request by the caregiver coordinator, the applicant fails to provide proof of any application requirement set forth in Section 5.60.030.
5.60.060 - Permit—Right to appeal.
Any applicant denied a caregiver permit shall be afforded an appeal as follows:
A. For a denial under subsections (B)(2), (3), (6) of Section 5.60.050, an appeal as prescribed by the Chapter 2.88.
B. For a denial pursuant to a disqualifying crime, an appeal as prescribed by the industry specialist.
Each applicant, including individuals who are not employed by a home care organization but who provide home care services or in-home services to a client in Napa County, California, unless expressly exempted by Home Care Services Consumer Protection Act, Article 2, Section 1796.14 (c) shall comply with the conditions and requirements of Home Care Services Consumer Protection Act, Health and Safety Code Sections 1796.19, 1796.21, 1796.22, 1796.23 and 1796.24. Individuals who are not employed by a home care organization but who provide home care services or in-home services to a client, unless expressly exempted by Home Care Services Consumer Protection Act, Health and Safety Code Section 1796.14 (c), shall provide the Caregiver Coordinator proof that they have tested negative for Tuberculosis.
Agenda Item #12.1.
Created with a trial version of Syncfusion Essential DocIO.
5.60.040 – Registration – Publication
The first and last name, birth day and birth month (but not year) and home care aide personnel ID number or limited permit holder designation, for every registered caregiver and limited caregiver permit holder, will be posted on the Napa County website.
5.60.050 - Registration—Denial and revocation.
An application for registration may be denied, and registration may be revoked pursuant to Home Care Services Consumer Protection Act, Health and Safety Code Sections 1796.25 and 1796.26.
5.60.060 - Registration —Update and renewal.
To remain on the home care aide registry, each registered home care aide, including individuals who are not employed by a home care organization but who provide home care services or in-home services to a client, unless expressly exempted by Home Care Services Consumer Protection Act, Health and Safety Code Section 1796.14 (c), shall renew their registration every two years, pursuant to Home Care Services Consumer Protection Act Health and Safety Code Section 1796.31. To renew their registration, individuals who are not employed by a home care organization but who provide home care services or in-home services to a client, unless expressly exempted by Home Care Services Consumer Protection Act, Health and Safety Code Section 1796.14 (c), shall provide the Caregiver Coordinator proof that they have tested negative for Tuberculosis.
5.60.070 - Permit—Limited caregiver permit.
A. A person who would otherwise qualify as an applicanthas applied for a caregiver permitthe Home Care Aide Registry but cannot do so becausewas denied for any of a disqualifying convictionthe reasons set forth in the Health and Safety code section 1796.25 may request a limited caregiver permit that from the Caregiver Coordinator. The limited permit will authorize the applicant to perform home care services or in-home services for a single employing elder or dependent adult. An individual may possess only a single limited caregiver permit at any one time. and a limited permit must be renewed annually from the date it was first issued.
B. A limited caregiver permit may be issued, if the following conditions have been satisfied:
1. There is no ongoing Law enforcement investigation or APS report for Elder Abuse.
2. Together with the application and payment of fees required to the Napa County Clerk-Recorder for a permit under Sections 5.60.30 and 5.60.040, the applicant shall submit a notarized and/or witnessed declaration from the employing elder and/or dependent adult acknowledging the following:
a. That he or she isthey are aware that the elder and/or caregiver applicant is not eligible for an elder and/or dependent adult caregiver permit; the Home Care Aide Registry.
Agenda Item #12.1.
Created with a trial version of Syncfusion Essential DocIO. b. That he or she hasthey have been provided, reviewed, and isare aware of the criminal exemptionsconvictions that prevent anprevented the applicant from passingbeing qualified for the background checkHome Care Aide Registry and he or she understandsthey understand that the applicant has a disqualifying conviction; c. That he or she desiresthey desire to employ the applicant as an elder and/or dependent adult caregiver notwithstanding the applicant's ineligibility to obtain a non-limited permitbe registered on the Home Care Aide Registry due to previous criminal convictions; d. That he or she hasthey have knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily chosen the applicant to be their caregiver;
e. That he or she understandsthey understand the possible danger and potential risk involved with hiring a caregiver who was unable to pass the background checkbe registered and agreesagree to accept any and all risks associated with the decision to hire the applicant; , and f. That he or shethey, to the full extent permitted by law, shall hold harmless, defend at his or hertheir own expense, and indemnify the county, the caregiver coordinator and theits officers, agents, employees, including the caregiver coordinator, and volunteers of the county and the caregiver coordinator, from any and all liability, claims, losses, damages or expenses, including reasonable attorney fees, for personal injury (including death) or damage to property, arising from all acts or omissions of the applicant.
g. All individuals with limited caregiver permits must show proof of permit while providing home care services or in-home services.
C. A limited caregiver permit provided under this section shall be subject to any regulatory and/or criminal action as if it were a . Failure to provide proof of permit issuedis a violation under Chapter 5.60. 020(C)
5.60.075 - Permit—Validity. – [Reserved]
A. Upon issuance of the letter from the caregiver coordinator approving the application, the applicant shall have thirty days to submit the approval letter to the recorder-county clerk.
After thirty days, the approval letter will become null and void.
B. The caregiver permit shall be valid for a period of one year. Thereafter, it may be renewed for additional one year periods by submittal of a renewal application and payment of the applicable fees.
C. A limited caregiver permit shall be valid for a period of one year. Thereafter, it may be renewed for additional one year periods by submittal of an application, a current notarized and/or witnessed declaration and payment of the applicable fee. A limited caregiver permit shall not be issued to anyone that has previously had such a permit suspended or revoked.
5.60.080 - Threatening, coercing, intimidating, or using undue influence—Prohibited.
It is unlawful for any person to threaten, coerce, intimidate, or use undue influence upon an elder and/or dependent adult in order to obtain a statement required under Section 5.60.070.
Any person found to have threatened, coerced, intimidated, or unduly influenced an elder and/or dependent adult may be the subject of criminal prosecution as provided in subsection (E) of Section 5.60.020 above.
5.60.085 - PermitRegistry—Advertising.
Agenda Item #12.1.
Created with a trial version of Syncfusion Essential DocIO.
A. It is unlawful for any person to advertise as a caregiver covered by this chapter unless that person holds a valid permitis registered on the Home Care Aide Registry under this chapter which is listed in the classification so advertised. .
B. It is unlawful for any referral agency to advertise for a caregiver covered by this chapter unless that caregiver holds a valid permitis registered on the Home Care Aide Registry under this chapter which is listed in the classification so advertised.
C. Any person or caregiver referral agency who advertises or puts out any sign or card or other device that would indicate to the public that he or she isthey are a caregiver, or who causes his or hertheir name or business name to be included in a classified advertisement orto a directory under a classification for caregivers covered by this chapter, is required to include their permit identificationthe Home Care Aide’s Personnel Identification number in the advertisement.
5.60.090 - Permit—Update and renewal. – [Reserved]
Each individual permit holder shall apply for renewal of his or her permit prior to the expiration of said permit within one year of the issuance date. Renewal applications shall include any new information not contained in the original application.
Agenda Item #12.1.
Ordinance No. 2022-
AMENDING CHAPTER 5.40 TO THE ST. HELENA MUNICIPAL CODE, ADOPTING CHAPTER 5.60 OF TITLE 5 OF THE NAPA COUNTY CODE BY REFERENCE,
RELATING TO REQUIREMENTS FOR PERMITS FOR ELDER AND/OR DEPENDENT
ADULT CAREGIVERS
The City Council of the City of St. Helena does ordain as follows:
Section 1. Findings.
Whereas Government Code sections 50022.2 and 50022.9 permit the City Council to adopt an ordinance adopted by the County of Napa, by reference; and Whereas in 2010, the Napa County Commission on Aging prepared an ordinance intended to be adopted and implemented uniformly throughout Napa County, intended to promote the health and safety of elders by establishing a uniform, countywide system of issuing permits to all persons who provide caregiver services to elders; and Whereas on May 25, 2010, the Napa County Board of Supervisors adopted an ordinance that added Chapter 5.60 to Title 5 of the Napa County Code of Ordinances relating to requirements for elders and or dependent adult caregivers.
Whereas on June 22, 2010, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2010-2 “ADDING CHAPTER 5.40 TO THE ST. HELENA MUNICIPAL CODE, ADOPTING CHAPTER
5.60 OF TITLE 5 OF THE NAPA COUNTY CODE BY REFERENCE, RELATING TO
REQUIREMENTS FOR PERMITS FOR ELDER AND /OR DEPENDENT ADULT CAREGIVERS”.
Whereas on February 4, 2020, the Napa County Board of Supervisors adopted an ordinance amending Chapter 5.60 to Title 5 of the Napa County Code of Ordinances.
The amendment addresses deleting the requirement that caregivers obtain a locally issued permit and adding a mandate that all Napa County caregivers register through the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) Home Care Aide Registry.
Whereas, the City desires to adopt a new ordinance to incorporate the amendments to Chapter 5.60 of Title 5 of the Napa County Code into the City’s ordinance.
Whereas, the City Council adopts the findings set forth in the County ordinance and desires to implement the regulatory provisions of the updated County ordinance within the City of St. Helena.
Section 2. Adoption by Reference. Chapter 5.60 of Title 5 of the Napa County Code of Ordinances relating to permit requirements for elder and or dependent adult caregivers, is hereby adopted by reference. Any fees required by the County of Napa in the processing of the permit applications required by the ordinance shall be imposed by Agenda Item #12.1.
the Board of Supervisors by Board resolution and paid to the appropriate County designated office.
Section 3. Violation of this ordinance is a misdemeanor or infraction, punishable by a fine, imprisonment in the county jail up to one year, or a combination of both.
Section 4. Copy of County Ordinance. Consistent with the requirements of Government Code section 50022.6, upon the adoption of this ordinance, one copy of the County's ordinance adopted by reference shall be maintained by the City's enforcement officer, the Chief of Police.
Section 5. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or word of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council of the City of St. Helena hereby declares it would have passed and adopted this ordinance and each and all provisions hereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more of said provisions be declared invalid.
THE FOREGOING ORDINANCE was introduced at a regular meeting of the St. Helena City Council on the day of , 2022, and was adopted at a regular meeting of the St. Helena City Council on the day of , 2022, by the following vote:
Mayor Ellsworth: _____
Vice Mayor Dohring: _____
Councilmember Chouteau: _____
Councilmember Hardy: _____
Councilmember Hall: _____
APPROVED:
___________________________________
Geoff Ellsworth, Mayor
ATTEST:
CITY OF ST. HELENA
___________________________________
Cindy Tzafopoulos, City Clerk
I, CINDY TZAFOPOULOS, CITY CLERK of the City of St. Helena, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and placed upon its first Agenda Item #12.1.
reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of , 2022. That thereafter said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of , 2022, by the following vote:
Mayor Ellsworth: _____
Vice Mayor Dohring: _____
Councilmember Chouteau: _____
Councilmember Hardy: _____
Councilmember Hall: _____
Agenda Item #12.1.
Report to the City Council
Regular City Council - 11 Jan 2022
Agenda Section: NEW BUSINESS
Subject: Presentation of Opinion Research Related to Consideration of a June or November 2022 Revenue-Generating Local Ballot Measure
CEQA
Determination:
Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: Mark T. Prestwich, City Manager
Reviewed By: April Mitts, Administrative Services Director Approved By: Mark T. Prestwich, City Manager
BACKGROUND
Consistent with City Council Goal 4.B, on June 8, 2021, the City Council received a presentation on financing and revenue options to address City infrastructure deficiencies.
The report noted City capital needs exceed $65 million and also discussed operational challenges that add pressure to the General Fund and impact City service levels. Several near-term revenue options were discussed, including consideration of a potential June or November 2022 ballot measure.
Direction was provided to secure professional opinion research services as an initial step in developing a community supported funding strategy or other alternatives that could be deployed to accelerate investment in the City's infrastructure and to address operational challenges. The City subsequently retained Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates (FM3 Research) on September 14, 2021, who then conducted an opinion research survey of likely St. Helena voters between mid-November and early December 2021. FM3 Research is the same firm that conducted opinion research for the City in 2016.
Several recent City Council commissioned studies document widespread infrastructure challenges confronting the City's General Fund and Water and Wastewater Enterprise Funds. For example, the May 6, 2020 Financing Civic Infrastructure Task Force Final Report noted, "Unfortunately, over the past several decades, St. Helena, like many cities Agenda Item #12.2.
and states, has accumulated a significant backlog of deferred maintenance. In addition, regulatory pressure has increased in areas like water and wastewater treatment and dam safety, which require major investment in plant and equipment to retain the certifications to operate those services." The report adds there are, "no reserve funds set aside for infrastructure repair and replacement."
As noted by the Financing Civic Infrastructure Task Force, "without...capital investments, the City runs the risk of major infrastructure failure and/or the suspension of state and federal authorization to provide water and sewer services – and the City’s General Fund does not have money to contribute to these improvements." The report emphasized, "the enormity of the forecasted (and un-forecasted) future investment, the risk of running afoul of regulators if timely investments aren’t made, and resistance to past rate increases make us conclude that the Enterprise businesses pose a financial risk to the City. It is quite possible that the Enterprise businesses will have to borrow from the City’s General Fund, especially in an emergency situation involving the failure of major elements of the systems."
A tax measure presented to St. Helena voters must occur on the same ballot as a statewide General Election, which would be either June 7, 2022 or November 8, 2022. If Council directs staff to prepare a measure for placement on the June Ballot, the first reading of a proposed Ordinance would need to occur by the regular Council meeting of February 8, 2022. A second reading of the ordinance would occur at the regular Council meeting of February 22, 2022, subject to voter approval to be adopted.
DISCUSSION
FM3 Research has completed public opinion research related to three potential ballot measure alternatives for City Council consideration. The methodologies tested include:
General Obligation Bond (GO Bond). GO Bonds are a useful financing method that local governments, including St. Helena, have relied on to assist in financing infrastructure projects because of their low borrowing costs and widespread investor appeal. For California cities, GO Bonds are secured by a promise to levy ad valorem property taxes (property taxes based on the value of the property) in an unlimited amount as necessary to pay debt service. Voters approve the maximum amount of debt (bonds) that can be issued. The ad valorem taxes levied to pay debt service on City GO Bonds are in addition to the one percent general ad valorem property tax.
FM3 Research tested support for a GO Bond to address infrastructure deficiencies that would generate $54 million over 30 years, resulting in an assessment averaging approximately $47 per $100,000 of assessed value. To be enacted, a GO Bond requires 2/3 voter approval.
Sales Tax. A 1/2 cent transactions and use (sales) tax is estimated to generate $1.5 million annually. General sales taxes can be used for unrestricted purposes and require majority voter approval. Special taxes dedicate revenue for a specific purpose and require 2/3 voter approval. FM3 Research tested support for a General 1/2 cent sales tax. The City's sales tax rate is currently 8.25%.
Agenda Item #12.2.
The City receives only 1.5% of the 8.25% sales tax revenues as itemized below:
California 6.00%
County of Napa 0.25%
City of St. Helena (Measure D) 0.50%
City of St. Helena (Bradley-Burns) 1.00%
County of Napa (Measure T) 0.50%
TOTAL 8.25%
Hotel Tax. A 2% transient occupancy (hotel) tax is estimated to generate $560,000 annually. The City of St. Helena Municipal Code currently applies a 12% hotel tax for general purposes to all lodging stays of 30 days or less, and an additional 1% hotel tax that is dedicated to affordable housing. FM3 Research tested support for a 2% increase to the City's hotel tax.
A GO Bond could be placed on either the June or November 2022 ballot. A sales tax or hotel tax would need to be placed on the November 2022 ballot as these must be considered during a General Municipal Election unless the City declared a fiscal crisis.
Next Steps
FM3 Research will provide a presentation that includes additional analysis and information on the interpretation of the results. The slides that will be used for the presentation are attached to this report. FM3 Research will also be available to answer Council questions.
After receiving the opinion research results presentation, the City Council is requested to provide direction to staff on the following items:
June 2022 Election. If there is a desire to continue consideration of a possible June 7, 2022 ballot measure, it is recommended the City Council direct staff to schedule a 6:00 p.m. Council Workshop on January 20 (or alternate date prior to January 25, 2022), to further discuss the following:
• Potential projects to be funded by a GO Bond based on results of opinion research and City needs;
• Cost estimate of projects to be funded by a GO Bond;
• Distinctions between a GO Bond and a Revenue Bond;
• Financial impacts associated with various alternatives; and • Any other information, comments or direction related to a potential measure that would be important to incorporate.
Following the Council workshop, if there is continued interest in placement of a June 2022 revenue measure, it is anticipated the Council would conduct a first reading of a potential ordinance on January 25, 2022 or February 8, 2022.
Agenda Item #12.2.
November 2022 Election. Consideration of a ballot measure for November 2022 will likely require Council action by the first meeting in August 2022. Therefore, there is additional time to schedule future discussions later in the current fiscal year should there be Council interest in a potential November 2022 revenue measure.
FISCAL IMPACT
The City has budgeted $40,000 in the current Fiscal Year budget for potential June 7, 2022 election costs.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Receive presentation, discuss and provide direction to the City Manager.
ATTACHMENTS
220-6186 St. Helena Survey Analysis PowerPoint
Agenda Item #12.2.
Key Findings from a Citywide Survey
Conducted November 18 – December 16, 2021
220-6186
Voter Attitudes Toward a
St. Helena Finance Measure
DRAFT
Agenda Item #12.2.
2 DRAFT
Dates November 18 - December 16, 2021
Survey Type Dual-mode Voter Survey
Research Population All Registered Voters
Total Interviews 384
Margin of Sampling Error ±5.0% at the 95% Confidence Level Contact Methods
Data Collection Modes
(Note: Not All Results Will Sum to 100% Due to Rounding) Survey Specifics and Methodology
Text
Invitations
Telephone
Calls
Email
Invitations
Telephone
Interviews
Online
Interviews
Agenda Item #12.2.
3 Issue Context
Agenda Item #12.2.
4 DRAFT
Q1.
I am going to read you a list of organizations and individuals. Please tell me if you approve or disapprove of the job being done by the organization or individual.
A majority approves of the job being done by
City government and the City Council.
12%
7%
13%
7%
39%
36%
37%
43%
24%
28%
24%
26%
17%
22%
16%
16%
8%
6%
11%
8%
2021
2016
2021
2016
Strng. Appr. Smwt. Appr. Smwt. Disappr. Strng. Disappr. Don't Know Total
Appr.
Total
Disappr.
51% 41%
44% 50%
50% 39%
50% 42%
St. Helena
City government overall
The St. Helena
City Council
Agenda Item #12.2.
5 DRAFT
Q6. ^Not Part of Split Sample
52%
51%
51%
34%
36%
33%
23%
31%
32%
27%
36%
33%
25%
35%
14%
16%
17%
23%
23%
38%
30%
7%
8%
7% 5%
Drought
The future of our
local water supply
Water shortages
The health of our local small
businesses and economy
The cost of housing
Local roads in need of repair
^The condition of
local infrastructure
Ext. Ser. Prob. Very Ser. Prob. Smwt. Ser. Prob. Not Too Ser. Prob. Don't Know Ext./Very
Ser. Prob.
84%
83%
78%
69%
68%
58%
58%
Drought, the local water supply and water shortages
are seen as the biggest problems facing the City.
I’m going to read you a list of things some people say may be problems facing St. Helena.
Please tell me whether you think it is an extremely serious problem, a very serious problem, a somewhat serious problem, or not a problem for St. Helena residents.
Agenda Item #12.2.
6 DRAFT
Q6. I’m going to read you a list of things some people say may be problems facing St. Helena. Please tell me whether you think it is an extremely serious problem, a very serious problem, a somewhat serious problem, or not a problem for St. Helena residents. ^Not Part of Split Sample 27%
23%
15%
23%
18%
16%
13%
6%
27%
29%
35%
24%
23%
18%
20%
16%
26%
27%
39%
33%
27%
19%
22%
27%
11%
21%
11%
15%
29%
31%
40%
46%
9%
5%
15%
5%
5%
Waste and inefficiency in
City government
The condition of downtown sidewalks
Traffic congestion
^A lack of fire preparedness
The amount you pay in local taxes
^Slow emergency response times
The impact of visitors
Crime
Ext. Ser. Prob. Very Ser. Prob. Smwt. Ser. Prob. Not Too Ser. Prob. Don't Know Ext./Very Ser. Prob.
54%
52%
49%
48%
40%
34%
33%
22%
Voters are least concerned about emergency
response times, visitors, and crime.
Agenda Item #12.2.
7 DRAFT
25%
42%
13%
13%
7%
Great need
Some need
A little need
No real need
Don't know
Great/
Some Need
66%
A Little/
No Real Need
27%
Q7.
Two-thirds see a need for additional funding,
but only one-quarter see a “great need.”
In your personal opinion, do you think there is a great need, some need, a little need, or no real need for additional funds to provide the level of City services that St. Helena residents need and want? Agenda Item #12.2. Page 215 of 254 8 DRAFT
34%
39%
15%
7%
5%
Great need
Some need
A little need
No real need
Don't know
Great/
Some Need
73%
A Little/
No Real Need
23%
Q8.
Three-quarters see a need for funding
for infrastructure.
Do you think there is a great need, some need, a little need, or no real need for additional funds to address the condition of St. Helena infrastructure? Agenda Item #12.2.
9 Introducing the
Measures
Agenda Item #12.2.
10 DRAFT
Ballot Measure Testing Approach
• The voter sample was divided into two representative
groups:
▪ One group was asked their opinion of the sales tax measure followed by the bond measure;
▪ The other group was asked their opinion of the bond measure followed by the sales tax measure.
• After hearing both measures, respondents were asked
how they would vote knowing that both measures could
appear on the same ballot.
Agenda Item #12.2.
11 DRAFT
39%
47%
43%
31%
20%
26%
10%
7%
15%
13%
14%
Presented First
Presented After
Bond
Total
Def. Yes Prob. Yes Und., Lean Yes Und., Lean No Prob. No Def. No Undecided Total Yes
Total
No
75% 21%
70% 26%
72% 24%
Nearly three-quarters back the proposed
sales tax measure.
Q2. If the election were held today, would you vote yes in favor of it, or no to oppose this measure? St. Helena Vital City Services Measure. To maintain vital St. Helena services by improving local 911 emergency medical/fire protection; wildfire response and preparedness; repairing local roads, and potholes; maintaining public safety; protecting safe drinking water sources; maintaining parks, recreation, and the library and other general City services; shall the City of St. Helena measure establishing a ½-cent cent sales tax, providing $1.5 million annually until ended by voters, with independent audits, all funds staying local, be adopted? Agenda Item #12.2.
12 DRAFT
39%
36%
37%
27%
28%
27%
6%
5%
8%
7%
8%
13%
17%
15%
5%
5%
5%
Presented After
Sales Tax
Presented First
Total
Def. Yes Prob. Yes Und., Lean Yes Und., Lean No Prob. No Def. No Undecided Total Yes
Total
No
72% 23%
68% 27%
70% 25%
Seven in ten support the
proposed water bond measure.
Q3. If the election were held today, would you vote yes in favor of it, or no to oppose this measure? St. Helena Water Service Protection. To protect local water quality/supply, improve drought resilience by: repairing/replacing St. Helena’s 1940s-era drinking water/stormwater system, including pipes, aging/deteriorating drinking water and sewage infrastructure; keeping sewage, pollution, trash, chemicals from local rivers, creeks and streams; protecting safe, sustainable, local water sources; shall City of St. Helena’s measure authorizing $54 million in bonds, levying approximately $41 per $100,000 of assessed value, raising about $3.5 million annually while bonds are outstanding, requiring audits, be adopted?
Agenda Item #12.2.
13 DRAFT
42%
21%
7%
4%
6%
14%
6%
Definitely yes
Probably yes
Undecided, lean yes
Undecided, lean no
Probably no
Definitely no
Undecided
Total
Yes
70%
Total
No
24%
Q3/4 (Combined).
Overall support for a smaller bond remains the
same, but the “definite” support grows.
Suppose that instead of authorizing $54 million in bonds, levying approximately $41 per $100,000 of assessed value, the St. Helena Water Service Protection measure authorized $36 million in bonds, levying $27 per $100,000 of assessed value. In that case if the election were held today, would you vote yes in favor of it, or no to oppose this measure? Agenda Item #12.2.
14 DRAFT
Q5.
44%
11%
10%
20%
15%
Yes on both measures
Yes on bond measure only
Yes on sales tax only
No on both measures
Don’t know
Suppose both these measures appeared on the St. Helena ballot at the same time.
In that case would you vote “yes” on both measures, only one, or neither measure? Total Sales
Tax: 54%
Total Bond
Measure: 55%
Knowing both could be on the ballot together
yields lower support for both measures.
Agenda Item #12.2.
15 DRAFT
49%
26%
5%
1%
4%
9%
6%
Definitely yes
Probably yes
Undecided, lean yes
Undecided, lean no
Probably no
Definitely no
Undecided
Total
Yes
80%
Total
No
14%
Q16.
Four in five back a TOT increase
in concept.
Suppose there were a completely different question on the St. Helena ballot that would increase the transient occupancy tax charged to hotel, motel and vacation rental guests by 2%, raising about $560,000 per year to fund general City services including repairing local streets and potholes, fixing downtown sidewalks, and providing affordable workforce housing. Do you think you would vote yes in favor of it, or no to oppose this ballot measure? Agenda Item #12.2.
16 Elements of the
Measures
Agenda Item #12.2.
17 DRAFT
Ext./Very
Impt.
84%
82%
81%
81%
80%
80%
Q9. Split Sample
53%
55%
50%
44%
54%
53%
31%
27%
31%
37%
26%
27%
13%
16%
15%
16%
17%
16%
Increasing safe, sustainable,
local water sources
Repairing aging water infrastructure
Helping to end St. Helena's water crisis
Protecting St. Helena water service
Protecting clean drinking water sources
Protecting St. Helena's
safe drinking water supply
Ext. Impt. Very Impt. Smwt. Impt. Not Too Impt. Don't Know Improvements to water supply and
infrastructure are voters’ top priorities.
I am going to read you a list of ways in which the funds generated by these proposed ballot measures could be spent, and also provisions that could be included.
Please tell me how important that provision or the use of funds is to you personally:
is it extremely important, very important, somewhat important, or not too important? Agenda Item #12.2.
18 DRAFT
Ext./Very
Impt.
76%
75%
75%
74%
74%
74%
74%
Q9. I am going to read you a list of ways in which the funds generated by these proposed ballot measures could be spent, and also provisions that could be included. Please tell me how important that provision or the use of funds is to you personally: is it extremely important, very important, somewhat important, or not too important? Split Sample
45%
36%
34%
46%
46%
40%
31%
31%
38%
40%
28%
27%
34%
42%
16%
17%
15%
19%
15%
19%
17%
6%
10%
5%
6%
5%
5%
7%
Protecting Bell Canyon Reservoir
water supply
Increasing the use of recycled water
Preventing pollutants from entering
local rivers, creeks, and streams
Replacing 1940s era drinking water
and stormwater system
Ensuring all funds are used
only in St. Helena
Supporting local businesses
Improving the City's long-term
financial stability
Ext. Impt. Very Impt. Smwt. Impt. Not Too Impt. Don't Know Ensuring all funds stay in St. Helena, supporting
local businesses and maintaining financial stability
are middle-tier priorities.
Agenda Item #12.2.
19 DRAFT
Ext./Very
Impt.
71%
70%
70%
70%
68%
68%
63%
63%
Q9. I am going to read you a list of ways in which the funds generated by these proposed ballot measures could be spent, and also provisions that could be included. Please tell me how important that provision or the use of funds is to you personally: is it extremely important, very important, somewhat important, or not too important? Split Sample
31%
31%
30%
29%
31%
25%
33%
30%
40%
39%
39%
41%
37%
43%
30%
34%
20%
20%
21%
21%
28%
21%
26%
28%
6%
8%
8%
8%
11%
8%
5%
Protecting and maintaining
fire department response times
Repairing aging and deteriorating dams
Repairing aging sewage infrastructure
Repairing local roads and potholes
Maintaining public safety
Increasing housing that is affordable for
people who live and work in St. Helena
Repairing storm drains to
prevent flooding
Ext. Impt. Very Impt. Smwt. Impt. Not Too Impt. Don't Know About two-thirds prioritize public safety,
roads, and affordable housing spending.
Protecting and maintaining
911 emergency medical, police, and
fire response services
Agenda Item #12.2.
20 DRAFT
Ext./Very
Impt.
61%
61%
60%
60%
58%
58%
56%
56%
Q9. I am going to read you a list of ways in which the funds generated by these proposed ballot measures could be spent, and also provisions that could be included. Please tell me how important that provision or the use of funds is to you personally: is it extremely important, very important, somewhat important, or not too important? Split Sample
36%
28%
30%
23%
26%
22%
20%
17%
26%
33%
30%
37%
32%
36%
36%
39%
30%
27%
29%
29%
31%
36%
21%
32%
8%
6%
7%
7%
10%
13%
10%
5%
9%
Improving wildfire response
and preparedness
Improving fire protection services
Protecting and maintaining
vital City services
Repairing and maintaining sidewalks
Maintaining adequate
emergency reserve funds
Hiring additional firefighters
Maintaining parks and recreation
Ext. Impt. Very Impt. Smwt. Impt. Not Too Impt. Don't Know Three in five say improving wildfire response
and improving fire protection is very important.
Repairing aging storm drains to
prevent pollutants from entering
natural areas and wildlife habitats
Agenda Item #12.2.
21 DRAFT
Ext./Very
Impt.
55%
54%
54%
53%
45%
43%
41%
40%
Q9. I am going to read you a list of ways in which the funds generated by these proposed ballot measures could be spent, and also provisions that could be included. Please tell me how important that provision or the use of funds is to you personally: is it extremely important, very important, somewhat important, or not too important? Split Sample
22%
20%
17%
20%
14%
19%
11%
14%
33%
34%
37%
33%
31%
24%
30%
26%
26%
28%
36%
32%
37%
36%
37%
37%
12%
16%
10%
12%
17%
20%
17%
16%
8%
7%
Improving 911 emergency
medical/fire protection
Protecting local property values
Maintaining community parks,
playgrounds, and sports fields
Maintaining community
policing services
Maintaining library services
Promoting St. Helena as
a destination for visitors
Providing youth recreation programs
Preventing budget cuts
Ext. Impt. Very Impt. Smwt. Impt. Not Too Impt. Don't Know Less than half prioritize the library, promoting
tourism, youth recreation or preventing cuts.
Agenda Item #12.2.
22 The Impact of
Messaging
Agenda Item #12.2.
23 DRAFT
Q10. I am going to read you some statements made by supporters of these ballot measures. Please tell me whether you find it very convincing, somewhat convincing, or not convincing as a reason to support these ballot measures. *Split Sample (INFRASTRUCTURE) St. Helena's drinking water, storm, and wastewater pipes are aging and deteriorating rapidly. Many are original and have not been repaired in over 70 years and could fail at any moment, cutting off the City's clean water supply. We need a bond measure to repair our water and storm drain, and sewer system to prevent flooding, damage to roads, and to maintain our property values. *(WATER CRISIS) St. Helena is facing a water crisis. The bond measure will upgrade our aging infrastructure and improve its efficiency to help tackle our water crisis head-on and preserve St. Helena's water supply for future generations.
*(WATER USE) The City of St. Helena is facing such a severe water shortage that it has had to impose strict allocations on water use - and charge penalties to households that exceed their share. This bond measure will invest in water infrastructure to ensure a more reliable water supply and help prevent the need for these restrictions.
*(FIRE NEEDS) St. Helena's Fire Department responds to more and more calls each year. This sales tax measure will ensure that our fire-prone area has fully-funded, responsive firefighting coverage 24 hours a day so that we can save lives and protect the community. (ACCOUNTABILITY/LOCAL CONTROL) These measures include strict accountability provisions, such as public spending reports and the requirement that all funds be used locally. These measures establish local sources of funding to maintain City services that by law cannot be taken by state government or other bureaucrats, and all funds must be used only in St. Helena. (STREET CONDITIONS) St. Helena's street conditions are among the worst in the Bay Area, are in disrepair, and in need of maintenance and repaving. These ballot measures will ensure that residents have safe streets to drive on.
Messages in Favor of the Measures
Ranked by % Very Convincing
Agenda Item #12.2.
24 DRAFT
Q10. I am going to read you some statements made by supporters of these ballot measures. Please tell me whether you find it very convincing, somewhat convincing, or not convincing as a reason to support these ballot measures. *Split Sample *(EMERGENCY RESPONSE) The proposed sales tax measure will ensure we have a fully-staffed firefighting department and safe roads so that first responders can arrive on the scene quickly in the case of a fire or another emergency.
(VISITORS) Napa Valley visitors are a key driver of the St. Helena economy. These ballot measures will allow the City to maintain roads, water infrastructure, and provide high-quality services so that St. Helena continues to attract visitor dollars.
(LOCAL FUNDING) Many North Bay communities are facing tremendous pressure on their budgets from the economic impacts of the coronavirus. Even in these hard economic times, our community has a responsibility to maintain sufficient funding to provide essential services to St. Helena residents. (PUBLIC SAFETY) St. Helena residents feel safe and protected in their town due to the highly responsive and skilled fire services and police protection. The sales tax measure will allow the City to maintain the quality of these essential services, so that St. Helena can retain its small town character and be a safe place to live.
*(STAFF) St. Helena is served by a dedicated public employees - but very few can afford to live in our community, and many commute long distances to work here. These ballot measures will help us recruit and retain skilled and dedicated workers to serve our community in the face of these challenges. *(WORKFORCE HOUSING) Many St. Helena workers have to travel long distances to come to work.
These ballot measures will strengthen our economy and support our business community by providing workforce housing.
(PROPERTY VALUES) St. Helena is a great place to live and the community's property values reflect the City's outstanding quality of life. These measures will maintain the City's infrastructure and prevent cuts to services, ensuring that St. Helena remains a highly desirable community, with all the benefits that has for local residents.
Messages in Favor of the Measures (Continued)
Ranked by % Very Convincing
Agenda Item #12.2.
25 DRAFT
Q10. I am going to read you some statements made by supporters of these ballot measures. Please tell me whether you find it very convincing, somewhat convincing, or not convincing as a reason to support these ballot measures. *Split Sample 50%
44%
42%
37%
34%
30%
29%
29%
28%
28%
27%
25%
24%
32%
31%
32%
33%
37%
37%
41%
36%
41%
40%
35%
37%
39%
82%
76%
74%
70%
71%
67%
69%
65%
69%
69%
62%
62%
63%
Infrastructure
*Water Crisis
*Water Use
*Fire Needs
Accountability/Local Control
Street Conditions
*Emergency Response
Visitors
Local Funding
Public Safety
*Staff
*Workforce Housing
Property Values
Very Convincing Somewhat Convincing
Messaging focused on water issues
resonates most intensely.
Agenda Item #12.2.
26 DRAFT
Q2 (Total), Q11 (Total) & Q14 (Total). If the election were held today, would you vote yes in favor of it, or no to oppose this measure? 72% 74%
70%
24% 23% 25%
4% 4% 5%
Initial
Vote
After
Positives
After
Negatives
Total Yes
Total No
Undecided
Support for the sales tax remains consistent
after an exchange of messaging.
(Sales Tax)
Agenda Item #12.2.
27 DRAFT
Q3 (Total), Q12 (Total) & Q15 (Total). If the election were held today, would you vote yes in favor of it, or no to oppose this measure? 70% 70% 68%
25% 25% 27%
5% 5% 5%
Initial
Vote
After
Positives
After
Negatives
Total Yes
Total No
Undecided
Similarly, support for the bond measure
is very consistent.
(Bond Measure)
Agenda Item #12.2.
28 Conclusions
Agenda Item #12.2.
29 DRAFT
Conclusions
• Voters offer strong support for a sales tax measure, consistently well over the simple majority support required for approval. • Roughly two-thirds of voters support a water bond measure, right at the supermajority level of support required for approval.
• Voters see a great need for infrastructure funding in the city; view drought and water shortages as the biggest problems facing St. Helena; and place a very high degree of priority on spending areas meant to address water supply problems.
• Consistent with these priorities, the strongest messages in favor of the measures describe improvements to water infrastructure. • The presence of both measures on the ballot together would decrease support for each, with a more meaningful impact on the bond measure. • Public education about how these measures will address the City’s water crisis and provide needed funding for highly-valued services will be important.
Agenda Item #12.2.
For more information,
contact:
Dave Metz
[email protected]
Lucia Del Puppo
[email protected]
Agenda Item #12.2.
Public Comment on Near Future Revenue Generating Local Ballot Measure (Agenda Item 12.2, City Council Meeting, Jan. 11, 2022) As a past mayor, who led the successful adoption of the 0.50% local sales tax initiative in the November 2016 election, I offer the following observations:
1. Even without organized opposition, achievement of a two-thirds vote on a tax initiative is a challenge in this community. In 2010, Mayor Britton, facing opposition, was able to muster only 39% in favor of Measure C, a General Purpose
0.50% sales tax increase requiring only a simple majority. Measure D, the 2016 local sales 0.50% tax measure, achieved 69% but only because there was a mayorled campaign, including door-to-door canvassing, and there was no organized opposition. Without doubt, the consultant proposals will draw organized opposition. Passage with a two-thirds vote as to any of the consultant’s suggestions, if required, is problematic and even General Purpose tax measures requiring only a majority are no sure thing, as failed Measure C attests.
2. There is no chance of achieving a two-thirds vote unless the City Council unanimously and vigorously supports the specific tax increase placed before voters.
3. There is little chance that an ad valorem tax on property will achieve a two-thirds vote. Here, a basic problem is the long-term effect of Proposition 13.
Similar properties are valued very differently, depending upon date of last sale.
Further, commercial properties, as they have often been held in the same entity for a very long time, can have a very low ad valorem tax basis. An ad valorem tax would fall unfairly on residential property owners, and especially newer owners.
4. An increase in the local sales tax: due to its 2016 local sales tax increase, St. Helena today has the highest sales tax rate in Napa County. My guess is that a further sought increase will bring organized opposition, making even a majority vote (assuming the tax is for a General Purpose) difficult to achieve.
5. TOT increase: most certainly, a TOT increase, putting our City out-ofsynch with all other Napa County jurisdictions, will draw organized opposition, and perhaps rightfully so: specifically, should our hospitality industry, so important to our tax City’s tax base, face a financial burden not shared by competitors?
6. Perhaps most disturbing is the idea that monies raised through ballot measures (and not through the Proposition 218 process) would be used to support much needed Water Enterprise improvements. There are ratepayer expenses, not taxpayer expenses. They are not aligned. Also, as documented by Napa LAFCO in its recent Napa County Water and Wastewater Municipal Service Review, the Water Enterprise has 361 connections outside City limits, of which 54 are commercial, industrial, or other non-residential. Accordingly, a significant number of ratepayers (including several major wineries, which are substantial water customers) would Agenda Item #12.2.
escape their fair share of the cost. Any use of funds for the Water Enterprise sought to be raised through an ad valorem tax, sales tax, and/or TOT tax, would be vigorously opposed by me, and others, and would not pass.
I find it difficult to believe that the poll responders were responding otherwise than viscerally. Before seeking their survey opinions the City did not seek to educate them in the complexities and nuances of the tax policy issues.
Quite frankly, the burden here falls squarely on the City Council, not pollsters, to assess and explain what is realistic, and to lead our citizenship. Having said that, the first step is to deal with the financial needs of our critical Water and Wastewater Enterprises through the Proposition 218 process.
Alan Galbraith
Mayor, 2014-18
Dated: January 8, 2022
Agenda Item #12.2.
PUBLIC COMMENT
January 11, 2022
New Business Agenda Item 12.2
Dear City Council, Department Heads, and Administrative Staff, The Survey you are reviewing is a debacle that should never have been financed and put forward by the City of St. Helena. It is an extremely poor survey, with a plethora of unnecessary words and confusing options which lacks the specific and focused language a sound survey would contain.
Further, the survey was not direct mailed to the entirety of the population of St. Helena. In fact, the extremely small number of respondents (384) indicates whatever methods were used to solicit responses was nearly a complete and total failure.
Among the the people who did respond a mere 12% (46) strongly approve of the job you are doing. Not at all surprising.
This survey is just one of the many reasons you have such a dismal approval rating. And yet you persist in ignoring the majority of average St. Helena citizens in favor of the apparently special and small group of citizens to whom you obviously answer.
We all deserve better.
Nancy Dervin
Agenda Item #12.2.
Report to the City Council
Regular City Council - 11 Jan 2022
Agenda Section: NEW BUSINESS
Subject: Consideration and Proposed Approval of the First Reading of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 2.56 of the St. Helena
Municipal Code Pertaining to the Parks and Recreation
Commission
CEQA
Determination:
Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: Mark T. Prestwich, City Manager
Reviewed By: April Mitts, Administrative Services Director Approved By: Mark T. Prestwich, City Manager
BACKGROUND
Chapter 2.56 of the St. Helena Municipal Code outlines the membership composition, duties, and responsibilities of the City's Parks and Recreation Commission. On July 20, 2020, the City's Parks and Recreation Commission appointed an Ad Hoc subcommittee to work with City staff to review, and potentially recommend adjustments to, the ordinance language.
This item was continued from the regular December 14, 2021 St. Helena City Council meeting.
DISCUSSION
At the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting of June 21, 2021, the Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed recommendations prepared by the Parks and Recreation Ad Hoc Committee and endorsed proposed recommendations to the ordinance. The recommended changes are noted in track changes in Attachment A. A clean version of the proposed ordinance is included in Attachment B.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with the recommended ordinance.
Agenda Item #12.3.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Proposed approval of the first reading of an Ordinance amending Chapter 2.56 of the St.
Helena Municipal Code pertaining to the Parks and Recreation Commission, by title only and waive further reading.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A Ordinance-REDLINE
Attachment B Ordinance-CLEAN
Agenda Item #12.3.
83578.00007\34188460.2
CITY OF ST. HELENA
ORDINANCE NO.
AMENDING CHAPTER 2.56 OF THE ST. HELENA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING
TO THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Helena (“City”) has determined to revise the provisions of Chapter 2.56 of the City of St. Helena Municipal Code pertaining to the Parks and Recreation Commission, in order to better meet the City’s needs.
The City Council of the City of St. Helena does hereby ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: The above recitals are hereby incorporated as though set forth in this section.
SECTION 2: Chapter 2.56 of the St. Helena Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
“Chapter 2.56 – PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
Sections:
2.56.010 Membership
2.56.030 Meetings
2.56.040 Duties
2.56.050 Review of Annual Budgets
Section 2.56.010 – Membership.
The parks and recreation commission shall consist of five members.
Commissioners shall be residents of the city; provided, that the mayor reserves the authority to appoint nonresidents to the commission on a case-by-case basis, with the consent of the city council. Commissioners shall serve for a term of two years, with the term of office to expire at the end of the fiscal year. The city council may establish oneyear terms for some trustees commissioners for the purpose of staggering term expirations. Each commissioner shall be appointed by the mayor with the approval of the city council and may be removed without cause by the city council. If a vacancy shall occur otherwise than by expiration of the term of office, it shall be filled by appointment for the unexpired portion of the term. The superintendent of schools of the St. Helena Unified School District shall be an ex officio member of the commission.
Agenda Item #12.3.
83578.00007\34188460.2
Section 2.56.030 – Meetings.
The commission shall meet at least once a month at such date, time and place as it may fix by resolution. Special meetings of the commission may be called at any time by the chairperson or three members thereof by written notice provided as required by the Ralph M. Brown Act. (Cal. Govt. Code § 54950 et seq.)three commissioners, with written notice served upon each commissioner at least three hours before the time specified for the proposed meeting. A majority of the commissioners shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. The commissioners shall appoint the chairperson and vice-chairperson from their number, each of whom shall serve for one year and until his or her successor is appointed. The commission shall cause a proper record of their proceedings to be kept and shall file minutes of all meetings with the city clerk.
Section 2.56.040 – Duties.
The duties of the commission shall be as follows:
A. To act in an advisory capacity to the city council and its the director of Parks & Recreationparks & recreation in all matters pertaining to the public parks and recreation, and to cooperate with other governmental agencies and civic groups in the advancement of sound parks and recreation planning and programming; B. To formulate review and recommend developed policies on recreation services, park use, and park improvement and fordevelopment for approval by the city council;
C. To advise with the city council, city manager, and its Director of Parks & Recreationdirector of parks & recreation, and director of public works director on problems of administration, development of matters related to parks and recreation areas, facilities, park development, and programs and improved recreation services; D. To periodicallyUpon request by the city council or city staff, study, review, evaluate and recommend the adoption of standards and policies on parks and recreation matters;
E. To provide recommendations related to: organization, personnel, areas and Agenda Item #12.3.
83578.00007\34188460.2
1. facility maintenance and development
2. social equity, environmental stewardship, and health and wellness
3. projects within the city that may have an impact on the availability and delivery of parks, trails, and recreation servicesies;
4. service levels;
5. prioritize parks and recreation needs;
6. the Parks and Recreation Master Plan;
7. recreational programs and events, and;
1.8. parks and recreation user fees; and financial support; FG. To establish annual goals and action plans consistent with city council goals and objectives. To make periodic inventories of recreation services that exist or may be needed and interpret the needs of the public to the city council; F. To aid in coordinating the recreation services with the programs of other governmental agencies and voluntary organizations.
GH. The commission shall provide an annual report to the city council related to its activities for the past year.
HK. Members of the commission shall not receive compensation for attendance at commission meetings but are entitled to reimbursement for reasonable expenses actually incurred in the course of their duties, provided that such reimbursement shall first be approved by the city manager.
Section 2.56.050 – Review of Annual BudgetsBudget Submittal The commission shall submit annually a budget to the city council for its approval in whole or in part. The budget should provide not only for recreation services and operating costs for the ensuing year, but should also contain estimates and recommendations for such long-term capital outlay as may be necessary to provide for an orderly and coordinated development program.
The commission shall receivereview and provide feedbackrecommendations to the city council on an the annual budgets presentation from the Administrative Services Department of the budgets for the Parks & Recreation Department, park maintenance, and parks and recreation-related Capital Improvement Plan projects.” SECTION 3: Severability
Agenda Item #12.3.
83578.00007\34188460.2
If any section, subsection, phrase, or clause of this article is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council would have passed this ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 4: CEQA
The City Council finds that this ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly.
SECTION 5: Effective Date
This ordinance shall take effect 30 days after its final adoption, and a summary of this ordinance shall be published once with the names of the members of the Council voting for and against the ordinance in the St. Helena Star, a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of St. Helena.
THE FOREGOING ORDINANCE was introduced at a regular meeting of the St. Helena City Council on the day of , 20221, and was adopted at a regular meeting of the St. Helena City Council on the day of , 20221, by the following vote:
Mayor Ellsworth: _____
Vice Mayor Dohring: _____
Councilmember Chouteau: _____
Councilmember Hardy: _____
Councilmember Hall: _____
APPROVED:
___________________________________
Agenda Item #12.3.
83578.00007\34188460.2
Geoff Ellsworth, Mayor
ATTEST:
CITY OF ST. HELENA
___________________________________
Cindy Tzafopoulos, City Clerk
I, CINDY TZAFOPOULOS, CITY CLERK of the City of St. Helena, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of , 20221. That thereafter said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of , 20221, by the following vote:
Mayor Ellsworth: _____
Vice Mayor Dohring: _____
Councilmember Chouteau: _____
Councilmember Hardy: _____
Councilmember Hall: _____
Agenda Item #12.3.
83578.00007\34188460.2
CITY OF ST. HELENA
ORDINANCE NO.
AMENDING CHAPTER 2.56 OF THE ST. HELENA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING
TO THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Helena (“City”) has determined to revise the provisions of Chapter 2.56 of the City of St. Helena Municipal Code pertaining to the Parks and Recreation Commission, in order to better meet the City’s needs.
The City Council of the City of St. Helena does hereby ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: The above recitals are hereby incorporated as though set forth in this section.
SECTION 2: Chapter 2.56 of the St. Helena Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
“Chapter 2.56 – PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
Sections:
2.56.010 Membership
2.56.030 Meetings
2.56.040 Duties
2.56.050 Review of Annual Budgets
Section 2.56.010 – Membership.
The parks and recreation commission shall consist of five members.
Commissioners shall be residents of the city; provided, that the mayor reserves the authority to appoint nonresidents to the commission on a case-by-case basis, with the consent of the city council. Commissioners shall serve for a term of two years, with the term of office to expire at the end of the fiscal year. The city council may establish oneyear terms for some commissioners for the purpose of staggering term expirations.
Each commissioner shall be appointed by the mayor with the approval of the city council and may be removed without cause by the city council. If a vacancy shall occur otherwise than by expiration of the term of office, it shall be filled by appointment for the unexpired portion of the term.
Agenda Item #12.3.
83578.00007\34188460.2
Section 2.56.030 – Meetings.
The commission shall meet at least once a month at such time and place as it may fix by resolution. Special meetings of the commission may be called at any time by the chairperson or three members thereof by written notice provided as required by the Ralph M. Brown Act. (Cal. Govt. Code § 54950 et seq.). A majority of the commissioners shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. The commissioners shall appoint the chairperson and vice-chairperson from their number, each of whom shall serve for one year and until his or her successor is appointed. The commission shall cause a proper record of their proceedings to be kept and shall file minutes of all meetings with the city clerk.
Section 2.56.040 – Duties.
The duties of the commission shall be as follows:
A. To act in an advisory capacity to the city council and the director of parks & recreation in all matters pertaining to public parks and recreation, and to cooperate with other governmental agencies and civic groups in the advancement of sound parks and recreation planning and programming;
B. To review and recommend policies on recreation services, park use, and park improvement and development for approval by the city council; C. To advise the city council, city manager, director of parks & recreation, and director of public works on matters related to parks and recreation areas, facilities, park development, and programs and recreation services; D. Upon request by the city council or city staff, study, review, evaluate and recommend the adoption of standards and policies on parks and recreation matters; E. To provide recommendations related to:
1. facility maintenance and development
2. social equity, environmental stewardship, and health and wellness
3. projects within the city that may have an impact on the availability and delivery of parks, trails, and recreation services;
4. service levels;
5. parks and recreation needs;
Agenda Item #12.3.
83578.00007\34188460.2
6. the Parks and Recreation Master Plan;
7. recreational programs and events, and;
8. parks and recreation user fees;
F. To establish annual goals and action plans consistent with city council goals and objectives.
G. The commission shall provide an annual report to the city council related to its activities for the past year.
H. Members of the commission shall not receive compensation for attendance at commission meetings but are entitled to reimbursement for reasonable expenses actually incurred in the course of their duties, provided that such reimbursement shall first be approved by the city manager.
Section 2.56.050 – Review of Annual Budgets
The commission shall review and provide recommendations to the city council on the annual budgets for the Parks & Recreation Department, park maintenance, and parks and recreation-related Capital Improvement Plan projects.” SECTION 3: Severability
If any section, subsection, phrase, or clause of this article is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council would have passed this ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 4: CEQA
The City Council finds that this ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly.
Agenda Item #12.3.
83578.00007\34188460.2
SECTION 5: Effective Date
This ordinance shall take effect 30 days after its final adoption, and a summary of this ordinance shall be published once with the names of the members of the Council voting for and against the ordinance in the St. Helena Star, a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of St. Helena.
THE FOREGOING ORDINANCE was introduced at a regular meeting of the St. Helena City Council on the day of , 2022, and was adopted at a regular meeting of the St. Helena City Council on the day of , 2022, by the following vote:
Mayor Ellsworth: _____
Vice Mayor Dohring: _____
Councilmember Chouteau: _____
Councilmember Hardy: _____
Councilmember Hall: _____
APPROVED:
___________________________________
Geoff Ellsworth, Mayor
ATTEST:
CITY OF ST. HELENA
___________________________________
Cindy Tzafopoulos, City Clerk
I, CINDY TZAFOPOULOS, CITY CLERK of the City of St. Helena, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of , 2022. That thereafter said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of , 2022, by the following vote:
Mayor Ellsworth: _____
Vice Mayor Dohring: _____
Agenda Item #12.3.
83578.00007\34188460.2
Councilmember Chouteau: _____
Councilmember Hardy: _____
Councilmember Hall: _____
Agenda Item #12.3.