St. Helena City Council
June 13, 2023

Parks Budget- 5027
Account Number Description
FY 20-21
Actual
FY 21-22
Actual
FY 22-23
Amended
FY 23-24
Proposed
FY 24-25
Proposed
101 General Fund
50 Public Works
101-50-27-20-10 Salary-Regular 256,458 230,116 295,183 419,448 440,420 101-50-27-20-25 Standby 5,620 3,000 3,857 3,857 4,050
101-50-27-20-30 Overtime 18,857 6,400 3,158 3,158 3,316 101-50-27-20-40 FICA/Medicare 21,608 18,524 23,302 32,854 34,497 101-50-27-20-45 Employer PERS 22,019 20,150 24,812 39,030 40,982 101-50-27-20-47 PERS Unfunded Liability 42,175 36,143 37,086 38,869 41,240 101-50-27-20-55 Health Insurance 60,915 53,552 66,439 133,499 140,174 101-50-27-20-61 Workers Comp 17,736 12,872 18,343 22,652 23,785 101-50-27-20-65 SDI 3,108 2,784 3,324 4,691 4,926
101-50-27-20-75 Deferred Comp 2,114 1,921 2,621 3,293 3,458 20 Salaries & Benefits 450,610 385,461 478,125 701,351 736,846 101-50-27-21-10 Communications 2,798 1,912 3,500 3,500 3,640 101-50-27-21-22 Utilities 129,106 120,028 130,500 130,500 135,720 101-50-27-21-25 Equipment Rental 817 0 2,000 30,000 31,200 101-50-27-21-30 Professional Contracts 19,510 37,813 45,000 50,000 52,000 101-50-27-21-45 Other Contract Services 2,670 2,532 5,000 100,000 104,000 101-50-27-21-53 Memberships & Publications 983 0 1,000 1,000 1,040 101-50-27-21-55 Training & Conference 820 1,146 7,000 7,000 7,280 101-50-27-21-60 Other Travel 0 0 300 300 312
21 Services 156,703 163,430 194,300 322,300 335,192
101-50-27-22-13 Office Supplies 0 159 750 750 780
101-50-27-22-15 Special Department Supplies 59,639 56,473 58,447 54,550 56,732 101-50-27-22-20 Small Tools 58 76 1,200 1,200 1,248
22 Supplies 59,698 56,708 60,397 56,500 58,760
101-50-27-23-12 Maintenance Supplies 0 203 0 0 0
101-50-27-23-15 Maint Machine/Equipment 2,523 5,618 18,794 35,000 36,400 101-50-27-23-30 Maint Buildings/Grounds 0 41,665 148,697 134,000 139,360 101-50-27-23-50 Vehicle Alloc Expense 29,592 36,488 37,689 42,089 43,773 23 Maintenance 32,115 83,974 205,180 211,089 219,533
101-50-27-24-25 Taxes & Other Charges 21 23 200 200 214 24 Taxes, Insurances & Contributions 21 23 200 200 214
101-50-27-26-70 Capital Imp Equipment 0 0 0 4,000 4,200 26 Capital 0 0 0 4,000 4,200
27 Parks Maintenance 699,147 689,596 938,202 1,295,440 1,354,745 592 Equipment Replacement Fund
50 Public Works
592-50-27-26-30 Capital Equipment 0 0 83,000 0 0
26 Capital 0 0 83,000 0 0
27 Parks Maintenance 0 0 83,000 0 0
Grand Total 699,147 689,596 1,021,202 1,295,440 1,354,745 Budget Page 171
Agenda Item #11.1.

City Garage
Budget by Fund and Category
Fund Description FY 21 Actual FY 22 Actual FY 23 Estimated FY 24 Proposed FY 25 Proposed 582 Internal Service Garage Fund 406,212 414,261 316,590 387,788 404,897 Grand Total 406,212 414,261 316,590 387,788 404,897
Object Code Description FY 21 Actual FY 22 Actual FY 23 Estimated FY 24 Proposed FY 25 Proposed 40 Non Departmental
29 Transfers 131,034 131,034 - - -
50 Public Works
20 Salaries & Benefits 93,504 81,799 113,390 152,588 160,286 21 Services 648 - 4,000 4,000 4,160
22 Supplies 181,008 201,320 199,100 231,100 240,344
23 Maintenance - 108 - - -
24 Taxes, Insurances & Contributions 17 - 100 100 107
Grand Total 406,212 414,261 316,590 387,788 404,897
FY 24 EXPENSES BY CATEGORY FY 25 EXPENSES BY CATEGORY
39%
1%
60%
0%
Salaries & Benefits
Services
Supplies
Maintenance
Taxes, Insurances &
Contributions
40%
1%
59%
0%
Salaries & Benefits
Services
Supplies
Maintenance
Taxes, Insurances &
Contributions
Budget Page 172
Agenda Item #11.1.

Garage Budget- 5037
Account Number Description
FY 20-21
Actual
FY 21-22
Actual
FY 22-23
Amended
FY 23-24
Proposed
FY 24-25
Proposed
582 Internal Service Garage Fund
40 Non Departmental
582-40-10-29-40 Depreciation Expense 131,034 131,034 0 0 0 29 Transfers 131,034 131,034 0 0 0
10 SB2 Planning Grant 131,034 131,034 0 0 0
50 Public Works
582-50-37-20-10 Salary-Regular 55,581 46,718 65,641 87,371 91,740 582-50-37-20-25 Standby 1,005 1,380 3,857 3,857 4,050
582-50-37-20-30 Overtime 3,754 6,439 2,000 2,000 2,100
582-50-37-20-40 FICA/Medicare 4,621 4,195 5,511 7,187 7,546 582-50-37-20-45 Employer PERS 3,101 2,977 4,452 6,286 6,600 582-50-37-20-47 PERS Unfunded Liability 11,414 7,012 6,689 6,261 6,643 582-50-37-20-55 Health Insurance 10,642 11,271 22,763 35,092 36,847 582-50-37-20-61 Workers Comp 1,182 858 1,101 2,718 2,854 582-50-37-20-65 SDI 644 624 786 1,026 1,077
582-50-37-20-71 Unemployment 1,462 0 0 0 0
582-50-37-20-75 Deferred Comp 99 325 590 790 830
20 Salaries & Benefits 93,504 81,799 113,390 152,588 160,286 582-50-37-21-45 Other Contract Services 648 0 4,000 4,000 4,160 21 Services 648 0 4,000 4,000 4,160
582-50-37-22-13 Office Supplies 0 57 100 100 104
582-50-37-22-15 Special Department Supplies 744 1,546 2,500 2,500 2,600 582-50-37-22-20 Small Tools 595 217 1,500 1,500 1,560
582-50-37-22-25 Fuel/Oil 97,280 132,638 108,000 120,000 124,800 582-50-37-22-26 Outside Vehicle Maint 79,625 63,728 80,000 100,000 104,000 582-50-37-22-28 Vehicle Parts 2,765 3,135 7,000 7,000 7,280 22 Supplies 181,008 201,320 199,100 231,100 240,344
582-50-37-23-12 Maintenance Supplies 0 108 0 0 0
23 Maintenance 0 108 0 0 0
582-50-37-24-25 Taxes and Other Charges 17 0 100 100 107 24 Taxes, Insurances & Contributions 17 0 100 100 107
37 City Garage 275,178 283,227 316,590 387,788 404,897
Grand Total 406,212 414,261 316,590 387,788 404,897
Budget Page 173
Agenda Item #11.1.

Description :

DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT # OF FUNDING ANNUAL
NUMBER TITLE VEHICLES % ALLOCATION
101-47-40-23-50 Recreation 2 4.76% 16,836
101-45-00-23-50 Building Inspector 1 2.38% 8,418
101-49-00-23-50 Police 10 23.81% 84,179
101-50-00-23-50 P/W Admin 3 7.14% 25,254
101-50-15-23-50 P/W-Streets O&M 9 21.43% 75,761
101-50-27-23-50 Parks 5 11.90% 42,089
561-50-31-23-50 P/W-Water Distribution 5 11.90% 42,089
561-50-34-23-50 P/W-Water Plant 3 7.14% 25,254
571-50-20-23-50 P/W-Wastewater O&M 1 2.38% 8,418
571-50-29-23-50 P/W-Wastewater Plant 3 7.14% 25,254
TOTALS** 42 100.00% $ 353,550
582-50-37-23-50 P/W-City Garage* 2 4.76% 0
CITY OF ST. HELENA

G A R A G E C O S T A L L O C A T I O N
Fiscal Year 2023/2024
*Cost of the 2 City Garage vehicles are allocated to the departments outside of City Garage that hold the other 42 vehicles.

A Garage Cost Allocation is charged to all departments which have vehicles maintained at the City Garage. Costs include gas, oil, parts, and repairs to the city's fleet which consists of 44 vehicles and trucks.

Budget Page 174
Agenda Item #11.1.

Description :

DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT # OF FUNDING ANNUAL
NUMBER TITLE VEHICLES % ALLOCATION
101-47-40-23-50 Recreation 2 4.76% 17,509
101-45-00-23-50 Building Inspector 1 2.38% 8,755
101-49-00-23-50 Police 10 23.81% 87,546
101-50-00-23-50 P/W Admin 3 7.14% 26,264
101-50-15-23-50 P/W-Streets O&M 9 21.43% 78,791
101-50-27-23-50 Parks 5 11.90% 43,773
561-50-31-23-50 P/W-Water Distribution 5 11.90% 43,773
561-50-34-23-50 P/W-Water Plant 3 7.14% 26,264
571-50-20-23-50 P/W-Wastewater O&M 1 2.38% 8,755
571-50-29-23-50 P/W-Wastewater Plant 3 7.14% 26,264
TOTALS** 42 100.00% $ 367,694
582-50-37-23-50 P/W-City Garage* 2 4.76% 0
CITY OF ST. HELENA

G A R A G E C O S T A L L O C A T I O N
Fiscal Year 2024/2025
A Garage Cost Allocation is charged to all departments which have vehicles maintained at the City Garage. Costs include gas, oil, parts, and repairs to the city's fleet which consists of 44 vehicles and trucks.
*Cost of the 2 City Garage vehicles are allocated to the departments outside of City Garage that hold the other 42 vehicles.

Budget Page 175
Agenda Item #11.1.

Water Enterprise Fund
Enterprise Funds are used to account for operations that are financed and operated in a manner similar to private business enterprises where the intent of the City is that the costs of providing goods or services are recovered primarily through user charges. The Water Fund includes:

Water Enterprise Utility Fund (561) – accounts for activities relating to the operation of the City’s water system including water distribution and treatment.

Water Capital Projects (763) – used to account for costs associated with large capital projects of the Water Fund.

Water Impact Fees (764) – accounts for connection charges paid by new users of the water system. Fees collected are to be used for future impacted Water System Capital Improvements.

Budget Page 176
Agenda Item #11.1.

Water (5031, 5032,5034)
Budget 2023-24
Purpose
• Water Distribution (5031) - The Water Distribution Division is responsible for the distribution portion of the water system, providing water to users at all times at pressures and quantities required. This Division has one Supervisor, one Lead worker, and two maintenance workers that maintain all water distribution piping and facilities within the system. The Water Distribution Division also performs all meter readings, provides customer service, responds to complaints and requests, performs fire hydrant maintenance, water leak repairs, as well as enforcement of the Cross-Connection control ordinance. Funding for this Division comes from water user fees, and connection fees, or impact fees. • Stonebridge Wells (5032) - The Stonebridge Wells Division in the Public Works Department is within the Water Enterprise Fund. This Division provides for the operation and maintenance of the two Stonebridge Wells. Groundwater from the two wells normally provides up to 20% of the City’s annual water supply. The treatment facilities provide for filtration and chlorination. This Division is staffed by water treatment personnel and costs include utilities, phone line, processing chemicals, and certain capital equipment. Funding is provided by user charges. The FY 2019-20 budget moved all costs associated with the Stonebridge Wells into Water Distribution. • Water Treatment (5034) - The Water Treatment Division in the Public Works Department is contained within the Water Enterprise Fund. This Division provides water from Bell Canyon Reservoir, the Stonebridge Wells, and outside sources as necessary. It is staffed by three State licensed water treatment operators, two of which are also licensed in wastewater treatment and provide standby operation of the Wastewater Treatment Plant. This Division is responsible for monthly, quarterly, and annual monitoring of all water quality aspects of the system. The treatment plant annually produces more than 500 million gallons of potable water in conformance with State water quality standards.

Funding for this division comes primarily from impact and user fees.

Budget Page 177
Agenda Item #11.1.

WATER FUND ESTIMATED REVENUES FY 2023-24 and FY 2024-25 Account Number Description Actual Actual Actual Adjusted Proposed Proposed Water Enterprise FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 561-31-70-00-00 Investment Earnings 125,900 56,516 19,437 54,753 50,000 52,000 561-33-80-00-00 Engineering Fees - - - 1,000
561-33-83-00-00 Raw Water Permit Fees 1,164 300 350 1,000 400 416 561-33-85-00-00 Water Conservation Fines - - (23,838) - - - 561-33-87-00-00 Backflow Testing & Insp Fees - - - 150 - - 561-34-51-00-00 Sale Of Capital Asset - 892 1,038 - - - 561-34-70-00-00 Other Revenue 4,392 1,559 11,539 8,500 3,000 3,120 561-34-71-00-00 Water Emergency Penalties - 672,180 2,274,907 - - - 561-38-10-00-00 Water Revenue 493 548 2 1,500 670 723 561-38-10-00-01 Residential-Inside CL 2,921,299 3,238,580 2,687,157 3,170,034 4,143,305 4,689,611 561-38-10-00-50 Residential-Outside CL 574,043 437,689 274,676 304,462 421,311 476,862 561-38-10-01-00 Multi-Dwelling-Inside CL 662,325 709,753 621,624 708,392 1,015,327 1,149,201 561-38-10-01-50 Multi Dwelling-Outside CL 21,075 11,887 4,280 4,882 6,529 7,389 561-38-10-10-00 General Commercial-Inside CL 2,004,185 1,961,800 1,948,432 2,150,624 2,895,767 3,277,581 561-38-10-17-00 Landscape Meter 249,387 196,379 139,288 160,385 205,915 233,066 561-38-10-99-10 Fire Service-Inside CL 22,923 45,605 46,075 51,497 71,793 81,259 561-38-10-99-20 Fire Service-Outside CL 12,014 11,507 10,927 12,161 16,786 18,999 561-38-10-99-50 Finance Charges 38,163 (1,339) - 18,000 18,000 18,000 561-38-40-00-00 Property Rentals 8,400 - - - - - 561-38-60-00-00 Water Meter Install Fee 4,875 5,396 12,956 5,500 5,500 5,500 561-37-70-00-00 CARE Subsidy (18,994) (27,733) (29,091) (27,000) (47,000) (47,000) TOTALS 6,631,646 7,321,519 7,999,759 6,625,840 8,807,303 9,966,726 6,631,646
7,321,519 7,050,779
6,625,840
8,807,303
9,966,726
-
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025
Water Enterprise
Budget Page 178
Agenda Item #11.1.

BUDGET EXPENSES WATER
Department Description FY 21 Actual FY 22 Actual FY 23 Estimated FY 24 Proposed FY 25 Proposed 4000 Non Departmental 1,201,805 1,710,398 1,253,312 1,084,234 1,094,159 4100 Council 16,480 14,811 21,927 25,576 26,706
4200 Administration 291,200 185,061 305,242 350,138 367,868 4300 Administrative Services 351,074 510,744 723,326 610,606 639,097 4400 Attorney 208,718 425,890 159,500 159,500 165,880
5000 Public Works Admin 1,032,332 746,806 1,119,876 1,217,051 1,272,501 5006 Government Buildings - - 49,000 49,000 50,960
5015 Streets - - 33,400 33,400 34,736
3,101,609 3,593,710 3,665,583 3,529,505 3,651,908
Department Description FY 21 Actual FY 22 Actual FY 23 Estimated FY 24 Proposed FY 25 Proposed 5031 Distribution 719,634 847,046 940,754 995,476 1,040,604 5034 Water Treatment 2,138,057 1,441,237 3,917,252 4,188,589 3,364,829 2,857,691 2,288,283 4,858,006 5,184,065 4,405,433
FY 2023-24 WATER FUND ESTIMATED FUND BALANCE 561 ONLY
3,453,679
8,807,303
(8,713,570)
(93,733)
3,453,679
40%
FY 2024-25 WATER FUND ESTIMATED FUND BALANCE 561 ONLY
3,453,679
9,966,726
(8,057,341)
(1,909,385)
3,453,679
43%
Estimated Expenses @ 6/30/2025
Excess for Capital Contribution
Estimated Net Position @ 6/30/2025
Percent of Expenses
Estimated Expenses @ 6/30/2024
Excess for Capital Contribution
Estimated Net Position @ 6/30/2024
Percent of Expenses
Estimated Ending Fund Balance @ 6/30/2024
Estimated Revenues @ 6/30/2025
Grand Total
Grand Total

WATER FUND - BUDGET ITEMS PREVIOUSLY ACCOUNTED FOR IN INDIVIDUAL DEPARTMENT BUDGETS

WATER FUND - DISTRIBUTION AND TREATMENT
Estimated Ending Fund Balance @ 6/30/2023
Estimated Revenues @ 6/30/2024
Budget Page 179
Agenda Item #11.1.

Water Distribution
Expenses by Fund and Category
Fund Description FY 21 Actual FY 22 Actual FY 23 Estimated FY 24 Proposed FY 25 Proposed 561 Water Enterprise 719,634 847,046 940,754 995,476 1,040,604 Grand Total 719,634 847,046 940,754 995,476 1,040,604
Object Code Description FY 21 Actual FY 22 Actual FY 23 Estimated FY 24 Proposed FY 25 Proposed 50 Public Works
20 Salaries & Benefits 350,556 278,505 491,701 424,237 445,657 21 Services 206,859 229,287 223,464 281,600 292,864
22 Supplies 60,891 85,027 84,650 84,650 88,036
23 Maintenance 85,136 192,481 96,039 120,089 124,893
24 Taxes, Insurances & Contributions - - 500 500 535
26 Capital 16,192 61,747 44,400 84,400 88,620
Grand Total 719,634 847,046 940,754 995,476 1,040,604
FY 24 EXPENSES BY CATEGORY FY 25 EXPENSES BY CATEGORY
43%
28%
9%
12%
0%
8% Salaries & Benefits
Services
Supplies
Maintenance
Taxes, Insurances &
Contributions
Capital
43%
28%
8%
12%
0%
9% Salaries & Benefits
Services
Supplies
Maintenance
Taxes, Insurances &
Contributions
Capital
Budget Page 180
Agenda Item #11.1.

Water Distribution Budget- 5031
Account Number Description
FY 20-21
Actual
FY 21-22
Actual
FY 22-23
Amended
FY 23-24
Proposed
FY 24-25
Proposed
561 Water Enterprise
50 Public Works
561-50-31-20-10 Salary-Regular 193,736 151,026 232,485 263,159 276,317 561-50-31-20-20 Temp/Part Time 0 13,837 85,786 0 0
561-50-31-20-25 Standby 4,460 3,000 3,857 3,857 4,050
561-50-31-20-30 Overtime 18,160 9,324 11,650 11,650 12,233 561-50-31-20-40 FICA/Medicare 17,402 13,413 19,109 21,456 22,529 561-50-31-20-45 Employer PERS 12,756 10,259 16,428 18,955 19,903 561-50-31-20-47 PERS Unfunded Liability 29,341 25,061 24,554 18,877 20,029 561-50-31-20-55 Health Insurance 59,474 40,722 82,132 67,651 71,034 561-50-31-20-61 Workers Comp 11,824 8,581 11,006 13,591 14,271 561-50-31-20-65 SDI 2,489 2,027 2,728 3,065 3,218
561-50-31-20-75 Deferred Comp 915 1,253 1,966 1,976 2,075 20 Salaries & Benefits 350,556 278,505 491,701 424,237 445,657 561-50-31-21-10 Communications 4,363 4,637 4,600 4,600 4,784 561-50-31-21-22 Utilities 132,968 133,649 130,500 130,500 135,720 561-50-31-21-25 Equipment Rental 60,437 3,433 23,000 23,000 23,920 561-50-31-21-45 Other Contract Services 4,697 84,442 51,864 110,000 114,400 561-50-31-21-53 Memberships & Publications 223 0 500 500 520 561-50-31-21-55 Training & Conference 2,928 2,291 10,000 10,000 10,400 561-50-31-21-57 Certifications 961 635 2,500 2,500 2,600 561-50-31-21-60 Other Travel 282 200 500 500 520
21 Services 206,859 229,287 223,464 281,600 292,864
561-50-31-22-12 Computer Equipment 43 0 0 0 0
561-50-31-22-13 Office Supplies 270 122 500 500 520
561-50-31-22-15 Special Department Supplies 23,770 50,856 27,000 27,000 28,080 561-50-31-22-19 Meters/Hydrants 20,830 22,701 23,000 23,000 23,920 561-50-31-22-20 Small Tools 877 5,083 5,000 5,000 5,200 561-50-31-22-35 Process Chemicals 13,600 5,651 24,150 24,150 25,116 561-50-31-22-37 Lab Supplies 1,500 614 5,000 5,000 5,200 22 Supplies 60,891 85,027 84,650 84,650 88,036
561-50-31-23-12 Maintenance Supplies 44,399 52,327 40,350 60,000 62,400 561-50-31-23-15 Maint Machine/Equipment 2,346 103,204 18,000 18,000 18,720 561-50-31-23-30 Maint Buildings/Grounds 8,798 462 0 0 0 561-50-31-23-50 Vehicle Alloc Expense 29,592 36,488 37,689 42,089 43,773 23 Maintenance 85,136 192,481 96,039 120,089 124,893
561-50-31-24-25 Taxes & Other Charges 0 0 500 500 535
24 Taxes, Insurances & Contributions 0 0 500 500 535
561-50-31-26-30 Capital Equipment 16,192 61,747 44,400 84,400 88,620 26 Capital 16,192 61,747 44,400 84,400 88,620
31 Water Distribution 719,634 847,046 940,754 995,476 1,040,604 Grand Total 719,634 847,046 940,754 995,476 1,040,604
Budget Page 181
Agenda Item #11.1.

Water Treatment
Expenses by Fund and Category
Fund Description FY 21 Actual FY 22 Actual FY 23 Estimated FY 24 Proposed FY 25 Proposed 561 Water Enterprise 2,138,057 1,441,237 3,917,252 4,188,589 3,364,829 Grand Total 2,138,057 1,441,237 3,917,252 4,188,589 3,364,829 Object Code Description FY 21 Actual FY 22 Actual FY 23 Estimated FY 24 Proposed FY 25 Proposed 50 Public Works
20 Salaries & Benefits 463,647 1,104,456 1,697,265 622,350 653,804 21 Services 143,072 113,422 211,759 1,389,000 444,560
22 Supplies 1,333,163 1,162,913 1,821,401 1,879,585 1,954,768 23 Maintenance 97,096 64,702 116,476 124,054 129,016
24 Taxes, Insurances & Contributions 15,045 19,021 20,000 20,000 21,400 26 Capital 86,034 224,287 50,350 153,600 161,280
29 Transfers - (1,247,562) - - -
Grand Total 2,138,057 1,441,237 3,917,252 4,188,589 3,364,829 FY 24 EXPENSES BY CATEGORY FY 25 EXPENSES BY CATEGORY
15%
33%
45%
3%0%4%
Salaries & Benefits
Services
Supplies
Maintenance
Taxes, Insurances &
Contributions
Capital
19%
13%
58%
4%1% 5%
Salaries & Benefits
Services
Supplies
Maintenance
Taxes, Insurances &
Contributions
Capital
Budget Page 182
Agenda Item #11.1.

Water Treatment Budget- 5034
Account Number Description
FY 20-21
Actual
FY 21-22
Actual
FY 22-23
Amended
FY 23-24
Proposed
FY 24-25
Proposed
561 Water Enterprise
50 Public Works
561-50-34-20-10 Salary-Regular 89,497 15,572 197,408 371,287 389,851 561-50-34-20-20 Temp/Part Time 244,154 1,038,425 1,336,329 0 0 561-50-34-20-25 Standby 5,735 460 8,330 8,330 8,747
561-50-34-20-30 Overtime 18,772 2,587 16,445 16,445 17,267 561-50-34-20-40 FICA/Medicare 8,723 1,432 17,103 30,455 31,978 561-50-34-20-45 Employer PERS 4,935 992 13,842 30,730 32,267 561-50-34-20-47 PERS Unfunded Liability 49,346 31,464 20,689 30,604 32,471 561-50-34-20-55 Health Insurance 27,669 3,757 74,730 112,500 118,125 561-50-34-20-61 Workers Comp 13,022 9,439 8,438 15,403 16,173 561-50-34-20-65 SDI 1,212 213 2,444 4,357 4,575
561-50-34-20-71 Unemployment 487 0 0 0 0
561-50-34-20-75 Deferred Comp 94 114 1,507 2,239 2,351
20 Salaries & Benefits 463,647 1,104,456 1,697,265 622,350 653,804 561-50-34-21-10 Communications 7,482 8,199 6,950 15,000 15,600 561-50-34-21-22 Utilities 65,629 63,827 85,000 105,000 109,200 561-50-34-21-25 Equipment Rental 2,912 13,454 2,000 60,000 62,400 561-50-34-21-45 Other Contract Services 66,347 27,147 108,809 1,200,000 248,000 561-50-34-21-53 Memberships & Publications 391 440 1,500 1,500 1,560 561-50-34-21-55 Training & Conference 313 354 6,000 6,000 6,240 561-50-34-21-57 Certifications 0 0 1,500 1,500 1,560
21 Services 143,072 113,422 211,759 1,389,000 444,560
561-50-34-22-12 Computer Equipment 0 12,586 0 15,000 15,600 561-50-34-22-13 Office Supplies 440 623 500 500 520
561-50-34-22-15 Special Department Supplies 3,157 14,247 8,000 20,000 20,800 561-50-34-22-20 Small Tools 703 237 850 2,500 2,600
561-50-34-22-25 Fuel/Oil 1,124 3,249 5,000 5,000 5,200
561-50-34-22-32 Purchase Water 1,238,825 1,028,272 1,700,000 1,716,585 1,785,248 561-50-34-22-35 Process Chemicals 74,741 83,089 87,051 90,000 93,600 561-50-34-22-37 Lab Supplies 14,174 20,610 20,000 30,000 31,200 22 Supplies 1,333,163 1,162,913 1,821,401 1,879,585 1,954,768 561-50-34-23-11 Maint Office Equip 0 0 7,800 7,800 8,112 561-50-34-23-12 Maintenance Supplies 12,266 7,356 6,000 6,000 6,240 561-50-34-23-15 Maint Machine/Equipment 49,021 24,475 65,062 70,000 72,800 561-50-34-23-30 Maint Buildings/Grounds 18,054 10,978 15,000 15,000 15,600 561-50-34-23-50 Vehicle Alloc Expense 17,755 21,893 22,614 25,254 26,264 23 Maintenance 97,096 64,702 116,476 124,054 129,016
561-50-34-24-25 Taxes & Other Charges 15,045 19,021 20,000 20,000 21,400 24 Taxes, Insurances & Contributions 15,045 19,021 20,000 20,000 21,400 561-50-34-26-30 Capital Equipment 6,353 6,353 6,600 6,600 6,930 561-50-34-26-70 Capital Imp Equipment 79,681 217,934 43,750 147,000 154,350 26 Capital 86,034 224,287 50,350 153,600 161,280
561-50-34-29-20 Fixed Asset Adjustments 0 -1,247,562 0 0 0 29 Transfers 0 -1,247,562 0 0 0
34 Water Treatment 2,138,057 1,441,237 3,917,252 4,188,589 3,364,829 Grand Total 2,138,057 1,441,237 3,917,252 4,188,589 3,364,829 Budget Page 183
Agenda Item #11.1.

Wastewater Enterprise Fund
Enterprise Funds are used to account for operations that are financed and operated in a manner similar to private business enterprises where the intent of the City is that the costs of providing goods & services are recovered primarily through user charges. The fund includes:

Wastewater Enterprise Utility Fund (571) – accounts for sewage collection and treatment activities associated with the City’s water system.

Wastewater Capital Projects (773) – used to account for costs associated with large capital projects of the sewer fund.

Wastewater Impact Fees (774) – accounts for connection charges paid by new users of the sewer system. Fees collected are to be used for the costs of constructing and improving theWastewater Treatment Plant and Sewer Collection System only
Budget Page 184
Agenda Item #11.1.

Wastewater (5020, 5029)
Budget 2023-24
Purpose
• Wastewater Collection (5020) - The Wastewater Collection (Sewer) Division of the Public Works Department operates and maintains the wastewater collection system and related equipment throughout the City. Staffing and equipment for this Division has historically been shared with Streets and Storm Drains. An ongoing maintenance program includes sewer main and lateral lining to reduce root maintenance and infiltration/inflow to the system. The user fees from Sewer Enterprise Fund provide the Division’s funding. Capital improvements are described and funded separately. • Wastewater Treatment (5029) - The Wastewater Treatment Plant Division in the Public Works Department is responsible for the treatment and disposition of the City's wastewater. During the dry season, the Wastewater Treatment Plant treats an average of approximately 0.4 million gallons per day (MGD). Peak winter flows exceed 3 MGD. The facility is operated by three State certified wastewater treatment operators with additional staffing from crosscertified Water Treatment Plant personnel.

The Budget Unit is primarily funded by wastewater user fees.

Budget Page 185
Agenda Item #11.1.

WASTEWATER FUND ESTIMATED REVENUES FY 2023-24 and FY 2024-25 Account Number Description Actual Actual Actual Adjusted Proposed Proposed Sewer Enterprise FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 571-31-70-00-00 Investment Earnings 51,152 30,836 10,534 50,392 30,000 31,200 571-32-80-00-00 Emergency Relief 23,558 - - - - - 571-34-51-00-00 Sale of Capital Assets - 15,613 6,050 - - - 571-34-70-00-00 Other Revenue 12,650 12,446 10,355 9,600 9,600 9,984 571-34-80-00-00 Annexation Fees 3,300 11,635 4,788 2,600 - - 571-35-00-00-00 Residential 1,465,699 1,602,394 1,540,991 1,503,230 2,152,298 2,370,060 571-35-00-01-00 Multiple Dwelling 255,373 289,829 269,950 267,757 333,161 366,870 571-35-00-03-00 Laundromat 12,939 14,692 17,699 17,485 21,809 24,016 571-35-00-10-00 General Commercial 1,162,135 1,226,551 1,195,501 1,213,885 1,769,969 1,949,048 571-35-00-11-00 Restaurants 102,175 89,780 103,000 106,155 140,397 154,601 571-35-00-12-00 Service Station 2,820 5,362 2,922 3,216 3,172 3,492 571-35-00-14-00 Motels-No Food Service 104,821 80,110 146,906 141,570 186,416 205,277 571-35-00-15-00 Supermarkets 14,862 12,868 13,273 13,581 18,080 19,909 571-35-00-18-00 Mixed Retial-Plus Food Service 16,256 15,313 17,412 17,370 23,718 26,117 571-35-00-20-00 Industrial 19,733 18,035 21,587 22,276 30,954 34,086 571-35-00-30-00 Libraries & Schools 40,082 35,033 19,192 23,689 32,120 35,370 571-35-00-60-60 Car Wash 2,058 1,981 1,908 2,057 2,127 2,342 571-38-10-99-50 Finance Charges 13,444 (657) - - 9,500 9,500 571-38-65-00-00 Sewer Connection Fee 1,300 3,900 - 1,300 1,300 1,352 571-38-70-00-00 CARE Subsidy (13,308) (19,738) (20,086) (20,100) (20,100) (20,100) TOTALS 3,291,048 3,445,983 3,361,982 3,376,063 4,744,521 5,223,124 3,294,048 3,445,983 3,361,982 3,385,563
4,744,521
5,223,124
-
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025
Wastewater Enterprise
Budget Page 186
Agenda Item #11.1.

BUDGET EXPENSES WASTEWATER
Department Description FY 21 Actual FY 22 Actual FY 23 Estimated FY 24 Proposed FY 25 Proposed 4000 Non Departmental 613,840 992,692 538,689 998,878 1,010,347 4100 Council 16,480 14,811 21,927 25,576 26,706
4200 Administration 206,431 124,333 206,029 235,861 247,692 4300 Administrative Services 259,425 343,445 584,438 472,914 494,731 4400 Attorney 7,869 11,349 26,500 126,500 131,560
5000 Public Works Admin 805,343 393,939 742,077 682,534 714,226 5006 Government Buildings - - 49,000 49,000 50,960
5015 Streets - - 33,400 33,400 34,736
1,909,388 1,880,568 2,202,059 2,624,662 2,710,958
Department Description FY 21 Actual FY 22 Actual FY 23 Estimated FY 24 Proposed FY 25 Proposed 5020 Collections 240,219 234,164 559,971 664,509 694,391 5029 Water Treatment 800,513 991,841 1,734,278 1,816,919 1,577,876 1,040,732 1,226,005 2,294,249 2,481,428 2,272,267
FY 2023-24 WASTEWATER FUND ESTIMATED FUND BALANCE 571 ONLY 2,180,289
4,744,521
(5,106,090)
(361,569)
1,818,720
36%
FY 2023-24 WASTEWATER FUND ESTIMATED FUND BALANCE 571 ONLY 1,818,720
5,223,124
(4,983,225)
(239,899)
1,818,720
36%
Estimated Revenues @ 6/30/2024
Grand Total
Grand Total

WASTEWATER FUND - BUDGET ITEMS PREVIOUSLY ACCOUNTED FOR IN INDIVIDUAL DEPARTMENT BUDGETS

WASTEWATER FUND - COLLECTIONS AND TREATMENT
Estimated Ending Fund Balance @ 6/30/2023
Estimated Expenses @ 6/30/2025
Excess for Capital Contribution
Estimated Net Position @ 6/30/2025
Percent of Expenses
Estimated Expenses @ 6/30/2024
Use of Fund Balance
Estimated Net Position @ 6/30/2024
Percent of Expenses
Estimated Ending Fund Balance @ 6/30/2024
Estimated Revenues @ 6/30/2025
Budget Page 187
Agenda Item #11.1.

Wastewater Collections
Expenses by Fund and Category
Fund Description FY 21 Actual FY 22 Actual FY 23 Estimated FY 24 Proposed FY 25 Proposed 571 Sewer Enterprise 240,219 234,164 559,971 664,509 694,391 Grand Total 240,219 234,164 559,971 664,509 694,391
Object Code Description FY 21 Actual FY 22 Actual FY 23 Estimated FY 24 Proposed FY 25 Proposed 50 Public Works
20 Salaries & Benefits 180,991 137,911 201,933 211,091 221,749 21 Services 12,278 17,596 223,400 235,900 245,336
22 Supplies 11,986 13,895 37,900 37,900 39,416
23 Maintenance 25,623 50,677 70,038 70,918 73,755
26 Capital 9,342 14,084 26,700 108,700 114,135
Grand Total 240,219 234,164 559,971 664,509 694,391
FY 24 EXPENSES BY CATEGORY FY 25 EXPENSES BY CATEGORY
32%
35%
6%
11%
16%
Salaries & Benefits
Services
Supplies
Maintenance
Capital
32%
35%
6%
11%
16%
Salaries & Benefits
Services
Supplies
Maintenance
Capital
Budget Page 188
Agenda Item #11.1.

Wastewater Collection Budget- 5020
Account Number Description
FY 20-21
Actual
FY 21-22
Actual
FY 22-23
Amended
FY 23-24
Proposed
FY 24-25
Proposed
571 Sewer Enterprise
50 Public Works
571-50-20-20-10 Salary-Regular 102,810 81,048 116,203 131,537 138,114 571-50-20-20-25 Standby 2,210 1,500 3,857 3,857 4,050
571-50-20-20-30 Overtime 9,041 4,662 3,000 3,000 3,150
571-50-20-20-40 FICA/Medicare 8,739 6,706 9,483 10,656 11,189 571-50-20-20-45 Employer PERS 6,427 5,130 8,211 9,475 9,949 571-50-20-20-47 PERS Unfunded Liability 14,670 12,527 12,273 9,436 10,012 571-50-20-20-55 Health Insurance 29,475 20,361 41,066 33,825 35,516 571-50-20-20-61 Workers Comp 5,912 4,291 5,503 6,795 7,135 571-50-20-20-65 SDI 1,249 1,014 1,354 1,522 1,598
571-50-20-20-75 Deferred Comp 458 673 983 988 1,037
20 Salaries & Benefits 180,991 137,911 201,933 211,091 221,749 571-50-20-21-10 Communications 94 274 400 400 416
571-50-20-21-22 Utilities 2,759 3,450 5,000 5,000 5,200 571-50-20-21-25 Equipment Rental 4,330 9,198 17,500 40,000 41,600 571-50-20-21-45 Other Contract Services 1,684 1,050 185,000 175,000 182,000 571-50-20-21-53 Memberships & Publications 402 1,894 5,000 5,000 5,200 571-50-20-21-55 Training & Conference 582 1,065 8,000 8,000 8,320 571-50-20-21-57 Certifications 2,427 666 2,500 2,500 2,600 21 Services 12,278 17,596 223,400 235,900 245,336
571-50-20-22-13 Office Supplies 90 57 100 100 104
571-50-20-22-15 Special Department Supplies 11,896 13,655 35,000 35,000 36,400 571-50-20-22-20 Small Tools 0 183 2,800 2,800 2,912
22 Supplies 11,986 13,895 37,900 37,900 39,416
571-50-20-23-12 Maintenance Supplies 7,425 14,883 25,000 25,000 26,000 571-50-20-23-15 Maint Machine/Equipment 12,279 28,496 37,500 37,500 39,000 571-50-20-23-50 Vehicle Alloc Expense 5,918 7,298 7,538 8,418 8,755 23 Maintenance 25,623 50,677 70,038 70,918 73,755
571-50-20-26-30 Capital Equipment 9,342 14,084 26,700 108,700 114,135 26 Capital 9,342 14,084 26,700 108,700 114,135
20 Sewer Collections 240,219 234,164 559,971 664,509 694,391 Grand Total 240,219 234,164 559,971 664,509 694,391
Budget Page 189
Agenda Item #11.1.

Wastewater Treatment
Expenses by Fund and Category
Fund Description FY 21 Actual FY 22 Actual FY 23 Estimated FY 24 Proposed FY 25 Proposed 571 Sewer Enterprise 800,513 991,841 1,734,278 1,816,919 1,577,877 Grand Total 800,513 991,841 1,734,278 1,816,919 1,577,877 Object Code Description FY 21 Actual FY 22 Actual FY 23 Estimated FY 24 Proposed FY 25 Proposed 50 Public Works
20 Salaries & Benefits 479,782 595,872 931,498 598,115 628,330 21 Services 173,165 200,688 423,541 730,050 440,252
22 Supplies 69,316 72,433 191,925 261,000 271,440
23 Maintenance 61,980 103,745 132,314 172,754 179,664
24 Taxes, Insurances & Contributions 16,271 14,464 22,000 22,000 23,540 26 Capital - 4,639 33,000 33,000 34,650
Grand Total 800,513 991,841 1,734,278 1,816,919 1,577,877 FY 24 EXPENSES BY CATEGORY FY 25 EXPENSES BY CATEGORY
33%
40%
14%
10%
1%2%
Salaries & Benefits
Services
Supplies
Maintenance
Taxes, Insurances &
Contributions
Capital
40%
28%
17%
11%
2%
2%
Salaries & Benefits
Services
Supplies
Maintenance
Taxes, Insurances &
Contributions
Capital
Budget Page 190
Agenda Item #11.1.

Wastewater Treatment Budget- 5029
Account Number Description
FY 20-21
Actual
FY 21-22
Actual
FY 22-23
Amended
FY 23-24
Proposed
FY 24-25
Proposed
571 Sewer Enterprise
50 Public Works
571-50-29-20-10 Salary-Regular 240,768 125,310 186,774 371,733 390,320 571-50-29-20-20 Temp/Part Time 41,488 328,755 596,554 0 0 571-50-29-20-25 Standby 11,930 12,660 8,330 8,330 8,747 571-50-29-20-30 Overtime 22,578 14,548 13,500 13,500 14,175 571-50-29-20-40 FICA/Medicare 21,826 12,364 16,064 30,264 31,777 571-50-29-20-45 Employer PERS 15,643 8,213 12,153 28,273 29,687 571-50-29-20-47 PERS Unfunded Liability 35,848 29,511 18,164 28,156 29,874 571-50-29-20-55 Health Insurance 71,711 45,900 67,719 95,888 100,682 571-50-29-20-61 Workers Comp 13,022 15,613 8,438 15,403 16,173 571-50-29-20-65 SDI 3,029 1,874 2,295 4,329 4,545
571-50-29-20-71 Unemployment 487 0 0 0 0
571-50-29-20-75 Deferred Comp 1,453 1,122 1,507 2,239 2,351 20 Salaries & Benefits 479,782 595,872 931,498 598,115 628,330 571-50-29-21-10 Communications 2,637 2,612 4,000 4,000 4,160 571-50-29-21-15 Postage 0 75 50 50 52
571-50-29-21-22 Utilities 122,824 107,973 95,645 143,000 148,720 571-50-29-21-25 Equipment Rental 0 7,882 32,919 100,000 104,000 571-50-29-21-43 Fines & Penalties 0 -483 177,000 0 0
571-50-29-21-45 Other Contract Services 47,704 81,449 108,428 475,000 494,000 571-50-29-21-53 Memberships & Publications 0 0 1,500 1,500 1,560 571-50-29-21-55 Training & Conference 0 1,054 2,500 5,000 5,200 571-50-29-21-57 Certifications 0 125 1,500 1,500 1,560
21 Services 173,165 200,688 423,541 730,050 759,252
571-50-29-22-13 Office Supplies 219 461 500 500 520
571-50-29-22-15 Special Department Supplies 13,796 11,506 15,000 18,000 18,720 571-50-29-22-20 Small Tools 596 1,451 2,500 2,500 2,600 571-50-29-22-25 Fuel/Oil 3,122 7,696 5,000 10,000 10,400 571-50-29-22-35 Process Chemicals 37,885 40,417 153,925 200,000 208,000 571-50-29-22-37 Lab Supplies 13,698 10,903 15,000 30,000 31,200 22 Supplies 69,316 72,433 191,925 261,000 271,440
571-50-29-23-12 Maintenance Supplies 28,230 47,139 75,000 75,000 78,000 571-50-29-23-15 Maint Machine/Equipment 13,740 29,073 27,200 30,000 31,200 571-50-29-23-30 Maint Buildings/Grounds 2,255 5,641 7,500 42,500 44,200 571-50-29-23-50 Vehicle Alloc Expense 17,755 21,893 22,614 25,254 26,264 23 Maintenance 61,980 103,745 132,314 172,754 179,664
571-50-29-24-25 Taxes & Other Charges 16,271 14,464 22,000 22,000 23,540 24 Taxes, Insurances & Contributions 16,271 14,464 22,000 22,000 23,540 571-50-29-26-30 Capital Equipment 0 4,639 33,000 33,000 34,650 26 Capital 0 4,639 33,000 33,000 34,650
29 Sewer Maintenance Operations 800,513 991,841 1,734,278 1,816,919 1,896,877 Grand Total 800,513 991,841 1,734,278 1,816,919 1,896,877 Budget Page 191
Agenda Item #11.1.

Other Funds
Debt Service Funds: Debt service funds are used to accumulate resources for the repayment of general long term obligations. The 1996 GO Bond Fund is used to account for a special voter approved tax to repay the fire station bonds. The St.

Helena Drainage Fund is used to accumulate funds to pay for the public benefit portion of certain storm drainage improvements.

Permanent Funds: Permanent funds are used to report resources that are restricted to the extent that earnings, and non-principal, may be used to support City programs. Both Martin and Ryan Funds are trust funds wherein the income from the funds can be used to support the City’s library book collection.

Special Revenue Funds: Special revenue funds are used to account for specific revenue sources that are legally restricted to expenditure for particular purposes.

Budget Page 192
Agenda Item #11.1.

FY 20-21 FY21-22 FY 22-23 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 23-24 Actual Actual Budget Estimated Year End Proposed Proposed Budget % Change
Beginning Fund Balance (July 1) $ 407,999 $ 404,101 $ 390,951 $ 390,951 $ 616,101 $ 841,151 HOME - Revenues
Investment Earnings 178 71 150 150 50 52 0.00%
Grant - - 250,000 250,000 250,000 - 0.00%
Transfers In - - - - - - 0.00%
Total Revenues $ 178 $ 71 $ 250,150 $ 250,150 $ 250,050 $ 52 0.00% HOME - Expenditures
Totals by category
Services 4,075 13,221 25,000 25,000 25,000 26,000 0.00% Total Expenditures $ 4,075 $ 13,221 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 26,000 0.00% Surplus/(Deficit) $ (3,897) $ (13,150) $ 225,150 $ 225,150 $ 225,050 $ (25,948) Expenditures
Planning
21 Services 4,075 13,221 25,000 25,000 25,000 26,000 0.00% 4,075 13,221 25,000 25,000 25,000 26,000 0.00%
Total Expenditures $ 4,075 $ 13,221 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 26,000 0.00% Estimated Fund Balance at June 30, 2024 & 2025 $ 841,151 $ 815,203 * The Estimated Fund Balance includes and unavailable Long Term Receivable of $587,929 in Loans Due from Home Owners.

CITY OF ST. HELENA
Fund 209 - HOME Grant
209 HOME GRANT: This fund is used for expenditures and grant reimbursements through the HOME Investments Partnership Program from the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development for owner-occupied residential rehabiliation program to assist low-income homeowners whos primary residences are in need of repairs. This program is referred to as the, "Home Grant." The City of St. Helena has an agreement with the Housing Authorigy of the City of Napa for the administration of this grant.

Budget Page 193
Agenda Item #11.1.

FY 20-21 FY21-22 FY 22-23 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 23-24 Actual Actual Budget Estimated Year End Proposed Proposed Budget % Change
Beginning Fund Balance (July 1) $ 327 $ 327 $ 327 $ 327 $ 327 $ 327 DHSG - Revenues
Grant - - 400 400 400 420 0.00%
Transfers In - - - - - - 0.00%
Total DHSG Revenues $ - $ - $ 400 $ 400 $ 400 $ 420 0.00% DHSG - Expenditures
Totals by category
Supplies - - 400 400 400 416 0.00%
Total DHSG Expenditures $ - $ - $ 400 $ 400 $ 400 $ 416 0.00% DHSG Surplus/(Deficit) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 4
DHSG Expenditures
Police Department
21 Services - - 400 400 400 416 0.00%

0.00%
Total Expenditures $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 0.00% -
Estimated Fund Balance at June 30, 2024 & 2025 $ 327 $ 331 CITY OF ST. HELENA
Fund 212 - Department of Homeland Security (DHSG)
212 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT: This fund is used for expenditures and grant reimbursements for Department of Homeland Security Grant (DHSG) funded programs or projects.

Budget Page 194
Agenda Item #11.1.

FY 20-21 FY21-22 FY 22-23 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 23-24 Actual Actual Budget Estimated Year End Proposed Proposed Budget % Change
Beginning Fund Balance (July 1) $ 23,687 $ 274 $ 275 $ 275 $ 280 $ 285 DHSG - Revenues
Investment Earnings 2 1 - 5 5 5 100.00%
Grant - - - - - - 0.00%
Transfers In - - - - - - 0.00%
Total Gang Violence Suppression Revenues $ 2 $ 1 $ - $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 0.00% DHSG - Expenditures
Totals by category
Supplies 23,415 - - - - - 0.00%
Total Gang Violence Suppression Expenditures $ 23,415 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% Gang Violence Suppression Surplus/(Deficit) $ (23,413) $ 1 $ - $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 Gang Violence Suppression Expenditures
Police Department
29 Transfers 23,415 - - - - - 0.00%
23,415 - - - - - 0.00%
Total Expenditures $ 23,415 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 0.00% -
Estimated Fund Balance at June 30, 2024 & 2025 $ 285 $ 290 CITY OF ST. HELENA
Fund 213 - Gang Violence Suppression Grant
213 GANG VIOLENCE SUPPRESSION GRANT: This fund is used for expenditures and grant reimbursements for gang violence suppression.

Budget Page 195
Agenda Item #11.1.

FY 20-21 FY21-22 FY 22-23 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 23-24 Actual Actual Budget Estimated Year End Proposed Proposed Budget % Change
Beginning Fund Balance (July 1) $ 582,770 $ 596,080 $ 616,389 $ 616,389 $ 645,889 $ 675,389 Public Safety Impact Fees - Revenues
Investment Earnings 3,522 1,257 4,500 4,500 4,500 4,680 0.00% Public Safety Impact 16,527 19,863 25,000 25,000 25,000 26,000 0.00% Other Revenue - - - - - - 0.00%
Transfers In - - - - - - 0.00%
Total Public Safety Impact Fees Revenues $ 20,049 $ 21,120 $ 29,500 $ 29,500 $ 29,500 $ 30,680 0.00% Public Safety Impact Fees - Expenditures
Totals by category
Services 6,739 811 264 - - - -100.00%
Transfers - - - - - - 0.00%
Total Public Safety Impact Fees Expenditures $ 6,739 $ 811 $ 264 $ - $ - $ - -100.00% Public Safety Impact Fees Surplus/(Deficit) $ 13,310 $ 20,309 $ 29,236 $ 29,500 $ 29,500 $ 30,680 Public Safety Impact Fees Expenditures by Department
Non Department
29 Transfers - - - - - - 0.00%
- - - - - - 0.00%
Finance
21 Services 6,739 811 264 - - - -100.00%
6,739 811 264 - - - -100.00%
Public Works
21 Services - - - - - - 0.00%
- - - - - - 0.00%
Total Expenditures $ 6,739 $ 811 $ 264 $ - $ - $ -100.00% - Estimated Fund Balance at June 30, 2024 & 2025 $ 675,389 $ 706,069 *Fund Balances reflects a Notes Receivable for $61,333.

CITY OF ST. HELENA
Fund 216 - Public Safety Impact Fees Budget Worksheet
216 PUBLIC SAFETY IMPACT FEES: Section 22.5 of the City Code establishes this fund to accumulate revenues from fees on building permits to be used solely for equipment and facilities' costs for Police and the Fire Departments. Vehicles, capital equipment, and building improvements are approved uses.

Budget Page 196
Agenda Item #11.1.

FY 20-21 FY21-22 FY 22-23 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 23-24 Actual Actual Budget Estimated Year End Proposed Proposed Budget % Change
Beginning Fund Balance (July 1) $ 1,296 $ 1,305 $ 1,308 $ 1,308 $ 1,308 $ 8 Public Library Foundation - Revenues
Investment Earnings 9 3 5 - - - -100.00%
Donations - - - - - - 0.00%
Contributions from Government - - - - - - 0.00%
Total Public Library Foundation Revenues $ 9 $ 3 $ 5 $ - $ - $ - 100.00% Public Library Foundation - Expenditures
Totals by category
Services - - - - - 0.00%
Supplies - - - - - 0.00%
Capital 1,300 - 1,300 - 0.00%
Total Public Library Foundation Expenditures $ - $ - $ 1,300 $ - $ 1,300 $ - 0.00% Public Library Foundation Surplus/(Deficit) 9 3 (1,295) - (1,300) - Public Library Foundation Expenditures by Department
Library
21 Services - - - - - - 0.00%
22 Supplies - - - - - - 0.00%
26 Capital - - 1,300 - 1,300 - 0.00%
- - 1,300 - 1,300 - 0.00%
Total Expenditures $ - $ - $ 1,300 $ - $ 1,300 $ 0.00% - Estimated Fund Balance at June 30, 2024 & 2025 $ 8 $ 8
CITY OF ST. HELENA
Fund 218 - Public Library Foundation Budget Worksheet
218 PUBLIC LIBRARY FOUNDATION: This fund is used to account for State Aid for libraries and related expense account for proceeds from the State of California under the California Library Services Act and related expenditures.

Budget Page 197
Agenda Item #11.1.

FY 20-21 FY21-22 FY 22-23 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 23-24 Actual Actual Budget Estimated Year End Proposed Proposed Budget % Change
Beginning Fund Balance (July 1) $ 2,088 $ 2,102 $ 1,876 $ 1,876 $ 1,891 $ 546 California Library Services Act - Revenues
Investment Earnings 14 4 15 15 5 5 -66.67%
Allocation from Other Agency - - - - - - 0.00%
Total California Library Services Act Revenues $ 14 $ 4 $ 15 $ 15 $ 5 $ 5 -66.67% California Library Services Act - Expenditures
Totals by category
Services - - - - - - 0.00%
Supplies - 230 1,350 - 1,350 - 0.00%
Maintenance - - - - - - 0.00%
Capital - - - - - - 0.00%
Total California Library Services Act Expenditures $ - $ 230 $ 1,350 $ - $ 1,350 $ - 0.00% California Library Services Act Surplus/(Deficit) 14 (226) (1,335) 15 (1,345) 5 California Library Services Act Expenditures by Department Non Department
29 Transfers - - - - - - 0.00%
- - - - - -
Library
21 Services - - - - - - 0.00%
22 Supplies - 230 1,350 - 1,350 - 0.00%
23 Maintenance - - - - - - 0.00%
26 Capital - - - - - - 0.00%
- 230 1,350 - 1,350 - 0.00%
Total Expenditures $ - $ 230 $ 1,350 $ - $ 1,350 $ 0.00% - Estimated Fund Balance at June 30, 2024 & 2025 $ 546 $ 552 CITY OF ST. HELENA
Fund 219 - California Library Services Act Budget Worksheet 219 CLSA LIBRARY RESTORATION: This fund was established as a special revenue fund to account for proceeds from the State of California under the California Library Services Act and related expenditures.

Budget Page 198
Agenda Item #11.1.

FY 20-21 FY21-22 FY 22-23 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 23-24 Actual Actual Budget Estimated Year End Proposed Proposed Budget % Change
Beginning Fund Balance (July 1) $ 222 $ 222 $ 222 $ 222 $ 222 $ 222 Park Bond Act - Revenues
Investment Earnings - - - - - - 0.00%
Contributions form Non-Government - - - - - - 0.00%
Contributions from Government - - - - - - 0.00%
Total Park Bond Act Revenues $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% Park Bond Act - Expenditures
Totals by category
Transfers - - - - - - 0.00%
Total Park Bond Act Expenditures $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% Park Bond Act Surplus/(Deficit) - - - - -
Park Bond Act Expenditures by Department
Non Department
29 Transfers - - - - - - 0.00%
- - - - - -
Total Expenditures $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 0.00% -
Estimated Fund Balance at June 30, 2024 & 2025 $ 222 $ 222 CITY OF ST. HELENA
Fund 222 - Park Bond Act Budget Worksheet
222 PARK DEVELOPMENT: A special revenue fund for Ballpark State Grant, Proposition 12 Park per capita funding, other park grants, and park donations.

These funds are restricted for park improvements and development.

Budget Page 199
Agenda Item #11.1.

FY 20-21 FY21-22 FY 22-23 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 23-24 Actual Actual Budget Estimated Year End Proposed Proposed Budget % Change
Beginning Fund Balance (July 1) $ 154,900 $ 233,681 $ 300,951 $ 300,951 $ 314,101 $ 319,751 COPS - Revenues
Investment Earnings 1,441 641 1,550 1,550 1,550 1,612 0.00% Other - - - - - - 0.00%
Allocation from Other Agency 156,727 163,372 145,000 145,000 150,000 150,000 3.45% Total COPS Revenues $ 158,168 $ 164,013 $ 146,550 $ 146,550 $ 151,550 $ 151,612 -7.60% COPS - Expenditures
Totals by category
Services 68,826 75,110 88,400 88,400 100,900 104,936 14.14% Supplies 10,231 21,632 45,000 45,000 45,000 46,800 0.00% Capital - - - - - - 0.00%
Transfers - - - - - - 0.00%
Total COPS Expenditures $ 79,057 $ 96,742 $ 133,400 $ 133,400 $ 145,900 $ 151,736 9.37% COPS Surplus/(Deficit) 79,111 67,271 13,150 13,150 5,650 (124) COPS Expenditures by Department
Non Department
29 Transfers - - - - - - 0.00%
- - - - - - 0.00%
Police
20 Salaries & Benefits - - - - - - 0.00%
21 Services 68,826 75,110 88,400 88,400 100,900 104,936 14.14% 22 Supplies 10,231 21,632 45,000 45,000 45,000 46,800 0.00% 26 Capital - - - - - - 0.00%
79,057 96,742 133,400 133,400 145,900 151,736 9.37%
Total Expenditures $ 79,057 $ 96,742 $ 133,400 $ 133,400 $ 145,900 $ 151,736 9.37% Estimated Fund Balance at June 30, 2024 & 2025 $ 319,751 $ 319,627 CITY OF ST. HELENA
Fund 224 - COPS Budget Worksheet
224 PUBLIC SAFETY (COPS): A special revenue fund used to account for transactions related to supporting front line police officers.

Budget Page 200
Agenda Item #11.1.

FY 20-21 FY21-22 FY 22-23 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 23-24 Actual Actual Budget Estimated Year End Proposed Proposed Budget % Change
Beginning Fund Balance (July 1) -$ $ 19,294 $ 2,536 $ 2,661 $ 2,786 $ 2,836 State Gas Tax 2105 - Revenues
Investment Earnings 90 78 125 125 50 52 -60.00%
Gas Tax 2105 30,940 33,424 37,800 37,800 35,789 37,221 -5.32% Total State Gas Tax 2105 Revenues $ 31,030 $ 33,502 $ 37,925 $ 37,925 $ 35,839 $ 37,273 6.98% State Gas Tax 2105 - Expenditures
Totals by category
Services - - - - - - 0.00%
Transfers 11,736 50,260 37,800 37,800 35,789 36,147 0.00% Total State Gas Tax 2105 Expenditures $ 11,736 $ 50,260 $ 37,800 $ 37,800 $ 35,789 $ 36,147 0.00% State Gas Tax 2105 Surplus/(Deficit) 19,294 (16,758) 125 125 50 1,126 State Gas Tax 2105 Expenditures by Department
Non Department
29 Transfers 11,736 50,260 37,800 37,800 35,789 36,147 0.00% 11,736 50,260 37,800 37,800 35,789 36,147 0.00%
Public Works Gas Tax
21 Services - - - - - - 0.00%
- - - - - - 0.00%
Total Expenditures $ 11,736 $ 50,260 $ 37,800 $ 37,800 $ 35,789 $ 36,147 0.00% Estimated Fund Balance at June 30, 2024 & 2025 $ 2,836 $ 3,962 CITY OF ST. HELENA
Fund 225 - State Gas Tax 2105 Budget Worksheet
225 STATE GAS TAX 2105: This fund is used to account for proceeds and expenditures of revenue received as a result of Proposition 111. Funds are restricted for use in the same manner as Section 2106/07. In addition, Proposition 111 established a "Maintenance of Effort" provision requiring cities to continue to provide matching street related expenditures from the General Fund equal to the average amount expended over the past 3 years.

Budget Page 201
Agenda Item #11.1.

FY 20-21 FY21-22 FY 22-23 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 23-24 Actual Actual Budget Estimated Year End Proposed Proposed Budget % Change
Beginning Fund Balance (July 1) -$ $ 19,025 $ 39,210 $ 39,210 $ 39,310 $ 39,360 State Gas Tax 2106 - Revenues
Investment Earnings 56 64 100 100 50 52 -50.00%
Gas Tax 2106 18,969 20,121 21,664 21,664 21,293 22,145 -1.71% Total State Gas Tax 2106 Revenues $ 19,025 $ 20,185 $ 21,764 $ 21,764 $ 21,343 $ 22,197 -1.93% State Gas Tax 2106 - Expenditures
Totals by category
Transfers - - 21,664 21,664 21,293 21,506 0.00%
Total State Gas Tax 2106 Expenditures $ - $ - $ 21,664 $ 21,664 $ 21,293 $ 21,506 0.00% State Gas Tax 2106 Surplus/(Deficit) 19,025 20,185 100 100 50 State Gas Tax 2106 Expenditures by Department
Non Department
29 Transfers - - 21,664 21,664 21,293 21,506 0.00%
- - 21,664 21,664 21,293 21,506 0.00%
Total Expenditures $ - $ - $ 21,664 $ 21,664 $ 21,293 $ 21,506 0.00% Estimated Fund Balance at June 30, 2024 & 2025 $ 39,360 $ 39,360 CITY OF ST. HELENA
Fund 226 - State Gas Tax 2106 Budget Worksheet
226 STATE GAS TAX 2106: This fund is used to account for proceeds and expenditures of gas tax revenue received under the California Streets and Highways Code Section 2106. Apportionments are based on vehicle registration, assessed valuation, and population. Funds are restricted to any street or road purpose that include: construction, maintenance and allocated overhead related to streets, roads, bridges, culverts, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, traffic signals, right-ofway landscaping, traffic signs, bike paths adjacent to streets and roads.

Budget Page 202
Agenda Item #11.1.

FY 20-21 FY21-22 FY 22-23 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 23-24 Actual Actual Budget Estimated Year End Proposed Proposed Budget % Change
Beginning Fund Balance (July 1) $ (5,295) $ 32,956 $ 3,423 $ 5,923 $ 8,423 $ 41,410 State Gas Tax 2107 - Revenues
Investment Earnings 3,975 1,243 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,600 0.00% Gas Tax 2107 41,867 39,916 51,590 51,590 42,987 44,706 -16.68% -
Total State Gas Tax 2107 Revenues $ 45,842 $ 41,160 $ 54,090 $ 54,090 $ 45,487 $ 47,306 -15.90% State Gas Tax 2107 - Expenditures
Totals by category
Services 7,591 12,464 11,000 11,000 12,500 13,000 13.64% Transfers - 58,229 40,590 40,590 - - 0.00%
Total State Gas Tax 2107 Expenditures $ 7,591 $ 70,693 $ 51,590 $ 51,590 $ 12,500 $ 13,000 -75.77% State Gas Tax 2107 Surplus/(Deficit) 38,251 (29,534) 2,500 2,500 32,987 34,306 State Gas Tax 2107 Expenditures by Department
Non Department
29 Transfers - 58,229 40,590 40,590 - - 0.00%
- 58,229 40,590 40,590 - - 0.00%
Public Works Gas Tax
21 Services 7,591 12,464 11,000 11,000 12,500 13,000 13.64% 7,591 12,464 11,000 11,000 12,500 13,000 13.64%
Total Expenditures $ 7,591 $ 70,693 $ 51,590 $ 51,590 $ 12,500 $ 13,000 -75.77% Estimated Fund Balance at June 30, 2024 & 2025 $ 41,410 $ 75,716 CITY OF ST. HELENA
Fund 227 - State Gas Tax 2107 Budget Worksheet
227 STATE GAS TAX 2107: This fund is used to account for proceeds and expenditures of gas tax revenue received under the California Streets and Highways Code Section 2107. Apportionments are based on population. Uses of funds are the same as those listed for fund 225.

Budget Page 203
Agenda Item #11.1.

FY 20-21 FY21-22 FY 22-23 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 23-24 Actual Actual Budget Estimated Year End Proposed Proposed Budget % Change
Beginning Fund Balance (July 1) $ 6,512 $ 8,569 $ 10,594 $ 10,594 $ 10,694 $ 10,744 State Gas Tax 2107.5 - Revenues
Investment Earnings 57 25 100 100 50 52 -50.00%
Gas Tax 2107.5 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,080 0.00% Total State Gas Tax 2107.5 Revenues $ 2,057 $ 2,025 $ 2,100 $ 2,100 $ 2,050 $ 2,132 -2.38% State Gas Tax 2107.5 - Expenditures
Totals by category
Transfers - - 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,020 0.00%
Total State Gas Tax 2107.5 Expenditures $ - $ - $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 2,020 0.00% State Gas Tax 2107.5 Surplus/(Deficit) 2,057 2,025 100 100 50 112 State Gas Tax 2107.5 Expenditures by Department
Non Department
29 Transfers - - 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,020 0.00%
- - 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,020 0.00%
Total Expenditures $ - $ - $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 2,020 0.00% Estimated Fund Balance at June 30, 2024 & 2025 $ 10,744 $ 10,856 CITY OF ST. HELENA
Fund 228 - State Gas Tax 2107.5 Budget Worksheet
228 STATE GAS TAX 2107.5: This fund is used to account for proceeds and expenditures of gas tax revenue received under the California Streets and Highway Code Section 2107.5. Apportionments are based on population. Funds are restricted for use in covering the costs of street related engineering and administrative expenses. Cities with a population of less than 10,000 may use these funds for acquisition of rights-of-way and construction of its street system.

Budget Page 204
Agenda Item #11.1.

FY 20-21 FY21-22 FY 22-23 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 23-24 Actual Actual Budget Estimated Year End Proposed Proposed Budget % Change
Beginning Fund Balance (July 1) $ 60,098 $ 101,146 $ 106,877 $ 107,377 $ 107,877 $ 108,377 State Gas Tax 2103 - Revenues
Investment Earnings 531 288 500 500 500 520 0.00%
Gas Tax 2103 40,517 47,707 54,560 54,560 54,045 56,207 -0.94% Total State Gas Tax 2103 Revenues $ 41,048 $ 47,994 $ 55,060 $ 55,060 $ 54,545 $ 56,727 -0.94% State Gas Tax 2103 - Expenditures
Totals by category
Transfers - 42,263 54,560 54,560 54,045 54,585 0.00%
Total State Gas Tax 2103 Expenditures $ - $ 42,263 $ 54,560 $ 54,560 $ 54,045 $ 54,585 0.00% State Gas Tax 2103 Surplus/(Deficit) $ 41,048 $ 5,731 $ 500 $ 500 $ 500 $ 2,142 State Gas Tax 2103 Expenditures by Department
Non Department
29 Transfers - 42,263 54,560 54,560 54,045 54,585 0.00% - 42,263 54,560 54,560 54,045 54,585 0.00%
Total Expenditures -$ $ 42,263 $ 54,560 $ 54,560 $ 54,045 $ 54,585 0.00% Estimated Fund Balance at June 30, 2024 & 2025 $ 108,377 $ 110,519 CITY OF ST. HELENA
Fund 229 - State Gas Tax 2103 Budget Worksheet
229 STATE GAS TAX 2103: Section 2103 was added beginning with the 2010-11 fiscal year to allocate funds from a new motor vehicle fuel excise tax that replaces previous city and county allocations from the Proposition 42 sales tax on gasoline. This is the change known as the “fuel tax swap of 2010.” Section 2103 funds are allocated to cities and counties on a per capita basis. Funds must be used for street and highway pavement maintenance, rehabilitation, reconstruction and storm damage repair. For Proposition 42 purposes, maintenance means patching, overlay, and sealing. Reconstruction includes overlay, sealing, or widening of the roadway to bring the roadway width to the desirable minimum pavement width consistent with accepted design standards for local streets and roads. However, widening of a roadway does not include widening for increasing the traffic capacity of a street or road.

Budget Page 205
Agenda Item #11.1.

FY 20-21 FY21-22 FY 22-23 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 23-24 Actual Actual Budget Estimated Year End Proposed Proposed Budget % Change
Beginning Fund Balance (July 1) $ 2,686 $ 111,337 $ 1,115 $ 1,565 $ 2,015 $ 2,465 RMRA - Revenues
Investment Earnings 362 386 450 450 450 468 0.00%
State Loan Repayment - - - - - - 100.00%
Contributions from Government 108,289 119,392 138,364 138,364 134,824 136,172 -2.56% Total RMRA Revenues $ 108,651 $ 119,778 $ 138,814 $ 138,814 $ 135,274 $ 136,640 100.00% RMRA - Expenditures
Totals by category
Transfers - 230,000 138,364 138,364 134,824 136,172 0.00% Total RMRA Expenditures $ - $ 230,000 $ 138,364 $ 138,364 $ 134,824 $ 136,172 0.00% RMRA Surplus/(Deficit) $ 108,651 $ (110,222) $ 450 $ 450 $ 450 $ 468 RMRA Expenditures by Department
Non Department
29 Transfers - 230,000 138,364 138,364 134,824 136,172 0.00% - 230,000 138,364 138,364 134,824 136,172 0.00%
Total Expenditures -$ $ 230,000 $ 138,364 $ 138,364 $ 134,824 $ 136,172 0.00% Estimated Fund Balance at June 30, 2024 & 2025 $ 2,465 $ 2,933 CITY OF ST. HELENA
Fund 230 - RMRA Budget Worksheet
230 RMRA: Section RMRA was added beginning with the 2017-18 fiscal year which includes funds from the following taxes enacted by the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017: the 12 cent gasoline excise tax, 20 cent diesel fuel excise tax, transportation improvement fees and transportation loan repayments.

Budget Page 206
Agenda Item #11.1.

FY 20-21 FY21-22 FY 22-23 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 23-24 Actual Actual Budget Estimated Year End Proposed Proposed Budget % Change
Beginning Fund Balance (July 1) $ 104,313 $ 79,906 $ 43,300 $ 43,300 $ 43,550 $ 28,650 Measure A - Revenues
Investment Earnings 606 182 250 250 100 104 0.00%
Revenue from County - 5,025 - - - - 0.00%
Total Measure A Revenues $ 606 $ 5,208 $ 250 $ 250 $ 100 $ 104 0.00% Measure A - Expenditures
Totals by category
Services 25,013 41,814 - - 15,000 15,600 0.00%
Debt - - - - - - 0.00%
Transfers - - - - - - 0.00%
Total Measure A Expenditures $ 25,013 $ 41,814 $ - $ - $ 15,000 $ 15,600 0.00% Measure A Surplus/(Deficit) (24,407) (36,606) 250 250 (14,900) (15,496) Measure A Expenditures by Department
Non Department
25 Debt - - - - - 0.00%
29 Transfers - - - - - 0.00%
- - - - - 0.00%
Finance
21 Services 25,013 41,814 - 14,410 15,000 15,600 0.00%
25,013 41,814 - 14,410 15,000 15,600 0.00%
Total Expenditures $ 25,013 $ 41,814 $ - $ 14,410 $ 15,000 $ 15,600 0.00% Estimated Fund Balance at June 30, 2024 & 2025 $ 28,650 $ 13,154 CITY OF ST. HELENA
Fund 235 - Measure A Budget Worksheet
235 MEASURE A: This fund is used to account for proceeds received under Measure A, the countywide flood management plan. This Ordinance imposed a one-half of one percent transaction and use tax in the County and established a Flood Protection and Watershed Improvement Expenditure Plan. Any amendments to the use of this tax as established by the Joint Powers Agreement, resolution 98-118 shall be recommended to the Napa County Flood Control, Water Conservation District, Financial Oversight Committee and the Technical Review Committee for approval. This Tax is scheduled to expire in 2018.

Budget Page 207
Agenda Item #11.1.

FY 20-21 FY21-22 FY 22-23 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 23-24 Actual Actual Budget Estimated Year End Proposed Proposed Budget % Change
Beginning Fund Balance (July 1) $ 172,380 $ 173,537 $ 173,939 $ 175,739 $ 177,539 $ 179,339 Emergency Flood Relief - Revenues
Investment Earnings 1,157 402 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,872 0.00% Contributions from Government - - - - - - 0.00%
Insurance Refund - - - - 0.00%
Total Emergency Flood Relief Revenues $ 1,157 $ 402 $ 1,800 $ 1,800 $ 1,800 $ 1,872 0.00% Emergency Flood Relief - Expenditures
Totals by category
Transfers - - - - - - 0.00%
Total Emergency Flood Relief Expenditures $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% Emergency Flood Relief Surplus/(Deficit) 1,157 402 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,872 Emergency Flood Relief Expenditures by Department
Non Department
29 Transfers - - - - - - 0.00%
- - - - - - 0.00%
Total Expenditures $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 0.00% -
Estimated Fund Balance at June 30, 2024 & 2025 $ 179,339 $ 181,211 CITY OF ST. HELENA
Fund 237 - Emergency Flood Relief Budget Worksheet
237 EMERGENCY FLOOD RELIEF: This fund is for allocations for disaster assistance relating to flood damage.

Budget Page 208
Agenda Item #11.1.

FY 20-21 FY21-22 FY 22-23 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 23-24 Actual Actual Budget Estimated Year End Proposed Proposed Budget % Change
Beginning Fund Balance (July 1) $ 24,555 $ 26,244 $ 24,101 $ 24,101 $ 19,851 $ 20,051 Training Development Fund - Revenues
Post Reimbursement 3,063 5,068 3,500 3,500 8,000 8,000 128.57% Investment Earnings 175 55 200 250 200 208 0.00%
Other Revenue - - - - - - 0.00%
Total Training Development Fund Revenues $ 3,238 $ 5,123 $ 3,700 $ 3,750 $ 8,200 $ 8,208 121.62% Training Development Fund - Expenditures
Totals by category
Services 1,549 7,266 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,320 0.00%
Total Training Development Fund Expenditures $ 1,549 $ 7,266 $ 8,000 $ 8,000 $ 8,000 $ 8,320 0.00% Training Development Fund Surplus/(Deficit) 1,689 (2,143) (4,300) (4,250) 200 (112) Training Development Fund Expenditures by Department
Police
21 Services 1,549 7,266 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,320 0.00%
22 Supplies - - - - - 0.00%
1,549 7,266 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,320 0.00%
Total Expenditures $ 1,549 $ 7,266 $ 8,000 $ 8,000 $ 8,000 $ 8,320 0.00% Estimated Fund Balance at June 30, 2024 & 2025 $ 20,051 $ 19,939 CITY OF ST. HELENA
Fund 238 - Training Development Fund Budget Worksheet
238 TRAINING DEVELOPMENT: This fund was established to account for proceeds from the Police Officers Standards and Training fund to cover the costs of Police officer's training. Proceeds come in the form of reimbursements.

Budget Page 209
Agenda Item #11.1.

FY 20-21 FY21-22 FY 22-23 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 23-24 Actual Actual Budget Estimated Year End Proposed Proposed Budget % Change
Beginning Fund Balance (July 1) $ 884,402 $ 1,840,048 $ 2,973,558 $ 2,973,558 $ 3,450,242 $ 2,195,942 Measure T - Revenues
Investment Earnings 9,487 5,572 15,000 15,000 10,000 10,400 100.00% Transfers In - - - - -
Contributions from Governments 1,120,402 1,441,514 1,356,970 1,356,970 1,650,000 1,675,000 21.59% Total Measure T Revenues $ 1,129,889 $ 1,447,085 $ 1,371,970 $ 1,371,970 $ 1,660,000 $ 1,685,400 100.00% Measure T - Expenditures
Totals by category
Services - - - - - - 0.00%
Transfer to other funds 174,244 313,575 895,286 895,286 2,914,300 1,232,500 100.00% Total Measure T Expenditures $ 174,244 $ 313,575 $ 895,286 $ 895,286 $ 2,914,300 $ 1,232,500 100.00% Measure T Surplus/(Deficit) 955,645 1,133,510 476,684 476,684 (1,254,300) 452,900 Measure T Expenditures by Department
Public Works
21 Services - - - - - - 0.00%
29 Transfers 174,244 313,575 895,286 895,286 2,914,300 1,232,500 829.38% 895,286 895,286 2,914,300 1,232,500 100.00%
Total Expenditures $ 174,244 $ 313,575 $ 895,286 $ 895,286 $ 2,914,300 $ 1,232,500 100.00% Estimated Fund Balance at June 30, 2024 & 2025 $ 2,195,942 $ 2,648,842 CITY OF ST. HELENA
Fund 240 - Measure T
240 Measure T: At the General Elecetion held on November 6, 2012, the voters of Napa County approved a 1/2-cent sales tax increase known as Measure T, which is to be implemented on July 1, 2018. Measure T funding is to be used for maintenance, reconstruction, and/or rehabilitation of streets, roads, and transportation infrastructure within the public right-of-way including but not limited to: sidewalks, curb and gutters, curb ramps, lighting, traffic signage, striping, and local roadway drainage.

Budget Page 210
Agenda Item #11.1.

FY 20-21 FY21-22 FY 22-23 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 23-24 Actual Actual Budget Estimated Year End Proposed Proposed Budget % Change
Beginning Fund Balance (July 1) $ 167,604 $ 199,937 $ 285,598 $ 285,598 $ 88,001 $ 189,501 Measure T Class I Trails - Revenues
Investment Earnings 1,333 661 3,000 3,000 1,500 1,560 100.00% Operating Transfer In 31,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 100,000 100,000 0.00% Total Measure T Class I Trails Revenues $ 32,333 $ 85,661 $ 88,000 $ 88,000 $ 101,500 $ 101,560 100.00% Measure T Class I Trails - Expenditures
Totals by category
Services - - - 285,597 - 100.00%
Total Measure T Class I Trails Expenditures $ - $ - $ - $ 285,597 $ - $ - 100.00% Measure T Class I Trails Surplus/(Deficit) 32,333 85,661 88,000 (197,597) 101,500 101,560 Measure T Class I Trails Expenditures by Department
Public Works
21 Services - - - 285,597 - - 0.00%
- - - 285,597 - - 100.00%
Total Expenditures $ - $ - $ - $ 285,597 $ - $ 100.00% - Estimated Fund Balance at June 30, 2024 & 2025 $ 189,501 $ 291,061 CITY OF ST. HELENA
Fund 241 - Measure T Class I Trails
241 Measure T Class I Trails: This funding is a match from the City that is required in order to receive Measure T funding. Each year the City must dedicate the appropriate funds equal to 6.67% of Measure T revenues earned that year, which will be used for Class 1 Bike Facility projects identified in the adopted Countwide Bicycle Plan.

Budget Page 211
Agenda Item #11.1.

FY 20-21 FY21-22 FY 22-23 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 23-24 Actual Actual Budget Estimated Year End Proposed Proposed Budget % Change
Beginning Fund Balance (July 1) $ 2,560 $ 2,577 $ 2,583 $ 2,583 $ 2,613 $ 2,633 BSCC Grant - Revenues
Investment Earnings 17 6 30 30 20 21 100.00%
Grant - - - - - - 0.00%
Total BSCC Grant Revenues $ 17 $ 6 $ 30 $ 30 $ 20 $ 21 100.00% BSCC Grant - Expenditures
Totals by category
Services - - - - - - 100.00%
Capital - - - - - - 0.00%
Total BSCC Grant Expenditures $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 100.00% BSCC Grant Surplus/(Deficit) 17 6 30 30 20 21
BSCC Grant Expenditures by Department
Police
21 Services - - - - - - 0.00%
26 Capital - - - - - - 0.00%
- - - - - - 100.00%
Total Expenditures $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 100.00% -
Estimated Fund Balance at June 30, 2024 & 2025 $ 2,633 $ 2,654 CITY OF ST. HELENA
Fund 278 - BSCC GRANT (BSCCG)
278 BSCC GRANT: This funding was approved by the State of CA to assist with compliance checks and enforcement efforts of those diverted from the state prison system. The St. Helena Police Department will use these funds to address crime impacts in the community, strengthen the relationship between law enforcement and the community, create greater transparency for the organization, and implement best practices for law enforcement.

Budget Page 212
Agenda Item #11.1.

FY 20-21 FY21-22 FY 22-23 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 23-24 Actual Actual Budget Estimated Year End Proposed Proposed Budget % Change
Beginning Fund Balance (July 1) $ 57,711 $ 55,012 $ 50,193 $ 50,193 $ 44,143 $ 38,093 Asset Forfeiture - Revenues
Investment Earnings 373 125 450 450 450 468 0.00%
Asset Forfeiture - - 6,000 - - - -100.00%
Total Asset Forfeiture Revenues $ 373 $ 125 $ 6,450 $ 450 $ 450 $ 468 -93.02% Asset Forfeiture - Expenditures
Totals by category
Services - - - - - 0.00%
Supplies 3,072 4,944 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,760 0.00%
Total Asset Forfeiture Expenditures $ 3,072 $ 4,944 $ 6,500 $ 6,500 $ 6,500 $ 6,760 0.00% Asset Forfeiture Surplus/(Deficit) (2,699) (4,819) (50) (6,050) (6,050) (6,292) Asset Forfeiture Expenditures by Department
Police
21 Services - - - - - - 0.00%
22 Supplies 3,072 4,944 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,760 0.00%
3,072 4,944 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,760 0.00%
Total Expenditures $ 3,072 $ 4,944 $ 6,500 $ 6,500 $ 6,500 $ 6,760 0.00% Estimated Fund Balance at June 30, 2024 & 2025 $ 38,093 $ 31,801 CITY OF ST. HELENA
Fund 279 - Asset Forfeiture Budget Worksheet
279 ASSET FORFEITURE: A special revenue fund for monies from adjudicated crime cases restricted for public safety purposes.

Budget Page 213
Agenda Item #11.1.

FY 20-21 FY21-22 FY 22-23 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 23-24 Actual Actual Budget Estimated Year End Proposed Proposed Budget % Change
Beginning Fund Balance (July 1) $ 243,326 $ 131,666 $ 131,666 $ 131,666 $ - $ - Tree City - Revenues
Transfers In - - - - - 0.00% -
Total Tree City Revenues $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00%
Tree City - Expenditures
Totals by category
Salaries & Benefits 660 - - - - - 0.00%
Services - - - - - - 0.00%
Supplies - - - - - - 0.00%
Maintenance - - - - - - 0.00%
Capital - - - - - - 0.00%
Transfers 111,000 - 131,666 131,666 - - 0.00%
Total Tree City Expenditures $ 111,660 $ - $ 131,666 $ 131,666 $ - $ - 0.00% Tree City Surplus/(Deficit) (111,660) - (131,666) (131,666) - Tree City Expenditures by Department
Public Works Tree City
20 Salaries & Benefits 660 - - - - - 0.00%
23 Maintenance - - - - - - 0.00%
29 Transfers 111,000 - - 131,666 - - 0.00%
111,660 - - 131,666 - - 0.00%
Total Expenditures $ 111,660 $ - $ - $ 131,666 $ - $ 0.00% - Estimated Fund Balance at June 30, 2024 & 2025 $ - $ -
CITY OF ST. HELENA
Fund 283 - Tree City Budget Worksheet
283 TREE CITY USA: This fund was established in fiscal year 1996/97 to account for expenditures related to the maintenance and planting of trees located on City right of ways and in parks within the City. The City is seeking a designation from the Arbor Foundation for this effort. Revenue sources include General Fund transfers and private donations.

FY2020-21: No longer utilizing Fund 283, all expenses are included in the General Fund.

Budget Page 214
Agenda Item #11.1.

FY 20-21 FY21-22 FY 22-23 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 23-24 Actual Actual Budget Estimated Year End Proposed Proposed Budget % Change
Beginning Fund Balance (July 1) $ 53,909 $ 52,354 $ 65,495 $ 65,495 $ 50,836 $ 24,167 Bocce Ball Fund - Revenues
Recreation Registration 15,258 35,545 40,500 40,500 40,500 40,500 0.00% Contributions from Non-Government 120 - - - - - 0.00%
Other - - - - - - 0.00%
Total Bocce Ball Fund Revenues $ 15,378 $ 35,545 $ 40,500 $ 40,500 $ 40,500 $ 40,500 0.00% Bocce Ball Fund - Expenditures
Totals by category
Salaries & Benefits 15,580 18,518 47,769 47,769 50,279 52,802 5.25% Services 38 1,357 1,490 1,490 1,490 1,550 0.00%
Supplies 272 2,486 4,400 4,400 5,400 5,616 22.73%
Maintenance 1,043 43 1,500 1,500 10,000 10,400 566.67%
Transfers - - - - - - 0.00%
Total Bocce Ball Fund Expenditures $ 16,933 $ 22,404 $ 55,159 $ 55,159 $ 67,169 $ 70,367 199.81% Bocce Ball Fund Surplus/(Deficit) (1,555) 13,141 (14,659) (14,659) (26,669) (29,867) Bocce Ball Fund Expenditures by Department
Recreation
20 Salaries & Benefits 15,580 18,518 47,769 47,769 50,279 52,802 5.25% 21 Services 38 1,357 1,490 1,490 1,490 1,550 0.00%
22 Supplies 272 2,486 4,400 4,400 5,400 5,616 22.73%
23 Maintenance 1,043 43 1,500 1,500 10,000 10,400 566.67% 29 Transfers - - - - -
16,933 22,404 55,159 55,159 67,169 70,367 21.77%
Total Expenditures $ 16,933 $ 22,404 $ 55,159 $ 55,159 $ 67,169 $ 70,367 21.77% Estimated Fund Balance at June 30, 2024 & 2025 $ 24,167 $ (5,701) CITY OF ST. HELENA
Fund 286 - Bocce Ball Fund Budget Worksheet
286 BOCCE BALL LEAGUE: This fund is used to account for the costs of running Bocce league services to the general public on a continuing basis. The intent is to recover costs through user charges and fees. The fund, therefore, is operated in a manner similar to a private business enterprise.

Budget Page 215
Agenda Item #11.1.

FY 20-21 FY21-22 FY 22-23 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 23-24 Actual Actual Budget Estimated Year End Proposed Proposed Budget % Change
Beginning Fund Balance (July 1) $ 1,874 $ 12,770 $ 9,954 $ 9,954 $ (1,246) $ 3,804 Harvest Festival - Revenues
Registrations - 5,775 3,900 3,900 5,625 5,850 0.00%
Operating Tfr In 11,200 - - - 19,375 19,375
Donations - 160 - - - - 0.00%
Per Parade Registrations Fee - 10 - - 150 156 100.00%
Vendor/NonProfit Fees - - 3,900 - - - -100.00%
Total Harvest Festival Revenues $ 11,200 $ 5,945 $ 7,800 $ 3,900 $ 25,150 $ 25,381 1.19% Harvest Festival - Expenditures
Totals by category
Services - 177 100 100 100 104 0.00%
Supplies 304 8,584 15,000 15,000 20,000 20,800 33.33%
Total Harvest Festival Expenditures $ 304 $ 8,761 $ 15,100 $ 15,100 $ 20,100 $ 20,904 33.11% Harvest Festival Surplus/(Deficit) 10,896 (2,816) (7,300) (11,200) 5,050 4,477 Harvest Festival Expenditures by Department
Recreation
21 Services - 177 100 100 100 104 0.00%
22 Supplies 304 8,584 15,000 15,000 20,000 20,800 33.33% 304 8,761 15,100 15,100 20,100 20,904 33.11%
Total Expenditures $ 304 $ 8,761 $ 15,100 $ 15,100 $ 20,100 $ 20,904 33.11% Estimated Fund Balance at June 30, 2024 & 2025 $ 3,804 $ 8,281 CITY OF ST. HELENA
Fund 287 - Harvest Festival
287 HARVEST FESTIVAL: This fund is used to account for revenues from registration fees and donations and is used to fund the expenses incurred in administering the Harvest Festival.

Budget Page 216
Agenda Item #11.1.

FY 20-21 FY21-22 FY 22-23 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 23-24 Actual Actual Budget Estimated Year End Proposed Proposed Budget % Change
Beginning Fund Balance (July 1) $ (772) $ 3,619 $ 23,619 $ 23,619 $ 8,619 $ (4,881) Fourth of July - Revenues
Donations - - - - - - 0.00%
Transfers In 5,600 20,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 100.00% Total Fourth of July Revenues $ 5,600 $ 20,000 $ 40,000 $ 40,000 $ 40,000 $ 40,000 0.00% Fourth of July - Expenditures
Totals by category
Services - - 50,000 50,000 45,500 47,320 0.00%
Supplies 1,209 - 5,000 5,000 8,000 8,320 60.00%
Total Fourth of July Expenditures $ 1,209 $ - $ 55,000 $ 55,000 $ 53,500 $ 55,640 -2.73% Fourth of July Surplus/(Deficit) 4,391 20,000 (15,000) (15,000) (13,500) (15,640) Fourth of July Expenditures by Department
Recreation
21 Services - - 50,000 50,000 45,500 47,320 0.00%
22 Supplies 1,209 - 5,000 5,000 8,000 8,320 60.00%
1,209 - 55,000 55,000 53,500 55,640 -2.73%
Total Expenditures $ 1,209 $ - $ 55,000 $ 55,000 $ 53,500 $ 55,640 -2.73% Estimated Fund Balance at June 30, 2024 & 2025 $ (4,881) $ (20,521) CITY OF ST. HELENA
Fund 288 - Fourth of July
288 FOURTH OF JULY: This fund is used to account for donations and is used to fund the expenses incurred in administering the Fourth of July fireworks show.

Budget Page 217
Agenda Item #11.1.

FY 20-21 FY21-22 FY 22-23 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 23-24 Actual Actual Budget Estimated Year End Proposed Proposed Budget % Change
Beginning Fund Balance (July 1) $ 104,431 $ 38,385 $ 36,050 $ 36,050 $ - $ - Recreation Programs - Revenues
Recreation Registration 375 - - - - - 0.00%
Donations - - - - - - 0.00%
Contributions from Non Government - - - - - - 0.00%
Other Revenue - Jingle - - - - - - 0.00%
Transfers In - - - - - - 0.00%
Total Recreation Programs Revenues $ 375 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% Recreation Programs - Expenditures
Totals by category
Salary 10,421 2,335 - - - - 0.00%
Benefits - - - - - - 0.00%
Contracts - - - - - - 0.00%
Dept Supplies/Services - - - - - - 0.00%
Training/Conference - - - - - - 0.00%
Transfer to other funds 56,000 - 36,050 36,050 - - 100.00% Total Recreation Programs Expenditures $ 66,421 $ 2,335 $ 36,050 $ 36,050 $ - $ - 100.00% Recreation Programs Surplus/(Deficit) (66,046) (2,335) (36,050) (36,050) - Recreation Programs Expenditures by Department
Recreation
20 Salaries & Benefits 10,421 2,335 - - - - 0.00%
21 Services - - - - - - 0.00%
22 Supplies - - - - - - 0.00%
23 Maintenance - - - - - - 0.00%
24 Taxes, Insurance & Contributions - - - - - - 0.00%
29 Transfer to other Funds 56,000 - - 36,050 - - 100.00% 10,421 2,335 - 36,050 - - 100.00%
Total Expenditures $ 10,421 $ 2,335 $ - $ 36,050 $ - $ 100.00% - Estimated Fund Balance at June 30, 2024 & 2025 $ - $ -
*includes unemployment
CITY OF ST. HELENA
Fund 289 - Recreation Programs Budget Worksheet
289 RECREATION PROGRAMS: Used to account for revenues from registration fees or other income from recreation programs and funding the expenses incurred in providing those programs. Council established this fund to monitor the ability of the recreation programs to be self-sustaining excluding costs associated with the Recreation Director.

FY2020-21 - No longer utilizing Fund 280, all expenses are included in the General Fund.

Budget Page 218
Agenda Item #11.1.

FY 20-21 FY21-22 FY 22-23 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 23-24 Actual Actual Budget Estimated Year End Proposed Proposed Budget % Change
Beginning Fund Balance (July 1) $ 5,725 $ 10,767 $ 9,341 $ 9,341 $ 9,791 $ 10,241 Tourism Improvement District - Revenues
Investment Earnings 166 279 450 450 450 468 0.00%
-
TID City Admin 2,342 6,973 4,999 4,999 6,066 6,309 21.34% TID Assessment - District 173,321 507,694 407,816 407,816 606,626 630,891 48.75% TID Assessment - Local 58,555 171,518 137,776 137,776 151,657 157,723 10.08% Total Tourism Improvement District Revenues $ 234,384 $ 686,464 $ 551,041 $ 551,041 $ 764,799 $ 795,391 38.79% Tourism Improvement District - Expenditures
Totals by category
Services 227,370 683,404 545,591 545,592 758,283 788,614 38.98% Supplies - - - - - - 0.00%
Transfers 1,972 4,486 4,999 4,999 6,066 6,309 21.34%
Total Tourism Improvement District Expenditures $ 229,342 $ 687,890 $ 550,590 $ 550,591 $ 764,349 $ 794,923 11.11% Tourism Improvement District Surplus/(Deficit) 5,042 (1,426) 451 450 450 468 Tourism Improvement District Expenditures by Department Non Department
21 Services 227,370 683,404 545,591 545,592 758,283 788,614 38.98% 22 Supplies - - - - - - 0.00%
29 Transfers 1,972 4,486 4,999 4,999 6,066 6,309 21.34% 229,342 687,890 550,590 550,591 764,349 794,923 38.82%
Total Expenditures $ 229,342 $ 687,890 $ 550,590 $ 550,591 $ 764,349 $ 794,923 38.82% Estimated Fund Balance at June 30, 2024 & 2025 $ 10,241 $ 10,709 CITY OF ST. HELENA
Fund 290 - Tourism Improvement District Budget Worksheet 290 TOURISM IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (TID): The Napa Valley Tourism Improvement District was created in 2010 and is funded through an assessment on hotel room nights implemented and collected by lodging businesses throughout Napa Valley. The intent of the assessment is to support local activities and products that promote, support and enhance locally based tourism and hospitality efforts. Revenue is currently 2% of taxable room rent. These funds are directed by the Tourism Board created by the County MOU.

Budget Page 219
Agenda Item #11.1.

FY 20-21 FY21-22 FY 22-23 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 23-24 Actual Actual Budget Estimated Year End Proposed Proposed Budget % Change
Beginning Fund Balance (July 1) $ 13,049 $ 15,185 $ 22,174 $ 22,174 $ 29,894 $ 41,614 SB1186 State Fees + Revenues
Investment Earnings 113 49 120 120 120 125 200.00%
Other Revenue 111 385 100 100 100 104 200.00%
Other State Revenue 1,912 6,554 2,500 2,500 6,500 6,760 360.00% Total SB1186 State Fees Revenues $ 2,136 $ 6,989 $ 2,720 $ 2,720 $ 6,720 $ 6,989 347.06% SB1186 State Fees + Expenditures
Totals by category
Services - - 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,200 0.00%
Transfer to Other Funds - - - - - - 0.00%
Total SB1186 State Fees Expenditures $ - $ - $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,200 0.00% SB1186 State Fees Surplus/(Deficit) 2,136 6,989 7,720 7,720 11,720 12,189 SB1186 State Fees Expenditures by Department
Non Department
29 Transfers - - - - - - 0.00%
- - - - - - 0.00%
Planning
21 Services - - 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,200 0.00%
- - 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,200 0.00%
Total Expenditures $ - $ - $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,200 0.00% Estimated Fund Balance at June 30, 2024 & 2025 $ 41,614 $ 53,803 CITY OF ST. HELENA
Fund 291- SB 1186 State Fees
291 SB+1186 STATE FEES: Effective January 1, 2013 an additional state fee of $1 was added to the business license application and renewel fee for, (1) the purpose of increasing disability access and compliance with construction+related accessibility requirements, and (2) developing educational resources for businesses to facilitate compliance with federal and state disability laws. Effective January 1, 2019, the fee was increased to $4.

Budget Page 220
Agenda Item #11.1.

FY 20-21 FY21-22 FY 22-23 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 23-24 Actual Actual Budget Estimated Year End Proposed Proposed Budget % Change
Beginning Fund Balance (July 1) $ 2,680 $ 2,698 $ 2,704 $ 2,704 $ 2,729 $ 2,754 N.O.A.A. - Revenues
Investment Earnings 18 6 25 25 25 26 0.00%
Government Contribution - - - - - - 0.00%
Total N.O.A.A. Revenues $ 18 $ 6 $ 25 $ 25 $ 25 $ 26 0.00% N.O.A.A. - Expenditures
Totals by category
Contracts - - - - - - 0.00%
Total N.O.A.A. Expenditures $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% N.O.A.A. Surplus/(Deficit) 18 6 25 25 25 26
N.O.A.A. Expenditures by Department
Non Department
21 Services - - - - - - 0.00%
- - - - - - 0.00%
Total Expenditures $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 0.00% -
Estimated Fund Balance at June 30, 2024 & 2025 $ 2,754 $ 2,780 CITY OF ST. HELENA
Fund 295 - N.O.A.A.
295 N.O.A.A.: This fund is used to account for monies used toward the compensation and mitigation project known as the Northern Napa River Tributary Stream Surveys.

Budget Page 221
Agenda Item #11.1.

FY 20-21 FY21-22 FY 22-23 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 23-24 Actual Actual Budget Estimated Year End Proposed Proposed Budget % Change
Beginning Fund Balance (July 1) $ 36,907 $ 37,155 $ 37,241 $ 37,241 $ 37,641 $ 37,941 Stabo Trust - Revenues
Investment Earnings 248 86 400 400 300 312 -25.00%
Total Stabo Trust Revenues $ 248 $ 86 $ 400 $ 400 $ 300 $ 312 -25.00% Stabo Trust - Expenditures
Totals by category
Services - - - - - - 0.00%
Total Stabo Trust Expenditures $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% Stabo Trust Surplus/(Deficit) 248 86 400 400 300 312
Stabo Trust Expenditures by Department
Non Department
21 Services - - - - - - 0.00%
- - - - - - 0.00%
Total Expenditures $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 0.00% -
Estimated Fund Balance at June 30, 2024 & 2025 $ 37,941 $ 38,253 CITY OF ST. HELENA
Fund 329 - Stabo Trust
329 STABO TRUST: This fund is used to account for proceeds and expenditures toward the upkeep of Stabo Park located on Hunt Avenue.

Budget Page 222
Agenda Item #11.1.

FY 20-21 FY21-22 FY 22-23 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 23-24 Actual Actual Budget Estimated Year End Proposed Proposed Budget % Change
Beginning Fund Balance (July 1) $ 14,307 $ 16,160 $ 18,150 $ 18,150 $ 15,340 $ 9,949 Murray Trust - Revenues
Investment Earnings 103 40 100 100 100 104 0.00%
Other Revenue 1,750 1,950 1,750 1,950 1,950 2,028 0.00% Total Murray Trust Revenues $ 1,853 $ 1,990 $ 1,850 $ 2,050 $ 2,050 $ 2,132 0.00% Murray Trust - Expenditures
Totals by category
Services - - 4,860 4,860 7,441 7,739 0.00%
Total Murray Trust Expenditures $ - $ - $ 4,860 $ 4,860 $ 7,441 $ 7,739 0.00% Murray Trust Surplus/(Deficit) 1,853 1,990 (3,010) (2,810) (5,391) (5,607) Murray Trust Expenditures by Department
Police
22 Supplies - - 4,860 4,860 7,441 7,739 0.00%
- - 4,860 4,860 7,441 7,739 0.00%
Total Expenditures $ - $ - $ 4,860 $ 4,860 $ 7,441 $ 7,739 0.00% Estimated Fund Balance at June 30, 2024 & 2025 $ 9,949 $ 4,342 CITY OF ST. HELENA
Fund 375 - Murray Trust
375 MADELINE MURRAY TRUST FUND: The proceeds from a non-expendable trust established in 2000 as a bequest from the Madeline Murray, through the Madeline Murray and Bertha Tranah Foundation. The funds are to be used for new equipment purchases for the Police Department. The Fire Department also receives funding from the Madeline Murray and Bertha Tranah Foundation but it is given directly to the St. Helena Volunteer Fire Department, a nonprofit organization.

Budget Page 223
Agenda Item #11.1.

FY 20-21 FY21-22 FY 22-23 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 23-24 Actual Actual Budget Estimated Year End Proposed Proposed Budget % Change
Beginning Fund Balance (July 1) $ 13,353 $ 38,565 $ 48,587 $ 48,587 $ 44,099 $ 143,788 Friends and Foundation - Revenues
Investment Earnings - - - - - - 0.00%
Donations - - - - - - 0.00%
Other Revenue 133,950 143,685 137,400 137,400 140,000 145,600 1.89% Total Friends and Foundation Revenues $ 133,950 $ 143,685 $ 137,400 $ 137,400 $ 140,000 $ 145,600 -2.56% Friends and Foundation - Expenditures
Totals by category
Salaries & Benefits 55,511 59,803 66,388 66,388 66,388 69,707 0.00% Services - - 2,400 - 2,400 2,496 0.00%
Supplies 53,228 73,859 75,500 75,500 75,000 78,000 -0.66% Total Friends and Foundation Expenditures $ 108,738 $ 133,663 $ 144,288 $ 141,888 $ 143,788 $ 150,203 -0.35% Friends and Foundation Surplus/(Deficit) 25,212 10,023 (6,888) (4,488) (3,788) (4,603) Friends and Foundation Expenditures by Department
Library
20 Salaries & Benefits 55,511 59,803 66,388 66,388 66,388 69,707 0.00% 21 Services - - 2,400 - 2,400 2,496 0.00%
22 Supplies 53,228 73,859 75,500 75,500 75,000 78,000 -0.66% 24 Taxes, Insurance & Contributions - - - - - - 0.00%
26 Capital - - - - - - 0.00%
108,738 133,663 144,288 141,888 143,788 150,203 -0.35%
Total Expenditures $ 108,738 $ 133,663 $ 144,288 $ 141,888 $ 143,788 $ 150,203 -0.35% Estimated Fund Balance at June 30, 2024 & 2025 $ 44,099 $ 143,788 CITY OF ST. HELENA
Fund 380 - Friends and Foundation
380 FRIENDS & FOUNDATION, ST. HELENA PUBLIC LIBRARY: This fund is used to account for grant monies to the St. Helena Public Library from the 501(c)(3) support organization FFSHPL and related expenditures.

Budget Page 224
Agenda Item #11.1.

FY 20-21 FY21-22 FY 22-23 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 23-24 Actual Actual Budget Estimated Year End Proposed Proposed Budget % Change
Beginning Fund Balance (July 1) $ 13,746 $ 13,646 $ 12,219 $ 12,219 $ 12,469 $ 12,719 Ryan Trust - Revenues
Investment Earnings (100) (1,427) 250 250 250 260 0.00% Total Ryan Trust Revenues $ (100) $ (1,427) $ 250 $ 250 $ 250 $ 260 0.00% Ryan Trust - Expenditures
Totals by category
Supplies - - - - - - 0.00%
Maintenance - - - - - - 0.00%
Total Ryan Trust Expenditures $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% Ryan Trust Surplus/(Deficit) (100) (1,427) 250 250 250 260 Ryan Trust Expenditures by Department
Library
22 Supplies - - - - - 0.00%
23 Maintenance - - - - - - 0.00%
- - - - - - 0.00%
Total Expenditures -$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00%
Estimated Fund Balance at June 30, 2024 & 2025 $ 12,719 $ 12,979 CITY OF ST. HELENA
Fund 381 - Ryan Trust Budget Worksheet
381 RYAN LIBRARY TRUST: A non-expendable trust established in 1941 as a bequest from the estate of John Joseph Ryan. Only earnings on investments may be appropriated for library expenditures. Expenditures are restricted to any and all costs of maintaining the library. The fund represents the earnings on investments that are available for expenditure. The non-expendable principal is held separately.

Budget Page 225
Agenda Item #11.1.

FY 20-21 FY21-22 FY 22-23 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 23-24 Actual Actual Budget Estimated Year End Proposed Proposed Budget % Change
Beginning Fund Balance (July 1) $ 25,503 $ 24,928 $ 22,489 $ 22,489 $ 22,239 $ 21,789 Martin Trust - Revenues
Investment Earnings 75 (1,789) 450 450 450 468 0.00%
Total Martin Trust Revenues $ 75 $ (1,789) $ 450 $ 450 $ 450 $ 468 0.00% Martin Trust - Expenditures
Totals by category
Services - - - - - - 0.00%
Supplies - - - - - - 0.00%
Maintenance 650 650 700 700 900 936 0
Total Martin Trust Expenditures $ 650 $ 650 $ 700 $ 700 $ 900 $ 936 28.57% Martin Trust Surplus/(Deficit) (575) (2,439) (250) (250) (450) (468) Martin Trust Expenditures by Department
Library
21 Services - - - - - - 0.00%
22 Supplies - - - - - - 0.00%
23 Maintenance 650 650 700 700 900 936 28.57%
650 650 700 700 900 936 28.57%
Total Expenditures $ 650 $ 650 $ 700 $ 700 $ 900 $ 936 28.57% Estimated Fund Balance at June 30, 2024 & 2025 $ 21,789 $ 21,321 CITY OF ST. HELENA
Fund 382 - Martin Trust Budget Worksheet
382 MARTIN ESTATE TRUST: This is a non-expendable trust established in 1968 as a bequest from the estate of Leo H. Martin. Only earnings on investments may be appropriated for library expenses. These expenses are limited to extending, improving and enlarging the selection of books on California and Napa County History. The fund represents the earnings on investments that are available for expenditure. The non-expendable principal is held separately.

Budget Page 226
Agenda Item #11.1.

FY 20-21 FY21-22 FY 22-23 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 23-24 Actual Actual Budget Estimated Year End Proposed Proposed Budget % Change
Beginning Fund Balance (July 1) $ 719,228 $ 743,692 $ 797,173 $ 797,173 $ 810,029 $ 821,885 Tweed Trust - Revenues
Investment Earnings 5,003 1,792 7,500 7,500 6,500 6,760 -13.33% Donations - - - - - 0.00%
Rental Income 55,356 83,035 55,356 55,356 55,356 57,570 0.00% Transfers In - - - - - 0.00%
Total Tweed Trust Revenues $ 60,359 $ 84,826 $ 62,856 $ 62,856 $ 61,856 $ 64,330 -1.59% Tweed Trust - Expenditures
Totals by category
Supplies 35,896 31,345 50,000 50,000 50,000 52,000 0.00% Total Tweed Trust Expenditures $ 35,896 $ 31,345 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 52,000 0.00% Tweed Trust Surplus/(Deficit) 24,464 53,481 12,856 12,856 11,856 12,330 Tweed Trust Expenditures by Department
Library
20 Salaries & Benefits - - - - - - 0.00%
21 Services - - - - - - 0.00%
22 Supplies 35,896 31,345 50,000 50,000 50,000 52,000 0.00% 23 Maintenance - - - - - - 0.00%
24 Taxes, Insurances & Contributions - - - - - - 0.00%
26 Capital - - - - - - 0.00%
29 Transfers - - - - - - 0.00%
35,896 31,345 50,000 50,000 50,000 52,000 0.00%
Total Expenditures $ 35,896 $ 31,345 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 52,000 0.00% Estimated Fund Balance at June 30, 2024 & 2025 $ 821,885 $ 834,215 CITY OF ST. HELENA
Fund 384 - Tweed Trust Enhancement Distribution Budget Worksheet 384 TWEED TRUST – Established in 2000 as a bequest from Dorothy L. Tweed and governed by the Wood Endowment administrative framework. All funding requests are approved by the Library Board of Trustees and the City Council.

ENHANCEMENT DISTRIBUTION: This fund allows for an expendable annual 4% distribution from the net fair market value of assets. Funds are to benefit the library and provide support to enhance and enrich basic library services and to enhance the interior of the building.

CONSTRUCTION: Up to twenty percent (20%) of principal is reserved for building construction.

ENHANCEMENT: This is the non-expendable 80% allocation of principal, from which the 4% annual distribution of interest is drawn for Fund 384.

Budget Page 227
Agenda Item #11.1.

FY 20-21 FY21-22 FY 22-23 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 23-24 Actual Actual Budget Estimated Year End Proposed Proposed Budget % Change
Beginning Fund Balance (July 1) $ 12,361 $ 12,361 $ 12,361 $ 12,361 $ 12,361 $ 12,361 1996 GO Bonds - Revenues
Property Tax - - - - - - 0.00%
Investment Earnings - - - - - - 0.00%
Homeowner Property Tax - - - - - - 0.00%
Total 1996 GO Bonds Revenues $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 1996 GO Bonds - Expenditures
Totals by category
Services - - - - - - 0.00%
Debt - - - - - - 0.00%
Total 1996 GO Bonds Expenditures $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 1996 GO Bonds Surplus/(Deficit) - - - - - -
1996 GO Bonds Expenditures by Department
Non Department
21 Services - - - - - - 0.00%
25 Debt - - - - - - 0.00%
- - - - - - 0.00%
Total Expenditures $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 0.00% -
Estimated Fund Balance at June 30, 2024 & 2025 $ 12,361 $ 12,361 CITY OF ST. HELENA
Fund 420 - 1996 GO Bonds Budget Worksheet
420 FIRE STATION BONDS: Long-term debt associated with the issuance of the 1996 Fire Station Bonds is accounted for here. The bonds, bearing interest from 5.0% to 6.75% are payable January 1 and July 1 of each year through the year 2016. Principle matures each July 1 at $65,000 to $175,000 from 1998 through 2016. Debt service is financed through property tax assessments on all property within the City. Rates are established annually by the City Council and must be certified to Napa County Auditor/Controller by August 15 of each year.

Budget Page 228
Agenda Item #11.1.

FY 20-21 FY21-22 FY 22-23 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 23-24 Actual Actual Budget Estimated Year End Proposed Proposed Budget % Change
Beginning Fund Balance (July 1) $ 29,783 $ 29,983 $ 30,053 $ 30,053 $ 30,378 $ 30,703 South St. Helena Drainage - Revenues
Investment Earnings 200 70 325 325 325 338 0.00%
Storm Drain Reimbursement - - - - - - 0.00%
Total South St. Helena Drainage Revenues $ 200 $ 70 $ 325 $ 325 $ 325 $ 338 0.00% South St. Helena Drainage - Expenditures
Totals by category
- - - - - - 0.00%
Total South St. Helena Drainage Expenditures $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% South St. Helena Drainage Surplus/(Deficit) 200 70 325 325 325 338 South St. Helena Drainage Expenditures by Department
- - - - - - 0.00%
- - - - - - 0.00%
Total Expenditures $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00%
Estimated Fund Balance at June 30, 2024 & 2025 $ 30,703 $ 31,041 CITY OF ST. HELENA
Fund 443 - South St. Helena Drainage Budget Worksheet
443 SOUTH S.H. DRAINAGE ASSESSMENT: Fund established to account for a Subdivision Reimbursement Agreement wherein a developer installed an oversized storm drain improvement and the City by ordinance 89-11 set up the South St. Helena Drainage Improvement Benefit Zone to assess property owners benefiting from the improvement to pay the costs associated with the storm drain. As fees are collected, they are remitted to the developer less 1.5% for City administrative costs.

Budget Page 229
Agenda Item #11.1.

FY 20-21 FY21-22 FY 22-23 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 23-24 Actual Actual Budget Estimated Year End Proposed Proposed Budget % Change
Beginning Fund Balance (July 1) $ (26,196) $ (52,635) $ (29,319) $ (29,319) $ (29,320) $ (63,558) City Garage - Revenues
Investment Earnings 163 42 - - - - 100.00%
Charges for Services 248,576 306,500 316,590 316,590 353,550 367,692 11.67% Operating Transfers In - - - - - - 0.00%
Total City Garage Revenues $ 248,739 $ 306,542 $ 316,590 $ 316,590 $ 353,550 $ 367,692 11.67% City Garage - Expenditures
Totals by category
Salaries & Benefits 93,504 81,799 113,389 113,390 152,588 160,286 34.57% Services 648 - 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,160 0.00%
Supplies 181,008 201,320 199,100 199,100 231,100 240,344 16.07% Maintenance - 108 - - - - 0.00%
Taxes, Insurance & Contributions 17 - 100 100 100 107 100.00% Capital Equipment - - - - - 0.00%
Transfer - - - - - 0
Total City Garage Expenditures $ 275,178 $ 283,227 $ 316,589 $ 316,591 $ 387,788 $ 404,897 22.49% City Garage Surplus/(Deficit) (26,439) 23,315 1 (1) (34,238) (37,205) City Garage Expenditures by Department
Public Works Garage
20 Salaries & Benefits 93,504 81,799 113,389 113,390 152,588 160,286 34.57% 21 Services 648 - 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,160 0.00%
22 Supplies 181,008 201,320 199,100 199,100 231,100 240,344 16.07% 23 Maintenance - 108 - - - 0.00%
24 Taxes, Insurance & Contributions 17 - 100 100 100 107 100.00% 26 Capital - - - - - 0.00%
29 Transfers - -
275,178 283,227 316,589 316,590 387,788 404,897 36.92%
Total Expenditures $ 275,178 $ 283,227 $ 316,589 $ 316,590 $ 387,788 $ 404,897 22.49% Estimated Fund Balance at June 30, 2024 & 2025 $ (63,558) $ (100,764) CITY OF ST. HELENA
Fund 582 - City Garage Budget Worksheet
582 CITY GARAGE: This Internal Service Fund is designed to account for the total costs of maintaining the fleet of vehicles and automotive equipment owned by the city. Costs are allocated to the various user departments based on time and materials used within those user departments.

Budget Page 230
Agenda Item #11.1.

FY 20-21 FY21-22 FY 22-23 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 23-24 Actual Actual Budget Estimated Year End Proposed Proposed Budget % Change
Beginning Fund Balance (July 1) $ 225,965 $ 225,965 $ 275,965 $ 275,965 $ 104,299 $ 104,700 Equipment Replacement - Revenues
Contributions 50,000 - - - - 0.00%
Operating Transfers In 50,000 50,000 458,000 458,000 100,000 100,000 0.00% Total Equipment Replacement Revenues $ 100,000 $ 50,000 $ 458,000 $ 458,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 0.00% Equipment Replacement- Expenditures
Totals by category
Services - - 204,000 204,000 - 100.00%
Supplies - - 65,669 92,666 99,599 103,583 51.67%
Capital - - 333,000 333,000 - 100.00%
Transfer to Other Funds 100,000 - - - - 0.00%
Total Equipment Replacement Expenditures $ 100,000 $ - $ 602,669 $ 629,666 $ 99,599 $ 103,583 -83.47% Equipment Replacement Surplus/(Deficit) - 50,000 (144,669) (171,666) 401 (3,583) Equipment Replacement Expenditures by Department
Non Department
21 Services - - 204,000 204,000 - - 100.00%
22 Supplies - - 65,669 92,666 99,599 103,583 51.67%
29 Transfers to Other Funds 100,000 - - - - - 0.00%
100,000 - 65,669 92,666 99,599 103,583 51.67%
Police
26 Capital - - 250,000 250,000 - - 100.00%
- - 250,000 250,000 - - 100.00%
Parks & Trees
26 Capital - - 83,000 83,000 - - 100.00%
- - 83,000 83,000 - - 100.00%
Total Expenditures $ 100,000 $ - $ 398,669 $ 425,666 $ 99,599 $ 103,583 -75.02% Estimated Fund Balance at June 30, 2024 & 2025 $ 104,700 $ 101,117 CITY OF ST. HELENA
Fund 592 - Equipment Replacement Budget Worksheet
592 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT: This Internal Service Fund is designed to account for the total costs and set aside funds for future replacement costs of equipment. This includes vehicles, computers and other equipment as identified. As equipment is identified, user departments will be allocated costs based on estimated costs of replacement.

Budget Page 231
Agenda Item #11.1.

FY 20-21 FY21-22 FY 22-23 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 23-24 Actual Actual Budget Estimated Year End Proposed Proposed Budget % Change
Beginning Fund Balance (July 1) $ 224,748 $ 599,454 $ 132,994 $ 132,994 $ 113,558 $ 73,558 Equipment Replacement - Revenues
Emergency Relief 235,271 123,621 - - - - 0.00%
Contirbutions from Government - 600 - - - -
Donations - 221,229 - - - - 0.00%
Sale of Capital Assets 160,000 - - - - - 0.00%
Total Equipment Replacement Revenues $ 395,271 $ 345,450 $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00% Equipment Replacement- Expenditures
Totals by category
Supplies 20,565 - 19,435 19,435 40,000 41,600 105.81%
Capital - 811,911 - - - - 0.00%
Transfer to other funds - - - - - 0.00% -
Total Equipment Replacement Expenditures $ 20,565 $ 811,911 $ 19,435 $ 19,435 $ 40,000 $ 41,600 0.00% Equipment Replacement Surplus/(Deficit) 374,706 (466,460) (19,435) (19,435) (40,000) (41,600) Equipment Replacement Expenditures by Department
Fire
22 Supplies 20,565 - 19,435 19,435 40,000 41,600 105.81% 26 Capital - 811,911 - - - - 0.00%
29 Transfer to Other Funds - - - - - - 0.00%
20,565 811,911 19,435 19,435 40,000 41,600 0.00%
Total Expenditures $ 20,565 $ 811,911 $ 19,435 $ 19,435 $ 40,000 $ 41,600 105.81% Estimated Fund Balance at June 30, 2024 & 2025 $ 73,558 $ 31,958 CITY OF ST. HELENA
Fund 593 - Fire Department Capital Equipment Replacement Budget Worksheet 593 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT: This Fund is designated to account for funds set aside for future replacement costs and maintenance costs of Fire Department equipment. Funds included are received from Fire Department Strike Team Revenues received for use of fire apparatuses and equipment during Strike Teams Incidents.

Budget Page 232
Agenda Item #11.1.

FY 20-21 FY21-22 FY 22-23 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 23-24 Actual Actual Budget Estimated Year End Proposed Proposed Budget % Change
Beginning Fund Balance (July 1) $ 132,759 $ 119,445 $ 193,222 $ 193,222 $ 143,925 $ 115,125 Flood Control Capital Reserve - Revenues
Investment Earnings 1,171 495 1,500 1,500 1,200 1,248 -20.00% Transfers From Other Funds 50,000 100,000 50,000 50,000 - - -100.00% Total Flood Control Capital Reserve Revenues $ 51,171 $ 100,495 $ 51,500 $ 51,500 $ 1,200 $ 1,248 -97.67% Civic Impact Fees - Expenditures
Totals by category
Transfers 36,473 8,643 55,844 55,844 - - 0.00%
Contracts 28,012 18,076 30,000 44,953 30,000 31,200 0.00% Total Flood Control Capital Reserve Expenditures $ 64,485 $ 26,718 $ 85,844 $ 100,797 $ 30,000 $ 31,200 0.00% Flood Control Capital Reserve Surplus/(Deficit) (13,314) 73,777 (34,344) (49,297) (28,800) (29,952) Flood Control Capital Reserve Expenditures by Department Non Department
29 Transfers 36,473 8,643 55,844 55,844 - - 0.00%
36,473 8,643 55,844 55,844 - - 0.00%
Public Works
21 Contracts 28,012 18,076 30,000 44,953 30,000 31,200 0.00% 28,012 18,076 30,000 44,953 30,000 31,200 0.00%
Total Expenditures $ 64,485 $ 26,718 $ 85,844 $ 100,797 $ 30,000 $ 31,200 0.00% Estimated Fund Balance at June 30, 2024 & 2025 $ 115,125 $ 85,173 CITY OF ST. HELENA
Fund 700 - Flood Control Capital Reserve Budget Worksheet 700 Flood Control Capital Reserve: This fund is used for the expansion, major repair or replacement of the flood control facilities located near Vineyard Valley Mobile Home Park. This fund is required to be in effect for the term of the City's State Revolving Loan, which is currently through 2028.

Budget Page 233
Agenda Item #11.1.

FY 20-21 FY21-22 FY 22-23 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 23-24 Actual Actual Budget Estimated Year End Proposed Proposed Budget % Change
Beginning Fund Balance (July 1) $ 716,815 $ 732,657 $ 763,697 $ 763,697 $ 787,055 $ 818,055 Civic Impact Fees - Revenues
Investment Earnings 4,828 1,726 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,240 0.00% Civic Impact Fees 19,879 29,314 20,000 20,000 25,000 26,000 25.00% Total Civic Impact Fees Revenues $ 24,707 $ 31,040 $ 26,000 $ 26,000 $ 31,000 $ 32,240 -0.13% Civic Impact Fees - Expenditures
Totals by category
Services 8,865 - 2,642 2,642 - - -100.00%
Transfers - - - - - - 0.00%
Total Civic Impact Fees Expenditures $ 8,865 $ - $ 2,642 $ 2,642 $ - $ - 0.00% Civic Impact Fees Surplus/(Deficit) 15,842 31,040 23,358 23,358 31,000 32,240 Civic Impact Fees Expenditures by Department
Non Department
21 Services - - 1,885 1,885 - -
29 Transfers - - - - - - 0.00%
- - 1,885 1,885 - - 0.00%
Finance
21 Services 6,739 811 - - - - 0.00%
6,739 811 - - - - 0.00%
Planning
21 Services 292 - 364 364 - - 0.00%
292 - 364 364 - - 0.00%
Parks & Recreation
21 Services - - - - - - 100.00%
- - - - - - 100.00%
Public Works
21 Services 1,834 1,904 393 393 - - 100.00%
1,834 1,904 393 393 - - 100.00%
Total Expenditures $ 8,865 $ 2,715 $ 2,642 $ 2,642 $ - $ -100.00% - Estimated Fund Balance at June 30, 2024 & 2025 $ 818,055 $ 850,295 CITY OF ST. HELENA
Fund 713 - Civic Impact Fees Budget Worksheet
713 CIVIC IMPACT: This fund is used to accumulate restricted funds from new development’s proportionate share of the depreciated replacement cost of a range of facility types including City Hall, corporation yard facilities, as well as library and recreation facilities.

Budget Page 234
Agenda Item #11.1.

FY 20-21 FY21-22 FY 22-23 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 23-24 Actual Actual Budget Estimated Year End Proposed Proposed Budget % Change
Beginning Fund Balance (July 1) $ 1,521,575 $ 559,767 $ 166,178 $ 166,178 $ 357,991 $ 107,919 Civic Capital Fees - Revenues
Contributions from Government - - 674,928 674,928 674,928 - 0.00% Contributions from Non-Government - 46,942 - - - - 0.00% HMGP Revenue 7,265 478,127 - - - - 0.00%
Operating Transfers In 149,581 142,830 2,204,765 2,204,765 - - -100.00% Total Civic Capital Improvement Revenues $ 149,581 $ 142,830 $ 2,879,693 $ 2,879,693 $ 674,928 $ - 0.00% Civic Capital - Expenditures
Totals by category
Services 581,389 536,419 2,687,880 2,687,880 925,000 105,500 -65.59% Transfers 530,000 - - - - - 0.00%
Total Civic Capital Improvement Expenditures $ 1,111,389 $ 536,419 $ 2,687,880 $ 2,687,880 $ 925,000 $ 105,500 0.00% Civic Capital Improvement Surplus/(Deficit) (961,808) (393,589) 191,813 191,813 (250,072) (105,500) Civic Capital Improvement Expenditures by Department
Non Department
21 Services - - - - -
29 Transfers 530,000 - - - - - 0.00%
530,000 - - - - - 0.00%
Fire
21 Services - - - - - - 100.00%
- - - - - - 100.00%
Public Works
21 Services 581,389 536,419 2,687,880 2,687,880 925,000 105,500 100.00% 581,389 536,419 2,687,880 2,687,880 925,000 105,500 100.00% Total Expenditures $ 1,111,389 $ 536,419 $ 2,687,880 $ 2,687,880 $ 925,000 $ 105,500 -65.59% Estimated Fund Balance at June 30, 2024 & 2025 $ 107,919 $ 2,419 CITY OF ST. HELENA
Fund 733 - Civic Capital Improvement Budget Worksheet
733 CIVIC CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT: This fund is used to account for transactions as they relate to Civic Capital Improvement Projects (CIP).

Budget Page 235
Agenda Item #11.1.

FY 20-21 FY21-22 FY 22-23 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 23-24 Actual Actual Budget Estimated Year End Proposed Proposed Budget % Change
Beginning Fund Balance (July 1) $ 979,598 $ 987,542 $ 1,087,885 $ 1,087,885 $ 530,226 $ 488,226 Park Impact Fees - Revenues
Investment Earnings 6,647 2,371 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,320 0.00% Park Impact Fees 54,379 97,973 75,000 75,000 75,000 78,000 0.00% - -
Total Park Impact Fees Revenues $ 61,025 $ 100,343 $ 83,000 $ 83,000 $ 83,000 $ 86,320 0.00% Park Impact Fees - Expenditures
Totals by category
Services - - 125,000 125,000 125,000 - 0.00%
Transfer to other funds 53,082 - 515,659 515,659 - - 0
Total Park Impact Fees Expenditures $ 53,082 $ - $ 640,659 $ 640,659 $ 125,000 $ - 0.00% Park Impact Fees Surplus/(Deficit) 7,944 100,343 (557,659) (557,659) (42,000) 86,320 Park Impact Fees Expenditures by Department
Parks & Recreation
21 Services - - 125,000 125,000 125,000 - 100.00%
- - 125,000 125,000 125,000 - 100.00%
Public Works
21 Services - - - - - 0.00%
99 Transfers Out 53,082 - 515,659 515,659 -
53,082 - 515,659 515,659 - - 0.00%
Total Expenditures $ 53,082 $ - $ 640,659 $ 640,659 $ 125,000 $ 0.00% - Estimated Fund Balance at June 30, 2024 & 2025 $ 488,226 $ 574,546 CITY OF ST. HELENA
Fund 734 - Park Impact Fees Budget Worksheet
734 PARK IMPACT: This fund is used to accumulate funds from new or proposed residential development solely for park land acquisition and park improvements.

Budget Page 236
Agenda Item #11.1.

FY 20-21 FY21-22 FY 22-23 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 23-24 Actual Actual Budget Estimated Year End Proposed Proposed Budget % Change
Beginning Fund Balance (July 1) $ 2,716,013 $ 2,719,289 $ 2,759,617 $ 2,759,617 $ 2,824,617 $ 2,889,617 Traffic Mitigation Impact Fees - Revenues
Investment Earnings 18,312 6,339 25,000 25,000 25,000 26,000 0.00% Transfers In - - - - - - 0.00%
Traffic Mitigation Impact Fees 33,414 33,989 40,000 40,000 40,000 41,600 0.00% Total Traffic Mitigation Impact Fees Revenues $ 51,726 $ 40,328 $ 65,000 $ 65,000 $ 65,000 $ 67,600 0.00% Traffic Mitigation Impact Fees - Expenditures
Totals by category
Services 6,739 - 1,296 - - - -100.00%
Transfers 41,711 - 873,610 - - - 0.00%
Total Traffic Mitigation Impact Fees Expenditures $ 48,450 $ - $ 874,906 $ - $ - $ - -100.00% Traffic Mitigation Impact Fees Surplus/(Deficit) 3,276 40,328 (809,906) 65,000 65,000 67,600 Traffic Mitigation Impact Fees Expenditures by Department Non Department
29 Transfers 41,711 - 873,610 - - - 0.00%
41,711 - 873,610 - - - 0.00%
Finance
21 Services 6,739 - 1,296 - - - -100.00%
6,739 - 1,296 - - - -100.00%
Total Expenditures $ 48,450 $ - $ 874,906 $ - $ - $ -100.00% - Estimated Fund Balance at June 30, 2024 & 2025 $ 2,889,617 $ 2,957,217 CITY OF ST. HELENA
Fund 740 - Traffic Mitigation Impact Fees Budget Worksheet 740 TRAFFIC MITIGATION IMPACT: This fund is used to accumulate funds from new or proposed development to finance circulation improvements to reduce the impacts of traffic generated by new development within the City.

Budget Page 237
Agenda Item #11.1.

FY 20-21 FY21-22 FY 22-23 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 23-24 Actual Actual Budget Estimated Year End Proposed Proposed Budget % Change
Beginning Fund Balance (July 1) $ 728,065 $ 523,079 $ 518,401 $ 518,401 $ 608,610 $ 610 Streets Capital - Revenues
TDA Grant Funds - - 50,000 50,000 50,000 - 0.00%
PG&E Fees - 5,000 - - - -
HSIP Grant 4,558 5,044 381,010 381,010 - -
Operating Transfers In 253,388 1,183,983 2,161,279 2,161,280 4,357,614 1,877,392 101.62% Total Streets Capital Improvement Revenues $ 257,946 $ 1,194,027 $ 2,592,289 $ 2,592,290 $ 4,407,614 $ 1,877,392 269.14% Streets Capital - Expenditures
Totals by category
Services 462,932 1,198,704 2,502,081 2,502,081 5,015,614 3,186,500 100.46% Transfers - - - - - - 0.00%
Total Streets Capital Improvement Expenditures $ 462,932 $ 1,198,704 $ 2,502,081 $ 2,502,081 $ 5,015,614 $ 3,186,500 0.00% Streets Capital Improvement Surplus/(Deficit) (204,986) (4,678) 90,208 90,209 (608,000) (1,309,108) Streets Capital Improvement Expenditures by Department
Non Department
21 Services - - - - - -
29 Transfers - - - - - - 0.00%
- - - - - - 0.00%
Public Works
21 Services 462,932 1,198,704 2,502,081 2,502,081 5,015,614 3,186,500 100.00% 462,932 1,198,704 2,502,081 2,502,081 5,015,614 3,186,500 100.00% Total Expenditures $ 462,932 $ 1,198,704 $ 2,502,081 $ 2,502,081 $ 5,015,614 $ 3,186,500 100.46% Estimated Fund Balance at June 30, 2024 & 2025 $ (1,308,498) 610 $ * FY22 Streets CIP currently has $4.6 million in unidentified funding.

CITY OF ST. HELENA
Fund 741 - Streets Capital Improvement Budget Worksheet 741 STREETS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT: This fund is used to account for transactions as they relate to Streets Capital Improvement Projects (CIP).

Budget Page 238
Agenda Item #11.1.

FY 20-21 FY21-22 FY 22-23 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 23-24 Actual Actual Budget Estimated Year End Proposed Proposed Budget % Change
Beginning Fund Balance (July 1) $ 790,009 $ 798,378 $ 714,395 $ 714,395 $ 736,395 $ 758,395 Storm Drain Impact Fees - Revenues
Investment Earnings 5,311 1,867 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,280 0.00% Storm Drain Impact Fees 9,797 15,974 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,600 0.00% Operating Transfers In - - - - - - 0.00%
Total Storm Drain Impact Fees Revenues $ 15,108 $ 17,840 $ 22,000 $ 22,000 $ 22,000 $ 22,880 0.00% Storm Drain Impact Fees - Expenditures
Totals by category
Services 6,739 - - - - - #DIV/0!
Transfers - 101,824 - - - - 0.00%
Total Storm Drain Impact Fees Expenditures $ 6,739 $ 101,824 $ - $ - $ - $ - #DIV/0! Storm Drain Impact Fees Surplus/(Deficit) 8,369 (83,983) 22,000 22,000 22,000 Storm Drain Impact Fees Expenditures by Department
Non Department
29 Transfers - 101,824 - - - - 0.00%
- 101,824 - - - - 0.00%
Finance
21 Services 6,739 - - - - - 0.00%
6,739 - - - - - 0.00%
Total Expenditures $ 6,739 $ 101,824 $ - $ - $ - $ 0.00% - Estimated Fund Balance at June 30, 2024 & 2025 $ 758,395 $ 758,395 CITY OF ST. HELENA
Fund 742 - Storm Drain Impact Fees Budget Worksheet
742 STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT: This fund is used to accumulate funds from new development’s proportionate share of planned drainage system improvements.

Budget Page 239
Agenda Item #11.1.

FY 20-21 FY21-22 FY 22-23 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 23-24 Actual Actual Budget Estimated Year End Proposed Proposed Budget % Change
Beginning Fund Balance (July 1) $ 577,623 $ 644,519 $ 653,014 $ 653,014 $ 598,014 $ 523,014 Parking In-Lieu Fees - Revenues
Investment Earnings 3,896 1,495 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,200 0.00% Parking In-Lieu Fees 63,000 7,000 - - - - 0.00%
Total Parking In-Lieu Fees Revenues $ 66,896 $ 8,495 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,200 0.00% Parking In-Lieu Fees - Expenditures
Totals by category
Services - - 60,000 60,000 80,000 83,200 0.00%
Total Parking In-Lieu Fees Expenditures $ - $ - $ 60,000 $ 60,000 $ 80,000 $ 83,200 0.00% Parking In-Lieu Fees Surplus/(Deficit) 66,896 8,495 (55,000) (55,000) (75,000) (78,000) Parking In-Lieu Fees Expenditures by Department
City Attorney
21 Services - - - - - - 0.00%
Planning - -
21 Services - - 60,000 60,000 80,000 83,200
- - 60,000 60,000 80,000 83,200 0.00%
Total Expenditures $ - $ - $ 60,000 $ 60,000 $ 80,000 $ 83,200 0.00% Estimated Fund Balance at June 30, 2024 & 2025 $ 523,014 $ 445,014 CITY OF ST. HELENA
Fund 745 - Parking In-Lieu Fees Budget Worksheet
745 PARKING IN-LIEU: This fund is used to accumulate funds from new or proposed development to pay for all or a portion of the costs associate with providing new parking facilities in the City.

Budget Page 240
Agenda Item #11.1.

FY 20-21 FY21-22 FY 22-23 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 23-24 Actual Actual Budget Estimated Year End Proposed Proposed Budget % Change
Beginning Fund Balance (July 1) $ 1,660,132 $ 159,000 $ 1,655,557 $ 1,655,557 $ 1,695,852 $ 1,736,147 Affordable Housing Fees - Revenues
Investment Earnings 3,077 638 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,200 0.00% Affordable Housing Fees 106,784 2,226 60,000 60,000 60,000 62,400 0.00% Other Revenue 295 64,582 295 295 295 307 0.00%
Contributions from Government - 1,429,111 - - - - 0.00% Total Affordable Housing Fees Revenues $ 110,156 $ 1,496,557 $ 65,295 $ 65,295 $ 65,295 $ 67,907 0.00% Affordable Housing Fees - Expenditures
Totals by category
Services 25,244 - 25,000 25,000 25,000 26,000 0.00%
Supplies - - - - - - 0.00%
Taxes, Insurance & Contributions 1,586,044 - - - - - 0.00% Capital - - - - - - 0.00%
Transfers - - - - - - 0.00%
Total Affordable Housing Fees Expenditures $ 1,611,288 $ - $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 26,000 0.00% Affordable Housing Fees Surplus/(Deficit) (1,501,132) 1,496,557 40,295 40,295 40,295 41,907 Affordable Housing Fees Expenditures by Department
Non Department
21 Services 405 - - - - 0.00%
22 Supplies - - - - - - 0.00%
24 Taxes, Insurance & Contributions 1,586,044 - - - - - 0.00% 26 Capital - - - - - - 0.00%
29 Transfers - - - - - - 0.00%
1,586,449 - - - - - 0.00%
City Council
24 Taxes, Insurance & Contributions - - - - - - 100.00% - - - - - - 100.00%
City Attorney
21 Services 9,952 - 25,000 25,000 25,000 26,000 0.00%
22 Supplies 177 - - - - - 0.00%
10,129 - 25,000 25,000 25,000 26,000 0.00%
Planning & Building
21 Services 14,887 - - - - - 0.00%
14,887 - - - - - 100.00%
Total Expenditures $ 1,611,465 $ - $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 26,000 0.00% Estimated Fund Balance at June 30, 2024 & 2025 $ 1,736,147 $ 1,778,054 *Current revenue projections are based on projected FY23 development activity and may flucuate. * The Estimated Fund Balance includes and unavailable Long Term Receivables of $1,249,684 in Loans and Interest.

CITY OF ST. HELENA
Fund 751 - Affordable Housing Fees Budget Worksheet
751 AFFORDABLE HOUSING: This fund is used to accumulate funds from new or proposed development in order to defray the costs of providing affordable housing in the City.

Budget Page 241
Agenda Item #11.1.

FY 20-21 FY21-22 FY 22-23 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 23-24 Actual Actual Budget Estimated Year End Proposed Proposed Budget % Change
Beginning Fund Balance (July 1) $ 329,062 $ 445,955 $ 803,351 $ 803,351 $ 1,081,069 $ 1,368,787 Measure E - Revenues
Investment Earnings 1,358 925 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,080 0.00% Transient Tax Penalty 1,191 6,472 - - - - 0.00%
1% Assessment 129,758 369,186 285,718 285,718 285,718 300,004 0.00% Total Measure E Revenues $ 132,307 $ 376,583 $ 287,718 $ 287,718 $ 287,718 $ 302,084 0.00% Measure E - Expenditures
Totals by category
Services 15,414 - - - - - 0.00%
Taxes, Insurance & Contributions - 19,187 10,000 10,000 - - -100.00% Total Measure E Expenditures $ 15,414 $ 19,187 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ - $ - 0.00% Measure E Surplus/(Deficit) 116,893 357,396 277,718 277,718 287,718 302,084 Measure E Expenditures by Department
City Council
24 Taxes, Insurance & Contributions - 19,187 10,000 10,000 - - -100.00% - 19,187 10,000 10,000 - - 0.00%
Planning & Building
21 Services 15,414 - - - - - 0.00%
15,414 - - - - - 0.00%
Total Expenditures $ 15,414 $ 19,187 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ - $ -100.00% - Estimated Fund Balance at June 30, 2024 & 2025 $ 1,368,787 $ 1,670,871 * The Estimated Fund Balance includes and unavailable Long Term Receivable of $160,000 for an Affordable Housing Loan.

CITY OF ST. HELENA
Fund 752 - Measure E Budget Worksheet
752 MEASURE E: All revenues from the increase would be restricted to programs and services for affordable and workforce housing. Affordable and workforce housing services and programs funded from Measure E include activities to increase, improve and preserve the City’s supply of rental and for-sale housing for households earning up to 120% of area median income.

Budget Page 242
Agenda Item #11.1.

FY 20-21 FY21-22 FY 22-23 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 23-24 Actual Actual Budget Estimated Year End Proposed Proposed Budget % Change
Beginning Fund Balance (July 1) $ 2,082,563 $ (329,124) $ (249,124) $ (249,124) $ (1,149,124) $ 9,407 Water Capital - Revenues
Contributions from Government 1,737,953 80,000 - - 5,270,000 9,524,923 0.00% Operating Transfers In 540,000 - - - - - 0.00%
Total Water Capital Improvement Revenues $ 2,277,953 $ 80,000 $ - $ - $ 5,270,000 $ 9,524,923 6487.50% Water Capital - Expenditures
Totals by category
Services 4,689,640 - 900,000 900,000 4,111,470 9,524,923 356.83% Transfers - - - - - - 0.00%
Total Water Capital Improvement Expenditures $ 4,689,640 $ - $ 900,000 $ 900,000 $ 4,111,470 $ 9,524,923 0.00% Water Capital Improvement Surplus/(Deficit) (2,411,687) 80,000 (900,000) (900,000) 1,158,530 (0) Water Capital Improvement Expenditures by Department
Non Department
21 Services - - - - - -
29 Transfers - - - - - - 0.00%
- - - - - - 0.00%
Public Works
21 Services 4,689,640 - 900,000 900,000 4,111,470 9,524,923 100.00% 4,689,640 - 900,000 900,000 4,111,470 9,524,923 100.00% Total Expenditures $ 4,689,640 $ - $ 900,000 $ 900,000 $ 4,111,470 $ 9,524,923 356.83% Estimated Fund Balance at June 30, 2024 & 2025 $ 9,407 $ 9,406 CITY OF ST. HELENA
Fund 763 - Water Capital Improvement Budget Worksheet
763 WATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT: This fund is used to account for transactions as they relate to Water Capital Improvement Projects (CIP).

Budget Page 243
Agenda Item #11.1.

FY 20-21 FY21-22 FY 22-23 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 23-24 Actual Actual Budget Estimated Year End Proposed Proposed Budget % Change
Beginning Fund Balance (July 1) $ 318,715 $ 348,738 $ 389,300 $ 389,300 $ 407,004 $ 426,004 Water Impact Fees - Revenues
Investment Earnings 2,360 862 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,160 0.00% Other Revenue 18,164 18,542 18,164 - - - 0.00%
Water Impact Fees 16,238 21,158 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,150 0.00% Transfers In - - - - - - 0.00%
Total Water Impact Fees Revenues $ 36,762 $ 40,562 $ 37,164 $ 19,000 $ 19,000 $ 19,310 -48.88% Water Impact Fees - Expenditures
Totals by category
Transfers - - - - - - 0.00%
Services 6,739 - 1,296 1,296 - - 0.00%
Total Water Impact Fees Expenditures $ 6,739 $ - $ 1,296 $ 1,296 $ - $ - 0.00% Water Impact Fees Surplus/(Deficit) 30,023 40,562 35,868 17,704 19,000 19,310 Water Impact Fees Expenditures by Department
Non Department
29 Transfers - - - - - - 0.00%
- - - - - - 0.00%
Finance
21 Services 6,739 1,296 1,296 5,000 5,200 0.00%
6,739 - 1,296 1,296 5,000 5,200 0.00%
Total Expenditures $ 6,739 $ - $ 1,296 $ 1,296 $ 5,000 $ 5,200 0.00% Estimated Fund Balance at June 30, 2024 & 2025 $ 426,004 $ 445,314 CITY OF ST. HELENA
Fund 764 - Water Impact Fees Budget Worksheet
764 WATER IMPACT: This fund is used to accumulate funds from new or proposed development to pay for water system capital improvements needed to support new development.

Budget Page 244
Agenda Item #11.1.

FY 20-21 FY21-22 FY 22-23 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 23-24 Actual Actual Budget Estimated Year End Proposed Proposed Budget % Change
Beginning Fund Balance (July 1) $ 1,698,199 $ 1,500,341 $ 1,500,341 $ 1,500,341 $ (3,537,942) $ 70,536 Wastewater Capital - Revenues
Contributions from Government - - - - - - 0.00%
Debt Service - - 5,852,391 5,852,391 5,852,391 - 0.00%
Operating Transfers In 520,000 - 2,545,465 2,545,465 3,800,000 512,000 49.29% Total Wastewater Capital Improvement Revenues $ 520,000 $ - $ 8,397,856 $ 8,397,856 $ 9,652,391 $ 512,000 0.00% Wastewater Capital - Expenditures
Totals by category
Services 717,858 - 13,436,139 13,436,139 6,043,913 511,678 -55.02% Transfers - - - - - - 0.00%
Total Wastewater Capital Improvement Expenditures $ 717,858 $ - $ 13,436,139 $ 13,436,139 $ 6,043,913 $ 511,678 0.00% Wastewater Capital Improvement Surplus/(Deficit) (197,858) - (5,038,283) (5,038,283) 3,608,478 322 Wastewater Capital Improvement Expenditures by Department Non Department
21 Services - - - - - -
29 Transfers - - - - - - 0.00%
- - - - - - 0.00%
Public Works
21 Services 717,858 - 13,436,139 13,436,139 6,043,913 511,678 -55.02% 717,858 - 13,436,139 13,436,139 6,043,913 511,678 -55.02% Total Expenditures $ 717,858 $ 13,436,139 - $ $ 13,436,139 $ 6,043,913 $ 511,678 -55.02% Estimated Fund Balance at June 30, 2024 & 2025 $ 70,536 $ 70,858 CITY OF ST. HELENA
Fund 773 - Wastewater Capital Improvement Budget Worksheet 763 WASTEWATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT: This fund is used to account for transactions as they relate to Wastewater Capital Improvement Projects (CIP). *Additional Funds will be approved Operating Transfers In from Wastewater Operations and General Fund as the Wastewater Treatment Plant Project progresses.

Budget Page 245
Agenda Item #11.1.

FY 20-21 FY21-22 FY 22-23 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 23-24 Actual Actual Budget Estimated Year End Proposed Proposed Budget % Change
Beginning Fund Balance (July 1) $ 650,977 $ 657,735 $ 667,263 $ 667,263 $ 6,921 $ 18,839 Wastewater Impact Fees - Revenues
Investment Earnings 4,342 1,517 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,800 0.00% Other Revenue 2,918 2,918 2,918 2,918 2,918 3,035 0.00% Wastewater Impact Fees 6,237 5,904 6,500 6,500 6,500 - 0.00% Total Wastewater Impact Fees Revenues $ 13,497 $ 10,339 $ 16,918 $ 16,918 $ 16,918 $ 10,835 0.00% Wastewater Impact Fees - Expenditures
Totals by category
Services 6,739 811 - - 5,000 5,200 0.00%
Capital Equipment - - - - - - 0.00%
Transfer to other funds - - 677,260 677,260 - - 0.00%
Total Wastewater Impact Fees Expenditures $ 6,739 $ 811 $ 677,260 $ 677,260 $ 5,000 $ 5,200 -99.26% Wastewater Impact Fees Surplus/(Deficit) 6,758 9,528 (660,342) (660,342) 11,918 5,635 Wastewater Impact Fees Expenditures by Department
Non Department
29 Transfers - - 677,260 677,260 - - 0.00%
- - 677,260 677,260 - - 0.00%
Finance
21 Services 6,739 811 - - 5,000 5,200 0.00%
6,739 811 - - 5,000 5,200
Public Works
26 Capital - - - - - - 0.00%
- - - - - - 0.00%
Total Expenditures $ 6,739 $ 811 $ 677,260 $ 677,260 $ 5,000 $ 5,200 -99.26% Estimated Fund Balance at June 30, 2024 & 2025 $ 18,839 $ 24,474 CITY OF ST. HELENA
Fund 774 - Wastewater Impact Fees Budget Worksheet
774 WASTEWATER IMPACT: This fund was established to account for the costs of constructing and improving the wastewater treatment plant and sewer collection system in order to support new development.

Budget Page 246
Agenda Item #11.1.

Appendices
Appendix A – City Adopted Financial Policies
Appendix B – City of St. Helena Vision and Mission Statement Appendix C – City Council Goals and Objectives
Appendix D – FY 2023-24 and 2024-25 Budget Calendar
Appendix E – Long Range Financial Forecast
Appendix F – FY 2023-24 GANN Appropriations Limit
Budget Page 247
Agenda Item #11.1.

APPENDIX A

FINANCIAL POLICIES

SUMMARY OF POLICIES
The City Council of the City of St. Helena has adopted several financial policies, these policies are included in the summary table below.  All financial policies can be accessed through the City’s website at: https://www.cityofsthelena.org/finance/page/policies.  The City’s Financial Policy P‐ FI‐0016 is include in Appendix A.  All financial policies are reviewed and updated as necessary.

POLICY NUMBER POLICY TITLE
P‐FI‐0001 Sale of City Surplus Property or Partial Interests in City Real Property P‐FI‐0002 Investment Policy
P‐FI‐0003 Non‐Profit Funding Policy
P‐FI‐0004 Capital Asset and Depreciation Policy
P‐FI‐0005 Water Leak Adjustment Policy
P‐FI‐0006 Unclaimed Check Policy
P‐FI‐0007 Grant Application and Management Policy
P‐FI‐0008 Business Subsidy Policy
P‐FI‐0009 Low Income Water and Wastewater Program Policy P‐FI‐0010 Purchasing Policy
P‐FI‐0011 Annual Budget Adoption Resolution
P‐FI‐0012 City Procurement Card Policy
P‐FI‐0013 Fraud Prevention and Detection Policy
P‐FI‐0014 Accounts Payable Payment Processing Policy
P‐FI‐0015 Fuel Card Policy
P‐FI‐0016 Financial Policy
P‐FI‐0017 Cash Controls Policy
P‐FI‐0019 Disconnection of Water Service for Nonpayment P‐FI‐0020 Donation Policy
P‐FI‐0021 Sale of Surplus Equipment, Supplies, and Property Budget Page 248
Agenda Item #11.1.

Title:

Financial Policy
Policy # P-FI-0016
Revision # Revision #4
Implementation Date 2018-11-28
Last Update Date 2022-06-28
Approval by City Council May 23, 2023 Date Approved 2023-06-23 I. Purpose, Overview and Scope of this Policy
This document establishes policies of overall financial management, budget development, and fiscal administration for the City of St. Helena. Included herein are statements and principles designed to guide the City in maintaining its financial stability and delivering high-quality services to the public.

Formally adopted financial policies assist elected officials and City staff in the development of fiscal management practices, save time, and provide structure for financial decisions, promote public confidence, enhance transparency, and provide continuity over time.

These policies will be updated periodically, but are designed with a long-term perspective and provide the basic framework and road map for addressing a wide variety of financial and economic conditions that the City will encounter. A fiscal policy supports long-term planning and enhances the City’s effectiveness in implementing long-term strategies to deliver efficient public services.

This document provides a structured, central repository for a variety of fiscal policies which are organized into the following categories:

A. General Financial Principles
B. Annual Operating Budget Policy
C. Capital Improvement Program
D. Revenues
E. Expenditures
F. Cash Management
G. Debt Management
H. Fund Definitions
I. Fund Balance Classifications
J. Fund Balance Levels
K. Reserve Funds
L. Interfund Loans
M. Financial Reporting
N. Review and Update
Budget Page 249
Agenda Item #11.1.

II. Authority
Updates to this policy require City Council approval.

III. Policy
A. General Financial Principles
It is the overall policy of the City of St. Helena to build upon a sound conceptual framework to:

1. Manage its financial resources in a responsible and prudent manner.

2. Provide financial information in a relevant, thorough and timely manner, and in a format that effectively communicates financial status to the Council, citizens, and City employees.

3. Establish and maintain prudent fund balance levels.

4. Maintain financial reporting in compliance with current governmental accounting standards.

5. Promote and implement a relevant and strong system of internal financial controls to manage significant risks and monitor the reliability and integrity of financial and operating reporting.

6. Promote constructive and proactive financial decision making that includes, and is responsive to, citizens input and guidance.

7. Integrate long-term operating and capital resources planning into the annual budget process.

8. Allow for uncertainties and maintain a posture of financial flexibility.

9. Develop programs in a manner that support the City’s long-term ability to cover costs and provide the level and quality of service expected by its citizens.

10. Manage debt responsibly.

11. Establish and implement investment policies in accordance with City code and State law.

B. Annual Operating Budget Policy

1. Adoption of Operating Budget
Budget Page 250
Agenda Item #11.1.

a. In accordance with the St. Helena Municipal Code the operating budget is prepared on a biennial budget cycle which passes a two-year spending plan but continues to appropriate funds on an annual basis (a “rolling” biennial budget). Within this budget, City Council approves funds for two years with staff providing City Council mid-year budget reports and a mid-cycle report to update revenues and expenses as necessary. b. The biennial operating budget will be adopted by the City Council no later than June 30th of each budget year. The budget will include appropriations that provide expenditure authority to public officials responsible for operating their respective departments to fulfill obligations to provide public services as delegated by the City Council. c. Funds may not be expended for a new fiscal year until the budget for that fiscal year has been adopted by City Council or special provisions have been adopted by the City Council.
d. The budget presented must be balanced, which is when total projected expenditures do not exceed total estimated revenues. If projected expenditures exceed total estimated revenues, City Council may approve a planned use of accumulated fund balances in prior years for inclusion in the budget.
e. A 10-year Financial Forecast (Long Range Financial Forecast) shall be prepared annually projecting revenues and expenditures for the General Fund. This forecast shall be used as a planning tool in developing the operating budget. One-time revenue sources are not to be relied upon to fund on-going operations.

2. Controlling and Adjusting the Biennial Budget
a. The City structures and controls its budget by use of the following funds:
i. General Fund - is the primary operating fund of the City. It accounts for the receipt of property tax, general sales tax, transient occupancy tax, and other general revenues available to finance City operations. The General Fund accounts for all revenues and expenditures that do not fit the criteria to be accounted for in other funds with external restrictions imposed by their respective financing sources.
ii. Special Funds - account for resources externally restricted for use by their respective funding sources, such as grant programs financed by the State and Federal governments.
iii. Enterprise Funds - account for water and wastewater systems, and may be used for fee-based programs if the intention is to recoup almost all City costs through fees or other charges.

Budget Page 251
Agenda Item #11.1.

iv. Internal Service Funds - account for centralized service costs (such as vehicle services made available to all operating departments). Charges from the internal service funds appear as an expenditure in the user department, and as revenue in the central service department.
b. The City’s budget is controlled at the fund level by the City Council. i. The City Council, as representatives of the public, is the sole authority for creating or increasing expenditure appropriations within a fund. The City Council is also the exclusive authority for approving changes in revenue estimates with funds.
c. Department Directors will be held directly responsible and accountable for their budgets as originally adopted by the City Council or as thereafter revised in accordance with this policy. The level of expenditure control for departments is at the departmental level. d. Departments that operate programs among different funds are limited to the appropriation levels within any one fund. This policy also describes the level of authority needed to amend the adopted budget.

3. Transfers and revisions to the adopted budget:
a. The City Council approves:
i. All increases in appropriations within a fund.
ii. All transfers of appropriations between funds.
iii. All decreases in appropriations, with the exception that the City Manager may direct Department Directors to suspend
expenditures pending Council consideration of decreases in appropriations needed to respond to fiscal emergency.
b. The City Manager approves:
i. The City Manager may make budget transfers between
departments or programs as long as those changes do not increase overall appropriations within any one given fund.

Transfers between funds, overall increases in fund
appropriations, and overall increases in project budgets can only be made through City Council action.
c. Department Directors may authorize the transfer of appropriations within a department, except transfers: (1) that would purport an increase in the number of regular personnel, and (2) that would decrease appropriations for capital outlay.
d. Finance Department:
i. The Finance Department is responsible for providing forms and instructions for requesting appropriation adjustments, and for analyzing and recommending adjustments to the City Manager.

Budget Page 252
Agenda Item #11.1.

The Finance Department will record approved budgets and adjustments into the City’s financial system.
ii. The Finance Department will ensure that the City’s Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) includes a comparison of actual expenditures against the final budget, as amended and adjusted under the authorities of this policy.

4. Operating expenditure appropriations not spent during the fiscal year lapse at year-end, except for:
a. Encumbrances or commitments, as in the form of finalized purchase orders made during the fiscal year that have not been completed at year-end.
b. Appropriations for capital improvement projects and ongoing grants with a life-cycle beyond one year.

5. Governmental funds use the modified accrual basis of accounting while proprietary and fiduciary fund types are budgeted on a full accrual basis of accounting. The ACFR presents City’s finances on a Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) basis and the City’s budget is prepared in conformance with these standards.

6. The City’s budget must comply with the annual determination of the City’s appropriations limit (GANN Limit) calculated in accordance with Article XIIB of the Constitution of the State of California and the City shall adopt an annual resolution to this effect.

C. Capital Improvement Program

1. The City will develop and maintain a comprehensive capital improvement project list. As part of the list, the City will develop and maintain a five-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to be updated annually for authorization to spend in the upcoming fiscal year. The CIP should reflect the current and changing needs of the community as well as enhance the community’s quality of life.
a. Note: The five-year CIP is not a budget commitment, and its acceptance by City Council does not provide officials the authority to spend. The plan is an expression of recognized needs, and a tool for use in budgeting.

2. All projects within the CIP are to be tracked systematically and reports should clearly indicate funding provided, expenditures incurred, and required future Budget Page 253
Agenda Item #11.1.

funding by project. Each project on the 5-year CIP list should include the following:
a. Name of project
b. Brief description of project
c. Project Phases (e.g. design, construction, construction management, etc.)
d. CIP Category (Civic, Streets, Stormwater, Water, Wastewater) e. CIP Number
f. Annual cost estimates
g. Source of funds
h. Unfunded CIP needs

3. CIP cost and project estimates should be updated and presented to the City Council every six months. Estimated annual costs over the lifetime of each project on the list will be refreshed every six months with this data being used as part of the Long-Range Financial Forecast.

4. In addition to the 5-year CIP list, the City will maintain a 30-year project list to better plan for long-term capital needs. This list will be updated on a biennial basis during odd years (opposite of the biennial budget cycle). This update will account for change in priorities based upon regulatory compliance, infrastructure needs, funding availability, and cost estimates. Updated costs over the lifetime of each project will be used as part of the Long-Range Financial Forecast

5. Capital improvements that specifically benefit a select group of users and/or are fee-for-service based are to be financed/funded through user fees, service charges, special assessments and taxes, or development impact fees.

6. Funding and Financing
a. Funding refers to the stream of public agency revenue that pays for or offsets the cost of an asset or service or supports repayment of debt that finances the asset.
b. Financing refers to the method of paying for an asset or service, including debt financing.

7. A Capital improvement budget should systematically identify potential funding sources and financing options and match those resources to the capital needs identified in the Capital Improvement Program. It should also identify which capital needs the agency will fund, when it will fund them, and from what resource.

Budget Page 254
Agenda Item #11.1.

8. Capital improvements that specifically benefit a fee-for-service enterprise operation (such as Water/Wastewater) are to be financed/funded through the service fees generated within that operation and fund, except in the event the voters of the City approve taxes or assessments for the purpose of financing and/or funding such capital improvements, in which case revenues from the voter approved taxes or assessments may also be used to finance and/or fund those capital improvements. Fees charged for enterprise operations should be supported by periodic updates to the rate study prepared for those fees in accordance the California Constitution and all applicable laws. a. Notwithstanding the above paragraph, the city recognizes there may be emergency situations where enterprise operation capital improvements may need additional funding outside of the service fee structure, which may include direct borrowing and issuance of revenue bonds, and outside voter authorized initiatives. For the completion of critical enterprise capital projects, City Council may authorize use of General Fund unassigned fund balance in the following situations:
i. Life and safety emergencies
ii. Project completion is required (via mandate, cease and desist order, etc) and the current rate structure does not support the full cost to complete project.

9. The following shall be taken into consideration when using General Fund unassigned fund balance that specifically benefits a fee-for-service enterprise operation:
a. The City Council shall find that an emergency or extraordinary need exists to justify the use of these funds. Funds shall be appropriated only after the City Manager and Administrative Services Director have prepared and presented to the City Council an analysis of the emergency or extraordinary need that addressed the nature of the proposed expenditure(s) and any associated revenue requirements in subsequent years.
b. Use of fund balance does not cause the General Fund to fall below the reserve level identified in Section III.J.1.
i. If situation arises where reserve level may/will fall below the level identified in Section III.J.1., the City Manager and Administrative Services Director shall provide a funding plan to the City Council, including proposed source(s) of funding and a timeline to bring the balance of the General Fund reserve to the level identified in Section III.J.1.

Budget Page 255
Agenda Item #11.1.

c. Although use of unassigned General Fund monies are considered unrestricted and may be used for any municipal purpose, the use of unassigned fund balance to an enterprise fund will normally be considered an interfund loan (see Section III.L) unless Council otherwise finds and documents an exigent need.

10. Transfers of resources to the CIP fund will be evaluated on an annual basis dependent upon the existence of available surplus dollars.

11. The City should strive to maximize the use of capital grants and State assistance in funding capital improvements before utilizing general revenue sources.

12. Funding Capital Improvements
The CIP uses a variety of funding sources to support projects. This section outlines some of the more common municipal funding sources used for funding capital improvements.
a. Pay-as-you Go (Cash or Pay-Go)
Debt financing is not always the most cost-effective way to purchase assets. Many times, the costs of interest and financing outweigh the costs of paying with cash, if that is an option. Pay-GO avoids these additional costs, but the agency must pay the full cost of the asset at the outset. Improvements typically made through the Pay-Go program tend to be smaller in scale and/or short-term improvements.

Additionally Pay-Go can be used to provide an additional funding source and offset long-term borrowing and used in conjunction with borrowing.
b. Long-Term Financing Methods
i. General Obligation Bonds (GO Bond)
• Permissible Projects – Acquisition and improvement of public property and facilities.
• Approval Procedure – Issuer resolution and ordinance; two-thirds voter approval.
• Source of Repayment – Ad Valorem property taxes
paid by owners of taxable property in the jurisdiction. ii. Special Assessment Bonds
• Permissible Projects – Acquisition of property and
improvement of infrastructure and additional facilities of benefit to the property that is charged.
• Approval Procedure – Engineers report, weighted
majority protect procedure.

Budget Page 256
Agenda Item #11.1.

• Source of Repayment – Assessments on the
property/fees limited special benefit to the property
that is being charged.
iii. Special Tax (e.g. Mello-Roos) Bonds
• Permissible Projects – Acquisition and improvement of public property and facilities.
• Approval Procedure – Two-thirds voter approval or –
where there are fewer than 12 registered voters – by
landowners in the proportion to land owned within
the Community Facilities District.
• Source of Repayment – Special tax on property within
community facilities district.
iv. Certificates of Participation
• Permissible Projects – Unrestricted use.
• Approval Procedure – Resolution of governing board
approving lease or installment agreement.
• Source of Repayment – Lease or installment sale
agreement paid from General Fund (lease) or
special/enterprise (installment sale) revenues.
v. Revenue Bonds
• Permissible Projects – Acquisition and improvement of revenue-producing public property and facilities.
• Approval Procedure – Issuer resolution and in some
instances public vote.
• Source of Repayment – Service charges and other fees
paid by users of project or services.
vi. Mark-Roos JPA Bonds
• Permissible Projects – Acquisition and improvement of public property, facilities, and/or equipment.
• Approval Procedure – Resolution of governing boards
of JPA and participating entities.
• Source of Repayment – Taxes, user fees, lease or
installment payments, from local agencies to JPA.
c. Development Impact Fees
Development Impact Fees are collected to mitigate the impact of new development in the community. The amount of the impact fee collected is based on a portion of the financing needed for identified public facilities. Property being developed is assessed the fee(s) at the time the building permit is issued.
d. Donations and Developer Funding
Budget Page 257
Agenda Item #11.1.

Projects may be funded by contributions and/or donations from private sources such as residents, developers, private organizations, and businesses. Contributions by developers and vendors may be reimbursed with City funds in future years through mechanisms such as a development agreement.
e. Enterprise Funds
Enterprise Funds account for specific services that are funded directly by fees and charges to users. These funds are intended to be fully selfsupporting and are not typically subsidized by any general revenue or taxes. Within each Enterprise Fund, budgets are developed which are sufficient to fund current year operations and maintenance expense, as well as provide for current and future years’ upgrade, replacement, and expansion-related capital construction requirements. f. Grants
Some projects are entirely or partially funded by grants and reimbursements from the State and federal government and other agencies. The receipts of certain grants and reimbursements typically follow the award of contracts.

D. Revenues

1. The City will strive to maintain a diversified and stable revenue base to minimize the impact of economic fluctuation.

2. The City will seek out, apply for, and effectively administer Federal, State, and other grants that address the City’s current operating and capital priorities in accordance with P-FI-0007 – Grant Application and Management Policy.

3. The City will pursue revenue collection and auditing to assure that funds due to the City are accurately received in a timely manner.

4. Use of one-time revenues for ongoing expenditures is discouraged.

Unpredictable revenues, such as excess ERAF, are budgeted conservatively and any amount collected in excess of the budget is generally carried forward in the fund balance.

5. The City will seek reimbursement for State mandated costs whenever possible.

6. The City will adopt user fees with appropriate levels of cost recovery.

7. User fee studies should be performed and updated every five years to ensure the proper balance of costs and service charges. The City should strive to cover Budget Page 258
Agenda Item #11.1.

the full cost of providing non-tax and discretionary fee-based service operations except to the extent that City Council approves defined subsidy levels by program area.

8. Operating departments are to review public services to identify and determine those appropriate for fee collection. Recommendations for new fees are to be presented to the City Council for adoption to ensure fees reflect all direct and reasonable indirect costs of providing such services.

9. Enterprise operations, in general, are intended to be self-supporting.

E. Expenditures

1. Expenditures are to be budgeted and controlled so as to not exceed estimated revenues plus the approved and planned use of fund balances accumulated in prior years.

2. The City will conduct a mid-year financial status review to determine if projected revenues and expenditures meet target levels. If an operating deficit is projected at year-end, the City should evaluate the need for immediate corrective and/or mitigating actions, including operating or capital expenditure reductions and/or activate the use of established contingency balances. The deferral of essential and scheduled operational expenditures into the following fiscal year or the use of short-term loans and transfers to balance the budget should be avoided.

3. The City implements a formal purchasing system, principles, and guidelines to ensure that expenditure levels are monitored throughout the course of any fiscal year.

F. Cash Management

1. Annually the City’s Investment Policy P-FI-0002 is reviewed and presented to City Council for adoption.

2. Investments for the City are reported at fair value (generally based on quoted market prices). The State Treasurer’s Investment Pool and California Asset Management Program (CAMP) operate in accordance with appropriate state laws and regulations. The reported value of the pool is the same as the fair value of the pool shares.

Budget Page 259
Agenda Item #11.1.

G. Debt Management

1. The types of debt appropriate for the City include the following: general obligation bonds, bond or grant anticipation notes, lease revenue bonds, certificates of participation and lease-purchase transactions, other revenue bonds and certificates of participation, land-secured financings, such as special tax revenue bonds issued under the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, as amended, and limited obligation bonds issued under applicable assessment statutes, and tax increment financing to the extent permitted under state law. The City may from time to time find that other forms of debt would be beneficial to further its public purposes and may approve such debt without an amendment of this policy.

2. The City should plan the use of debt in a manner that sustains financial payments at manageable levels.

3. The City will strive to integrate its debt issuances with the goals of its capital improvement program by timing the issuance of debt to ensure that projects are available when needed in furtherance of public purposes. Normal wear and tear, upkeep and maintenance of its infrastructure and facilities should be paid from available operating revenues so as to avoid the use of debt to fund infrastructure and facilities improvements that are the result of normal wear and tear.

4. The purposes for which long term debt may be appropriate include the following: (i) the project to be financed is necessary to provide basic services, (ii) the project to be financed will provide benefit to constituents over multiple years, (iii) total debt does not constitute an unreasonable burden to the City or its taxpayers and ratepayers, (iv) the debt is used to refinance outstanding debt in order to produce debt service savings or to realize the benefits of a debt restructuring. The City will not issue long-term debt to fund current operations and will seek to avoid the use of debt to fund infrastructure and facilities improvements in circumstances when the sole purpose of such debt financing is to reduce annual budgetary expenditures. Debt financing should only be used for long-term capital improvement projects with a useful life exceeding the term of the financing and for which the project revenues or specific identified revenue sources are sufficient to service the long-term debt. Debt Financing can be used if the cost of financing is favorable as compared to the use of City investment holdings over the financing term.

5. It is a policy goal of the Issuer to protect taxpayers, ratepayers and constituents by utilizing conservative financing methods and techniques so as to obtain the Budget Page 260
Agenda Item #11.1.

highest practical credit ratings (if applicable) and the lowest practical borrowing costs. The City will seek to maintain a high credit rating through sound financial practices as a basis for minimizing borrowing costs.

6. Internal control procedures shall include monitoring all forms of debt annually in conjunction with the budget preparation process and report concerns and remedies, if necessary, to the City Council, to ensure that proceeds of debt will be directed to the intended use.

7. The City will diligently comply with and monitor compliance with all bond covenants.

8. The City will cause to be prepared and will timely post to the Electronic Municipal Market Access database (EMMA) all required annual continuing disclosures and, if needed, any material event notices.

9. The City will monitor all debt obligations for ongoing tax compliance and arbitrage reporting.

10. The City will not incur general obligation indebtedness for public improvements which exceed in aggregate 15% of the assessed value of all real and personal property of the City as specified in the California Government Code Section 43605.

11. The City will maintain a minimum net revenue coverage ratio for the Water and Wastewater funds (all annual revenues remaining after operating and maintenance expenses, net of pass-through grants, to annual debt service requirements net of excess appropriations required for variable rate debt) as required by each funding source.

H. Fund Definitions

1. Governmental Fund Type Definitions
Governmental fund types include the General Fund, special revenue funds, capital projects funds, debt service funds, and permanent funds. The Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) has clarified the definitions of these funds as follows:
a. General Fund – The General Fund should be used to account for and report all financial resources not accounted for and reported in another fund.
b. Special Revenue Funds – Special revenue funds are used to account for and report the proceeds of specific revenue sources that are restricted or committed to expenditure for specified purposes other than debt Budget Page 261
Agenda Item #11.1.

service or capital projects. The restricted or committed proceeds of specific revenue sources should be expected to continue to comprise a substantial portion of the inflows reported in the fund. Other resources (investment earnings and transfers from other funds, for example) also may be reported in the fund if those resources are restricted, committed, or assigned to the specific purpose of the fund.

Governments should discontinue reporting a special revenue fund, and instead report the fund’s remaining resources in the general fund, if the government no longer expects that a substantial portion of the inflows will derive from restricted or committed revenue sources. c. Capital Projects Funds – Capital projects funds are used to account for and report financial resources that are restricted, committed, or assigned to expenditure for capital outlays, including the acquisition or construction of capital facilities and other capital assets. Capital projects funds exclude those types of capital-related outflows financed by proprietary funds or for assets that will be held in trust for individuals, private organizations, or other governments. d. Debt Service Funds – Debt service funds are used to account for and report financial resources that are restricted, committed, or assigned to expenditure for principal and interest, even if it is being accumulated for further years’ payments. Debt service funds should be used to report resources if legally mandated.
e. Permanent Funds – Permanent funds should be used to account for and report resources that are restricted to the extent that only earnings, and not principal, may be used for purposes that support the reporting government’s programs. Permanent funds do not include privatepurpose trust funds, which should be used to report situations in which the government is required to use the principal or earnings for the benefit of individuals, private organizations, or other governments.

2. Proprietary Fund Type Definitions
Proprietary fund types include enterprise funds and internal service funds.

GASB has clarified the definitions of these funds as follows:
a. Enterprise Funds – GAAP provide that enterprise funds may be used to report any activity for which a fee is charged to external users for goods or services. Furthermore, a given activity must be accounted for in an enterprise fund if it meets any of the following criteria (in the context of its principal revenue sources):
i. There is outstanding debt that is backed solely by fees and charges;
Budget Page 262
Agenda Item #11.1.

ii. Laws or regulations require that fees and charges be set to recover costs, including capital costs (depreciation or debt service); or
iii. There is a pricing policy that fees and charges be set to recover costs, including capital costs (depreciation or debt service). b. Internal Service Funds – Internal service funds are used to report any activity that provides goods or services to other funds, departments, or agencies of the primary government and its component units, or to other governments, on a cost-reimbursement basis.

3. Fiduciary Fund Type Definitions
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) require fiduciary funds to report assets held in trustee or agency capacity for others cannot be used to support the government’s own programs. Fiduciary funds, as reported in GAAP financial statements, never should include resources that can be used to support the government’s own programs. Within the fiduciary funds category, funds that involve a trust agreement that affects the degree of management involvement and the length of time that the resources are held are distinguished from funds that involve only the receipt, temporary investment and remittance of fiduciary resources. Fiduciary fund types include pension, investment trust funds, private-purpose trust funds, and agency funds. a. Pension Funds – Used to report resources that are required to be held in trust for the members and beneficiaries of defined benefit pension plans, defined contribution plans, or other postemployment benefit plans, or other employee benefit plans.
b. Investment Trust Funds – Used to report the external portion of investment pools reported by the sponsoring government. c. Private-purpose Trust Funds – Used to report all other trust arrangements under which principal and income benefit individuals, private organizations, or other governments.
d. Agency Funds – Used to report resources held by the reporting government in a purely custodial capacity.

I. Fund Balance Classifications

1. Governmental Fund Balances
a. Fund balance is defined as the difference between assets and liabilities and in Governmental funds is reported as fund balance. GASB No. 54 classified fund balances into the following categories:
i. Nonspendable: The nonspendable fund balance classification includes amounts that cannot be spent because they are either (a) not in spendable form or (b) legally or contractually required Budget Page 263
Agenda Item #11.1.

to be maintained intact. The “not in spendable form” criterion includes items that are not expected to be converted to cash, for example, inventories and prepaid amounts. It also includes the long-term amount of loans and notes receivable, as well as property acquired for resale.
ii. Restricted: The restricted portion of fund balance is restricted to specific purposes. Examples are Gas Tax revenues and grant proceeds.
iii. Committed: The committed portion of fund balance is constrained by the limitations imposed through formal City Council action. Only formal City Council action can remove or modify a previously committed account.
iv. Assigned: The assigned portion of fund balance is established for intended use by either the City Council or its designee, such as the City Manager. No formal City Council action is needed to remove the intended use. GAAP required reserves, such as the Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB) reserve, belong to this category.
v. Unassigned: The unassigned portion of fund balance is that remaining after the non-spendable, the restricted, the
committed, and the assigned fund balances are identified and recorded.

The City of St. Helena will use GASB’s definitions of fund balance for the annual ACFR and for all other financial reporting. For all financial planning purposes, the term Net Position or Fund Balance will be used and will include any portion of the fund balance that is available for appropriation.

Preferred order of use of governmental fund balances:

The City shall strive to use the most restricted fund balances prior to utilizing those that are less restricted. The following order of use reflects this guideline:
a. Non-spendable (if funds become spendable)
b. Restricted
c. Committed
d. Assigned
e. Unassigned

2. Proprietary and Fiduciary Fund Balances (Net Position) a. Fund balance is defined as the difference between assets and liabilities and in Proprietary and Fiduciary fund is reported as net position. GASB No. 63 classified reporting of net position into the following categories:

Budget Page 264
Agenda Item #11.1.

i. Net Investment in Capital Assets: The net investment in capital assets component of net position consists of capital assets, net of accumulated depreciation, reduced by the outstanding balances of bonds, mortgages, notes, or other borrowings that are attributable to the acquisition, construction, or
improvement of those assets.
ii. Restricted for Capital Projects: The restricted component of net position consists of restricted assets reduced by liabilities and deferred inflows of resources related to those assets. Generally, a liability relates to restricted assets if the asset results from a resource flow that also results in the recognition of a liability or if the liability will be liquidated with restricted assets reported. iii. Unrestricted: The unrestricted component of net position is the net amount of the assets, deferred outflows of resources, liabilities, and deferred inflows of resources that are not included in the determination of net investment in capital assets or the restricted component of net position.

J. Fund Balance Levels
The City of St. Helena has enacted the Fund Balance policies in an effort to ensure financial security through the maintenance of a healthy fund contingency balance that guides the creation, maintenance, and use of resources for financial stabilization purposes. The City’s primary objective is to maintain a prudent level of financial resources to protect against reducing service levels or raising taxes and fees due to temporary revenue shortfalls or unpredicted one-time expenditures. The City also seeks to maintain the highest possible credit ratings which are dependent, in part, on the City’s maintenance of a healthy fund balance.

Balances for each of the areas below will be reported to City Council when a use of fund balance is being recommended, during mid-year and mid-cycle budget report, and on an annual basis in conjunction with the audited financials.

1. General Fund
The City’s fiscal goal is to maintain annual expenditure increases at a sustainable growth rate, and to limit expenditures to anticipated revenues in order to maintain a balanced budget. The Council’s directed target is to maintain an unassigned fund balance of thirty percent (30%) of annual operating expenditures for the fiscal year.
a. Computing General Fund Unassigned Fund Balance Percentage The City’s minimum funding target for General Fund Unassigned Fund Balance is set to 30% of the General Fund annual operating expenditure, Budget Page 265
Agenda Item #11.1.

less significant one-time revenues and expenditures. Examples include, but are not limited to: strike teams (revenues and expenditures), FEMA reimbursements, grant funding, and large capital purchases. The General Fund is described as Fund 101 only. One-time revenues and expenditures will be separately identified for tracking purposes.
b. Use of General Fund Unassigned Fund Balance
Use of General Fund Unassigned Fund Balance will only be used in extraordinary circumstances, upon the satisfaction of one of the following “economic triggers” and with the majority vote of the City Council (via resolution and through the adopted budget and/or fiscal update):
• State take-away of significant revenue
• Large drop in Property Taxes
• Major business closures (sales tax impact)
• Large, unexpected drop in Sales or Transient Occupancy taxes or other primary revenues due to severe recession
Use of General Fund Unassigned Fund Balance below the 30% reserve provides for a transition period, giving the City adequate time to realign its operating costs with available resources, while minimizing service impacts.

In the event unassigned fund balance is used, the staff will develop a one (1) to five (5) year reserve replenishment plan to meet the minimum 30% fund balance level.

2. Unassigned Operating Reserve
These balances are hereby defined as unassigned by the City Council to allow the City to weather unpredicted cyclical and rapid downturns in the economy.

These funds would be available for use in such conditions to mitigate negative economic fiscal impacts or State takeaways and can be activated within any one budget cycle through Council action. An economic downturn would entail a projected and/or sudden drop in core revenues (major tax and service revenue loss) of equal to or greater than 10% (including the impact of inflation) and/or a change in economic parameters (such as interest rates, debt service rates, pension and health rates) that cause a material change in expenditures of 10% or more, or the occurrence of a local natural disaster or unexpected financial claim requiring the immediate use of cash balances.

3. Use of Year-End Fund Balance in Excess of Targeted Reserves Fund balance is a measurement of available financial resources. The Council recognizes that the maintenance of a fund balance is essential to the preservation of the financial integrity of the City. The City goal is to use fund Budget Page 266
Agenda Item #11.1.

balance as a source to finance one-time investments, reserves, and/or commitments. As a one-time financing source, any unbudgeted year-end fund balance will be used for nonrecurring expenditures and only after the yearly audit and confirmation of the General Fund’s fund balance. At the end of each fiscal year, the Finance Division reports on the audited year-end financial results. Should actual General Fund revenues exceed expenditures and encumbrances, a year-end operating surplus shall be reported. Any year-end surplus that results in the General Fund fund balance exceeding the 30% fund balance target required by the policy shall be available for allocation. Division of the surplus balance shall be recommended to the City Council by the City Manager or designee based on the most critical needs at that time. Priority of allocation shall be the following, subject to Council approval:
• Imminent liability
• Offset projected future deficits
• Loan repayment acceleration
• Fund PERS unfunded liabilities
• One-time funding, non-recurring needs
• Capital assets and infrastructure

4. Water and Wastewater Operating Fund Balances
The City should maintain balances in the Water and Wastewater Funds at a level sufficient to accommodate operating and capital needs. City Council’s directed target for the Water Fund is 10-14 months (83%-106%) of annual operating expenditures in cash and the Wastewater Fund 6-8 months (50%- 67%) of annual operating expenditures in cash. These amounts include cash balances in the Water and Wastewater Capital Improvement Project Funds.

Multi-year fee studies for these funds should be updated periodically as a basis for defining the revenue sources necessary to maintain system infrastructure and required service levels. As a result of the periodic fee or master plan studies, adjustments to user charges may be necessary to maintain recommended fund balance levels.

K. Reserve Funds
Saving for future projects, acquisitions and other allowable purposes is an important planning consideration for local governments. Reserve funds provide a mechanism for legally saving money to finance all or part of future infrastructure, equipment, and other requirements. Reserve funds can also provide a degree of financial stability by reducing reliance on indebtedness to finance capital projects and acquisitions. In uncertain economic times, reserve funds can also provide officials with a welcomed budgetary option that can help mitigate the need to cut services or to raise taxes. In good times, money not needed for current purposes can often be set aside in reserves Budget Page 267
Agenda Item #11.1.

for future use. Expenditures from specific capital reserve funds can only be made upon authorization by the City Council.

Reserve funds may generally be funded with:
c. Budgetary appropriations
d. Revenues not required by law to be paid into any other fund or account.

1. Capital Reserve Fund
Building, facilities, and infrastructure supported by the General Fund shall have a replacement reserve fund established and maintained to provide for the timely replacement of City owned fixed assets. The balance is hereby defined as assigned by the City Council to allow the City to maintain an infrastructure reserve with a target balance equivalent to the projected annual cost of the first year Capital Improvement Plan fund expenditures.

2. Equipment, Technology, & Vehicle Replacement Reserve Fund The balance is hereby defined as assigned by the City Council to allow the City to set aside an appropriate amount of money to property fund equipment, technology, and vehicle replacement. The City shall develop a vehicle, technology, and equipment replacement schedule and shall set aside funding annually in this reserve based on this schedule.

3. Employee Benefit Accrued Liability Reserve Fund
To be used to pay for any accrued “employee benefit” due an employee on termination of the employee’s service with the City. The City’s policy permits employees to accumulate earned but unused vacation and sick leave benefits which are eligible for payment upon separation from service. While the sick leave benefit is no longer available to the newly hired, legacy retiring employees have the option of applying 100% of their unused sick leave accrued towards the payment of continuation insurance premiums, to the extent allowed by law. The City should set aside funding annually in this reserve to match the current liabilities.

L. Interfund Loans
Interfund loans are the lending of cash from one City fund to another for a specific purpose and with a requirement of repayment. Interfund loans are typically shortterm in nature and constitute the allocation of cash between individual funds for working capital purposes.

Interfund loans are temporary borrowing of cash and may be made for the following reasons:

Budget Page 268
Agenda Item #11.1.

• To offset timing differences in cash flow.
• To offset timing differences between expenditures and reimbursements, typically associated with grant funding.
• To provide funds for interim financing in conjunction with obtaining long-term financing.
• For short-term borrowing in place of external financing.

Interfund loans are not to be used to solve ongoing structural budget issues or hindering the accomplishment of any function or project for which the lending fund was established. Interfund loans are not to be used from fiscal year to fiscal year as a financing strategy. If a fund has a negative cash balance, a plan for reaching positive cash balance must be presented to City Council. A negative cash balance must be addressed in the fiscal year that the fund reaches negative cash.

Interfund loan monies may only be used for the purpose identified in the authorizing resolution. Appropriate accounting records will be maintained to reflect the balance of loans in every fund affected by such transactions. A summary of all outstanding interfund loans will be included in the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR).

1. Interfund Loan Terms
a. Repayment of an interfund loan shall be within the same fiscal year, unless otherwise stated in the Council Resolution.
b. When required by the lending fund’s restrictions or regulations, interest will be paid by the borrowing fund to the lending fund, during the time the loan is outstanding.
c. The Council must approve interfund loans by resolution. Council approval and the resolution will include the following terms of the loan:
i. Purpose of Interfund Loan
ii. Identification of the source fund

1. Availability of unrestricted funds in the source fund

2. Review of multi-year plans for use of source fund cash

3. Analysis of legal or contractual restrictions
iii. Repayment of Interfund Loan

1. Repayment must have a payment source and funding
stream

2. Specific repayment schedule

3. Interest imposed at a rate equal to at lease investment earnings if loan did not occur (see Section III.K.2)
iv. Other Considerations

1. Feasibility of repayment
Budget Page 269
Agenda Item #11.1.

2. Interfund Loan Interest
The following guidelines should be used in establishing the rate of interest:
a. Not lower than the “opportunity cost” if the funds were otherwise invested, such as the Local Agency Investment Fune (LAIF) or the California Asset Management Program (CAMP) pooled interest rate. b. Treasury yields or short-term bond yields for a similar term. c. Not higher than the external rate available to the City.

Interest is not required in the following circumstances:
a. The borrowing fund has no independent source of revenue other than the lending fund; or
b. The borrowing fund is normally funded by the lending fund; or c. The lending fund is the General Fund, which, being unrestricted, can loan interest-free, except to a proprietary fund (i.e., enterprise funds such as water and wastewater).

M. Financial Reporting
Budget decisions are of primary concern for the City Council, City Management, the public, and various stakeholders. When considering the budget, staff presents updated projections for revenues and expenditures/expenses and the reports indicate whether prior estimates are tracking with the approved budget. Additionally, the external annual financial reporting for local governments involves producing the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) which is audited and produced by an independent, third party CPA/auditor. Throughout the year, the following reports are to be presented to City Council.

1. The City’s accounting and financial reports are to be maintained in conformance with GAAP.

2. Long Range Financial Forecast
a. A Long Range Financial Forecast (LRFF) for the City’s General Fund will be presented to City Council annually.
b. The LRFF provides a current and long-range financial assessment of revenues, expenditures, fund balance, and emergency reserves. The primary objective is to provide the City Council and the community with a financial forecast and identify any significant issues that may need to be addressed in the annual budget development process.
c. The LRFF will consist of a baseline forecast, a recession forecast, and any other forecasts deemed necessary.
d. The LRFF is a ten-year forecast.
e. The LRFF will be updated as necessary throughout the fiscal year.

Budget Page 270
Agenda Item #11.1.

3. Internal Financial Reporting
a. Internal financial reports help City Council, the public, and management to monitor budgetary compliance on a timely basis. b. Internal financial reports often provide more detail on individual departments than does general purpose external financial reporting (Section 4 below) and does not require an independent auditor review and audit.
c. Internal financial reporting for all funds are to be issued on a periodic and timely basis – no less than semi-annually and no more than 45 days after the close of the period. The report will provide detailed information for the General, Water, and Wastewater Funds and summary information for all funds will be included as attachments to the report. The report will include a summary of all checks over $50,000 issued during that interval.
d. A mid-cycle report will be provided by June of each non-biennial budget cycle. This report will provide detailed information for the General, Water, and Wastewater Funds and summary information for all funds will be included as attachments to the report. Updates to revenues and expenses will be provided and recommended to City Council as necessary.
e. An end of the fiscal year unaudited report will be issued no more than 60 days after the close of Q4 with end of year estimates for revenues and expenditures/expenses for all funds.
f. Periodic reports will compare the adopted budget (Original Budget), adjusted budget (Final Budget), and the year-to-date actuals (Actual Amounts).

4. External Financial Reporting - Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) a. An annual financial audit will be performed by an independent public accounting firm familiar with municipal government activities. The independent auditor will issue an audit opinion to be included in the City’s Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR). Additionally, the ACFR and Independent Auditor’s Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting and Compliance will be presented to the City Council.
b. The ACFR is a set of financial statements for a state, municipality, or other governmental entity that comply with the accounting requirements established by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB).

Budget Page 271
Agenda Item #11.1.

c. In addition to the General, Water, and Wastewater Funds, the City also accounts for activities in approximately 70 special revenue funds that account for monies received from external parties with restrictions on their respective uses. The audit process ensures that the purposes of the various funds were carried out and the relative authorities to spend were honored.
d. The external auditor prepares financial reports for each fund based on the requirements of the funding source and once all funds are audited, they are accounted for in the financial statements, combining schedules, and notes to the financial statements.
e. Unless extraneous circumstances occur, the City will rotate audit service providers every five years. If an auditor is being retained for longer than five years, the reason must be included in a staff report to City Council at the time of the contract execution or renewal. f. The ACFR will be completed no later than December 31st following the close of the fiscal year.
g. The City is encouraged to submit the Annual ACFR to State and/or national government finance professional organizations (Governmental Finance Officers’ Association’s Certification of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting, California Society of Municipal Finance Officers ACFR Award) for independent review and evaluation.

N. Review and Update
This financial policy will be reviewed periodically and updated, if necessary, to reflect any changing requirements.

Budget Page 272
Agenda Item #11.1.

City of St. Helena
Vision Statement
The City of St. Helena will strive to be economically sustainable, and continue to be family-friendly, diverse and safe community which prudently manages its financial and human resources, continues to upkeep and improve its infrastructure, ensures its water security, provides a full range of housing, business, cultural and recreational opportunities and embraces and retains its historic, small-town character, beautiful natural environment and high quality of life.

Mission Statement
The City of St. Helena is dedicated to serving the needs and desires of our citizens by:
x Maintaining and improving our short and long-term economic sustainability x Offering excellent professional services to all customers x Establishing, improving and maintaining City infrastructure x Maintaining and encouraging an environmentally sustainable community x Preserving and embracing the historic, small-town, rural character of St Helena.
x Expanding and improving recreational services and facilities and cultural opportunities
x Encouraging a wide range of innovative, well-designed housing available for residents of all ages and income levels
x Facilitating full civic participation and ongoing communication x Strengthening partnerships with the private, non-profit and public sectors Vision and Mission Statements adopted by the City of St. Helena City Council on April 12, 2016, Resolution No. 2016-47.
WW
E/yBͲs/^/KEED/^^/KE^dd
D
Ed^
Budget Page 273
Agenda Item #11.1.

2023-24 City of St. Helena City Council Goals Objectives Updated 6/8/23
Workplan
Number Goal 2 Objectives Lead Department

1.100 Implement Financial Stustainability Strategies City Manager

1.200 Economic Development (Subsections 1.210-1.250) Community Development

1.300 Conduct analysis of "business affordability" - St. Helena vs. comp set City Manager Workplan
Number Goal 2 Objectives Lead Department

2.100 Prepare an Infrastructure Strategic Plan and Establish a Reporting Process City Manager

2.200 Research and Explore Alternative Energy (solar) on City Facilities Public Works

2.300 Exploration of solar on water/wastewater infrastructure Public Works

2.400 Analyze and Expand EV Fleet/Alternative Fuel Fleet Public Works

2.500 Analyze suitability of Artifical Turf Parks & Recreation

2.600 PUBLIC WORKS DIVISIONS Projects - sewer, streets, stormdrains, engineering & parking Public Works

2.700 Climate Action City Manager

2.800 Continue Implementation of Riverwatch/Water Audit Requirements City Manager

2.900 Develop RHNA-required infrastructure impact plan Public Works

2.1000 Perform Walkability/Bikeability Analysis Public Works

2.1100 Explore limits on City's capacity to provide water to City residents beyond the existing RHNA cycle Public Works
Workplan
Number Goal Three Objectives Lead Department

3.100 Update Water Supply Policies Public Works

3.200 Water Contract Review Public Works

3.300 Commence compliance review of projects with Conditions of Approval requiring water neutrality Public Works

3.400
Review concrete recommendations from recent county processes related to our water resources (LAFCO Municipal Service Review, the Groundwater Sustainabiltiy Plan Advisory Committee, the Napa County Drought Contingency Plan, etc.) and determine how we can use the information to inform our decision-making
Public Works

3.500 Review Current Water Allocations During Phase II and Phase III Water Emergencies for any Recommended Changes Public Works

3.600 Review and Evaluate Current Penalty Structure for the Phase II and Phase III Water Emergency Admin. Services

3.700
Develop and Refine Incentive Programs
Leak Repair Program
Gray Water Incentive Program
Customer Assessment Services/Water Audits
More Rebates/Incentives (enhancements and help for low income and/or seniors) Public Works
Goal 2:

Infrastructure &
Environment
Goal 1: Financial
Sustainability
Goal 3: Water
Security

APPENDIX C
Budget Page 274
Agenda Item #11.1.

2023-24 City of St. Helena City Council Goals Objectives Workplan
Number Goal Three Objectives Lead Department

3.800 Regional Water Supply Strategies Public Works

3.900 Investigate feasibility of using recycled/reclaimed wastewater for either groundwater recharge or for mixing with our domestic water supplies Public Works Workplan
Number Goal 4 Objectives Lead Department

4.100 Create a Communications Plan for Public Information and Engagement City Manager

4.200
Develop a Citizens Academy to provide residents with an opportuniy to learn about the different facets of local government and connect with fellow community partners and organizations
City Manager

4.300 Evacuation Drills with Large Complexes within the City Police

4.400 Conduct Community Survey in 2023 and 2025 City Manager

4.500 Incorporate budget performance measurements into the bi-annual budget Administrative Services

4.600 Refresh City's branding with Coordinated Style Guide, Website, and Logo Update City Manager

4.700 Implement new Parks & Recreation registration and reservation software to provide better service and response time to community requests Parks & Rec Workplan
Number Goal 5 Objectives Lead Department

5.100 Encourage Housing Alternatives to Meet the Community's Interest and Incomes Community Development

5.200
Consider and synthesize stakeholder housing recommendations and recommend short and long-term housing initiatives to the City Counicl, including advancing the use of one or more of city-owned parcels (including Adams Street) for affordable housing Community
Development

5.300 Community Enhancements Community
Development

5.400 Community Programs Parks & Recreation

5.500 Offer additional outdoor recreation activites and increased access to open space and trails leading to a more Walk and Bike Friendly Community Parks & Recreation

5.600 Develop Downtown Plaza/Square Plan Community
Development

5.700 Complete Zoning Code Update Community
Development

5.800 Complete a Parks & Recreation Master Plan Parks & Recreation

5.900 Consider Developing a Youth and Families Master Plan for increased accountability, stronger collaboration and better coordination of services City Manager

5.1000 Develop Citywide Strategic Plan City Manager

5.1100 Provide annual Police Policy Update Report to City Council Police

5.1200 Provide Gun Safety Outreach and Education to the Community Police

5.1300 Apply for Age Friendly Designation for St. Helena Parks & Recreation Goal 4: Community
Engagement &
Education
Goal 5: Quality of
Life
Goal 3: Water
Security
Budget Page 275
Agenda Item #11.1.

2023-24 City of St. Helena City Council Goals Objectives Workplan
Number Goal 5 Objectives Lead Department

5.1400 Wildfire Preparation and Prevention Fire

5.1500 Design and Lead Annual Emergency Operations Center (EOC) Tabletop Exercise Fire

5.1600 Complete playground equipment replacement at Crane Park. Parks & Recreation

5.1700 Complete Conversion of tennis court to pickleball courts at Crane park Parks & Recreation

5.1800 Develop a Volunteer Program City Manager

5.1900 Research and present to Council the opportunities and challenges of Cannabis distribution in the City
Community
Development
Workplan
Number Goal 6 Objectives Lead Department

6.100 Compensation City Manager

6.200 Recruitment Administrative Services

6.300 Retention Administrative Services
Workplan
Number Goal 7 Objectives Lead Department

7.100 Complete Public Works Standards Update Public Works

7.200 Commence discussions with NVC for potential purchase and partial leaseback of Upvalley Campus City Manager

7.300 Develop "express lane" approval for broader category of routine permits Community Development

7.400 Implement internal staffing, process and technology to improve performance and speed City Manager

7.500 Improve coordination across internal departments for approvals; reduce "silo" effects (new development) City Manager

7.600 Institute 2-year budget cycle Administrative Services

7.700 Adopt outside-in operating mentality (look at it from the customers perspective) City Manager

7.800 Develop Internship Program Administrative Services

7.900 Provide semi-annual updates on workplan status/completed tasks Administrative Services

7.1000 Technology Implementation Multiple Departments

7.1100 Develop a Training and Development Program Administrative Services

7.1200 Explore Shared Dispatch Services with Calistoga - Ties to Goal 1 Police

7.1300 Update Procurement Policies (Ordinance) Administrative Services

7.1400
Coordinate Council Study Session to analyze options related to developing a robust Code Enforcement Program (potentially with the City of Calistoga) that is efficient, readily understandable, and predictable.

Community
Development
Goal 7:

Organizational
Effectiveness &
Service Delivery
Goal 6: Enhance
Moral & Retention
Goal 5: Quality of
Life
Budget Page 276
Agenda Item #11.1.

Date Day Duration Item Completed
January 2, 2023 Tuesday Non-Profit grant application posted and available to applicants  January 10, 2023 Tuesday City Council
Meeting
Staff present Budget Calendar at City Council Meeting  February 24, 2023 Friday 1 day Non-Profit grant applications due  February 27 - March 17, 2023 5 working days Finance Division reviews Non-Profit grant applications for eligibility  March 10, 2023 Friday 1 Day
Finance Division issues instructions, budget worksheets, and budget narratives to departments

March 24, 2023 Friday 1 Day
Non-Profit grant applications presented to City Council working group (Mayor and Vice-Mayor) for review

March 20 - 24, 2022 Friday 1 Day Department Heads submit budget worksheets to Finance Division  March 20 - 24, 2023 5 working days Finance Division compiles Revenue/Expense worksheets for review  March 20 - 31, 2023 10 working days City Manager, Administrative Services Director, and Department Heads meet to review budgets and verify budget requests align with City Council Goals 
April 3 - 7, 2023 5 working days Finance Division compiles budget worksheets based on Dept. Head Meetings  April 10 - 14, 2023 5 working days Follow-up discussions as needed to finalize Department budget requests  May 9, 2023 Tuesday City Council
Meeting
Department Head presentations to City Council 
May 23, 2023 Tuesday City Council
Meeting
Budget Study Session #1
Plan and Review of FY 2023-24 and 2024-25 Budget Requests 
May 30, 2023 Tuesday Community
Meeting
Community Budget Open House 
June 6, 2023 Tuesday
Planning
Commission
Meeting
5-year CIP Project list presented to Planning Commission for consistency with the City's General Plan.

June 13, 2023 Tuesday City Council
Meeting
Budget Study Session #2
Presentation and Proposed Adoption of FY 2023-24 and 2024-25 Proposed Budget and 5-year CIP Project list | Non-Profit summaries presented to City Council for consideration and award
July 1, 2023 Finance Division prepares final Operation & Maintenance Budget for distribution

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE BUDGET

BUDGET CALENDAR
FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 and 2024-25
F:\Budgets\23-24 Budget\Budget Schedule\FY 23-24 Budget Preparation Schedule Revised 03.20.23.xlsx Budget Page 277

APPENDIX D

Agenda Item #11.1.

To: Anil Comelo, City Manager
April Mitts, Assistant City Manager
Mandy Kellogg, Administrative Services Director
City of St. Helena
From: Steve Toler, Director
Sam Lieberman, Senior Manager
Steve Mermell, Special Advisor
Jessica Oliphant, Consultant
Subject: Long Range Financial Forecast Budget Strategies Date: February 21, 2023
Contents
Executive Summary............................................................................................................................2 Long-Range Financial Forecast............................................................................................................4 Original Baseline Forecast................................................................................................................... 4 Key Assumptions Used in Developing the Original and Updated Forecasts....................................... 4 Updated Baseline Forecast ................................................................................................................. 7 Providing Capacity by Addressing Impacts from Unfunded/Underfunded Needs..................................9 Budget Strategies.............................................................................................................................11 A. Expenditure Controls and Cost Shifts ...........................................................................................12 B. Service Delivery Changes..............................................................................................................12 C. Revenue Enhancements................................................................................................................12 D. Service Level Reductions...............................................................................................................15 Budget Scenario Packages................................................................................................................17 Scenario 1 – Business license tax with additional capacity in future years......................................19 Scenario 2 – Providing capacity: business license tax; local transactions and use (sales) tax..........19 Scenario 3 – Providing capacity: business license tax; Charter City; real property transfer tax; sell surplus property................................................................................................................................20 Scenario 4 – Providing capacity: TOT rate increase; local sales tax; library parcel tax; sell surplus property ............................................................................................................................................21 Concluding Remarks.........................................................................................................................22 Attachment A – List of Additional Budget Strategies .........................................................................23 Attachment B – Presentation Slides on Propositions 218 and 26........................................................25

APPENDIX E
Budget Page 278
Agenda Item #11.1.

Executive Summary
Baker Tilly has been working with the City of St. Helena during the past several months to identify potential budget strategies to address the anticipated structural deficit in the City’s General Fund and identify sources of funding for much needed reinvestment in capital projects. This report details actions City leaders can take to ensure that reserves stay at or near the reserve goal of 30% of annual operating expenditures. It provides a variety of strategies that could be employed to ensure the long-term solvency of the City.

The City’s current baseline General Fund Financial Forecast, presented on May 31, 2022, projects that through Fiscal Year (FY) 2032, the General Fund will have sufficient resources to meet operating expenses and maintain an ending fund balance in excess of the adopted policy reserve. However, the City’s more realistic scenario, presented as Scenario 3, showed a stark contrast which included modest investment in civic and streets infrastructure. After carefully analyzing these projections, several factors indicate that the more likely scenario is that the General Fund will face increasing financial stress, more so than indicated in Scenario 3.

The current baseline model projects that over the next four fiscal years, the General Fund will suffer an annual loss in net income. Beginning in FY 2027 the projections in the current model improve. However, this is based on the following assumptions: General Fund revenues will grow at a rate of 5% annually, General Fund expenses grow at a rate of only 4% overall, the Farmstead Hotel Development begins generating revenue for the City in FY 2027, and no additional investment in civic and streets infrastructure. Given what is known about upward pressure on personnel and other operating costs, the 4% projected growth rate is not realistic. Moreover, the current model did not anticipate any sort of economic downturn or recession.

Baker Tilly collaborated with City staff to revise the assumptions on which the current model is based.

The revised forecast indicates an annual deficit from FY 2023 to FY 2028 that would deplete General Fund reserves without corrective action. Starting in FY 2029, the General Fund would experience annual surpluses however, as stated above the surplus is on the baseline only and does not include staffing needs and infrastructure – discussed below.

In addition, over the past few years, numerous capital improvement and infrastructure needs have been identified totaling into the tens of millions of dollars for which General Fund support will be needed. In the past, these additional expenses were not incorporated into the forecast because of the magnitude of the costs on an already burdened General Fund operation.

Furthermore, City leaders have identified the need to increase staffing levels to support service delivery and, due to a number of factors including location and high cost of living, the City has become less attractive as an employer and therefore needs to ensure compensation is competitive to attract and retain staff. The total costs to improve capital infrastructure, increase staffing, and ensure compensation is competitive are estimated at nearly $5.3 million per year.

To address the fiscal gap and support efforts to improve capital infrastructure, Baker Tilly has identified 15 budget strategies that would have an ongoing fiscal impact on the General Fund of $300,000 or Budget Page 279
Agenda Item #11.1.

more. These strategies are presented in four budget scenario packages for Council’s consideration. The first scenario would strive to maintain existing service levels while addressing the need to make employee compensation and benefits more competitive in today’s marketplace. The other three scenarios would build on the competitive compensation adjustments and allow City leaders to address capital needs and provide additional staffing capacity to meet service delivery expectations of the community. The four scenarios are shown in Table 1 with additional detail provided throughout the remainder of this memo.

Table 1. Potential Budget Strategy Scenarios
Scenario Budget Strategies
Ongoing
Financial
Impact
One-time
Financial
Impact Service Level Impact
1 • Implement a gross receiptsbased business license tax at

0.8%.
$2.5 million N/A • Maintains current service levels
while providing additional capacity
in future years
2 • Implement a gross receiptsbased business license tax at 1%. • Increase the local transactions
and use (sales) tax by 0.5%.
$5.5 million N/A • Maintains current service levels
while providing additional capacity
in future years
• Provides capacity to address
unfunded/underfunded needs
3 • Implement a gross receiptsbased business license tax model at 1%.
• Implement a real property
transfer tax of 1.5% and create a
City Charter.
• Sell surplus property.
$4.7 million $8 million • Maintains current service levels while providing additional capacity
in future years
• Provides capacity to address
unfunded/underfunded needs
4 • Increase the transient occupancy
tax by 1%.
• Increase the local transactions
and use (sales) tax by 0.5%.
• Implement a library parcel tax of
$313.
• Sell surplus property.
$4 million $8 million • Maintains current service levels while providing additional capacity
in future years
• Provides capacity to address
unfunded/underfunded needs
Budget Page 280
Agenda Item #11.1.

Long-Range Financial Forecast
Baker Tilly reviewed the City’s existing long-range General Fund Financial Forecast to determine the basis and magnitude of the decisions to address any long-range gaps.

Original Baseline Forecast
The original baseline forecast provided by staff showed that General Fund operations were expected to largely break even over the 10-year period with modest (less than $200,000) deficits from FY 2023 to 2026, followed by years of surpluses that increased to $1.8 million by FY 2032, as depicted in Figure 1.

The forecast assumed that the Farmstead hotel property would be developed and start operations in FY 2027, which would generate an estimated additional $950,000 in transient occupancy (hotel) tax (TOT), property tax and sales tax in the first full year.

Figure 1. Original Long-Range General Fund Forecast – dated August 29, 2022 Key Assumptions Used in Developing the Original and Updated Forecasts Working with City staff, Baker Tilly updated the forecast based on current trends, updated FY 2022 unaudited financials, and FY 2023 projections and updated budget figures. We then reviewed the assumptions used in the original forecast and revised them based on current trends using historical City results and economic trends in the United States, California, and in the Napa Valley region. The key assumptions used in the original forecast and the revised assumptions used to update the model are summarized in Table 2 below.
-1,000,000
-500,000
0 500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
FY 18 FY 19 FY 20 FY 21 FY 22 FY 23 FY 24 FY 25 FY 26 FY 27 FY 28 FY 29 FY 30 FY 31 FY 32 St. Helena General Fund Annual Surplus (Deficit)
Budget Page 281
Agenda Item #11.1.

Table 2. Key Assumptions Used in Developing the Original and Revised General Fund Forecast Category Original Forecast Revised Forecast Comments

RESERVES
General Fund
Balance at June 30,
2022
$10.42 million
based on
estimated FY 2022
results
$12.1 million based on
updated unaudited estimated
FY 2022 results
N/A
Reserve target Minimum target
reserve policy of
30% of annual
operating
expenditures
Same as Original Forecast City policy is 30% of annual operating expenditures plus transfers. GFOA
minimum is 17% (two months). We
concur with the City’s higher threshold
based on a higher mix of economically
volatile revenue sources on which the
City relies (e.g., sales tax, TOT).

REVENUES
Property tax 4% growth based
on FY 2023
projections

4.5% growth based on FY
2023 projections and
historical results
A higher property tax growth is consistent
with expectations in other communities
and continued strong real estate market
in Northern California, in spite of higher
interest rates, which are expected to
taper down in the coming years.

Sales tax 5% growth based
on FY 2023
projections
Same N/A
Transient
Occupancy Tax
(TOT)
5% growth based
on FY 2023
projections;
addition of
Farmstead hotel
development in FY
2027
Same City staff indicate that the new hotel
development is a realistic assumption to
include in the baseline forecast.

Other revenues
(e.g., franchise fees,
licenses and
permits, charges for
services, etc.)

7.1% growth
based on FY 2023
projections and
historical averages
4% growth based on FY 2023
projections
Baker Tilly believes that a lower
assumption is prudent because historical
averages included some one-time
increases that will not be sustainable year
over year in the future.

Recessionary
assumptions
None Moderate recession primarily
impacting sales tax, TOT,
charges for services and
development fees starting in
FY 2027 with a three-year
recovery period
It is prudent to incorporate recessionary
impacts in long-range forecasts. California
averages one moderate recession every
seven years, which has an overall impact
on City revenues of approximately 10%,
with a three-year recovery period.

Budget Page 282
Agenda Item #11.1.

Category Original Forecast Revised Forecast Comments

EXPENDITURES
Staffing levels Existing levels
based on
approved
positions
Same N/A
Salaries and salarybased benefits5% placeholder
COLA increases
Same Given this inflationary market and
existing MOUs, a 5% placeholder is
prudent. Note that this category also
includes the CalPERS normal cost
assumptions based on the revised
discount rate assumptions of 6.8%
investment return.

Health insurance 5% growth based
on FY 2023
projections and
existing staff
benefit elections
Same A 5% assumption is reasonable based on
latest information from the CalPERS
Public Employees' Medical and Hospital
Care Act (PEMHCA) program.

CalPERS unfunded
actuarial liability
(UAL)
6% growth in FY
2025, and 3%
growth thereafter
based on FY 2023
UAL amount, with
annual
discretionary
payments (ADP)
totaling $450,000
per year through
FY 2035
Based on latest actuarial
analysis including the 6.1%
investment portfolio loss in FY
2022, and 6.8% long-term
investment returns, including
ADPs of $450,000 per year
through FY 2035
We used the CalPERS Pension Outlook
Tool on the CalPERS actuarial website to
run the analysis for UAL for future years.

Services and
supplies
5% growth based
on FY 2023 budget
5% growth in FY 2024 and
2025; 4% growth per year
thereafter
The inflationary pressures are expected
to ease by FY 2026 based on most
economist expectations, returning to a
normal inflationary index of
approximately 4% in the long-term.

Maintenance 1% growth based
on FY 2023 budget
5% growth in FY 2024 and
2025; 4% growth per year
thereafter
Due to increase in labor costs, we believe
that the long-term assumptions should
match those of the services and supplies
category.

Budget Page 283
Agenda Item #11.1.

Category Original Forecast Revised Forecast Comments
Taxes, insurance,
and other
contributions
3% growth based
on FY 2023 budget
10% growth in FY 2024; 7%
growth in FY 2025, 6% growth
in FY 2026, 5% growth in FY
2027, and 4% growth in FY
2028 and thereafter
Insurance premiums are a large part of
this line item. Due to increases in
insurance premiums resulting from
wildfire losses and cybersecurity threats,
the assumptions are increased through FY
2027. Thereafter, increases are based on
long-term inflationary expectations
discussed above.

Debt service Projected based
on known debt
service costs; no
new debt
obligations
Same N/A
Capital outlay 2% growth based
on FY 2023
budget; only
includes capital
equipment
acquisition costs;
no additional
capital
improvement
project (CIP)
funding
5% growth in FY 2024 and
2025 based on FY 2023
budget; 4% growth thereafter
Inflationary growth expectations mirror
the services and supplies category.

Transfers to other
funds
Various transfers
based on ongoing
expectations
Same Ongoing transfers include transfers to
Flood Control Capital Reserve, Fourth of
July Fund, Streets CIP for maintenance of
effort for Measure T, Measure T Class 1
Trails, and retiree medical funding.

Updated Baseline Forecast
Using the revised assumptions provided in Table 2, Baker Tilly updated the City’s forecast. The baseline forecast indicates an annual deficit from FY 2023 to FY 2028 that would reduce General Fund reserves by $5.1 million without corrective action. Starting in FY 2029, however, the General Fund would experience annual surpluses that could grow to $1.7 million per year. This is due to the inclusion of the Farmstead property revenues (as was the case in the original forecast) and reductions in the CalPERS unfunded actuarial liability due to transition of employees to the reduced benefits established in the Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2012 (PEPRA) and the paydown of the liability through ADPs through 2035. Figure 2 displays the projected impacts of the updated baseline forecast on reserves and the annual surplus (deficit) in each year. Reserves stay above the City’s 30% minimum reserve throughout the forecast period. It is important to note, however, that the updated baseline forecast presented in Figure 2 does not address unfunded/underfunded infrastructure and staffing which is discussed further in the next section of this memo.

Budget Page 284
Agenda Item #11.1.

Figure 2. Updated Baseline General Fund Forecast
Budget Page 285
Agenda Item #11.1.

Providing Capacity by Addressing Impacts from Unfunded/Underfunded Needs With the baseline forecast updated, Baker Tilly reviewed the City’s identified unfunded or underfunded needs and capacity to meet the service delivery expectations of the community. These needs are summarized in the three areas discussed below.

1. Compensation adjustments. The City is challenged with recruiting and retaining talent to fill necessary positions for basic service delivery. Initial estimates indicate that current compensation and benefits are well below market. Addressing this would require additional General Fund resources totaling $1.7 million per year if implemented in FY 2024, which would bring City positions to within 75% of the variance between existing compensation levels and the median based on the compensation survey.

2. Ideal staffing levels. City staff conducted an assessment of necessary positions to meet the community’s desired service levels and the City Council’s established priorities. These positions include a grants coordinator, code compliance staff, administrative assistants/analysts, one additional police officer, and maintenance workers. The cost of the eight new positions and the unfreezing of one position to address these staffing needs would be approximately $1 million per year to the General Fund.

3. Capital funding needs. The City has assessed its unmet capital funding needs in five areas:
streets, stormwater, civic facilities, water, and wastewater. Water and wastewater capital projects are funded by utility charges with the City Council having the authority to establish rates that cover both operational and capital costs. The other three capital areas could require General Fund sources. Based on the needs to address these three infrastructure areas, the City staff anticipates unfunded obligations totaling over $2.5 million per year through FY 2028, tapering down to over $2 million per year starting in FY 2029 and beyond. The unfunded capital and staffing needs are presented in Table 3 below.

Table 3. Summary of Underfunded Capital and Staffing Needs – Year 1 Category
Estimated
Annual Shortfall
Year 1
Streets CIP $1,787,000
Stormwater CIP $324,000
Civic CIP $413,000
Staffing $2,776,000
Total Shortfall –General Fund $5,300,000
Water CIP $25,000
Wastewater CIP $11,000
Staffing – Other Funds $1,154,000
Total Shortfall – All Funds $6,490,000
Budget Page 286
Agenda Item #11.1.

As indicated in Table 3, the total General Fund unfunded/underfunded needs including compensation adjustments, ideal staffing, and infrastructure in Year 1 is $5.3 million. If those needs were addressed starting in FY 2024, the impact on the General Fund is profound, increasing the City’s annual deficit to $5.8 million in FY 2024 with the annual deficit reducing to $4.4 million per year by FY 2032. Without corrective action, the City’s reserves would be depleted below the City’s minimum reserve level in FY 2024, and would be fully depleted by FY 2025, as displayed in Figure 3. Clearly these are not sustainable options without corrective action and demonstrate the need for budget strategies to address the City’s long-range operational and capital needs.

Figure 3. Revised General Fund Forecast Including Additional Capacity and Addressing Unfunded/ Underfunded Needs
Budget Page 287
Agenda Item #11.1.

Budget Strategies
To address the deficit noted in the previous section, Baker Tilly conducted an independent analysis of the City’s revenues and costs of service delivery relative to the General Fund to develop options, or strategies, for addressing the challenge. The strategies are provided herein. They were developed along a continuum that included:

A. Expenditure controls and cost shifts
Reducing expenses or shifting the cost burden away from the General Fund B. Service delivery changes
Changing the way that services are delivered, either through contracting for services, insourcing services from other agencies, or through public-private partnerships C. Revenue enhancements
Increasing the resources available to pay for services through new or increased revenues D. Service level reductions
Service level reductions that must be implemented to the extent that the items above are not able to be implemented or do not sufficiently address the fiscal gap Arraying ideas along such a continuum reflects the priority any organization would have for preserving service delivery to the maximum extent possible consistent with maintaining solvency.

The strategies were developed based on a combination of factors, including Baker Tilly’s experience about approaches used by other cities throughout California and in other parts of the country as they consider options to address structural deficits. Baker Tilly also identified ideas through conversations with the City’s leadership team and department directors. Several dozen potential strategies were identified.

Baker Tilly conducted a high-level analysis of those strategies that were determined to have a moderate to high fiscal impact (greater than $350,000) as shown in the sections below. A list of additional strategies that were contemplated but not analyzed because of unknown or minimal fiscal impact are shown in Attachment A.

Strategies within the continuum are presented in tables that show the identified budget strategy, a short description of the strategy, the estimated fiscal impact, and considerations the City leadership will have to take into account when determining implementation feasibility.

Budget Page 288
Agenda Item #11.1.

A. Expenditure Controls and Cost Shifts
Table 4 details the expenditure control and cost shift strategy.

Table 4. Expenditure Control and Cost Shift Strategy
Budget
Strategy Description
Fiscal
Impact Implementation Considerations
Shift a portion
of health
insurance
costs to
employees
The City provides full medical coverage to employees
and their spouses. An option would be to share a
portion of the health care costs with employees
through either 1) percentage cost allocation to the
employee, or 2) limitation on coverage level
(employee only vs. full family) or a cap on amount the
City will cover. The estimate is based on 20% cost
sharing with employees.
$260,000 • Requires meet and confer
obligation with affected labor
groups.
• May erode competitive
compensation and benefits
compared to other local
government agencies to recruit
and retain qualified workers.
• Cost sharing is not uncommon
among other agencies and
private sector employers.

B. Service Delivery Changes
During the course of our work, we identified 12 potential budget strategies for consideration that would have allowed for service delivery changes while maintaining existing service levels. However, based on our initial analysis, it did not appear that most of the 12 potential budget strategies would have yielded a moderate or significant level of cost savings and other strategies such as how law enforcement and fire services were provided to the community have an unknown fiscal impact which would be determined depending on desired services levels. These items are listed in Attachment A.

C. Revenue Enhancements
Table 5 outlines the revenue enhancement strategies that were identified and analyzed.

Table 5. Revenue Enhancement Strategies
Budget Strategy Description
Fiscal
Impact Implementation Considerations
Allow
development of
new hotels to
increase
transient
occupancy tax
(TOT) revenue
St. Helena currently has one established hotel
and approval for one additional hotel
(Farmstead). The current TOT rate in St. Helena is
15% (12% TOT, 1% Affordable Housing, and 2%
Tourism Improvement District (TID)). Estimate of
increased revenues are for building an additional
hotel with 100 rooms at 80% occupancy and a
rate of $350 per night.
$1,300,000 • Developers may seek tax
incentives for building a new
hotel.

Budget Page 289
Agenda Item #11.1.

Budget Strategy Description
Fiscal
Impact Implementation Considerations
Increase TOT
rate by 1%
St. Helena visitors staying in the local hotel pay
TOT based on a total rate of 15% (12% TOT, 1%
Affordable Housing, and 2% Tourism
Improvement District (TID)). An increase in the
TOT rate of 1% would yield additional revenues
totaling $450,000 based on current long-term
TOT projections.
$450,000 • A general purpose TOT increase
requires majority voter
approval at an election where
Council seats are on the ballot
unless a fiscal emergency is
declared whereby the measure
can proceed during a nonelection season.
• Pushback from local hotels
• TOT rate increases are
generally supported by voters.

Establish a Parks
Maintenance
District
Forming a Maintenance Assessment District
would enable the City to shift a portion of parks
maintenance costs to property owners and
provide a source of funding to enhance service
levels.
$300,000 to
$500,000
• Requires approval of property
owners to be assessed. May
take a year or more to
implement. City would still be
required to provide “general
benefit” financial contributions
Increase local
transactions and
use (sales) tax by

0.5%
The City currently levies a 0.5% local sales tax. For
every 0.5% increase to the local sales tax, St.

Helena would realize an additional $2.3 million in
revenue.
$2,300,000 • A general purpose sales tax
increase requires majority
voter approval at an election
where Council seats are on the
ballot unless a fiscal emergency
is declared whereby the
measure can proceed during a
non-election season. A specific
purpose sales tax increase
requires two-thirds voter
approval and may be taken to
voters at any time.
• City leadership will need to act
before other overlapping
jurisdictions add additional
local sales taxes that would
reach the cap of 2% of local
sales taxes in any one
jurisdiction. Otherwise, the City
might be required to seek
legislative relief to be allowed
to exceed the cap.

Budget Page 290
Agenda Item #11.1.

Budget Strategy Description
Fiscal
Impact Implementation Considerations
Implement a
utility user tax
The Utility User Tax (UUT) may be imposed by a
city on the consumption of utility services,
including (but not limited to) electricity, gas,
water, sewer, telephone (including cell phone
and long distance), sanitation and cable
television. Approximately, 160 cities in California
have some form of UUT in place.
$450,000 to
$787,500
(Varies based
on rate and
affected
utilities. Range
is based on per
capita rates of
$100 to $175.)
• A general purpose UUT
requires majority voter
approval at an election where
Council seats are on the ballot
unless a fiscal emergency is
declared whereby the measure
can proceed during a nonelection season.

Implement a
Library parcel tax
The Library in St. Helena is currently funded by
the General Fund. A parcel tax could be put
before the voters to support Library operations
and remove the burden from the General Fund.

St. Helena has 3,836 parcels. General Fund
expenditures for the Library are just over $1.2M.

To generate that amount from a parcel tax would
require a $313 parcel tax.
$1,200,000 • A parcel tax would need to be
approved by two-thirds of
voters and may be taken to
voters at any time.

Review and
update business
license tax (BLT)
The City’s current BLT model is based on a “perunit” basis for various business categories (e.g., employees, rental units, etc) or a flat rate for
other business categories. Some cities use a gross
receipts model based on sales attributable to the
jurisdiction. Current annual revenues total
$101,000. Using a gross-receipts model, a tax rate
of 0.1% would yield approximately $320,000 in
additional net revenues to the City, which might
actually be higher when including non-sales
taxable business (e.g., professional services, food
products, etc.).
$3,200,000
based on 1%
tax rate (net of
annual
enforcement
costs)
• Modeling the tax to generate
the appropriate revenues and
to address equity and fairness
across business sizes and
sectors will be important.

Changes in the BLT model
require a majority vote where
Council seats are on the ballot
unless a fiscal emergency is
declared whereby the measure
can proceed during a nonelection season.
• City would need to consider
administrative support to assist
with public information and
education during the transition,
and enforcement, the latter of
which can be outsourced
through a tax consulting firm
that might cost $50,000 per
year for enforcement costs.

Budget Page 291
Agenda Item #11.1.

Budget Strategy Description
Fiscal
Impact Implementation Considerations
Implement real
property transfer
tax
Charter cities have the authority to implement a
real property transfer tax at whatever rate the
local jurisdiction wants to implement, subject to
voter approval. Napa County Assessor’s Office
currently assesses the tax at a rate of 0.11%. The
City could implement this option only if it were to
change from a general law city to a charter city.

Based on current tax revenues received by the
City through the County, a 1% tax rate would
yield $1.5 million in additional annual revenues,
but those revenues will vary based on trends in
the housing market and property turnover.
$2,250,000
based on a

1.5% tax rate.

One-time costs
approaching
$500,000
might be
incurred to
draft a Charter
and
accompanying
ballot
measures for
voter
consideration.
• Requires an election and
majority vote to change from a
general law city to a Charter
city. This would be taken to
voters during a general election
where Council seats are also up
for election.
• Charter measure would be
accompanied by a real property
transfer tax measure, that is a
general law tax subject to
majority voter approval.

Sell surplus
property
The City has several parcels of land that are
vacant and could be sold for private
development. Staff estimates potential property
values of over $8 million.
$8,000,000 as a
one-time
revenue source
• Sale of surplus property must
fulfill the provisions required
under the Surplus Land Act.
• This is a one-time revenue
source that should only be
used to restore General Fund
reserves until which time
ongoing revenues sources are
found to address the gap.
• Future decisions could be made
to use the funds for one-time
needs.

As indicated in Table 5, most of the revenue enhancement strategies that would have a moderate or high level of fiscal impact require new or increased tax revenues. Every one of those items would be subject to the provisions of Proposition 218 and Proposition 26 that govern the requirements to impose, extend or increase a tax within a jurisdiction. Attachment B provides slides from a presentation that Baker Tilly has used in the past with cities to educate them about the requirements of Propositions 218 and 26. Baker Tilly encourages the City to learn more about the provisions of these regulations by consulting legal counsel as well as the information provided in the League of California Cities’ Propositions 26 and 218 Implementation Guide1
.

D. Service Level Reductions
Service level reduction options are detailed in Table 6. 1 The League of California Cities’ Propositions 26 and 218 Implementation Guide may be found on the League’s website at the following location: https://www.calcities.org/resource/propositions-26-and-218-implementation-guide Budget Page 292
Agenda Item #11.1.

Table 6. Service Level Reduction Strategies
Budget Strategy Description Fiscal Impact Implementation Considerations Reduce normal
work hours
Reduce all non-public safety staff to 35
hours per week.
$550,000 to
$700,000 based on
how many positions
can truly be
reduced
• Will likely increase staff turnover
and difficulty in hiring.

Eliminate library
and repurpose
facilities
Closure of the library would reduce
General Fund expenses by approximately
5% and result in the elimination of 5.98
FTE. Closing the library would result in the
City forgoing revenues received from the
Friends of the Library and Library
Foundation, state grants and trust funds.

If this were implemented, the City would
need to determine how to repurpose the
library facilities for other uses, which
could include a permanent City Hall
location, lease, or considered surplus
property for sale/disposition.
$900,000 • The library is popular with
residents, and this would be a
politically difficult reduction. If
closed, people seeking library
services would need to visit one
of the other area libraries. The
City leaders would need to
determine what to do with the
facility.

General Fund
expenditure
reductions of
10% of annual
operating costs
This strategy would require a careful
analysis and prioritization of services to
determine where services may be cut. A
$1.8 million reduction in General Fund
expenditures based on FY 2024 projected
expenditures, if implemented through
staff reductions, would require a nearly
16% reduction in workforce. Such
reductions might include significant
reduction in police services requiring
additional mutual aid for Type 1 calls,
significant decreases to library hours,
reduced street and parks maintenance,
and reduced administration.
$1,800,000 based
on FY 2024
projected
expenditures
• Impacts of workforce reduction
would require notice to labor
groups and layoffs in accordance
with MOUs and personnel rules.
• Unemployment costs will increase
and would need to be factored
into the determination of fiscal
impact in earlier years based on
implementation date.

Budget Page 293
Agenda Item #11.1.

Budget Scenario Packages
As indicated earlier, the baseline forecast, which excludes any of the items to provide additional capacity to enhance services and/or address unfunded/underfunded needs, would not require any new budget strategies, as long as the City Council were willing to waive its minimum target reserve threshold policy of 30% of annual expenditures during FY 2027 to FY 2030. Baker Tilly believes this would be a reasonable approach to maintain existing service levels.

However, infrastructure needs, additional staffing to address unfunded/underfunded needs, and staff vacancies and recruitment challenges will continue to threaten the City organization’s ability to deliver the existing services and meet the demand for expanded service unless addressed. As indicated earlier, these adjustments would impact the baseline forecast by increasing annual General Fund costs by $5.3 million per year, which will grow based on cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) and benefit increases.

Based on the foregoing, Baker Tilly has prepared four scenarios for Council’s consideration that address the identified fiscal gaps. Each of the scenarios would allow the General Fund to maintain an appropriate level of reserves, eliminate identified structural gaps (deficits), and ensure the viability of the City’s operations throughout the period included in the fiscal model.

The scenarios described below do not include any service level or expenditure reductions. St. Helena elected officials and appointed leadership have indicated a desire to not only maintain service levels, but to enhance the level of service provided by the City. Suggesting service level reductions would run counter to that desire. Rather, the scenarios described below are designed to either maintain or enhance service delivery, especially as it relates to unfunded/underfunded capital needs.

These budget scenarios are provided as examples of the types of strategies that Council members could consider addressing the long-term fiscal gap. The Council could choose any of these scenarios or develop alternative scenarios that include varying types of strategies to resolve the fiscal gap. The scenarios included in this report employ different strategies and make assumptions with respect to the timing of implementing each strategy.

As a reminder, the updated baseline forecast projected annual deficits from FY 2024 to 2028, with reserves staying above the City’s minimum reserve target of 30%.

Table 7 summarizes the four scenarios provided for consideration as the Council determines the approaches it wants to take to address the indicated fiscal gaps.

Budget Page 294
Agenda Item #11.1.

Table 7. Budget Scenarios to Address Fiscal Gaps
Scenario Description

ADDRESSING COMPETITIVE COMPENSATION ADJUSTMENTS ONLY
Scenario 1 – Business license tax with additional
capacity in future years
$2.5 million in annual additional resources
• Include funding for compensation adjustments ($1.7 million) in FY 2024. • Implement gross receipts-based business license tax model with a tax rate of 0.8% generating $2.5 million annually starting in FY 2025. • Provides additional annual capacity of over $2 million by FY 2031 to address other unfunded/underfunded needs.

PROVIDING CAPACITY IN ALL UNFUNDED/UNDERFUNDED NEED AREAS Scenario 2 – Providing capacity: business license
tax; local transactions and use (sales) tax
$5.5 million in annual additional resources
• Include funding for compensation adjustments ($1.7 million) in FY 2024. • Implement gross receipts-based business license tax model with a tax rate of 1.0% generating $3.2 million annually starting in FY 2025. • Increase local transactions and use (sales) tax rate from 0.5% to 1.0% generating $2.3 million annually in FY 2025.
• Include funding for all capital funding need requirements ($2.5 million) in FY 2025 upon passage of business license and local sales tax measures.
• Include funding for ideal staffing levels ($1 million) in FY 2026. • Provides additional annual capacity of approximately $2.8 million in FY 2031 to address other unfunded/underfunded needs.
• Waive City’s minimum reserve target policy of 30% for FY 2027 to 2029 and implement the GFOA recommended minimum 17% reserve policy during this period.

Scenario 3 – Providing capacity: business license
tax; Charter City; real property transfer tax; sell
surplus property
$4.7 million in annual additional resources
$8 million one-time additional resources
• Include funding for compensation adjustments ($1.7 million) in FY 2024. • Implement gross receipts-based business license tax model with a tax rate of 1.0% generating $3.2 million annually starting in FY 2025. • Include funding for all capital funding need requirements ($2.5 million) in FY 2025 upon passage of business license tax measure • Include funding for ideal staffing levels ($1 million) in FY 2025 upon passage of real property transfer tax.
• Implement real property transfer tax rate of 1.0% totaling $1.5 million in annual revenues, subject to creation of a City Charter, by FY 2026. • Sell surplus property totaling $8 million in FY 2027
• Provides additional annual capacity of approximately $2 million in FY 2031 to address other unfunded/underfunded needs.
• Waive City’s minimum reserve target policy of 30% for FY 2026 to 2029 • and implement the GFOA recommended minimum 17% reserve policy during this period.

Scenario 4 – Providing capacity: TOT rate
increase; local sales tax; library parcel tax; sell
surplus property
$4 million in annual additional resources
$8 million one-time additional resources
• Include funding for compensation adjustments ($1.7 million) in FY 2024. • Increase the TOT rate from 12% to 13% generating $450,000 annually in FY 2025.
• Increase local transactions and use (sales) tax rate from 0.5% to 1.0% generating $2.3 million annually in FY 2025.
• Implement library parcel tax of $313 per parcel generating $1.2 million in ongoing revenues by FY 2026.
• Include funding for ideal staffing levels ($1 million) in FY 2026. • Sell surplus property totaling $8 million by FY 2027. • Include funding for all capital funding needs ($2.5 million) in FY 2027.

Budget Page 295
Agenda Item #11.1.

Figures 4 to 7 below present the before and after impacts on General Fund reserves and the annual surplus (deficit) if the strategies identified in Table 8 were implemented.

Scenario 1 – Business license tax with additional capacity in future years Figure 4. Scenario 1 – Before and After Graphs of Reserves and Annual Surplus (Deficit) Before
After
Scenario 2 – Providing capacity: business license tax; local transactions and use (sales) tax
Figure 5. Scenario 2 – Before and After Graphs of Reserves and Annual Surplus (Deficit) Before
Budget Page 296
Agenda Item #11.1.

After
Scenario 3 – Providing capacity: business license tax; Charter City; real property transfer tax; sell surplus property
Figure 6. Scenario 3 – Before and After Graphs of Reserves and Annual Surplus (Deficit) Before
After
Budget Page 297
Agenda Item #11.1.

Scenario 4 – Providing capacity: TOT rate increase; local sales tax; library parcel tax; sell surplus property
Figure 7. Scenario 4 – Before and After Graphs of Reserves and Annual Surplus (Deficit) Before
After
Budget Page 298
Agenda Item #11.1.

Concluding Remarks
The City’s updated financial forecast indicates that there is fiscal capacity to provide services at existing levels. However, there are several unfunded or underfunded needs. The City organization is currently struggling to provide services and meeting the expectations of the community. The City is also having difficulty recruiting and retaining its employees due to compensation and benefits that are not considered competitive in the marketplace. This post-pandemic environment adds significant challenges to the City’s ability to recruit staff even if compensation was competitive. The cost of housing in the geographic region, coupled with long commutes, makes the City less attractive as an employer.

Competitive compensation is needed to attract and retain talent. The City leadership needs to address that issue as quickly as it can.

The magnitude of the costs associated with the City’s underfunded needs which total $5.3 million per year will not be affordable without additional financial resources – in other words, the City will need some form of revenue enhancement in order to continue providing the levels of service the community expects while also addressing deteriorating capital assets.

We look forward to discussing this matter with the City as the City Council and the leadership team work together with the community to address its operational and capital financing needs.

Budget Page 299
Agenda Item #11.1.

Attachment A – List of Additional Budget Strategies
The following table shows additional budget strategies that were identified but that did not meet a moderate or high fiscal impact threshold. A low fiscal impact budget strategy would have an estimated $100,000 to $350,000 impact to the general fund while minimal fiscal impact strategies are less than $100,000.

Budget Strategy Fiscal Impact

EXPENDITURE CONTROLS AND COST SHIFTS
Review cost allocation methodology and update to ensure cost recovery Low Shift costs for roadway maintenance to solid waste provider Low Eliminate special pays Low
Eliminate City contribution to deferred compensation plan Minimal

SERVICE DELIVERY CHANGES
Contract Police Services TBD
Depending
on Desired
Service
Levels
Contract Fire Services
Contract Parks and Recreation services with another jurisdiction (e.g., NPOSD, Calistoga, Santa Rosa)
Low
Contract parks maintenance services Low
Consolidate code enforcement so that one officer can perform multiple inspections. Minimal Implement online permitting Minimal
Implement adopt-a-spot volunteers in Parks and Recreation Minimal Increase partnerships Minimal
Contract with County to Provide Library Minimal
Contract with another agency to provide water and wastewater services Minimal Share Chief Building Official duties with neighboring jurisdictions Minimal Contract fleet maintenance Minimal

SERVICE REDUCTIONS
Reduce library hours Low
Reduce tree maintenance Low
Reduce frequency and/or level of service for Parks and Recreation Low Rely on part time staff at the library Low
Reduce number of special events Minimal

REVENUE ENHANCEMENTS
Fully recover costs for fire inspections Low
Budget Page 300
Agenda Item #11.1.

Budget Strategy Fiscal Impact
Start charging for vegetation inspections Low
Relax regulations on short term rentals to increase TOT Low Hire a hearing officer for parking citations to address appeals Low Increase solid waste franchise fees Low
Increase Parks and Recreation fees to achieve cost recovery Low Review and update master fee schedule to achieve cost recovery goals Low Implement street impact fee Low
Implement real property transfer tax Low
Implement results of development fee study Minimal
Establish a Business Improvement District Minimal
Implement a water and wastewater rate study Minimal
Implement a Friends of Parks and Recreations group Minimal Rent out library rooms Minimal
Budget Page 301
Agenda Item #11.1.

Attachment B – Presentation Slides on Propositions 218 and 26 The following slides are excerpts from presentations provided by Baker Tilly to other California cities describing the provisions of Propositions 218 and 26 and the impact on the ability of cities to impose, extend or increase taxes in their communities. More guidance can be found in the League of California Cities’ Propositions 26 and 218 Implementation Guide on the League’s website. 3 Specific benefit • zoning permits, parking permits
Government service or product • recrea�on classes, u�li�es Permits and inspec�ons • building permits, police background checks Local government property • facility rentals, park rentals Penalty for illegal ac�vity • parking fines, code enforcement fees Property development • planning fees, grading permits, development impact fees Proposi�on 218 excep�ons • fees imposed on a property owner, fees for property related service Proposition 26 - Defining a Tax by What it is NOT
4 Imposed
• When a local
tax ordinance is
adopted
Extended
• A decision to
extend the
effec�ve period
for the tax
Increased
• Increase the
rate of the tax
• Revising the
methodology
by which the
tax is calculated
Proposition 218 – When is a Tax Imposed,
Increased or Extended
Budget Page 302
Agenda Item #11.1.

5 General Tax Special Tax
Use of Revenues • Unrestricted • Specific purpose
Governing Body
Approval
• General law ci�es – 2/3 of
Councilmembers
• Transac�ons and use tax– 2/3 of
Councilmembers
• Majority of Councilmembers
Voter Approval • Majority of voters vo�ng on the
measure
• 2/3 of the voters vo�ng on the measure
Other Rules • Must be consolidated with a
regularly scheduled general elec�on
of member of the governing body,
unless a fiscal emergency is declared
by unanimous vote
• Must be deposited into a separate fund
• Must publish an annual report including
• Tax rate
• Amounts collected and expended
• Status of projects funded by the tax
Taxes Require Voter Approval
Source: The California Municipal Revenue Sources Handbook (5 th Edition), Michael Coleman Budget Page 303
Agenda Item #11.1.

CITY OF ST. HELENA

APPROPRIATIONS LIMITATION SUMMARY
Fiscal Year 2023‐24
PROCEEDS OF TAXES $ 16,493,668
EXCLUSIONS $ ‐
APPROPRIATIONS SUBJECT TO LIMITATION 16,493,668 $
CURRENT YEAR LIMIT $ 63,383,756
OVER (UNDER) LIMIT $ (46,890,088)
AVAILABLE CAPACITY AS A % OF LIMIT 73.98%
In November, 1979, the voters of the State of California approved Proposition 4, commonly known as the Gann Initiative. The Proposition created Article XIIIB of the State Constitution placing limits on the amount of revenue which can be spent by all entities of government Prop 4 became effective for the 1980/81 fiscal year, but the formula for calculating the limits was based on the 1978/79 "base year" revenues.

In order to deal with an increasing number of complaints about the restrictions of Prop 4, and to increase the accountability of local government in adopting their limits, the voters approved Prop 111 in June 1990. Among other things, Prop 111 provides new adjustment formulas which should make the Appropriations Limit more responsive to local growth issues. It also requires an annual review of Limit calculations.

The Appropriations Limitations imposed by Propositions 4 and 111 creates a restriction on the amount of revenue which can be appropriated in any fiscal year. The Limit is based on actual population and inflation.

Not all revenues are restricted by the Limit, only those which are referred to as "Proceeds of Taxes."

APPENDIX F
Budget Page 304
Agenda Item #11.1.

CITY OF ST. HELENA
Spending Limit Calculation
Fiscal Year 2023‐24

APPROPRIATIONS SUBJECT TO LIMIT
Fiscal year 2023‐2024 estimated revenues 18,274,906 $
Less:

Nonproceeds of tax $                               (1,781,238) Plus:

User fees in excess of costs $                                            ‐ Total appropriations subject to limit: $                              16,493,668

APPROPRIATION LIMIT
Fiscal year 2022‐2023 appropriation limit: 60,969,617 $ A. Cost of living adjustment (1) 1.0444
B. Population adjustment (2) 0.9954
Change Factor (A x B) 1.0396
Increase in appropriation limit $                                2,414,138 FISCAL YEAR 2023‐2024 APPROPRIATION LIMIT $                              63,383,756 REMAINING APPROPRIATION CAPACITY $                              46,890,088 AVAILABLE CAPACITY AS A PERCENT OF LIMIT 73.98%
(1) Based on percentage change in California per capita income. (2) Based on annual population change for St. Helena.

Budget Page 305
Agenda Item #11.1.

CITY OF ST. HELENA
Spending Limit Calculation
Fiscal Year 2023‐24
PROCEEDS NON‐PROCEEDS
OF TAX   OF TAX
Property tax              5,368,071 5,368,071
Retail sales/use tax              5,994,573 5,994,573
Transient occupancy tax              3,829,591 3,829,591 Business license tax                 179,394 179,394
Real property transfer tax                 154,175 154,175 Motor vehicle in‐lieu                 922,737 922,737
Public Safety Sales Tax 80,300 80,300
Franchise Taxes 565,600 565,600
Charges for Services 773,065 773,065
Other Revenues 357,400 357,400
SUBTOTAL $         16,448,541 $                 1,776,365 $ 18,224,906 PERCENT OF TOTAL 90.25% 9.75% 100.00%
INTEREST INCOME $                45,127 $ 4,873 $ 50,000 TOTAL ‐ GENERAL FUND $         16,493,668 $                 1,781,238 $ 18,274,906 (excludes interfund transfers & Sales Tax Set‐Aside)
REVENUE SOURCE    TOTAL
Budget Page 306
Agenda Item #11.1.

CITY OF ST. HELENA
Appropriation Limitation Adjustments Since 2004

BUDGET PRICE POPULATION CHANGE PRIOR YEAR CURRENT
YEAR     FACTOR FACTOR       FACTOR APPROP LIMIT APPROP LIMIT 2003/2004 1.0231 1.0027 1.0259 32,274,992                                                   33,109,700 2004/2005 1.0328 1.0099 1.0430 33,109,700                                                   34,534,236 2005/2006 1.0526 1.0150 1.0684 34,534,236                                                   36,895,998 2006/2007 1.0396 0.9119 0.9480 36,895,998                                                   34,978,144 2007/2008 1.0460 1.0150 1.0617 34,978,144                                                   36,586,269 2008/2009 1.0429 ‐1.0029 1.0400 36,586,269                                                   38,049,720 2009/2010 1.0062 1.0114 1.0177 38,049,720                                                   38,722,084 2010/2011 0.9746 1.0069 0.9813 38,722,084                                                   37,998,939 2011/2012 0.9749 1.0069 0.9816 37,998,939                                                   37,300,777 2012/2013 1.0377 1.0068 1.0448 37,300,777                                                   38,970,224 2013/2014 1.0512 1.0029 1.0542 38,970,224                                                   41,084,299 2014/2015 0.9977 1.0124 1.0101 41,084,299                                                   41,498,079 2015/2016 1.0382 1.0209 1.0599 41,498,079                                                   43,983,746 2016/2017 1.0537 1.0123 1.0667 43,983,746                                                   46,915,725 2017/2018 1.0369 1.0025 1.0395 46,915,725                                                   48,768,533 2018/2019 1.0367 1.0059 1.0428 48,768,533                                                   50,856,632 2019/2020 1.0385 1.0023 1.0409 50,856,632                                                   52,936,086 2020/2021 1.0373 0.9954 1.0325 52,936,086                                                   54,658,013 2021/2022 1.0573 0.9961 1.0532 54,658,013                                                   57,564,537 2022/2023 1.0755 0.9848 1.0592 57,564,537                                                   60,969,617 Budget Page 307
Agenda Item #11.1.

May 2023
Attachment A
A. Price Factor: Article XIII B specifies that local jurisdictions select their cost of living factor to compute their appropriation limit by a vote of their governing body. The cost of living factor provided here is per capita personal income. If the percentage change in per capita personal income is selected, the percentage change to be used in setting the fiscal year 2023-24 appropriation limit is:

Per Capita Personal Income
Fiscal Year Percentage change
(FY) over prior year
2023-24 4.44
B. Following is an example using sample population change and the change in California per capita personal income as growth factors in computing a 2023-24 appropriation limit.
2023-24:

Per Capita Cost of Living Change = 4.44 percent
Population Change = -0.35 percent
Per Capita Cost of Living converted to a ratio: 4.44 + 100 = 1.0444 100
Population converted to a ratio: -0.35 + 100 = 0.9965
100
Calculation of factor for FY 2023-24: 1.0444 x 0.9965 = 1.0407 Budget Page 308
Agenda Item #11.1.

Total
County Percent Change --- Population Minus Exclusions --- Population City 2022-2023 1-1-22 1-1-23 1-1-2023
Napa
American Canyon -1.35 21,631 21,338 21,338
Calistoga -0.68 5,162 5,127 5,127
Napa -0.92 77,533 76,821 76,821
St Helena -0.46 5,380 5,355 5,355
Yountville -0.86 2,211 2,192 2,778
Unincorporated -1.10 22,357 22,112 23,218
County Total -0.99 134,274 132,945 134,637
Budget Page 309
Agenda Item #11.1.

From: Kelly Wheaton
To: cityclerk
Subject: [External] Salary Comparisons Public comment for Public Meeting on Budget Date: Wednesday, May 24, 2023 4:34:32 PM
Attachments: image.png
image.png
As I mentioned at last night's meeting I have been analyzing the salaries of St Helena compared to nearby communities of similar size. In addition I have added Healdsburg (double the population of SH) and Napa (17 times larger). Then I added two tourist towns with similarly high cost of living and population (Carmel & Sausalito). More on that in a moment.

At this point I need to comment on how important it is to have local input. When hiring all these consultants you have an administrative staff who do not live here, feeding the consultants input and desired staff output. This was true with Raftelis and the failure of the staff to listen to the Council's goals and the Committee's goals that cost the taxpayers an additional $45,000 in fees to Raftelis. How so, you ask? The 2 hour first finished proposal presentation was based purely on staff input (and desired outcome) and was not the work product of the Committee nor did it reflect public comment. The Committee demanded that they have a say in the outcome (which better met the stated goals of Council and committee).

This involved an extension of the contract.

I mention this as but one example, but this happens with many Boards and Commissions in SH. Just like you on the council are delivered staff recommendations for which your consent is desired (with little, or no input from you or the public, because meetings would be 10 hours long). If more staff lived here they would probably be better informed. (Like the major faux pas of the City Manager not realizing how much value the Chamber adds to City coffers let alone the poor judgement in not reaching out to them). This is not an isolated incident. Stop with higher and higher salaries and more people that don't work here. Housing stipends are better than unfunded pensions. Input from the public should come at the beginning of these processes not at the end.

The time for better communication is long since passed. The staff does not seem to get that communication is a two-way street. The cringe worthy Secret Numbers List or "Who We Are" is a perfect example of not knowing the community. Your best city employees are the ones who interact regularly with the public on a level playing field and respect and seek their input on decisions that affect the citizenry. Proper communication involves an exchange of ideas, not one party dictating to the other. Just because it is done a certain way elsewhere, does not mean we need to do it that way here. In a small town like St Helena we can do much better. This community has a wealth of active and retired experts in a myriad of fields. The staff and council ignore them regularly in favor of high priced consultants with their boiler plate presentations and calculations. These consultants cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The two years of $30,000+ surveys told you what the staff should have known and at least the council would have. These high priced consultants are an expensive way for staff to justify what they put in front of you. Very expensive fig leaves and not always accurate.

WASH has been trying for nearly a year to get proper oversight of the Water and Wastewater enterprises and get a Commission agendized. First the City Manager told a group of us he was fully supportive. Then it was bad timing with the Water and Wastewater Study and on and on.

If the staff and City Manager fear oversight maybe that itself should be a red flag. The people that annoy the council the most are those who are the best watchdogs---disseminating Agenda Item #11.1.

information to the public and actively encouraging involvement. The Council should appreciate that and not fear the people who care. There are, as of this writing, 964 SIGNATORIES opposing the Hunter Project. They dribble in everyday in small spurts and they include diverse political viewpoints and socioeconomic backgrounds. Are you listening? I heard several things that I found truly disturbing last night. The CM mentioned hiring a consultant to do this and another consultant to do that. This is in addition to the 20 people he is proposing to hire. Isn't it the council's job to oversee City spending? He also mentioned adding hotel rooms to existing hotels. I want to know where the water is coming from. Why are residents asked to pay exorbitant costs for water and sewer and to cut down on usage---so it can be guzzled by hotel patrons?
Here is a suggestion. Whenever a consent item is put before the Council that requires an expenditure the staff be required to submit 2 or more cost saving alternatives. Let's use my pickleball example. Proposal A: fully fund $35k pickleball courts (no cost saving).

Proposal B: require the interested community members raise 1/2 the cost (savings of $17.5k) Proposal C: ask the Recreation & Parks director to seek corporate sponsorship in exchange for naming it ($35k savings).

As I meant to say last night there are two ways to save money. Increase revenue or decrease expenditures. Every decision the Council makes should be weighed as if this is your household budget.

Questions to ask:

Is this a WANT or a NEED?
Is there a less expensive alternative?
What happens if we do not fund this?
Will this add to future debt liabilities?
Is this what the community NEEDS or is it what the staff WANTS? Please note the staff are not impartial. They have wants disguised as needs. Who doesn't want new office furniture, new assistants, telecommuting---but these things are NOT what the citizens of St Helena expect when the infrastructure is crumbling. Prioritize what we need most---I am in agreement with Mayor Dohring---the sidewalks should be at the top of the list just behind fixing water pipes and Bell Canyon. The general staff have been asked by the CM to support hotel and housing development to insure their pension solvency. There is no clear directive from the community on whether they are willing to give up precious water for more hotel rooms so the CM can build a staff empire worthy of a town 10-20 times that of St Helena. When in doubt put it to a vote of the people who live here. They voted for you to represent them. Are you carrying out your fiduciary oversight? Do staff WANTS outweigh the public's? Change city rules to allow more communication between Council Members and staff. One person should not stand between the staff and the council. There should be opportunities for one on one, candid conversations with staff. The Council would learn valuable feedback.

It's the little things that add up. Why are we preparing public meeting handouts in full color? I imagine it costs about $.05 per page for B/W vs. $.20 per color (it could be much more). I have a 3" stack of materials from the Water/ Wastewater Rate Study alone, in full color. Let's look at ways to SAVE money-- not ways to spend MORE and more and more. The handout last night announcing the budget meeting has an enormous amount of black. It is not environmentally responsible. It is not economically responsible. How about giving a scan code Agenda Item #11.1.

and people can read it on their phones. You pass an ordinance banning gas powered leaf blowers for their environmental impact (Noise and pollution, which I support) yet think nothing of the air and noise pollution of a fireworks display.https://earth.org/environmentalimpact-of-fireworks/ Back to the Salary Comparisons. Here is a screenshot by Baker and Tilly of the cities used to calculate Annual UUT. If these are the same cities they used for the salary comparisons we can see that everyone of those cities has more population than St Helena and other than Sebastopol and Cloverdale they are not at all similar to St Helena. The only one with a similar population is Holtville with a median household income of $36,318 and the median family income $39,347.

Compare these with the cities I selected (below) for comparison. If you look carefully you will see that our top level management is not underpaid for the size of our population. We are terribly over staffed at the City Manger staff level. We are not in keeping with similar sized communities. We now have as much City Manager staff as Napa, a community SEVENTEEN times the population of St Helena's. There is also the huge impact of 2 new $100k Positions on long term Pension liabilities. I am sorry to say that the council is failing. This from the City's website:

The Mayor and four Council members represent the residents of St. Helena, review public policy, and adopt policies responsive to the community.

I know the City Council works long hours as well as city staff. If I can put this together in a few hours surely staff could have done the same. It isn't rocket science. If the comparison is showing underpayment it is because the comparables are not proper comparables. Also note that St Helena is not terribly understaffed. You are being misled.

Agenda Item #11.1.

TOWN Population
Total city
Employees
(2021)
Total Employee
salary cost
(2021)
2021 City
Manager salary
City Manager
Salary 2023
Assistant City
Manager 2023
Assistant to City
Manager or
Deputy 2023
Carmel 3,196 82 $7,311,166 $64,372 $231,815 $179,000-
$217,739 NONE
Yountville 3,360 65 $3,434,132 $229,763 $248,100 NONE NONE Calistoga 5,187 141 $6,912,179 $161,411 $240,000 $196,284- $238,584 NONE
St Helena 5,386 125 $7,596,488 $198,546 $235,036 $172,768- $210001
2 x $106,341-
$129,258
Sausalito 7,199 111 $8,424,016 $158,264 $205,920-
$246,625 NONE NONE
Healdsburg 11,275 272 $16,901,500 $269,843 $269,412.00 $170,587- $207,348 NONE
Napa 78,818 598 $53,998,475 $261,135 $231,690-
278,028
$199,290-
239,148
2x $176,078-
212,721
PLEASE RESPOND RECEIVED so I know you read this. I will be reporting back to the community who took the time to type in 8 letters.

Thank you.

Kelly Wheaton
Agenda Item #11.1.

From: Meagan Rounds
To: Public Comment; Contact City Council; Anil Comelo; April Mitts; Paul Dohring; Anna Chouteau; Billy Summers; Eric Hall; Lester Hardy
Subject: [External] Chamber of Commerce funding - follow up comment Date: Sunday, June 11, 2023 11:48:51 AM
Dear Councilmembers,
Following up on our previous letter regarding the Chamber of Commerce’s destination marketing budget from the City of St. Helena, here is some data from our point of sale and reservation systems for the past few years. I will gladly share more data if anyone wants additional years or the month-to-month breakdown.

In 2021 65% of our guests were visitors, 35% were residents In 2022 60% of our guests were visitors, 40% were residents In 2023 62% of our guests were visitors, and 38% were residents (thru May 31, 2023) Cook St. Helena is considered by many to be a restaurant for locals, and we do feel we are more locally serving; however, we cannot survive on residents alone. Slowing tourism will only derail the recovery in St. Helena at a time when businesses are all still struggling. Nearby cities such as Calistoga and Yountville spend far more to market their destinations. The chamber's 250k can't nearly compete, and now you want to cut it to 175k demonstrates an even bigger concern for an even slower town regarding visitation. Please don't cut the funding.

Sincerely,
Jude Wilmoth & Meagan Rounds
Cook St. Helena
Agenda Item #11.1.

From: Katherine Bull
To: Public Comment
Cc: Contact City Council; Anil Comelo; Paul Dohring; Anna Chouteau; Billy Summers; Eric Hall; Lester Hardy Subject: [External] Chamber of Commerce Destination Marketing budget Date: Monday, June 12, 2023 3:49:10 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Dear City Council,
I hope this email finds you well. I am writing to express my concern regarding the potential decision to cut the destination marketing budget allocated to the Chamber of Commerce. I strongly believe that such a move would have a detrimental impact on downtown businesses and our overall economic success as a city.

The Chamber of Commerce plays a vital role in promoting our city as a desirable tourist destination, one worth visiting. Their destination marketing initiatives have consistently showcased the unique attractions, events, and experiences that our city has to offer. By effectively targeting and reaching potential visitors outside of the scope of business owners, the Chamber has played a significant part in driving tourism growth and bringing economic benefits to this community.

Cutting the destination marketing budget for the Chamber would severely limit their ability to reach and attract new visitors. This, in turn, would result in decreased tourist footfall, reduced spending in local establishments, and a decline in revenue for our city’s businesses, all of which we local business owners can not afford. Furthermore, it would undermine our city’s reputation as a priority destination and hinder our competitiveness against neighboring cities that continue to invest in destination marketing. We can not fall behind in this, the consequences will have a strong ripple effect throughout our whole community.

Tourism is a vital economic engine for our city as you know, contributing to job creation, small business growth, and increased tax revenue. By reducing funding for destination marketing, we risk slowing down the positive trajectory we have experienced in recent years.

This would have a far-reaching impact on the livelihoods of our residents who rely on tourism-related industries for their income and financial stability.

I urge you to carefully consider the potential consequences of cutting the destination marketing budget for the Chamber of Commerce. Instead of viewing it as an expense, we should recognize it as an investment in our city’s future. By allocating adequate resources to destination marketing, we can continue to attract visitors, stimulate economic activity, and showcase the best our city has to offer, which is a lot! I kindly request that you explore alternative solutions that would allow the Chamber of Commerce to maintain their destination marketing efforts at a level that sustains the growth and vibrancy of our tourism industry. I understand the complexities involved in budgeting decisions, but I firmly believe that prioritizing investment in destination marketing will yield positive results for our city’s economy and community as a whole. By continuing to promote our city effectively, we can ensure its long-term success and attractiveness as a destination of choice.

Thank you for your time and for your ongoing commitment to the growth of our city. I remain Agenda Item #11.1.

hopeful that we can work together to continue building a vibrant and successful community that is a high class destination for both locals and tourists alike.

My best,
Katherine Salinas
CEO
Meuse Gallery
1331 Main Street,
St. Helena, CA 94574
d-707-968-5942
c-831-224-3717
[email protected]
www.meusegallery.com
Agenda Item #11.1.

From: Kristine Waldenburg
To: Contact City Council; Anil Comelo; Paul Dohring; Anna Chouteau; Billy Summers; Eric Hall; Lester Hardy; Public Comment
Cc: Kristine Waldenburg
Subject: [External] Marketing budget
Date: Monday, June 12, 2023 11:33:46 AM
Dear St. Helena City Council and City Manager,
I am writing to encourage you all to invest in the future of sustaining downtown businesses by NOT cutting the marketing budget currently in place which I understand is on the chopping block. While I certainly know that when trying to rein in a budget means cuts, I think it might be penny wise and pound foolish to negatively impact a source of revenue for the City in sales tax generated.

St. Helena is a destination town that relies on visitors, be it day trippers or more far reaching. Even a very hyper local business like mine (Lolo’s Consignment, 26 years in business) can’t survive totally on Napa Valley locals…we found that out during the pandemic! I have been in business long enough to remember when St. Helena was THE place to visit and also saw it’s decline when other towns dug in, improved and marketed themselves. Visitors no longer bypass Napa in favor of St. Helena. Now it’s necessary to market to get them to come here to us.

The out of area visitors usually generate 50% or more of our sales weekly. I attribute this to the work that the Chamber has taken on over the last years making St. Helena at the very least more visible and at the most a “must” destination, even with stiff competition from other NV towns, especially Napa.

We already have more than a few empty storefronts in St. Helena. That is not a thriving look! How does it make sense to cut funding to promote St. Helena for the remaining businesses and stores? How would it be for a possible new business owner to take the very expensive plunge to open a business here rather than in another NV town that is supported by lots of marketing dollars? I would also like to say that 99.9% of the visitors are LOVELY, here to have a good time and spend money! Remember we are all visitors when it comes to traveling even for a day. How did you find your last destination? I know that marketing is an easy target because it is hard to quantify. However, the Chamber has provided results that marketing DOES WORK with increased numbers, inquiries and high social media presence. This has translated into sales tax revenue to the City. Please know how important marketing dollars are to our businesses and to St. Helena.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Kristine Waldenburg Lolo’s 1120 Main Street St. Helena
Agenda Item #11.1.

From: Sweeney, Tracy
To: Paul Dohring; Eric Hall; Lester Hardy; Anna Chouteau; Eric Hall Cc: Ask City Hall; cityclerk
Subject: RE: [External] Please fully fund the St. Helena Chamber of Commerce partnership Date: Monday, June 12, 2023 10:26:15 AM
Attachments: image001.png
Hello Council Members,
I understand discussion of funding the Chamber was moved to this upcoming Council agenda. I am resubmitting my letter of support to ensure inclusion in this weeks’ Council packet and public notice documentation. Thank you to those of you who replied to my earlier letter. Want to be sure you have all support letters aggregated for the current meeting package.

Thank you,
Tracy
Tracy Sweeney VP DTC | Treasury Americas | (707) 287-8651 From: Sweeney, Tracy
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2023 1:38 PM
To: Mayor Paul Dohring: <[email protected]>; Vice Mayor Eric Hall:
<[email protected]>; Council Member Lester Hardy: <[email protected]>; Council Member Anna Chouteau: <[email protected]>; Council Member Billy Summers:
<[email protected]>
Subject: Please fully fund the St. Helena Chamber of Commerce partnership Members of the St. Helena City Council,
I am writing as both a citizen and a member of the St. Helena business community. Please include full funding for the St. Helena Chamber of Commerce in the 23/24 fiscal year budget. This funding serves as a valuable investment that directly generates revenue at an exponential rate through sales tax and transient occupancy tax (TOT). No other City expense is revenue generative. Cutting investment from our destination marketing efforts and the various business education programs provided by the Chamber will lead to more revenue deficits in the future. Businesses will be less equipped to grow sales and attract customers and our hospitality industry including lodging, restaurants and wineries will see fewer visitors resulting in less TOT and sales tax for St. Helena.

The investment in the Chamber of Commerce is quite modest relative to the return the City sees.

Please continue to support this vital organization in the coming budget and in the years ahead.

Sincerely,
Tracy Sweeney
Agenda Item #11.1.

TRACY SWEENEY
Vice President, Direct-to-Consumer
M (707) 287-8651
E [email protected]
555 Gateway Drive, Napa, CA 94558
www.tweglobal.com
Agenda Item #11.1.

From: Eric Reichert
To: Public Comment; Contact City Council; Anil Comelo; Paul Dohring; Anna Chouteau; Billy Summers; Eric Hall; Lester Hardy
Subject: [External] Support of the St. Helena Chamber of Commerce Date: Monday, June 12, 2023 4:27:04 PM
Attachments: image.png
image.png
Dear Mayor and City Council,
I am writing to express my strong support for the marketing efforts led by Amy and her team at the St. Helena Chamber of Commerce and hope that you will reconsider cutting funding for their marketing efforts. As the President & CEO of the Calistoga Chamber of Commerce and Visit Calistoga, I understand firsthand the vital role that destination marketing plays in the success of a city and its businesses.

The impact of reducing or eliminating marketing funding for a destination cannot be underestimated. It can have devastating consequences on a city's economy, particularly for a destination like St. Helena, which is intrinsically linked to tourism. I have seen the record Tourism Improvement District (TID) numbers achieved in St.

Helena recently, which are a direct result of the Chamber's marketing efforts.

Both Calistoga and St. Helena, as neighboring cities in the Napa Valley, may be friendly competitors, but we also recognize the value of collaboration and sharing ideas to attract visitors to our region. Amy and her team have consistently demonstrated their expertise, creativity, and dedication as collaborative partners, always keeping the bigger picture in mind.

Our economies rely heavily on tourism, and robust marketing efforts are essential for our collective success. I firmly believe in the "when we all win, we all win" mindset. By continuing to fund the Chamber, you contribute to the future success of St. Helena, its business community, and the entire Napa Valley.

Thank you for considering the importance of supporting the Chamber's work.

Together, we can ensure a thriving and prosperous future for St. Helena and the entire valley.

Sincerely,
--
Eric Reichert
President / CEO
Calistoga Chamber of Commerce
(707) 942-6333
Agenda Item #11.1.

Agenda Item #11.1.

From: Simply Driven Napa & Sonoma
To: Public Comment
Cc: Contact City Council; Anil Comelo; Paul Dohring; Anna Chouteau; Billy Summers; Eric Hall; Lester Hardy Subject: [External] Agenda Item 11.1 - Specifically Chamber Funding Date: Monday, June 12, 2023 8:51:14 PM
Dear Mayor Dohring and St. Helena City Council,
"Stopping advertising to save money is like stopping your watch to save time." - Henry Ford.

As a Chamber member and owner of a digital marketing and wine tour company, I am invested in St. Helena. The recent proposal to cut or eliminate St. Helena's destination marketing budget and contract with the Chamber concerns me. Here's why:

Marketing is vital: It's not just about selling; it's about telling our story, inviting people to join our community, and showing them how St. Helena fulfills their wishes and desires. It supports local businesses and contributes to city tax revenue without further burdening residents.

We risk becoming invisible: Without marketing, we risk fading into the background, especially as neighboring cities like Calistoga, Yountville, Napa, and Sonoma boost their visibility.

St. Helena's charm: We're unique, and marketing is how we share that uniqueness. Cutting the Chamber contract could dilute our appeal and give an advantage to our neighbors.

Making connections: Marketing is about engaging potential visitors.

If we pull back, we lose that connection while other cities strengthen theirs.

Impact on tourism and economy: Fewer marketing efforts mean fewer tourists, which impacts local businesses and tax revenue.

Colorado's experience in 1993, when it eliminated its tourism marketing budget, serves as a cautionary tale. The state suffered a Agenda Item #11.1.

30% drop in domestic market share within two years, representing over $1.4 billion in annual tourism revenue loss, subsequently growing to over $2 billion annually. It took Colorado 15 years to regain its lost market share after reinstating its budget. This cautionary tale is detailed in a paper titled "The Rise and Fall of Colorado Tourism" by Dr. Bill Siegel, which you can read here.

Attracting new businesses: A perceived lack of investment will discourage new businesses from setting up shop in St. Helena, limiting our local economy's growth and diversification.

Above all, remember this: Experiences in wine country are not bought; they are sold, and more than a lifetime's worth of experiences are competing for attention.

In conclusion, reducing or eliminating the destination marketing budget will negatively impact St. Helena's ability to attract visitors, generate revenue, and grow. I urge you to reconsider this proposal and maintain or even increase the contract with the Chamber.

Regards,
Grady Sibert
Simply Driven & Tummel.Me
Agenda Item #11.1.

Here are TWO excellent partner events for you to attend.

Forward this
email to your team so everyone in your organization can take advantage of these opportunities for your business.

From: Sweeney, Tracy
To: Paul Dohring; Eric Hall; Lester Hardy; Anna Chouteau; Eric Hall Cc: cityclerk; Ask City Hall
Subject: [External] FW: Last Chance to RSVP
Date: Tuesday, June 13, 2023 7:56:15 AM
Attachments: image001.png
Council members – calling your attention to a great example of the type of resourcing and support the Chamber of Commerce provides to local business that would be at risk if funding is decreased.

See below…
Thank you for your support of the St. Helena Chamber of Commerce.

Tracy

TRACY SWEENEY
Vice President, Direct-to-Consumer
M (707) 287-8651
E [email protected]
555 Gateway Drive, Napa, CA 94558
www.tweglobal.com
From: St. Helena Chamber <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2023 2:00 PM
To: Sweeney, Tracy <[email protected]>
Subject: Last Chance to RSVP
Agenda Item #11.1.

Free workshop! Join the Chamber on Thursday, June 15th at 9:30 am to learn more about email marketing.Learn how to utilize your email list better, increase your open/click rates, and find ideas to improve your email marketing.

We're Almost Full, RSVP NOW!
Don't miss our biggest networking event of the year! Mix and mingle with area professionals valley-wide. From Napa to Calistoga, you are invited to join all Chambers on Tuesday, June 27th at Charles Krug Winery.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Copyright © 2023 St. Helena Chamber of Commerce, All rights reserved.

You are receiving this email because you opted in via our website or at one of our events.

Our mailing address is:

St. Helena Chamber of Commerce
1154 Main Street
St Helena, Ca 94574

RSVP HERE
Agenda Item #11.1.

Add us to your address book
Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.

Agenda Item #11.1.

From: Whitney Diver McEvoy
To: Public Comment; Contact City Council; Anil Comelo; Paul Dohring; Anna Chouteau; Billy Summers; Eric Hall; Lester Hardy
Subject: [External] PUBLIC COMMENT: Council Mtg. 6/13 - Item 11.1 Date: Tuesday, June 13, 2023 10:35:12 AM
Mayor Dohring and Councilmembers –
I am writing to share my strong support for the continued partnership between the St. Helena Chamber of Commerce and the City of St. Helena. The collaboration between the city and the chamber is the foundation for prosperity and economic vitality in St. Helena.

As a community that relies heavily on tourism spending, like Yountville, I understand firsthand the importance of destination marketing. Over half of St. Helena’s FY 23/24 budget, is made up of sales tax and TOT spending. I strongly encourage you to reconsider cutting funding for destination marketing services with the chamber. Maintaining adequate funding for destination marketing services provided by the St. Helena Chamber is critical for the city's continued success.

In a highly competitive tourism landscape, effective marketing is indispensable in attracting visitors to St. Helena. Without strategic marketing efforts, it becomes challenging for potential visitors to discover and appreciate the unique offerings of St. Helena. As a result, the local economy, which heavily relies on tourism, may suffer adverse consequences.

The collaborative efforts between the city and the chamber have yielded tangible results in the past.

Joint initiatives such as community events (concerts in the park), promotional campaigns (Holidays in St. Helena), and business development programs (Sidewalk Sales) have contributed to the growth and prosperity of St. Helena. By continuing this partnership, you can build upon these successes and propel St. Helena towards further economic advancement.

It is essential to recognize that a vibrant business sector not only brings economic benefits but also enhances the quality of life for residents. By supporting the partnership between the City of St.

Helena and the St. Helena Chamber of Commerce, you are investing in the prosperity and well-being of St. Helena as a whole.

Thank you for your consideration,
Whitney Diver McEvoy
President & CEO
Yountville Chamber of Commerce
Office: 707-944-8008
Cell: 916-300-5404
[email protected]
www.yountville.com
www.yountvillechamber.com
Agenda Item #11.1.

1 Cindy Tzafopoulos
From: Anna Chouteau
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2023 1:03 AM
To: Anil Comelo; Cindy Tzafopoulos
Subject: Public Comment on the SH Chamber item to share with my Councilmembers Hi Anil and Cindy,
Can you please share this since I can’t attend the meeting tonight? Anna
Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor and fellow Councilmembers,
I would like to call in for the meeting tonight but the time difference where I am would mean it would be in the middle of the night!
Please consider my thoughts about funding for our SH Chamber. I was encouraged to hear that our City Manager and staff came to an agreement with Amy Carabba‐Salazar and Chamber Boardmembers to make the hard decision to reduce funding to $175,000 for destination marketing and the welcome center only and the city will assume responsibility for special events with our fantastic Park and Rec team. It’s important to me that we do not take any more dollars away from the chamber than we absolutely have to and we listen to what they say they need. I appreciate that the chamber understands the financial situation we are in and will find a way to raise funds to be able to continue to fund the destination marketing budget at the current level that will make us competitive with nearby cities and bring tourists to St. Helena to support our local businesses and our local government through TOT and sales tax. St. Helena and other cities and town in Napa County are unique in that our economy is so heavily dependent on tourists. We need to have a strong and positive relationship with our chamber to make sure our businesses do well in our beautiful city.

Thank you for all your work tonight.

Best regards,
Anna
Sent from my iPad
Agenda Item #11.1.

From: Felicia Chan
To: Public Comment; Contact City Council; Anil Comelo; Paul Dohring; Anna Chouteau; Billy Summers; Eric Hall; Lester Hardy
Subject: [External] Letter of Support
Date: Tuesday, June 13, 2023 11:17:44 AM
Dear City Council of St. Helena,
I am writing to express my continued support of fully funding the St. Helena Chamber of Commerce who have been a great marketing partner to Gott’s. Their focus on destination marketing in particular benefits Gott’s in the form of increasing foot traffic to the town over neighboring areas. We greatly appreciate their efforts.

Kind regards,
Felicia

FELICIA CHAN
Director of Marketing & Communications
GOTT’S ROADSIDE
P.O. Box 1226 | St. Helena, California 94574
M – 415.314.4929
http://www.gotts.com
Agenda Item #11.1.

From: Heidi Bamburg
To: Public Comment; Contact City Council; Anil Comelo; Paul Dohring; Anna Chouteau; Billy Summers; Eric Hall; Lester Hardy
Cc: Amy Carabba-Salazar
Subject: [External] URGENT - I urge you to maintain full funding for the Chamber of Commerce Date: Tuesday, June 13, 2023 3:02:50 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
Dear St. Helena City Council Members,
I am writing to express my strong support for the St. Helena Chamber of Commerce and its crucial role in driving tourist volume to support the success of all businesses in our city. As a downtown business owner, I can assure you that continued full funding for the Chamber of Commerce is essential for the growth and prosperity of St. Helena.

The St. Helena Chamber of Commerce has been instrumental in promoting our city as a premier tourist destination. Through their dedicated efforts, they have effectively marketed our local businesses, attractions, and events to a wider audience, enticing visitors to explore and experience our unique offerings. By drawing in more tourists, the Chamber has significantly contributed to the economic vitality of St. Helena.

Moreover, the Chamber of Commerce plays a vital role in fostering collaboration and networking among local businesses. They provide valuable resources, educational programs, and networking opportunities that support small businesses, and encourage economic growth. By serving as a central hub for business development, the Chamber strengthens the fabric of our community, promotes local job creation, and helps businesses thrive.

The Saint is a unique destination for locals and tourists. We have a local following, supported by our myriad of locals events (half price bottle nights, Bunco nights, Women & Wine Wednesdays, and our Saint Social Club). However, despite all of that activity, 95% of all our revenue comes from tourists. And we are barely breaking even now. We would have been another empty storefront if it wasn’t for the efforts of the Chamber to consistently drive visitors.

It would be amazing if we had enough locals to support our business and keep us afloat.

We’ve been told by several locals that “The Saint is so badly needed in St. Helena – there’s nothing else like it, and you absolutely must stay open”. Yet, those same people admitted that they had never even set foot inside The Saint. Market restaurant is one of the few establishments that is well supported by locals. But very few of the other businesses on Main Street get meaningful local revenue. In fact, The Saint could quadruple our locals’ revenue and it wouldn’t make a dent in our overall profitability.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Does the City Council see the success of its businesses as a priority? If so, what is the City doing to create a material difference in the tourist volume needed to support us? We’re still feeling the pain of the pandemic, and the Chamber has been the sole source of meaningful business support for our city.

I kindly request that you consider maintaining the current level of funding for the St. Helena Chamber of Commerce in the upcoming budget discussions. Investing in the Chamber is an investment in the growth and success of our entire community. By continuing to support their activities, we can collectively build a vibrant and thriving city that benefits residents, businesses, and visitors alike.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I trust that you will carefully consider the significant impact the Chamber of Commerce has on our community and make a decision that will help propel St. Helena toward a prosperous future.

Cheers,
Agenda Item #11.1.

[email protected]
[email protected]
Public Comment 11.1
Dear City Council Members,
It has come to my attention that the City intends to reduce the amount of funding budgeted for the St. Helena Chamber of Commerce by $75,000 for the next two years, below even PREPANDEMIC levels and not accounting for any specific dollars to promote our town during the holidays.

I understand that the City of St. Helena is a business, and sometimes certain line items need to be budgeted differently as in any business. But this cut seems short-sighted. The marketing dollars allocated to and spent by the COC specifically work to bring tourists to our community, increasing the TOT dollars (locals do not stay in hotels) and the sales tax dollars collected by the local businesses (who cannot survive on locals alone.) St. Helena (and the greater Napa Valley) has an economy rooted in tourism and it is critical that the City Council support an increase in marketing dollars spent to ensure that St. Helena remains competitive not only within the greater Napa Valley, but is also attractive to tourists considering other wine country travel (Healdsburg, Sonoma, Mendocino, etc.)
I question the purpose specifically of this slide:

Napa County contributions should be significantly higher because it is a destination whose town revenues and businesses rely almost exclusively on tourism. Contributions to Marin County and Sonoma County are not a good comparison as the economies there are not dependent solely on tourism. Solano County is a terrible comparison – and all three seem to be an attempt by City management to mislead this Council to believe that less funding to the Chamber is appropriate.

With nearby towns and destinations spending significantly more on marketing, the City of St.

Helena needs to remain competitive with these towns/areas in many ways, and reducing the amount of marketing dollars granted to the COC specifically shows a DISREGARD AND DISINTEREST in bringing tourists to town and therefore helping our businesses survive and thrive.

Agenda Item #11.1.