19 Total Years of Experience
5
Areas of Expertise
Construction estimating
ECI estimates
Constructability reviews
Project management
Education
BS, Construction Management,
California State University, Chico
Registration/Certifications
OSHA 30-Hour
PG&E Corporate Contractor
Safety Orientation (SAFE-0101)
PG&E Fire Danger Precautions
(SAFE-1503)
PG&E Basic Helicopter Safety
PG&E Rural Driving
CPR, AED, and First Aid
EMT course from the College
of Medical Training in Tacoma,
Washington
Defensive Driving Techniques for
Construction
Colten Hansen has been in the heavy civil construction industry since 2019. His heavy civil experience includes paving, grading, waterborne pump installation, and dam modifications. Colten also has been involved in estimating related to Early Contractor Involvement (ECI) since 2021. His ECI experience includes bridge improvements, low-level outlet modifications, gate replacements, dam structural modifications, and coordination with dive estimates. Colten's current duties include construction estimating, ECI estimates, constructability reviews, and project management.
RELEVANT PROJECTS
• Florence Lake Dam Fish Water Release
Southern California Edison Company – Fresno County, California ECI Estimator
• Big Creek Dam 1 Low Level Outlet Valve Replacement
Southern California Edison – Huntington Lake, California ECI Estimator
• Big Creek Dam 4 Low Level Outlet Valve Replacement
Southern California Edison – Huntington Lake, California ECI Estimator
• French Meadows Pressure Relief Valve Replacement
Placer County Water Agency – Hell Hole Reservoir, California ECI Estimator
• Cushman Dam No. 1 River Outlet Valve Replacement
Tacoma Power – Lake Cushman, Washington
ECI Estimator
• Tiger Creek Spillway Replacement
PG&E – Tiger Creek Reservoir, California
ECI Estimator
• Lake Eleanor Dam Bridge
San Francisco Public Utilities District – Yosemite, California ECI Estimator
Colten Hansen
COST ESTIMATION & CONSTRUCTABILITY LEAD
2. RESUMES
Agenda Item #10.8.
20 Total Years of Experience
18
Areas of Expertise
Environmental planning
Coastal resource planning
Regulatory compliance
Education
MS, Natural Resource Policy,
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
MUP, University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor
BA, Environmental Studies,
University of California, Santa Cruz
Certifications
American Institute of Certified
Planners (AICP)
LEED Accredited Professional, US
Green Building Council
Elijah has 18 years of experience working on environmental planning projects with a focus on coastal resource planning and regulatory compliance. His responsibilities primarily include project management and technical support in the areas of CEQA, NEPA, and environmental regulatory permitting for a variety of project types throughout California. Elijah has extensive experience with projects involving water resources infrastructure, open space and recreation management, coastal land use policy and planning, and renewable energy. Prior to joining ESA, Elijah served as staff to the California Coastal Commission, the agency charged with regulating land use planning and development along the state’s 1,100-mile Pacific coastline.
RELEVANT PROJECTS
• Mark West Creek Regional Park and Open Space Preserve Master Plan Sonoma County Regional Parks, Sonoma County, California Project Director
• North Marin Water District Gallagher Ranch Streambank Stabilization Project
North Marin Water District, Point Reyes Station, California Senior Permitting Specialist
• Gallagher Well No. 2 Project
North Marin Water District, Point Reyes Station, California Senior Permitting Specialist
• Ventura Water Pure Project CEQA/NEPA
City of Ventura, Ventura, California
Senior Permitting Specialist
• Ocean Beach Climate Change Adaptation Project
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, San Francisco, California Project Manager
• Southern Skyline Boulevard Ridge Trail Extension Project San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, San Francisco, California Project Manager
• Memorial Park Wastewater Treatment Improvements Project San Mateo County Parks Department, Pescadero, California Project Manager
• Fort Bragg Mill Site – Mill Pond Dam Retrofit Project Georgia Pacific, Fort Bragg, California
Project Manager
• Pure Water Soquel Project
Soquel Creek Water District, Santa Cruz County, California Deputy Project Manager
Elijah Davidian, AICP, LEED AP
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE
2. RESUMES
Agenda Item #10.8.
3 RELEVANT EXPERIENCE
Agenda Item #10.8.
22 3. RELEVANT EXPERIENCE: PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
3. RELEVANT EXPERIENCE
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
Project Data
Completion: July 2019
Mead & Hunt fees: $68,000
Total project cost (est.): $390,000
Size: 42-inch outlet with 130 feet of
normal operating head
Services Provided
Engineering evaluation
Fish release discharge piping and
valve design
Involvement of Key Staff
Stephen Sullivan
Eric Love
Jeff Kashiwada
Jackie Hader
Chris Hirschman
DUTCH FLAT DAM LOW LEVEL OUTLET (LLO) VALVES
NEVADA IRRIGATION DISTRICT (NID) – DUTCH FLAT, CALIFORNIA The Dutch Flat Afterbay is part of NID's Yuba-Bear Hydroelectric Project. The Dutch Flat Afterbay Dam LLO consists of a 42-inch outlet, supplemented by a 12-inch-diameter fish release, with 130 feet of normal operating head. The fish release gate valves were not operable and needed to be replaced. NID requested engineering assistance to perform an evaluation of the proposed LLO outlet pipe and valve modifications, as well as design details for support of 12-inch fish release discharge piping and valves.
Mead & Hunt evaluated the proposed and future valve and piping arrangement based on existing release schedules and anticipated future adjustments to provide guidance for the proposed gate valve replacement. Mead & Hunt also provided design drawings for arrangement and support of the 12-inch fish release discharge piping including supporting design calculations and equipment specifications.
This project addressed the dam's
LLO energy dissipation valving,
including temporary upstream plug
to facilitate valve removals, and
temporary bypass.
Agenda Item #10.8.
23 3. RELEVANT EXPERIENCE: PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
Project Data
Completion (est.): December 2024
Mead & Hunt fees (est.):
$526,000
Total project cost (est.): $850,000
Size: 4 dams
Services Provided
Safety, security, and access
improvements
Infrastructure improvements
Alternatives analysis
Civil, mechanical, structural, and
electrical engineering design
Development of design plans,
specifications, and cost estimates
Engineering support during
construction
Involvement of Key Staff
Chris Hirschmann
Stephen Sullivan
Grace Rose
Jackie Hader
Thomas Darlington
FISCAL YEAR 2023/2024 UNTREATED WATER
RESERVOIR PROJECTS
CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT (CCWD) – CONTRA COSTA, CALIFORNIA CCWD owns and operates Martinez, Contral Loma, Mallard, and Los Vaqueros Dams, of which water is distributed to CCWD’s customers. Mead & Hunt is providing an alternatives analysis, stakeholder coordination, and project management services for civil, structural, mechanical, and electrical design, plus safety, surveillance, and DEIB reporting services.
The Mead & Hunt engineering team prepared a Preliminary Basis of Design Report (BODR) and supporting Technical Memoranda (TM) to establish the project specific basis of design for UWRR improvements. Mead & Hunt also prepared design documents for review at 50% and 90% levels and stamped and signed 100% plans and design documentation after the CCWD's 99% review.
The design improvements include providing safer access and boat launching into the Martinez Reservoir, identifying fall protection improvements at the Martinez Dam toe drain vault, and designing work pads and a safety railing system around the Shortcut Pipeline metering vault. The project repaired the existing fencing along the Martinez Reservoir to prevent vandalism and unauthorized entry into the facility and improved the fencing at Contra Loma Dam to allow water to pass unobstructed into the spillway while preventing unauthorized public access into the facility.
Mead & Hunt designed video surveillance improvements at Contra Loma, Mallard, and Los Vaqueros Dams. We improved the existing slide gate at Mallard Reservoir Dam LLO and provided recommendations and designs to safely abandon unused pipes that penetrated the Mallard Dam embankment.
This project involved dam LLO
underwater work to modify control
gates, which enhanced our experience with underwater gate actuation to regulate reservoir releases.
Agenda Item #10.8.
24 3. RELEVANT EXPERIENCE: PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
Project Data
Completion: September 2016
Mead & Hunt fees: $102,000
Total project cost (est.): $102,000
Size: 99-foot-high by 500-footlong concrete arch dam Services Provided
Structural engineering
Hydraulic design
Construction support (response
to RFI, submittal review, on-site
observation, etc.)
Involvement of Key Staff
Grace Rose
Ryan Greif
BUCKS CREEK ENERGY DISSIPATERS
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (PG&E) – PLUMAS
COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Bucks Creek Powerhouse (built in 1927) is located on the North Fork Feather River in Plumas County. It contains two generating units, each containing two Pelton wheels. Water is conveyed through penstocks and is delivered to needle valves.
The Pelton wheels are rotated by the hydraulic pressure created by the needle valves. Downstream of each wheel, water reaches a wheel pit and tailrace bay before exiting the powerhouse and entering the Feather River. Steel framed hydraulic energy dissipater structures are installed at the exterior wall where water exits the powerhouse. The energy dissipater frames dissipate the hydraulic energy exiting the needle valves before the water reaches the Feather River. Due to age and wear and tear, the existing energy dissipater structures failed or were damaged. PG&E requested that Mead & Hunt provide structural engineering and hydraulic design for new steel framed dissipaters.
Mead & Hunt evaluated the hydraulic pressure applied to the energy dissipaters and designed new structural frames. The new energy dissipaters have the capacity to resist the hydraulic pressure exiting the needle valves before entering the Feather River. Structural design at hydroelectric facilities is critical for the safety and longevity of powerhouse design.
This work was completed within
the powerhouse. The project site
was near a high-voltage switchyard and energy dissipaters anchored into an old concrete
building. The dissipaters had to
withstand high thrust forces from
a high pressure water outlet. We
designed the steel lining to protect the existing concrete structure from erosion.
Agenda Item #10.8.
25 3. RELEVANT EXPERIENCE: PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
Project Data
Completion (est.): 2025
Mead & Hunt fees: $1.6 million
Total project cost: $22 million
(to-date)
Size: 100-foot-long spillway
Services Provided
Dam safety evaluation
Preparation of field work plan
Site specific safety plan
preparation
Field investigation
Concrete coring, sampling,
testing, non destructive testing,
petrographic analysis
Bathymetric survey
Underwater diving inspection
Structural analysis
Preparation of alternatives
and analysis
Feasibility study
Design of remedial measures
Involvement of Key Staff
Chris Hirschmann
Stephen Sullivan
Eric Love
Grace Rose
Jeff Kashiwada
Jackie Hader
Thomas Darlington
Ryan Greif
Subconsultants
SR Diversified
Ballard Marine Construction
LOWER BUCKS DAM UPSTREAM GEOMEMBRANE
PG&E – PLUMAS COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Lower Bucks Dam is a 99-foot-high by 500-foot-long concrete arch dam. The dam is under the jurisdiction of the California DSOD and the FERC. During an assessment, concrete spalling and delaminating were found on the dam's downstream abutments, face, and main spillway, with large pieces of concrete deteriorating.
Mead & Hunt assessed the dam's condition and after examining various options, we recommended installing a geomembrane liner on the dam's upstream face to prevent water leakage and saturation and reduce freeze-thaw damage. As the Engineer-of-Record (EOR), we created design documents for approval and provided permitting support for FERC and DSOD. Installing the liner required lowering the water level in the reservoir using large pumps on barges, building a temporary bypass pipeline for releasing water, diverting an existing pipe to the downstream channel, constructing a temporary cofferdam, and removing sediment from the dam's upstream face. We set up a filtration system to keep the downstream water clean and drilled two core drains through the 20-foot-thick concrete dam to connect with the geomembrane system. Mead & Hunt also developed design for a LLO slide gate rehabilitation, and modified the high-head LLO dissipation system valving at dam outlet.
During construction, we supported PG&E by conducting regular site visits, coordinating with contractors and suppliers, overseeing construction, performing structural calculations, monitoring crane loading, reviewing RFIs and submittals, revising drawings and sketches, and assisting with construction engineering design and problem-solving. Mead & Hunt also provided FERC-required certification of construction and as-built drawings that incorporated multiple survey data sources.
This project involved four separate construction entities under PG&E, with Mead & Hunt coordinating with each throughout construction. We leveraged early contractor involvement to optimize the teams and roles.
SR Diversified provided early contractor involvement services for Mead & Hunt on the Lower Bucks Dam Refacing Alternatives Analysis. They provided cost estimates and constructability reviews focused on analyzing the two alternatives presented by Mead & Hunt. Ballard assisted with underwater inspections, underwater diversion dams, and mobilizing pump equipment.
Similar to Bell Canyon, this project involved underwater assessments, reservoir dewatering pumping with flow bypass, rehab of dam outlet slide gate, downstream energy dissipation valving and piping modifications, and complex reservoir operational planning.
Agenda Item #10.8.
26 3. RELEVANT EXPERIENCE: PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
Project Data
Completion: January 2023
Mead & Hunt fees: $415,000
Total project cost (est.): $2.7 million
Size: LLO tunnel diameter varies
from 8.6 to 10 feet. Outlet is rated
to discharge 2,400 cfs, but is
limited to 700 cfs
Services Provided
Civil engineering
Structural engineering
H&H engineering
Geotechnical engineering
Involvement of Key Staff
Stephen Sullivan
Eric Love
Grace Rose
Jackie Hader
Ryan Greif
Subconsultants
SR Diversified
CANYON DAM OUTLET PROTECTION
PG&E – PLUMAS COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Canyon Dam (also known as Lake Almanor Dam) is a 130-foot-high embankment with a LLO gate tower that controls releases to an outlet tunnel that passes under the dam and discharges through an outlet structure into the natural stream below the dam. The outlet tunnel is rated to discharge up to 2,400 cubic feet per second (cfs), but is normally limited to 700 cfs to provide smooth flow and prevent surging in the tunnel. After significant flows in 2017, there was increased erosion on the bank near the outlet. This could lead to further erosion and damage to the outlet structure and LLO tunnel.
Mead & Hunt provided an analysis of alternatives (AoA) report with recommendations to address the slope stability near the outlet and repair and protect against undermining the concrete structure. Of the alternatives presented, PG&E selected a cast-in-place cutoff wall with rock slope protection.
Mead & Hunt's design included modifications at the LLO outlet, the plunge pool, and the slope above the plunge pool. A temporary bypass system will provide instream flows while the plunge pool and LLO structure are dewatered. The foundation material beside the LLO will be excavated to install a cast-in-place concrete cutoff wall. Once the cast-in-place concrete cutoff wall and retaining wall are in place, voids below the LLO cutoff wall will be filled. Rock slope protection will be added to the plunge pool and at the base of the slope above the retaining wall.
Project construction is tentatively scheduled for fall 2022.
SR Diversified provided early contractor involvement services for Mead & Hunt.
They supported efforts from 50% design through 100% design, including providing an estimate for opinion of probable cost and a construction estimate narrative to provide construction sequencing and constructability commentary, including the bypass pumping to meet regulatory instream releases.
Similar to Bell Canyon, this
project included outlet flow
control and bypass pumping.
Agenda Item #10.8.
27 3. RELEVANT EXPERIENCE: PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
ALTA POWERHOUSE BYPASS PIPE REPLACEMENT
PG&E – PLACER COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Alta Powerhouse is part of PG&E's Upper Drum-Spaulding Hydroelectric Project.
Water is delivered to the powerhouse from Alta Forebay via a penstock with over 400 feet of elevation drop. The penstock is 36-inch-diameter welded steel pipe.
Due to current issues with and the possible future retirement of Alta Powerhouse Unit 1, an alternate means of delivering the downstream flows is required.
A junction in the current penstock was added with 24-inch bypass piping; the bypass piping crosses over the spill pipe toward the powerhouse tailrace. Flow is released from the 24-inch bypass pipe through a fixed cone valve designed for dissipating almost 200 psi of pressure into a custom designed energy dissipation chamber. From there the flow is routed through the tailrace and downstream to the existing weir inlet structure to meet both the PCWA and Little Bear River water delivery requirements. Erosion protection and energy dissipation where designed to be achieved by the fixed cone valve, a discharge chamber, and the addition of rock slope protection in the tailrace. This project prepared conceptual options for energy dissipation, followed by construction documents for the bypass pipe and energy dissipation design.
Project Data
Completion: May 2024 (est.)
Mead & Hunt fees: $192,500
Total project cost (est.): $1.9 million
Size: 36-inch-diameter welded
steel pipe penstock
Services Provided
Structural engineering
Mechanical engineering
Electrical engineering
Civil engineering
Involvement of Key Staff
Stephen Sullivan
Grace Rose
Thomas Darlington
Water delivery requirements
downstream of the Alta powerhouse fluctuate depending on season. This project added a
bypass to the penstock to meet flow
demands. The piping, valve, and
thrust block system were designed
for full penstock head. Design
includes new outflow structure with
energy dissipation.
Agenda Item #10.8.
28 3. RELEVANT EXPERIENCE: PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
CARIBOU 1 INTAKE WALKWAY ANCHOR REPLACEMENT
PG&E – PLUMAS COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
The Caribou 1 intake is a reinforced concrete intake tower upstream of the Caribou 1 powerhouse. The intake structure is upstream of multiple powerhouses along the upper Feather River. Access to the intake structure is via a floating walkway adjacent to the boat launch ramp near the right abutment of the Butt Valley Power Dam. PG&E replaced the original walkway in 2010 with a 500-foot-long linked modular floating walkway spanning from the boat launch ramp to the intake tower.
Before Mead & Hunt's involvement, the anchorage had failed, and the concrete intake tower sustained impact damage from the floating walkway and wave action.
Mead & Hunt worked with PG&E initially to develop an interim anchoring solution.
We then developed an analysis of alternatives for permanent repair. The selected concept included a sliding frame encompassing the tower's concrete access shaft with a hinged connection, allowing wind and wave action. Mead & Hunt’s detailed design for the long-term repair achieved the following objectives:
• Establish walkway anchorage to the tower under large reservoir elevation fluctuations
• Reestablish walkway anchorage to the shoreline
• Locally repair concrete shaft—underwater and above the waterline • Add longitudinal tensile strength to the intake tower shaft with guards anchored to the concrete
We also designed a floating and sliding anchorage for a log boom and debris barrier that connects to the same concrete intake structure. The log boom anchorage was designed with a vertical slide beam that can rotate horizontally at the tower anchorage locations, and the log boom connects to a floating anchor that slides along the vertical beam to accommodate fluctuating reservoir elevation.
Mead & Hunt provided construction support by coordinating with PG&E, constructors, and vendors, performing steel fabrication shop reviews, responding to submittals and requests for information (RFIs), collaborating with the constructors and Ballard on diving to resolve as-found field issues, and performing site visits during construction for quality assurance. In addition to providing dive support, Ballard performed inspections, submerged concrete repairs, and anchorage.
Project Data
Completion (est.): February 2024
Mead & Hunt fees: $258,000
Total project cost (est.): >$1 million
Size: 500-foot-long floating
walkway
Services Provided
Structural design
Construction observation
Engineering support during
construction
Involvement of Key Staff
Eric Love
Grace Rose
Subconsultants
Ballard Marine Construction
Our design repaired wind and
wave damages and rehabilitated
the intake tower and walkway.
Repairs included anchoring the
walkway to sustain large reservoir
elevation fluctuations, repairing the concrete shaft (including underwater repairs), and designing log boom debris barriers to protect infrastructure.
Agenda Item #10.8.
29 3. RELEVANT EXPERIENCE: PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
Project Data
Completion: 2022 (FDS) and
2024 (BB2, est.)
GEI fees: $920,000
Services Provided
Geologic and geotechnical
investigations
Geotechnical engineering
analyses and design
Geotechnical data report
Geotechnical basis of design
reports
Preparation of plans, specifications
and engineering cost estimates
Structural design
Concrete retaining walls
Articulated concrete blocks
Construction observation services
Involvement of Key Staff
Elliott Ticen
SAN ANSELMO FLOOD RISK REDUCTION (SAFRR)
MARIN COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT –
MARIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Ross Valley, which includes San Anselmo and Fairfax, has historically been flooded by overflow from Corte Madera Creek and its upstream tributaries, causing extensive property damage and economic hardship. In response, flood management projects received local funding. The SAFRR project comprises two sub-projects:
the Flood Detention and Storage (FDS) project and the Building Bridge 2 (BB2) removal and restoration. The FDS is a flood diversion and storage project aimed at reducing downstream flooding by preemptively diverting creek flows and temporarily storing water in the new basin for later release after the flooding subsides.
The BB2 is a flood obstruction elimination project aimed at reducing flooding by enhancing the ability of the creek to transport flows without overtopping while simultaneously restoring the creek’s natural fluvial and biological functions.
GEI is the project's lead geotechnical, civil, and structural design firm. The ongoing FDS involves excavating a basin and constructing a new 10-foot-tall perimeter earthen embankment, as well as a new 100-foot-wide by 100-foot-long side weir inlet with 20-foot-tall concrete retaining walls on either side. The side weir inlet utilizes vegetated open-cell articulated concrete block instead of traditional reinforced concrete to provide a cost-effective and aesthetically preferred surface finish. GEI completed a field exploration program with over 20 explorations and performed site characterizations, stability, seepage, and settlement analyses. GEI led the FDS basin design, including embankment earthwork design, grading plans, inlet/outlet channel structural design, and prepared specifications and Opinion of Probable Cost from a 60% through 100% design level.
For the ongoing BB2, GEI performed a field investigations program, site characterizations, and stability analyses. They assessed reusing the existing BB2 abutment as a retaining wall for a planned plaza. GEI designed temporary support and a new 15-foot-high retaining wall in the confined urban environment for the plaza above San Anselmo Creek and designed a reinforced earth slope for the opposite bank along Creek Park, which the Town of San Anselmo owns.
This project involved geotechnical, civil, and structural design of a detention basin, embankment, and
inlet and outlet structures to divert
and detain creek flood flows.
Agenda Item #10.8.
30 3. RELEVANT EXPERIENCE: PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
Project Data
Completion: November 2019
Size: 94-foot-diameter ogee crest
morning glory spillway with a 38-
foot inside diameter vertical shaft,
and a 34-foot inside diameter
horizontal tunnel
Services Provided
Site inspection
Focused spillway assessment
Seismic stability analysis
Spillway-focused PFMA workshop
JACKSON HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FOCUSED MORNING GLORY
SPILLWAY POTENTIAL FAILURE MODE ANALYSIS (PFMA) AND
STABILITY ANALYSIS
SNOHOMISH COUNTY PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT – SULTAN, WASHINGTON Culmback Dam is a compacted rock-fill, impervious clay core structure approximately 640 feet long and 262 feet high. The Jackson Spillway protects the dam from overtopping. It includes a free-standing morning glory structure about 275 feet upstream of the dam and approximately 250 feet from the right abutment of the dam. The morning glory structure has a 94-foot-diameter ogee crest, a 38-foot inside diameter vertical shaft, and a 34-foot inside diameter horizontal tunnel.
Hatch performed a site inspection, focused spillway assessment, new seismic stability analysis, and a spillway-focused PFMA workshop for the project, as required by the FERC. Before the spillway-focused PFMA session, the Hatch team reviewed relevant documents and completed a field inspection. The objective of the PFMA session was to identify all credible potential failure modes (PFMs) specific to the Jackson Spillway with a focus on the more probable PFMs and to develop appropriate risk reduction measures as required. The PFMA session identified and analyzed PFMs related to both the vertical and horizontal spillway shafts. Hatch compiled and summarized the session in a tabular format and presented these findings to Snohomish County PUD in a final report.
The new seismic stability analysis aimed to assess the morning glory’s seismic stability under a maximum credible earthquake (MCE) loading condition. Hatch used an innovative approach and modeled the morning glory using a relatively simple 3D finite element model with a more sophisticated model of the base of the structure. Based on unpublished laboratory test results from the University of Washington, they modeled vertical reinforcing steel at the base as tendons with bond-slip characteristics.
Hatch completed a non-linear
dynamic analysis of the morning
glory structure that included the
debonding characteristics of the
vertical reinforcing steel and utilized the capacity spectrum method of structural analysis to check
the results.
Agenda Item #10.8.
31 3. RELEVANT EXPERIENCE: PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
Project Data
Completion: July 2016
Total project cost (est.): $1.7 million
Size: 90-foot diver depth
Services Provided
Confined space and deep
water diving
Lift bags and specialty rigging
Mechanical and diver assisted
dredging
Mooring system installation
Surface supplied air diving
Turbidity boom
Underwater inspection
Underwater concrete and
grout pours
Underwater cutting/welding
Underwater diamond wire sawing
Underwater drilling, excavation,
leak detection, and structure
measurements
Involvement of Key Staff
Todd Horner
KERCKHOFF DAM GATE REPAIRS
PG&E – NORTH FORK, CALIFORNIA
Three six-foot-diameter upstream LLO gates were inspected at the Kerckhoff Dam revealing substantial leakage and high corrosion. With reliable gate operation being critical to controlling outlet flows into the San Joaquin River, each gate needed to be replaced. Ballard's scope of work included diver-assisted survey and dredging, slide gate access and leak mitigation, gate removal, concrete patching and repair, slide gate installation, and final testing and commissioning of the system.
To replace the three LLO slide gates, Ballard used a surface-supplied deep diving system with two dual-lock, multi-place decompression chambers and support vessels. Equipment was mobilized to the upstream side of the dam. Ballard inspected and surveyed all gate stems, stem guides, and stem couplings. The accuracy of this survey was critical to ensuring the dimensions of the new gate and its components would meet the system’s tight tolerances.
One of the primary challenges was getting the existing embedded wall thimbles for the three LLO gates to support the new gates. Ballard’s preliminary dive inspection found that the existing wall thimbles were heavily corroded and that an alternative system needed to be designed. Ballard employed specialized underwater inspection tooling including micrometers, screw pitch gages, and fine adjustment calipers to achieve accuracy and meet design tolerances.
Ballard also developed a closed-circuit grouting system that prevented grout from entering the reservoir. Grout was pumped approximately 80 feet underwater into a fully sealed steel form, and transported back to the barge via return lines.
This project included diver-assisted inspection, survey and dredging, slide gate access, leak
mitigation, gate removal, concrete
patching, slide gate installation,
and system testing/commissioning.
Agenda Item #10.8.
32 3. RELEVANT EXPERIENCE: PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
Project Data
Completion: October 2018
Total project cost (est.): $1.3 million
Size: 36-inch valve upgrade
Involvement of Key Staff
Colten Hansen
FLORENCE LAKE DAM FISH WATER RELEASE
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY – FRESNO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA This project involved the installation, testing, and commissioning of the Florence Lake Dam fish water release 36-inch LLO valve upgrade. It included work area dewatering, discharge pipe modifications, waste management, excavation and backfilling, new knife gate valve and piping installation, and underwater work to permanently open two existing sluice gates. SR Diversified provided the following:
Site Setup
• Setup Best Management Practices (BMPs)
• Setup cofferdam and pump downstream and dewater work area Phase 1 East Outlet Work
• Continue 27-cubic-feet-per-second (cfs) bypass through West Outlet • Place new 36-inch diameter spool, Depend-O-Lok coupling, and valve on East Outlet
• Place new concrete anchor block
• Place operating platform and ladder at new 36-inch valve • Paint and test new pipe
• Install 300 linear feet of 30-inch-diameter corrugated metal discharge pipe • Perform East Inlet exploratory dive
• Partially remove East Intake screen to gain access for divers to East Inlet Gate • Free-up/raise/weld-up or demolish East Gate, as required • Replace East Intake screen to original condition
• Demolish East Gate shaft and operator
• Establish 27-cfs discharge through East Outlet by opening east downstream knife gate valve
Phase 2 West Outlet Work
• Partially remove West Inlet screen to gain access to West Inlet gate • Weld West Gate into existing open position
• Remove existing 36-inch valve and 18-inch gate valve and replace with owner-furnished 36-inch knife gate valve and 18-inch gate valve • Remove and replace eight-inch-diameter steel piping
• Paint new piping
• Demolish East Gate shaft and operator
• Remove West Inlet bulkhead
• Open west downstream knife gate valve and reestablish 27-cfs flow through West Outlet
• Remove temporary 30-inch-diameter discharge pipe
The contractor was required to manage and comply with specified water release turbidity requirements established by regulatory agency permit conditions.
This project included an
upgrade to a 36-inch LLO valve
and fish release.
Agenda Item #10.8.
33 3. RELEVANT EXPERIENCE: PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
Project Data
Completion: October 2019
Total project cost (est.): $475,000
Size: Four wastewater ponds
Involvement of Key Staff
Elijah Davidian
DUNAWEAL WWTP RIVERSIDE PONDS RELOCATION PROJECT
CITY OF CALISTOGA – CALISTOGA, CALIFORNIA
The City of Calistoga (City) is decommissioning its four riverside wastewater ponds along the Napa River and replacing them with two lined ponds outside of the 100- year floodplain. The project included bank stabilization and creek realignment to reduce erosion and protect vital infrastructure.
Working within a constrained project schedule and sensitive habitat areas, ESA completed the 50% Design, ensured City adoption of the CEQA IS/MND, completed FEMA “No Rise” Certification, and managed and prepared applications for multiple permits, This included the 401 WQC, NWP (404), 1600 LSA, and USFWS and NMFS Biological Assessments, while working closely with USFWS, NMFS, and CDFW staff to develop onsite compensatory mitigation for project impacts. ESA was the lead hydraulic modeling consultant and developed the modeling and documentation to successfully receive “No Rise” certification for the project. This analysis included an evaluation of historic flows, determination of design hydrology and performed hydraulic modeling to support scour analysis, rock slope protection sizing, and NFIP compliance.
The project included bank stabilization and creek realignment to reduce erosion and protect
vital infrastructure.
Agenda Item #10.8.
4 PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
Agenda Item #10.8.
35 BACKGROUND
Bell Canyon Reservoir is a man-made water supply reservoir serving the City of St. Helena. It is located approximately three miles northeast of the City in Napa County, California. The reservoir, which was constructed during 1958 and 1959, has a storage capacity of approximately 2,500 acre-feet and serves as one of the City’s main sources of potable water. The reservoir is impounded by a 500-footlong, 95-foot high embankment dam with a crest width of 20 feet and a crest elevation of 430 feet. A spillway with a crest elevation of 422 feet is located approximately one-quarter mile west of the embankment dam and discharges into the west fork of Bell Creek.
A freestanding intake tower is located at the upstream toe of the embankment to service two parallel outlet pipes in a common concrete encasement. One pipe is a 42-inch-diameter low-level outlet sluice pipe that passes through the base of the dam to a valve house, where it discharges into Bell Creek. The other pipe is a 24-inch-diameter water supply intake for the nearby Louis Stralla Water Treatment Plant (LSWTP); this pipe also passes through the base of the dam parallel to the 42-inch outlet. The 24-inch pipeline bifurcates at the downstream valve control house to provide minimum bypass flows into Bell Creek.
The intake tower structure consists of a 4-foot-diameter 8-gauge corrugated steel riser grouted into a cast-in-place reinforced concrete substructure. The substructure is founded at approximately El. 352 feet and extends to El. 370 feet. The riser, which is embedded 3 feet into the substructure, extends to El. 425 feet. The two outlet conduits are located side-by-side in the base of the substructure, the 42-inch conduit centered below the riser and the 24-inch conduit offset 5 feet to the left (looking downstream).
Discharge control is provided by manual gate operators located at the top of the intake tower. The 42-inch-diameter outlet conduit discharge is controlled by a 4-foot-square sluice gate at the upstream end, embedded in the concrete substructure, and operated by a pedestal-type operator. Flow to the 24-inch-diameter service conduit is provided by three, 2-foot-square slide gates in the riser at El. 374, 387, and 400 feet, operated by handwheel-type operators; discharge through these gates enters the interior of the riser and flows through the substructure into the conduit. The downstream valving inside the valve control house at the toe of the dam regulates the flow rate from these two outlet conduits.
4. PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
BACKGROUND
4. PROJECT UNDERSTANDING: BACKGROUND
• Our team brings decades
of experience with similar
contracts both locally
and nationally.
• Our team provides the
necessary resources to
meet the City's current and
future engineering needs at
this facility.
• Our specialized experience
keeps projects on schedule
and within budget.
• Our staff will leverage
knowledge from work on
similar projects to achieve the
DSOD's satisfaction throughout
the duration of this contract.
MEAD & HUNT
TRUSTED EXPERIENCE |
RESPONSIVE | COLLABORATIVE
WHY US?
THE MEAD & HUNT TEAM
IS THE BEST FIT FOR
THIS PROJECT
The information used in the Background and Approach
Sections were pulled from the GEI 65% Design Report, dated May 15, 2021, provided by the City of St. Helena.
Agenda Item #10.8.
36 APPROACH
4. PROJECT UNDERSTANDING: APPROACH
The intake tower has been in service for over 65 years and has reached the end of its service life. The intake tower as originally designed and constructed does not meet current seismic requirements. The City was directed on February 1, 2016 by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), the California Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD) to evaluate the adequacy of the outlet tower for static and seismic loads by October 1, 2016. As a result of further review during 2016, the City stated in their January 17, 2017 Request for Proposals that the tower had deteriorated and did not meet current seismic standards.
Constructed along with the Bell Canyon Dam intake tower, the main outlets through the dam have also been in service for over 65 years and the downstream outlet system now requires an updated analysis and modifications due to corrosion and pitting of the downstream outlet piping. Based on past assessments of the corrosion and pitting, the existing outlet system no longer has an adequate factor of safety. This outlet system conveys reservoir water to Bell Creek and the LSWTP. In addition, the emergency reservoir discharge cone valve (Rotovalve) and foundation require replacement due to vibration issues during discharge. The Rotovalve is not recommended for high flow releases during emergency releases and does not dissipate the hydraulic energy required.
The review of available documentation, preliminary engineering studies, and field investigations related to the intake tower replacement and valve house upgrades have been completed by GEI. The engineering design analyses, and preparation of construction documents, have been advanced to the 65% design by GEI and reviewed by the DSOD. With GEI as part of our team, the continuation of the project design from the current level of development to completion will be more efficient by reducing the need for interpretation of design intent.
INTAKE TOWER
Five intake tower replacement concepts were initially considered. All involved the construction of a new foundation for the replacement tower by encasing the existing tower substructure in concrete and anchoring it to bedrock. Building a new foundation necessitated the construction of a temporary cofferdam to establish a dry worksite. The maintenance of reservoir storage and flows to the LSWTP required that the cofferdam be approximately 70 feet deep.
The scale and logistics of the proposed construction were quite substantial — a very deep cofferdam; large cranes, drill rigs, and barges; barge loading and unloading facilities; drilling templates and deep drilling depths; large volumes of concrete, with transportation and placement considerations; deep underwater anchorages; major access road improvements; and extended duration of construction. All of these factors served to increase the difficulty and overall cost of the project. Furthermore, particularly with respect to the required anchorage of the temporary cofferdam and the intake tower foundation, the proposed work was approaching the limits of feasibility. GEI estimated the construction cost of the five alternatives to range from $4.7 to $6.9 million. Based on these observations, it was reasonable to consider whether an alternative could be developed that would not entail the massive scale and cost of construction of the initial concepts.
The initial dive inspection found the existing concrete substructure to be in relatively good condition, but the existing CMP riser was heavily corroded and in need of replacement. The replacement tower, in its final condition, would have to be able to meet current seismic and other design standards.
Agenda Item #10.8.
37 4. PROJECT UNDERSTANDING: APPROACH
It was proposed to consider an alternative that involved cutting off the existing CMP riser flush with the top of the concrete substructure and installing a slightly smaller steel riser into the top of the substructure. The new riser could be grouted into the remaining embedded portion of the CMP or otherwise attached to the existing concrete. This work could be done under water without a cofferdam, would require much smaller equipment, and would not rely on foundation anchorage.
Initial feasibility-level engineering evaluations indicated that this alternative would be able to meet the design standards.
Replacement of the intake tower riser would be substantially less expensive than any of the alternatives that involved a new foundation and substructure and required a temporary cofferdam. GEI estimated the cost of a concept that involves replacing the riser only to be in the range of $2.0 to $2.4 million in 2022. A large portion of this savings was from the elimination of the cofferdam and the reduction in scale of the other temporary works.
Given the foregoing discussion, GEI recommended that the City consider whether replacement of only the intake tower riser, without replacement or significant improvement of the existing concrete substructure, would be an acceptable alternative. After discussions with the City and representatives of the DSOD, the riser replacement alternative was selected for detailed engineering design.
OUTLET VALVE HOUSE (OVH) UPGRADES
A control valve regulates the rate of flow and in this case provides energy dissipation. The most common types of regulating valves used to control outlet works currently are fixed-cone (with or without stationary hood), sleeve, plunger, jet-flow, and modified (throttling) knife gate. Two types of energy dissipation valves were evaluated: 1) Fixed-Cone and 2) Plunger.
A fixed-cone valve is commonly used for regulating flow of water from an outlet works at medium to high head dams as free discharge. Fixed-cone valves are used to radially discharge flow freely into the atmosphere which dissipates the flow energy of water. However, the wide spray trajectory of the released water is often found to be undesirable, especially in the vicinity of potentially unstable slopes prone to erosion or critical or sensitive facilities that may be impacted, such as power transmission lines. Hoods are therefore commonly added to the end of fixed-cone valves to narrow the wide trajectory of the spray stream.
Because the hood refocuses the remaining energy in the discharge stream, additional armoring downstream discharge channel facilities may be required to minimize potential erosion damage. Hilton-Dezurik manufactures a baffled hood design that is capable of dissipating up to 90% of the remaining energy in the concentrated spray stream; such a hood can limit the extent of downstream facility upgrades.
The plunger type valve evolved from needle and tube valves and was developed by VAG Valve, Ltd. for precise flow control and energy dissipation for facilities such as transmission conduit, dam outlet works, and hydropower. The plunger valve is available in sizes ranging from 6-inch to 64-inches in diameter with an operating pressure of up to 1,450 psi. However, due to the configuration of the valve trim for energy dissipation applications, plunger valves are not typically used in installations where water has the potential for debris (e.g. leaves, vegetation, etc.) or high sediment loads because the valve can become clogged.
There are many considerations which play an important role in selection of the right valve in terms of type, size, water quality, energy dissipation, turbulence, and pressure. Additionally, operational criteria are important aspects in valve selection. For this application, a fixed-cone valve was recommended by GEI in the 65% Design Report based on the following reasons. • Ability to discharge a high volume under a low head condition • Energy dissipation (baffled hood) option at the valve (downstream channel improvements are not required) Agenda Item #10.8.
38 4. PROJECT UNDERSTANDING: APPROACH
• Capable of passing larger debris (reservoir water
quality concerns)
• Precise flow control is not required
• Low maintenance
Based upon GEI’s understanding of facility operation, condition of the system, and hydraulic analysis, GEI recommended the following OVH improvements:
Steel Piping System: Due to the structural integrity of the steel piping system (12-, 24-, 36-, and 42-inch) it should be replaced with fusion-bonded epoxy lined and coated steel pipe with the exception of:
• The 10-inch low-flow pipe segment
• The 10-inch flowmeter
• The 10-inch fixed cone valve
• The existing booster pump and associated gate valves, including concrete supports Emergency Drawdown Control Valve: The 24-inch Rotovalve and a new concrete foundation should be replaced with a 24-inch fixed-cone valve and a new concrete foundation. Although a hood is recommended to direct the trajectory of the discharge spray, energy dissipation baffles would not be needed under typical conditions where the downstream channel is adequately armored. However, since the condition of the downstream channel is unknown in terms of armoring/lining, GEI recommended using a fixed-cone valve with energy-dissipating baffles. This is in line with the City’s desire to mitigate downstream channel erosion/scour. The baffled hood provides about 90% energy reduction compared to only 20-40% reduction for an unbaffled hood. The valve actuator should be designed to limit the through discharge to a fraction of the maximum discharge while still satisfying DSOD drawdown requirements. It should be noted that only one valve manufacturer (HILTON Valve, a subsidiary of DeZURIK) currently offers a baffled hood design. It may be prudent for the City to pre-purchase the valve due to lead time and the Contractor’s markup. However, depending upon schedule constraints the City may desire that the purchase of the valve be included in the Contractor’s work to limit the City’s liability.
Further discussion with the City is required for the following items in order to clearly outline the Contractor’s responsibilities, limits, work restrictions, and coordination requirements.
1. Temporary Power
a. Confirm which existing OVH items cannot be taken offline (flowmeters, air compressor, RTU, etc.)
2. Proposed 10-inch, or larger, interconnection between the 24- and 42-inch pipes
3. Shutdown dates, number, and durations to minimize City facility disruptions
4. Site access and restrictions
5. Site staging and storage area(s)
6. Items to Salvage
a. 24-inch Rotovalve and electric actuator, pipe, fittings, etc.
7. Construction staging (above and under water), dive support controls, barges, cranes, etc.
Agenda Item #10.8.
5 SCOPE OF WORK
Agenda Item #10.8.
40 The complexity of performing work within the reservoir on aging facilities while maintaining continuity of water supply and downstream releases is unique. To effectively advance the 65% design concept reviewed by the DSOD and accepted by the City, we have assigned the following tasks to our specialty subconsultants. • Mead & Hunt will provide civil, structural, hydraulic, mechanical, and electrical design, assist with DSOD compliance, and project management.
• Mead & Hunt's project manager will oversee our diverse team’s communication, workload planning, schedule, QC, contract management, and other project management tasks to successfully accomplish the City’s project objectives. • GEI will finalize their draft geotechnical report to inform final intake tower stability. Hatch will perform the advanced modeling to confirm the intake tower seismic response and perform analysis for final structural stability and stress utilization in coordination with Mead & Hunt’s in-house structural team. Ballard Marine Construction will assist with constructability for underwater activities and SR Diversified will provide overall constructability assistance and cost estimating. • ESA will perform environmental assessments, prepare regulatory compliance documentation, and complete environmental permitting for the project.
SCOPE OF WORK
5. SCOPE OF WORK
Agenda Item #10.8.
6 SCOPE OF SERVICES
Agenda Item #10.8.
42 SCOPE OF SERVICES
PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND
COORDINATION
MEETINGS
The project manager will prepare a meeting agenda and
deliver it to the meeting participants prior to each project meeting. At the end of each meeting the draft minutes will be routed to participants for review and input.
Kickoff Meeting: Following the notice to proceed from the City, Mead & Hunt’s consulting team will participate in a kickoff meeting. The Mead & Hunt project manager will
communicate to the team during the kickoff meeting roles and responsibilities, expectations, project scope, budget, and schedule.
City Meetings: The Mead & Hunt team will attend six 90-minute meetings with the City and with key project team members.
Mead & Hunt's project manager will schedule these project meetings with the City staff to discuss project deliverables, status, address potential challenges and opportunities, project budget, and other design or permitting risks to schedule, budget, and comments on deliverables.
Deliverable Review Meetings: Two 2-hour meetings will be aligned with project deliverables at critical decision points.
Meetings will be held after the 90% deliverable and 100% deliverable are submitted.
DSOD Review Meetings: DSOD review meetings and outreach are included in design tasks.
Deliverables: A meeting agenda will be prepared and delivered to the meeting participants prior to each project meeting, as applicable. At the end of each meeting the draft minutes will be routed to participants for review and input.
PROGRESS REPORTING
Monthly Progress Reports will be sent by Mead & Hunt's project manager informing the City of work completed on the project.
PROJECT SCHEDULE
The project manager will drive and prioritize the project schedule for the City. The project manager will utilize open communication to make sure that the project team and the City are on the same page for all deliverables, reviews, and decision points.
DATA VALIDATION AND GAP ANALYSIS
65% REVIEW
The Mead & Hunt design team will perform a review of the 65% design and all available supporting documentation for validation of approach, compliance with current guidance and standards, and accuracy of information. Analysis to include:
• Data collection and review
• Confirmation of Geologic and Geotechnical Foundation Review by GEI • Review of Seismic Hazard Analysis and Intake Tower Design Analysis approach by Mead & Hunt and Hatch Engineering • Review of Hydraulic Design Analysis approach by Mead & Hunt
6. SCOPE OF SERVICES
Agenda Item #10.8.
43 • Review of proposed Construction Approach and
Sequencing and by Mead & Hunt team, with City
staff input
• Confirmation of understanding of key issues and
objectives of the City
SITE VISIT
The project team will perform one preliminary site visit, with City staff, to observe site conditions and review exposed features covered in the GEI 65% Design Report.
DSOD OUTREACH
Mead & Hunt will conduct one virtual meeting with
the DSOD to present findings and the updated Final
Engineering approach, respond to 65% comments, and
confirm the approach developed in 65% design.
Deliverables: Draft and Final Technical Memorandum documenting findings and confirming approach to incorporating into the Final Engineering package.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PERMITTING
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
ESA will compile and integrate project information provided into a Project Description in accordance with CEQA. The Project Description will include:
• Descriptions of proposed project elements, along with construction and operations details • Map showing the project location and characteristics
• Objectives of the proposed project
• List of actions/approvals required to implement the project Deliverables: Draft and Revised Project Description.
BIOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCE INVESTIGATIONS
An ESA biologist will review any existing biological information provided by Mead & Hunt, aerial photographs of the site, and consult the California Natural Diversity Database and California Native Plant Society rare plant inventory for background information regarding natural communities, habitats, and species known or with potential to occur at the site. The results of the habitat assessment and delineation of aquatic resources would be presented in the biological technical report.
An ESA archaeologist will conduct a records search at the Northwest Information Center in order to determine whether any cultural sites have been documented or cultural reports have been prepared for properties within a ½ mile radius of the project site. The analysis will be supported by a one-day pedestrian field survey of area of potential effect conducted by the archaeologist.
An ESA architectural historian will evaluate the 1959 Bell Canyon Dam and Reservoir, including intake tower and valve house, as one potential historical resource for its significance for listing in the National and California registers to determine if the property individually qualifies as a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, or a historic property under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The evaluation will be supported by a one-day intensive survey of the Bell Canyon Dam and valve house.
6. SCOPE OF SERVICES
Agenda Item #10.8.
44 6. SCOPE OF SERVICES
Deliverables:
• One Findings Review virtual meeting with the City
• Draft and Final Biological Resources Technical Report • Draft and Final Cultural Resources Technical Report
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (IS/MND)
ESA will prepare an IS/MND in accordance with current state CEQA guidelines and case law. ESA will prepare an Administrative Draft and a Screencheck Draft of the IS/MND and respond to one round of consolidated Mead & Hunt/ City comments on each. Following receipt of comments on the Screencheck Draft, ESA will prepare a Public Review Draft IS/MND, along with a Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Plan. ESA will also prepare the Notice of Intent (NOI) and Notice of Completion (NOC). With assistance from the City, ESA will also develop a mailing list, and will advise the City on distribution of the allocated copies to local and regional agencies and interested parties. The City will be responsible for posting the NOI and NOC with the county clerk.
ESA will prepare and submit to the City for each draft of the IS/MND. In addition, we will prepare a completed State
Clearinghouse (SCH) Summary Form and one copy of the
Public Draft IS/MND, consistent with the current SCH document submission requirements.
The Final IS/MND will be composed of a response to comments memorandum (RTC) summarizing comments received, responses to public agency comments, and presenting errata and other revisions to the Public Draft IS/MND, as warranted.
Upon completion of the Final IS/MND and within five days after the City Council’s project approval, ESA will complete a Notice of Determination (NOD) form for the City to file with the Napa County Clerk’s office and the State Clearinghouse.
Deliverables:
• Administrative and Screencheck Draft IS/MND
• Public Review Draft IS/MND (4 hard copies)
• Final Notice of Intent, Notice of Completion, SCH Summary Form (up to 50 hard copies of the NOI) • Draft RTC Memo
• Final IS/MND
• Draft and Final NOD Form
• Attend One (1) City Council adoption hearing
REGULATORY PERMITTING APPLICATIONS
ESA regulatory permitting specialists will prepare the regulatory approvals documents listed as Deliverables below. The City will pay all application fees and file applications with ESA assistance. An allowance is provided for ESA to support City/ Mead & Hunt with regulatory coordination.
Deliverables:
• Draft and Final Pre-Construction Notification for Clean Water Act Section 404 authorization from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) under a Nationwide Permit(s) • Draft and Final Cultural Resources Section 106 Report to Support Consultation • Draft and Final Section 401 Water Quality Certification/ Waste Discharge Requirements (as needed) application(s) Agenda Item #10.8.
45 6. SCOPE OF SERVICES
• Draft and Final Section 1602 Lake or Streambed Alteration notification application • Draft and Final Biological Assessment to Support Endangered Species Act Consultation
DETAILED DESIGN
STRUCTURAL DESIGN
Intake Tower
• Perform final design for intake tower features, including access/gate actuator support platform, access hatches, gate mounts, and new tower anchorage into existing concrete tower foundation. • Tower design and analysis includes FEA and linear-elastic seismic analysis of the tower riser by Hatch Engineering, with loading developed by Mead & Hunt. The tower seismic loading will include hydrodynamic effects from water impounded in the riser, and stability analysis with updated loads will be performed. Operational loads, dead loads, live loads, and wind loads will be considered.
Valve House
• Perform final design valve house equipment foundations, thrust blocks, and impacts to the valve house at pipe penetrations. Design will include detailing pipe supports and foundations.
GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS (GEI)
Confirm 65% geotech analysis, conclusions and recommendations. Update or confirm Seismic Parameters. One day site visit by geologist and geotechnical engineer to visually inspect accessible relevant conditions to inform analysis. Refine Tower foundation discussion if needed. Provide geotechnical recommendations for Valve House foundation and slab loading.
Provide geotechnical recommendations on downstream creek erosion protection. Review 90% Drawings and Specifications to confirm proper incorporation of recommendations.
HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS
Perform hydraulic design to build on GEI’s existing calculations. Perform analysis for energy dissipation features in Bell Creek.
Perform analysis to support design details and equipment selection for intake tower, and to determine thrust loading for anchorage design at valve house. Hydraulic review of revised interconnect pipe (10-inch) between emergency release pipe (42-inch) and instream release (fish flow) pipe (12-inch pipe).
MECHANICAL DESIGN
Perform review and analysis of intake slide gates, pipe material and coatings, valving, instrumentation, and pumping.
ELECTRICAL DESIGN
Perform design for power supply and instrumentation circuits for new 24-inch fixed cone valve. Assumes manual operation with local control panel.
CIVIL DESIGN
Perform design of erosion mitigation features at new 24-inch energy dissipation valve. Limited detailing of site civil, access, and staging improvements.
Agenda Item #10.8.
46 Sheet # Drawing # Title
1 G-001 COVER SHEET
2 G-002 ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS [TO BE PREPARED]
3 G-003 GENERAL NOTES [TO BE PREPARED]
4 G-004 SITE AND SURVEY CONTROL PLAN [TO BE PREPARED]
5 G-005 SITE ACCESS AND STAGING AREA PLAN (CURRENTLY LIMITED DETAIL) 6 1C-101 INTAKE TOWER SITE PLAN
7 1SE-101 INTAKE TOWER EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN AND ELEVATIONS 8 1SE-301 INTAKE TOWER EXISTING CONDITIONS SECTIONS
9 1SD-101 INTAKE TOWER RISER DEMOLITION PLAN, ELEVATIONS, AND DETAILS 9 1S-101 INTAKE TOWER RISER REPLACEMENT PLAN AND ELEVATIONS 10 1S-301 INTAKE TOWER RISER REPLACEMENT SECTIONS
10 1S-501 INTAKE TOWER RISER CONNECTION DETAILS
11 1S-502 INTAKE TOWER RISER DETAILS
12 1S-503 INTAKE TOWER RISER GATE FLANGE DETAILS
11 2C-101 OUTLET VALVE HOUSE SITE PLAN
12 2SD-101 OUTLET VALVE HOUSE ROOF REMOVAL PLAN
13 2SD-102 OUTLET VALVE HOUSE DEMOLITION PLAN AND SECTIONS [TO BE PREPARED] 14 2S-101 OUTLET VALVE HOUSE PLAN AND SECTIONS [TO BE PREPARED] 15 2S-102 OUTLET VALVE HOUSE DETAILS [TO BE PREPARED]
15 2MD-101 OUTLET VALVE HOUSE DEMOLITION PLAN AND SECTION 16 2MD-501 OUTLET VALVE HOUSE DEMOLITION DETAILS
17 2M-101 OUTLET VALVE HOUSE PLAN
18 2M-501 OUTLET VALVE HOUSE DETAILS
Mead & Hunt has identified the following drawings to be developed in addition to the ones listed above.
Sheet # Drawing # Title
TBD TBD STRUCTURAL NOTES
TBD TBD STANDARD STRUCTURAL DETAILS
TBD TBD STANDARD STRUCTURAL DETAILS
TBD TBD INTAKE TOWER DETAILS
TBD TBD INTAKE TOWER PLATFORM DETAILS 1
TBD TBD OUTLET VALVE HOUSE STRUCTURAL DETAILS
TBD TBD MECHANICAL DETAILS
TBD TBD MECHANICAL P&ID
TBD TBD CIVIL OUTFALL 1
TBD TBD CIVIL OUTFALL 2
TBD TBD STRUCTURAL OUTFALL
TBD TBD ELECTRICAL SCHEMATIC
TBD TBD ELECTRICAL SINGLE LINE AND DETAILS
DRAWING LIST
The following drawing list was generated by GEI in the 65% design report. Mead & Hunt will further develop drawings created by GEI and will develop the drawings GEI noted "To Be Prepared."
6. SCOPE OF SERVICES
Agenda Item #10.8.
47 PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, AND BID DOCUMENTS
Provide response to comments with each submittal. City to provide form of front end documents to accompany specifications, including Procurement and Contracting requirements (Division 00) and General Requirements, as well as legal reviews.
Mead & Hunt to complete front end document forms.
DSOD COORDINATION
The Mead & Hunt Team will participate in a DSOD 90% Meeting to present Supporting Design Report and 90% design package. The team will prepare and file applications with DSOD for repair and alteration approvals and assist with technical responses to DSOD review of plans and specifications and technical supporting documents.
EARLY CONTRACTOR INVOLVEMENT (ECI)
ECI subconsultants to provide constructability feedback and cost estimating to include:
Underwater construction involvement (Ballard Marine Construction): Ballard to assist with construction approach and schedule, provide input on investigations, identify value engineering opportunities, and provide cost estimate for intake tower installation (Mead & Hunt to provide equipment and material estimates). Includes one site visit for review of access and staging.
Construction planning and cost estimating (SR Diversified): SR Diversified to assist with constructability, schedule and approach, and prepare construction cost estimate, with Mead & Hunt preparing quantities and equipment/material supply costs for work outside of reservoir. SR Diversified to review 90% plans and specifications prior to submittal and assist with comment responses.
DETAIL DESIGN DELIVERABLES
90% DESIGN
• 90% Plans (see table above)
• Draft Technical Specifications
• Preliminary Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
100% DESIGN
• 100 % Plans and Specifications
• City and DSOD comment responses
BID DOCUMENTS
• Plans & Specifications
• Engineers Estimate
6. SCOPE OF SERVICES
$
Agenda Item #10.8.
7 CLARIFICATIONS, ASSUMPTIONS, AND EXCLUSIONS
Agenda Item #10.8.
49 CLARIFICATIONS, ASSUMPTIONS, AND EXCLUSIONS
7. CLARIFICATIONS, ASSUMPTIONS, AND EXCLUSIONS
CLARIFICATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS
1. The project team will use virtual communication software (Microsoft Teams or Zoom) throughout the project, including premeeting coordination, to encourage input from the entire team.
2. All deliverables will be submitted electronically, unless otherwise stated. Cost of reproduction, if necessary, can be directly billed to the City.
3. City to pay application fees and permitting agency fees.
4. As-built drawings of existing facilities will be provided by the City.
5. Available work products, including historical data, working model files, drawing files, and specifications will be provided by GEI.
6. All applicable DSOD file data related to intake and outlet conditions will be provided by the City (DSOD file research is not required).
7. The scope of the project and design criteria are defined by the GEI 65% Design Report. Modifications or improvements to facilities and equipment not contemplated in the 65% design and the DSOD 65% review comments that require substantial design effort may require scope changes.
8. Valve inlet (port) elevations on the tower are set and approved as indicated in 65% design. This project will not consider temperature requirements or studies to determine inlet elevations or operations.
9. Intake tower inlet (port) screen slot spacing and configuration to exclude debris and aquatic wildlife have been determined and will not require design, such as fish passage design or studies to determine design parameters.
10.Strengths and other properties of existing materials will be determined from the existing drawings, historic data, other relevant sources, or assumed. Verification of material property assumptions may be required during construction.
11. As described in the 65% GEI Report, the existing tower foundation has adequate structural stability and strength under the replacement tower and applicable seismic loads. Any external measures needed to satisfy stability may require scope changes.
12.The tower anchorage directly to the concrete base similar to the 65% design and without additional anchorage will provide the required stability.
13.The condition of the concrete foundation is adequate to remain, such that no concrete repairs or other modifications are required to the foundation structure. No condition assessments will be performed.
14.No additional topographic and bathymetric survey will be required. (It is understood that the City is retaining a consultant to provide the bathymetric survey per Capital Improvement Program Project No. W-35 and that the survey may be available for use/validation during this project development.)
15.Valve house piping thrust forces may be assumed to rely on existing piping and/or upstream encasement as in current operation. The level of reliance will be determined in detailed design. No condition assessment of the existing piping will be performed; the City is assumed to be responsible for maintaining pipes in adequate condition.
16.Valve house roof temporary removal and any resulting temporary bracing system design will be contractor’s responsibility, deferred design. Necessary repairs may trigger code evaluation that will be addressed as a change during construction (later phase).
17. Valve house foundation conditions will allow for piping/valving thrust anchorage without substantial demolition of the building foundation.
18.The new 24-inch valve will be electrically actuated with local control and modified electrical load is within existing electrical service limits.
19.Bidding and construction support will be scoped under next phase.
Agenda Item #10.8.
50 7. CLARIFICATIONS, ASSUMPTIONS, AND EXCLUSIONS
20. Environmental Review and Permitting
— Any new archaeological sites discovered because of the archaeological survey will be recorded on Department of Parks and Recreation 523 Primary Record forms but will not be evaluated or tested for their potential listing in the National Register of Historic Places or California Register of Historical Resources. Such efforts will be scoped separately if desired by regulatory agencies. This scope does not include consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer. The project team can assist the City with a template SHPO letter or other consultation efforts under a separate scope and budget.
— The project will not result in the "take" of any species listed by the state or federal government as threatened or endangered.
— The project will not require preparation of a restoration plan or compensatory mitigation. If required by the regulatory agencies, then additional scope and budget will be required. — The City will complete the Assembly Bill 52 tribal consultation requirements for CEQA compliance, with assistance from the project team.
— The USACE will be responsible for all federal agency consultations, including those that may be required under the Endangered Species Act and National Historic Preservation Act. — The Cultural Resources Section 106 Report will contain all required elements to assist the USACE in consulting with the State Historic Preservation Officer and tribes. The project team assumes the project finding will be No Historic Properties Affected or No Adverse Effect to Historic Properties and that no Memorandum of Agreement/Historic Properties Treatment Plan will be required. If the finding is that of Adverse Effect to Historic Properties, additional consultation and documentation and would be completed under a separate scope and budget. — The City will publish all legal notices.
— Staff report and decision documents (including CEQA findings) will be prepared by City staff. — Obtaining the NPDES Construction General Permit will be in the Contractor's Scope of Work. — The project description will not substantially change after initiation of the CEQA analysis work.
EXCLUSIONS
1. Fish passage engineering
2. Additional topographic and bathymetric surveys.
3. Field verification of dimensional data and configuration data at intake tower and reservoir outlet conduits.
4. As-built drawings of valve house, equipment, electrical configurations beyond proposed modifications.
5. Additional material testing such as geotechnical exploration and testing, concrete testing, and metals testing (nondestructive or destructive). Material properties are as outlined in GEI 65% Design Report.
6. Valve house building, roof, roof-to-wall, roof framing, roof decking, or other structure design checks or Code compliance evaluations.
7. Modifications to the flow meter and fixed cone valve/actuator for 10-inch instream (fish flow) release.
8. Condition assessment of piping (evaluated by CORRPRO in 2007) and equipment to be salvaged and reused.
9. Existing concrete repair design for the concrete tower or valve house building.
10.ECI Contractors will not be performing any new investigations, physical construction, or testing.
11. Electrical engineering for temporary power and upgrades to the existing lighting panel.
12.Dewatering system design. Assumes deferred design performed by Contractor for Bell Creek along with design of temporary facilities for minimum instream flow release bypass.
Agenda Item #10.8.
8 SCHEDULE
Agenda Item #10.8.
52 8. SCHEDULE
ID Task
Mode
Task Name Duration Start Finish Predecessors
1 Notice to Proceed 1 day Mon 6/3/24 Mon 6/3/24
2 Project Management 70 wks Mon 6/10/24 Fri 10/10/25
3 Kickoff Meeting 1 wk Mon 6/10/24 Fri 6/14/24 1SS+1 wk 4 Data Validation and Gap Analysis 18 wks Mon 6/17/24 Fri 10/18/24 5 65% Design Data Collection and Review 12 wks Mon 6/17/24 Fri 9/6/24 6 Initial Site Visit 1 wk Mon 6/17/24 Fri 6/21/24 3
7 Time History Development - GEI 5 wks Mon 6/24/24 Fri 7/26/24 6 8 Confirm Geologic and Geotech
Foundation (GEI)
2 wks Mon 7/1/24 Fri 7/12/24 3FS+2 wks
9 Review Seismic Hazard Analysis and
Tower Design
2 wks Mon 7/1/24 Fri 7/12/24 3FS+2 wks
10 Review Hydraulic Design Analysis 2 wks Mon 7/1/24 Fri 7/12/24 3FS+2 wks 11 Review Construction Approach and
Sequencing
2 wks Mon 7/1/24 Fri 7/12/24 3FS+2 wks
12 Review Seismic Hazard Analysis and
Tower Design Analysis (M&H and
2 wks Mon 7/1/24 Fri 7/12/24 3FS+2 wks
13 Preliminary FEA - Hatch 4 wks Mon 7/29/24 Fri 8/23/24 7 14 Draft Tech Memo 4 wks Mon 8/12/24 Fri 9/6/24 13FS-2 wks 15 City Draft TM Review 2 wks Mon 9/9/24 Fri 9/20/24 14 16 DSOD Outreach Meeting 1 4 wks Mon 9/9/24 Fri 10/4/24 14 17 Finalize Tech Memo 2 wks Mon 10/7/24 Fri 10/18/24 16 18 Regulatory Compliance/Permitting (ESA) 12 mons Mon 11/11/24 Fri 10/10/25 28SS 19 Detailed Design 29 wks Mon 10/7/24 Fri 4/25/25
20 90% Design 15 wks Mon 10/7/24 Fri 1/17/25
21 Finalize Hydraulic Analysis 4 wks Mon 10/7/24 Fri 11/1/24 16 22 Finalize Mechanical Analysis 4 wks Mon 10/14/24 Fri 11/8/24 21SS+1 wk 23 Structural Analysis 4 wks Mon 10/14/24 Fri 11/8/24 21SS+1 wk 24 FEA Design (Hatch) 8 wks Mon 10/14/24 Fri 12/6/24 23SS 25 Finalize Electrical Analysis 4 wks Mon 10/21/24 Fri 11/15/24 22SS+1 wk 26 Finalize Civil Analysis 4 wks Mon 10/14/24 Fri 11/8/24 21SS+1 wk 27 Finalize Structural Analysis 2 wks Mon 12/9/24 Fri 12/20/24 24 28 90% Plans to CAD 8 wks Mon 11/11/24 Fri 1/3/25 22
29 90% Specs to Admin 1 wk Mon 1/6/25 Fri 1/10/25 27FS+2 wks 30 90% Cost Estimate 1 wk Mon 1/6/25 Fri 1/10/25 27FS+2 wks 31 90% QC and Backcheck 2 wks Mon 1/6/25 Fri 1/17/25 28 32 90% Design City Review 2 wks Mon 1/20/25 Fri 1/31/25 31 33 90% DSOD Outreach Meeting 2 4 wks Mon 2/3/25 Fri 2/28/25 32 34 100% Design PS&E 6 wks Mon 3/3/25 Fri 4/11/25
35 Resolve DSOD and Client Comments 2 wks Mon 3/3/25 Fri 3/14/25 33 36 100% Plans to CAD 2 wks Mon 3/17/25 Fri 3/28/25 35
37 100% QC and Backcheck 2 wks Mon 3/31/25 Fri 4/11/25 36 38 100% Design City Review 2 wks Mon 4/14/25 Fri 4/25/25 37 39 Issued for Bid Plans, Specs, &
Engineer's Estimate
2 wks Mon 4/14/25 Fri 4/25/25 34
S N J M M J S N J M M J S N
Half 2, 2023 Half 1, 2024 Half 2, 2024 Half 1, 2025 Half 2, 2025
Agenda Item #10.8.
9 COMPENSATION
Agenda Item #10.8.
54 9. COMPENSATION
Task Description Fee
1 Project Management and Coordination $128,267
2 Data Validation and Gap Analysis $178,893
3 Environmental Review and Permitting $213,040
4 Final Engineering $523,011
Total: $1,043,211
COMPENSATION
The work described under the Scope of Services will be performed on a time-and-expense basis. The estimate of probable engineering cost of services is shown in Table 1 below.
The Scope of Services and Compensation stated in this proposal are valid for a period of thirty (30) days from date of submission. If authorization to proceed is not received during this period, this proposal may be withdrawn or modified by Mead & Hunt.
Agenda Item #10.8.
Agenda Item #10.8.
Bell Canyon Intake Tower Replacement
Category:
Project Bell Canyon Reservoir (APN 021-420-
019)
Water
Project No: W-109
Location:
Responsible
Department:
2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2027-28
PROJECT
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
(Thousands of Dollars)
2026-27
Total YTD
05/16/23
3110 - Design 126,323 126,323
3120 - Environmental/Planning 200,000 200,000
3140 - Legal Services 3,000 3,000
3150 - Construction Management 213,904 213,904
3160 - Construction Contract 2,500,000 2,500,000
3170 - Contingency 250,000 250,000
EXPENDITURE TOTALS 329,323 2,963,904 3,293,227
FUNDING SOURCES
763-Water Capital Improvement 0
763-Water Capital Improvement - Debt 329,323 2,963,904 3,293,227 764-Water Impact Fees 0
FUNDING TOTALS 329,323 2,963,904 3,293,227
PROJECT PURPOSE & DESCRIPTION: Immediate repairs slated are required to be in compliance. Non compliance constitutes a violation of the City’s Division of Dam Safety permitted use of Bell Canyon is grounds for enforcement action, for permit termination, revocation and reissuance, or modification; or denial of a permit renewal application by the State of California Department of Water Resources Division of Dam Safety.
NOTES: PW - marked project at a Priority
Anticipated will take out debt for project, will include in Utility Rate Study FY24 - included in proposed Rate Study w/ proposed schedule for project delivery EXPENDITURE ACCOUNTS:
Fund: 763 Dept: 5030
35 Agenda Item #10.8.
Bell House Valve Replacement
Category:
Project APN 021-420-019
Water
Project No: W-85
Location:
Responsible
Department:
2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2027-28
PROJECT
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
(Thousands of Dollars)
2026-27
Total YTD
05/16/23
3110 - Design 20,000 20,000
3150 - Construction Management 10,000 10,000
3160 - Construction Contract 400,000 400,000
3170 - Contingency 40,000 40,000
EXPENDITURE TOTALS 470,000 470,000
FUNDING SOURCES
420-Go Bonds 470,000 470,000
763-Water Capital Improvement 0
763-Water Capital Improvement - Debt 0
764-Water Impact Fees 0
FUNDING TOTALS 470,000 470,000
PROJECT PURPOSE & DESCRIPTION: Required by the Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD), replacement is necessary for emergency operation. In the event of an emergency and by order of DSOD that we release water from the reservoir, there is significant risk that the City would not be able to close the valve and stop the water, resulting in draining all of Bell Canyon.
NOTES: Project to be bid at same time as intake tower. Estimated bid FY 22 with Construction in FY 22 5/17/22 - PW Update - priority project
*$49,029.88 is shown in Project Management; however, those costs were incurred prior to FY 13 and are shown as recorded labor in Springbrook. The previous costs are not included in the new budget.
FY24 - included in GO Bond for $620k total
- W-85 Bell House Valve Replacement ($470k) - Tranche 2 (FY27) - W18-120 Bell Canyon Phreatic Surface Monitoring ($100k) - Tranche 1 (FY24) - W-108 Lower Reservoir Rehab ($50k) - Tranche 2 (FY27) EXPENDITURE ACCOUNTS:
Fund: 763 Dept: 5030
38 Agenda Item #10.8.
Agenda Report to the City Council
Agenda Section: PUBLIC HEARINGS
Department: Public Works
DATE: June 11, 2024
FROM: Rebecca White, Administrative Assistant
SUBJECT: Consideration and proposed approval of a Resolution approving the annexation of the property known as 2126
Madrona Avenue, St. Helena, CA (APN 009-470-010), in
the St. Helena Municipal Sewer District No. 1, MSD
Annexation No 149.
RECOMMENDED
ACTION:
It is recommended the City Council adopt a Resolution
approving the annexation of the territory into the St Helena Municipal Sewer District No. 1 MSD.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
City Council approved Resolution 2024-48 on April 23,
2024, requesting to set a public hearing for June 11, 2024, to consider objections to the proposed annexations as
required by state law.
STATEMENT OF THE
PURPOSE:
Commence a public hearing to consider objections to the proposed annexations into the St. Helena Municipal Sewer District No. 1. Consideration and approval of a Resolution approving proposed annexation if the proposed annexation is found to be beneficial to the property.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None.
BACKGROUND:
Any property that wishes to connect and utilize the sanitary sewer system in the City of St. Helena must be annexed into the Municipal Sewer District No. 1. All applications for annexations shall be approved by the City Council pursuant to the requirements of state law (SHMC § 13.20.040). State law details the requirements in Health and Safety Code Section 4600. City Council approval of the annexation is the formal administrative process to change the property’s tax rate area code from septic to sanitary sewer. The process for a property to be annexed requires that a resolution be adopted ordering a public hearing by an affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of all the members of the City Council (HSC § 4643). The resolution is required to contain the following information and finding:
(a) Describe the boundaries of the territory proposed to be annexed. (b) Designate the proposed annexation by an appropriate number. (c) Declare that the area to be annexed to the district will be benefited by such annexation.
Agenda Item #11.1.
(d) Name the time and place for the hearing of objections by any person interested in the proposed annexation, to the inclusion in the district of any land described in the resolution.
Once adopted, the resolution, together with the names of the members of the City Council voting for and against it, must be published for two successive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation and published in the City. The first publication shall not be more than 60 days nor less than 30 days prior to the date fixed for the hearing.
At the time established for the public hearing, the City Council will hear and consider any objections to the annexation and exclude any territory which in the Council’s opinion will not be benefited by the annexation. After making changes to the boundaries of the area to be annexed, if any, the City Council may then adopt a resolution approving the annexation of the Property into the District which will require at least four affirmative votes. Upon a determination by the Council that the Property will be benefited by the annexation; certified copies of the resolution will then be recorded and filed in the manner and with the same force and effect as provided in Section 4613. Upon recordation of the resolution, the Property annexed becomes a part of the District and is subject to all the liabilities and entitled to all the benefits of the District.
If the City Council approves the resolution following the public hearing on June 11th, 2024, City staff will then process the annexation with Napa County and the State Board of Equalization to change the tax rate area code for the property. Staff will work with the applicant to collect outstanding fees and obtain required permits.
DISCUSSION:
The public hearing notice to consider objections to the proposed annexation on June 11, 2024, was first published April 30, 2024, and the second on May 7, 2024.
Additionally, notices of the public hearing and the Resolution were distributed withing the area to be annexed not earlier than the 60th day or later than the 30th day prior to the hearing.
At the time established for the hearing, City Council will hear and consider any objections to the annexation and exclude any territory which in the Council's opinion will not be benefited by the annexation. After making changes to the boundaries of the area to be annexed, if any, the City Council may then adopt a Resolution approving the annexation of the property in the District, which will require at least four affirmative votes. Upon a determination by the Council that the property will be benefited by the annexation, certified copies of the Resolution will then be recorded (HSC § 4613). Upon recordation of the Resolution the property annexed becomes a part of the District and is subject to all the liabilities and entitled to all the benefits of the District (HSC § 4648).
City Council is requested to consider the annexation from the following party in the District:
Agenda Item #11.1.
2126 Madrina Avenue, St, Helena, CA (APN 009-470-010) applied to be annexed into the St. Helena Municipal Sewer District No. 1, MSD Annexation No. 149.
The location map for the property is attached. Staff request City Council to consider the applicant's annexation request and consider a Resolution approved the annexation. If the City Council approves the Resolution following the hearing, City staff will then process the annexation with Napa County and the State Board of Equalization to change the tax rate area code for the property. The property will then become eligible to connect to the City's sanitary sewer system.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
Properties that are annexed into the District and connect to the sanitary sewer system will be required to abandon existing septic systems in accordance with Napa County Environmental Health Services.
GOAL:
Goal 2: Improve Infrastructure & Further Environmental Sustainability Goal 3: Pursue Water Security & Sustainable Management of Water Resources Goal 5: Enhance Quality of Life
DOCUMENTS ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution
Exhibit A
Agenda Item #11.1.
CITY OF ST. HELENA
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
CONSIDERATION AND PROPOSED APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ANNEXATION OF THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 2126 MADRONA AVENUE, ST. HELENA, CA (APN 009-470-010), IN THE ST. HELENA MUNICIPAL SEWER DISTRICT NO. 1, ANNEXATION NO. 149.
RECITALS
A. The property at 2126 Madrona Avenue, St. Helena, CA (APN 009- 470-010), will benefit from annexation into the St. Helena Municipal Sewer District No. 1, MSD Annexation No. 149; and
B. A public hearing regarding this proposed annexation was ordered on April 23, 2024 and held on June 11, 2024, at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of St. Helena; and
C. All annexation fees have been paid; and
D. The City has complied with all laws applicable to these annexation proceedings, including without limitation Health & Safety Code Section 4641.
RESOLUTION
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of St. Helena resolves as follows:
1. The territory described in the attached Exhibit A, commonly known as 2126 Madrona Avenue, St. Helena, CA (APN 009-470-010), is hereby ordered annexed.
2. The City Clerk shall cause a certified copy of this Resolution to be recorded with the official records of the County of Napa, pursuant to section 4647 of the Health & Safety Code.
Approved at a Regular Meeting if the St. Helena City Council on June 11, 2024, by the following vote:
Agenda Item #11.1.
Mayor Paul Dohring: _____
Vice Mayor Eric Hall: _____
Council Member Anna Chouteau: _____
Council Member Patrick Kenealy: _____
Council Member Billy Summers: _____
APPROVED: ATTEST:
______________________ _____________________
Paul Jamison Dohring, Mayor Cindy Tzafopoulos, City Clerk Agenda Item #11.1.
2126 Madrona Ave
Agenda Item #11.1.
City Council
June 11, 2024
Agenda Item ---
Public Hearing – Sewer Annexation
2126 Madrona Ave
Joe Leach, PE, Director of Public Works
Agenda Item #11.1.
• Public Hearing for the purposes of annexing parcels into the St Helena Municipal Sewer District No. 1.
• Consistent with St Helena Municipal Code 13.20.040
• Once approved, filing with Napa County and State Board of Equalization • Initial step to connect to sewer system
- applicants responsible for all connection costs
- may be eligible for reimbursement for mainline extension - may be required to reimburse another property owner for previous mainline extension.
Scope of Action
Agenda Item #11.1.
2126 Madrona Avenue
Agenda Item #11.1.
Adopt Resolution of the City Council of the City of St. Helena to approve the annexation of the property known as:
• 2126 Madrona Avenue, St. Helena, CA (APN 009-470-010), in the St. Helena Municipal Sewer District No. 1, MSD Annexation No 149.
Recommended Action
Agenda Item #11.1.
Agenda Report to the City Council
Agenda Section: OLD BUSINESS
Department: Administration
DATE: June 11, 2024
FROM: April Mitts, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Consideration of:
(1) A resolution of the City Council of the City of St.
Helena, California, submitting to the qualified voters of the City a proposed city charter to authorize the City of St.
Helena to enact a real property transfer tax and similar tax and assessment mechanisms beyond that provided by
state law; at a general municipal election to be
consolidated with the statewide general election to be held November 5, 2024; directing the City attorney to prepare an impartial analysis of the proposed charter and providing for the filing of primary and rebuttal arguments and setting rules for the filing of written arguments regarding the proposed charter; and
(2) A resolution of the City Council of the City of St.
Helena, California calling for the placement of a general tax measure on the November 5, 2024 general municipal
election ballot for the submission to the qualified voters of a proposed supplemental real property transfer tax;
requesting the County of Napa to consolidate said election with the statewide general election of even date; and
setting rules and deadlines for arguments and rebuttals for and against the measure.
RECOMMENDED
ACTION:
Approve the attached Resolutions.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
February 28, 2023 - BakerTilly Report
May 23, 2023 - Report to City Council on Potential
Revenue Options
October 10, 2023 - Presentation on GO Bond
Opinion Research
February 27, 2024 - Real Property Transfer Tax
Recommended Structures and Council Direction
March 12, 2024 - Draft City Charter Language to
City Council
April 9, 2024 - 1st Public Hearing Charter City
Agenda Item #12.1.
May 14, 2024 - 2nd Public Hearing Charter City
May 14, 2024 - Presentation on Real Property
Transfer Tax and Charter City Opinion Research
and Council direction.
STATEMENT OF THE
PURPOSE:
Adopt Resolutions placing the Charter City and Real
Property Transfer Tax Measures on the November 5, 2024
Ballot.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: If a proposed charter and real property transfer tax is placed on the November 2024 ballot, the City Clerk
estimates a cost of $60,000 in addition to the approximate $5,000 for informational items. Funding for elections has been included in the adopted budget.
BACKGROUND:
Recognizing the deterioration of the City’s assets and the need to provide better services to the community, City Council set in motion a series of studies, working committees, and reports to categorize assets, provide cost estimates for replacement/repair, and develop funding strategies for the replacement/repair of assets/infrastructure. These efforts were consistent with the following City Council Goals:
Goal 1 – Strengthen Financial Sustainability,
Goal 2 – Improve Infrastructure and Environmental Sustainability, Goal 5 – Enhance Quality of Life,
Goal 8 – Implement Capital Improvement Plans
Based on the series of studies, working committees, and reports, in Fall 2022, the City developed a comprehensive needs list which shows there is an estimated $155 million in Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) projects identified over the next 20-years in Streets, Storm-drain, Water, Wastewater, and Civic facilities.
Similar to infrastructure, there has been underfunding over several years as it relates to City staffing which has resulted in reduced staffing an compensation being below market. The reduced level of staff has resulted in the inability of staff to complete projects in a timely fashion, high employee turnover and low staff morale, and delays in responding to customer calls/service requests. These issues contributed to vacancy rates as high as 20% in 2023. The high level of vacancies coupled with high turnover in key positions such as City Manager and Director of Public Works, also contributed to delays and other detrimental impacts on policy formulation, organizational effectiveness, and city operations.
While monetary compensation is a factor, another challenge includes right sizing the organization to provide excellent customer service and having the appropriately skilled staff in place to accomplish City council directed goals and accumulated workplan.
Agenda Item #12.1.
Taking both the CIP and staffing into consideration, as noted in the February 28, 2023, report by Baker Tilly to the City Council, there is an estimated General Fund annual deficit of $6.9 million. This report included an updated Long Range Financial Forecast (LRFF) which provided financial projections and warned about the need to increase revenues and/or further adjust service levels. The presentation provided several ways of dealing with the financial situation including reducing expenditures, engaging more aggressively in shared services, and increasing various types of fees and taxes. The key conclusion was that if community expectations are to be met, simply addressing the fiscal gap by only reducing expenditures will not work in the long run and new revenue stream(s) would need to be considered.
As a follow-up to the February 28, 2023, Council meeting, on May 23, 2023, a report was brought to Council that further discussed each of the revenue options and City Council directed to staff to explore the feasibility of a General Obligation Bond, a Real Property Transfer Tax, and other revenue enhancement options as needed.
While there is a demonstrated need for additional revenues, City Council and staff also recognize that the City can be more efficient and effective in operations to ensure we are using our current resources wisely and we are providing service to the community.
In working towards fulfilling the City Council’s Goals listed above and City Council Goal 7 – Enhance Organizational Effectiveness, several initiatives have been identified and are in progress or already completed. Initiatives include, but are not limited to:
Increased Use of Technology. Purpose: To be more efficient and transparent What Objective Status
NeoGov
Human Resources
To streamline recruiting, hiring, and
onboarding process. The objective is to
help the City attract, retain, develop,
manage, and protect top talent.
Completed.
Capital Improvement
Program Progress
Update
An online tool has been developed to
help the public track the status of CIP
projects including project timeline and
expenditures.
Completed.
August 2023
GrapeVine
System to report and track nonemergency related items such as potholes. All items reported are logged,
tracked, and provide notification when
the reported item has been completed.
Provides accountability and
transparency for outstanding issues as
well as allows staff to property track
work completed.
Completed.
December 2023
New City Website
Updated software platform allowing for
additional capabilities and integrations.
Updated design showcases the City as
Completed.
February 2024
Agenda Item #12.1.
What Objective Status
a world-class community and
destination. The new site it is easier for
staff to update which provide up-todate information, is easier for website visitors to navigate, and is ADA
compliant.
Civic Rec
New Registration
Software
Parks & Recreation
To provide the best user experience for
members of the public as they register
for Parks & Recreation activities. This
will replace the old software which has
limited capabilities. The new platform is
more intuitive for both the administrator
as well as the end user.
Completed.
Spring 2024
RFID Tags
Library
To better serve library patrons when
checking out, this technology allows
self-checkout machines to read an
entire stack of items in one pass
instead of reading every barcode
individually. This removes the manual
burden from encoding, providing 100%
keyless data entry that results in higher
accuracy.
Process started in
January 2024 and is
anticipated to be
done by May 2024.
Laserfiche
Designated Laserfiche as a “Trusted
System” and the repositories for the
management of City records and the
automation of retention requirements.
This allows staff to convert paper
records for storage electronically. This
will be an ongoing process for digital
conversion; however, records will be
easier to access.
In progress.
Online Permitting
Building/Planning
Allow for increased efficiency by
allowing for a more streamlined and
efficient process for both the City,
citizens, and business community. The
new software will allow for easy online
electronic payments.
In progress.
Estimated launch
18-24 months
Exploration of Shared Services/Department Analysis
What Objective Status
Fire Department
Conduct an operational and
administrative analysis for the fire
department including a review of
department operations, structure, work
In progress.
Agenda Item #12.1.
What Objective Status
schedule, training, performance
measures, and a review of alternative
service delivery model options.
Creation of a new
department which will
house both
Library & Parks and
Recreation and
includes Arts &
Culture and
Communications
With the retirement of the Library
Director, a new department was
created under the banner of Community
Services which house the Library,
Parks and Recreation, Arts & Culture,
and Communications.
Completed.
Dispatch Services
The move of City Hall and the Police
Department to 1088 College Avenue
required the City to find temporary
dispatch space as NVC campus does
not have redundant power. The City’s
dispatch is sharing space with the City
of Calistoga.
Completed.
Exploration of Other Revenue Options
The February 28, 2023, BakerTilly report presented several revenue options for Council consideration including, but not limited to,: increase Transient Occupancy Rate (TOT), establish a parks maintenance district, increase local sales tax, implement a utility user tax, implement a library parcel tax, update business license tax, sell surplus property, and implement a real property transfer tax (Attachment 1). Through much Council discussion and deliberation, the City Council provided direction to staff to move forward with and/or further analyze several options. These options are noted below.
What Objective Status
GO Bond
Raise additional funds for
repair/replacement of streets, bridges,
and downtown sidewalk project.
Not moving forward
User Fees
Updated the City’s Master User Fee
schedule. This included 56 new fees, 98
fee increases, 29 fee decreases, and
191 fees which did not change.
Completed.
October 2023
Impact Fees
The majority of the impact fees were
reduced. It is anticipated the reduction
in Impact fees will create a more
business friendly climate to generate
more revenue from business activity.
Completed.
November 2023
Grants The City actively pursues grants to
reduce the burden on the General Fund.
Active Grants
21 grants totaling
Agenda Item #12.1.
What Objective Status
The City has been successful in
securing grant funding; however, it
should be noted that a majority of grants
are aimed at disadvantaged
communities, which St. Helena is not.
$7.6m
Pending Grants
3 grants totaling
$1.2m
Closed Out Grants
2 grants totaling
$225k
Surplus Property
1480 Main St.
1572 Railroad Ave.
Declared two City-owned properties as
surplus though the Surplus Land Act
(SLA) for sale and possible
development of affordable housing
and/or other economic activities.
In Progress.
First step for
declaration
occurred in
November 2023.
Develop Real Estate
Strategies
The City is working to develop real
estate strategies and asset
management including economic
development tools, potential
public/private partnership transactions,
and analysis of community benefits to
allow the City Council and Community
make the best decision regarding future
City properties and uses.
In Progress.
Establish a Real
Property Transfer
Tax/Charter City
The City is currently in the process of
placing these two measures on the
ballot as it is the tax measure with the
least ongoing impact.
In Progress.
Other Miscellaneous Efficiencies
What Objective Status
Process
Improvements
To continually look at the current
processes and identify areas which can
be improved to be more efficient,
effective, and more customer service
focused.
Ongoing.
Excellence in
Customer Service
Initiative
Launched in 2023, this initiative
established 21 distinct objectives which
have been divided into three distinct
categories: (1) efficiencies, (2) staff
development, training, and
collaboration, and (3) outreach and
education. The purpose of this initiative
is to deliver more effective and efficient
services to the community.
In Progress.
Permit Sale Launched an “Energy Friendly Permit Completed.
Agenda Item #12.1.
What Objective Status
Sale” to encourage the switch to
energy efficiency and lower the carbon
footprint of buildings though water
conservation and heat-pump
technology as a means of achieving its
GHG reduction goals.
April 2023
Increased
Accountability
To increase accountability the City is
implementing better performance
management tools such as pay for
performance and revised performance
appraisals.
Completed.
2-year Budget Cycle To improve efficiency of the budget process.
Completed.
May 2023
For a full list of City Council Goals and the associated objectives, please visit the following link on the City’s website: City Council Goals and Staff Workplan.
Following City Council direction on May 23, 2023, staff has been exploring the feasibility of a General Obligation Bond, a Real Property Transfer Tax, and other revenue enhance options as needed.
The following has occurred since the initial BakerTilly report in February 2023. (1) Staff continues to refine the comprehensive needs list in the following ways:
Applying escalators to the initial estimates for CIP projects based on the various reports.
Identifying and prioritizing staffing needs to accomplish City Council goals and meet community expectations.
Review of key City documents including ADA Transition Plan, General Plan, PTAP Report and staff input to update the comprehensive needs list. Once refined, the 20-year unfunded needs list grows to just shy of $250 million, with approximately $200 million being ongoing costs. This equates to an approximate $10 million shortfall annually.
(2) Adoption and adjustments of and to the FY 2024 and FY 2025 adopted budgets which both requires a use of reserves as follows:
FY 2024 - $2.9 million
FY 2025 - $2.8 million
On October 10, 2023, the City Council received a presentation of opinion research related to the consideration of a March 2024 General Obligation Bond (GO Bond) as a revenue-generating local ballot measure. Based on polling, the City Council directed staff to not move forward with the GO Bond and continue to move forward with exploring the feasibility of a Real Property Transfer Tax for the November 2024 Ballot.
Agenda Item #12.1.
As noted elsewhere in this report, the City is facing real financial challenges with significant use of General Fund reserves in FY 2024 and FY 2025. The City is fortunate to have reserves because of a very conservative budget posture in previous years, which came at a price. The current cash balance is due to decades of intentionally keeping the current staffing, service model, and expenditures low in order to present a balanced budget for adoption. The lower expenditures results in lower staffing levels, uncompetitive compensation, vacancies, lack of investment in technology, reduced parks maintenance, and deterioration of other City infrastructure and facilities. There are also significant long-term challenges to address including unfunded needs consistent with Council Goals and community expectations.
Over the past year, the City has been making progress on moving forward with projects.
This progress is only being made because we are utilizing reserves; however, this is not sustainable as noted in the February 2023 BakerTilly report. The City’s cash balance will quickly be depleted without additional revenue sources. Because of this, staff and City Council have been working towards a solution to fill the funding gap and recognizes it will not be accomplished through just one method and must be a multi-pronged approach. Such an approach will need to include implementing greater efficiencies, approve new taxes, and encourage, approve, and allow new development (including hotels).
In exploring tax options, the Real Property Transfer Tax (RPTT) is considered a viable source of steady revenues with the least overall impact with the highest most reasonable amount of revenue potential compared to the other options. The RPTT was also preferred above increasing business license tax and increasing sales tax according to a 2020 community survey. The RPTT is one of eight revenue strategies presented by BakerTilly. While other strategies were considered, the RPTT allows for the ongoing revenues, will only be collected on sales of real property in the City (which averages 115 sales per calendar year), is a general tax, and has many options to consider depending on the target revenue amount.
Following City Council direction on October 10, 2023, staff has been exploring the feasibility of a RPTT for the November 2024 ballot. There are two components to implementation of a RPTT:
1. St. Helena must become a Charter City, and
2. St. Helena must pass a RPTT.
Both require a simple majority of the votes at a general election and are both discussed below.
Charter City
The City of St. Helena is currently a General Law city. This means that the City is bound by the State of California’s general law. Becoming a Charter City will allow the City to Agenda Item #12.1.
have supreme authority over “municipal affairs” which includes the legal authority to enact a real estate transfer tax measure.
Staff worked with the City Council Ad Hoc Committee composed of Vice Mayor Hall and Council Member Summers to develop Charter City language that was presented and approved to and by City Council at its meeting on March 12, 2024.
While becoming a Charter City can be complicated, the recommendation, supported by an independent citizens committee, and the City Council is to bring to the voters a simple charter which would allow for the legal authority to enact a RPTT (by approval of the voters) and follow the General Law of the State of California in all other matters.
On March 12, 2024, City Council directed staff to proceed with the recommended limited and "simple" charter and further directed staff to schedule two public hearings regarding a Charter City proposal.
On April 9, 2024, City Council conducted the first noticed public hearing fulfilling the requirements of the California Government Code Section 33458(b) for a first public hearing to consider a city charter.
On May 14, 2024, City Council conducted the second noticed public hearing fulfilling the same California Government Code Section requirements as listed above.
Real Property Transfer Tax (RPTT)
A transfer tax is defined as, “taxes imposed on the transfer of title of real property.” Put simply, when the title of a property – the document that entitles you to legal ownership of that property – is transferred to another party, the government levies a tax on that transfer. Sellers are ultimately responsible for the payment of the tax; however, it is not uncommon to see an agreement between the seller and buyer to split the costs.
Starting in December 2023, staff worked with a citizen's group to provide a recommendation to Council on a RPTT structure. The citizens who met were from diverse backgrounds, had differing opinions, and spent a lot of time understanding the issues at hand, researching and educating themselves on the financial condition and RPTT, and meeting as a group to make a recommendation. This group engaged in healthy dialog, asked for and reviewed 18 different tax amounts, deliberated on various other tax structure related items, and, while not unanimous, came to a consensus on six recommendations that were presented to City Council on February 27, 2024. The six recommendations are as follows:
1. The general consensus was that while they did not like the idea of a tax, the City is in need of additional revenues to meet community expectations
2. Target Revenue Amount - $7 million annually
3. Exemption - all properties which sell for under $1 million will be exempt from this additional tax.
Agenda Item #12.1.
4. Tax Structure - while only one structure will be presented on the ballot, the committee narrowed it down to two structures for Council consideration: (a) Flat Tax of 2.5% and (b) Graduated tax between 2% and 3% dependent on the sale amount.
5. Duration of Tax - recommendation is to poll two scenarios to see if there is a difference in support for a sunset or have the tax remain until ended by voters.
6. Citizen Oversight Committee - while this is a general tax and the use would be for any general purpose, the group recommended a citizen oversight committee be included as part of the RPTT.
As mentioned earlier, the decisions were not unanimous, but do reflect the majority of the citizens group. I do want to thank the 15+ community members who spent a lot of time meeting, researching, and discussing the best path to move forward. While talking about new taxes is not easy, or preferred, this group grappled with the need and provided recommendations to move forward.
In reviewing the recommendations of the citizens’ committee, staff agreed with most recommendations, with the exception of the two items below:
Sunset vs. no Sunset – Staff recommended the City Council poll having a sunset and no sunset date, if polling did not reveal a significant difference staff recommended the measure stay in place until ended by voters.
Citizen Oversight Committee – While staff recognizes the importance of an oversight committee, this is a general tax that flows into the General Fund. It would be difficult to determine how this type of committee would function. Typically, Citizen Oversight Committees are used when special taxes are enacted to ensure funds are only spent on the specific purposes defined in the ballot measure.
At this meeting City Council reviewed the recommendations of the citizens committee and staff and directed to conduct opinion research on the following:
1. Tax Structure: Flat tax of 2.5% on total sales price over $1 million resulting in an estimated annual revenue of $6.5 million.
2. Tax Structure: Graduated tax of 1.5% on sales prices for property between $1 - $5 million, and 3% tax on total sales price over $5 million resulting in an estimated annual revenue of $5.3 million.
3. Tax Sunset: Tax sunset of 8 years or tax in place until ended by voters.
On May 14, 2024, opinion research results were provided to City Council with both the Charter City and RPTT polling above the required majority threshold. Based on the results of the survey, City Council directed staff to move forward with placing a RPTT on the November 2024 ballot with a graduated rate structure until ended by voters. The structure being a Graduated tax of 1.5% on sales prices for property between $1 - $5 Agenda Item #12.1.
million, and 3% tax on total sales price over $5 million resulting in an estimated annual revenue of $5.3 million.
Purpose of Additional Revenues
While the RPTT is a general tax, meaning it will be placed in the General Fund for general purposes, it is a much-needed revenue stream that will allow the City to fulfill City Council goals and meet community expectations. The City Council’s current goals place priorities in several key areas including, but not limited to strengthening the City’s financial sustainability, improving infrastructure, increase quality of life in St. Helena, enhance organizational effectiveness, and implement capital improvement plans. These priorities were further confirmed by the opinion research done in October 2023 as well as through the City’s Flash Vote which sites the local economy, the condition of the roads, downtown sidewalks and infrastructure are rated the top problems facing the City.
Based on the City Council goals, and feedback from the community, it is anticipated that additional revenues would used on some of the following:
1. Fast-track road and sidewalk projects,
2. Properly Maintain public spaces including parks,
3. Properly maintain civic buildings,
4. Provide timely assistance and response to community requests,
5. Better enforcement of traffic laws,
6. Reduce reliance on consultants to replace regular employees, and
7. CIP projects (including water and wastewater) being delivered and being delivered on-time.
DISCUSSION:
Based on the culmination of analysis and City Council direction over the past year, the item before Council is the adoption of two separate resolutions for the following:
1. Resolution 1: Charter City (Attachment 1): calling for the placement of a proposed city charter on the November 5, 2024 general municipal election ballot for the submission to the qualified voters of a proposed city charter to authorize the City of St. Helena to enact a real property transfer tax and similar tax and assessment mechanisms beyond that provided by state law; requesting the County of Napa to consolidate said election with the statewide general election of even date; and setting the rules and deadlines for arguments and rebuttals for and against the measure.
2. Resolution 2: Real Property Transfer Tax (Attachment 2): calling for the placement of a general tax measure on the November 5, 2024 general municipal election ballot for the submission to the qualified voters of a proposed supplemental real property transfer tax; requesting the County of Napa to consolidate said election with the statewide general election of even date; and setting the rules and deadlines for arguments and rebuttals for and against the measure.
Agenda Item #12.1.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
None.
GOAL:
Goal 1: Strengthen Financial Sustainability
Goal 2: Improve Infrastructure & Further Environmental Sustainability Goal 5: Enhance Quality of Life
Goal 8: Implement Capital Improvement Plans (CIP) Projects Miscellaneous/Other DOCUMENTS ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 - ST HELENA CHARTER - Resolution
Attachment 2 - ST HELENA RPTT - Resolution
Attachment 3 - 02.28.23 Baker Tilly Long Range Financial Plan Agenda Item #12.1.
RESOLUTION NO. ________
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST.
HELENA, CALIFORNIA, SUBMITTING TO THE QUALIFIED VOTERS
OF THE CITY A PROPOSED CITY CHARTER TO AUTHORIZE THE
CITY OF ST. HELENA TO ENACT A REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER
TAX AND SIMILAR TAX AND ASSESSMENT MECHANISMS BEYOND
THAT PROVIDED BY STATE LAW; AT A GENERAL MUNICIPAL
ELECTION TO BE CONSOLIDATED WITH THE STATEWIDE
GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD NOVEMBER 5, 2024; DIRECTING
THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS OF
THE PROPOSED CHARTER AND PROVIDING FOR THE FILING OF
PRIMARY AND REBUTTAL ARGUMENTS AND SETTING RULES FOR
THE FILING OF WRITTEN ARGUMENTS REGARDING THE
PROPOSED CHARTER
WHEREAS, the City of St. Helena is currently a general law city, meaning that it possesses only that authority granted to it by general State law; and WHEREAS, pursuant to California Revenue and Taxation Code sections 11901 et. seq., a general law city is authorized to impose a documentary transfer tax of up to
27.5¢ per $500 of the sales price for any transfer of real property within the City with a sales price over $100, subject to certain conditions and exemptions; and WHEREAS, pursuant to St. Helena Municipal Code, chapter 3.20, the City has imposed a real property transfer tax (equivalent to a documentary transfer tax) since 1967 at the rate of 27.5¢ per $500 of the real estate sales price; and WHEREAS, on November 4, 1986, California voters approved Proposition 62, a Statewide initiative statute intended to limit and regulate local taxation; and WHEREAS, a provision within Proposition 62, Government Code section 53725, states: “No local government or district may impose any transaction tax or sales tax on the sale of real property within the city, county or district”; and WHEREAS, St. Helena may continue to impose the real property transfer tax currently in effect in St. Helena Municipal Code chapter 3.20 because it predates Proposition 62; and
WHEREAS, further, in the decision of Fielder v. City of Los Angeles, (1993) 15 Cal. App. 4th 137, the California Court of Appeal held that this prohibition in Proposition 62 does not apply to charter cities and, therefore, charter cities may enact real property transfer taxes beyond the 27.5¢ per $500 maximum set forth in California Revenue and Taxation Code sections 11901 et. seq., provided the charter city secures appropriate voter approval of the increased real property transfer tax; and WHEREAS, as a result, St. Helena, as a current general city, does not have the legal authority to enact a real property transfer tax beyond that already imposed under Agenda Item #12.1.
St. Helena Municipal Code chapter 3.20, however, it would be authorized to do so if it became a charter city; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to authority provided by California Constitution, Article XI, Section 3, California Government Code Sections 34450 et. seq. and California Elections Code Sections 1415 and 9255, the City Council of the City of St. Helena desires to submit to the voters a proposed limited City Charter that would authorize the City of St.
Helena to enact real property transfer taxes and similar tax and assessment mechanisms beyond those provided by State law, subject to applicable voter approval, but that the City would otherwise remain subject to the general laws of the State of California, as more specifically set forth therein (the “Charter Proposal” or “Measure”); and
WHEREAS, California Constitution, Article XI, Section 3, requires that any charter proposal be approved by a majority of City voters voting at an election called for that purpose; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Government Code Section 34458(b), the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on April 9, 2024 and a second duly noticed public hearing on May 14, 2024 to hear public comment and testimony and to consider the Charter Proposal, with the first and second public hearing(s) being held at 6:00 p.m., outside normal City business hours; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Government Code Section 34458(b), this resolution is being adopted at a City Council meeting which is at least twenty-one (21) calendar days after the second public hearing referenced above; and WHEREAS, pursuant to California Elections Code sections 1415 and 9255, the City Council is authorized by statute to submit the Charter Proposal to the voters at the General Municipal Election to be held on November 5, 2024; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to consolidate the General Municipal Election for the Charter Proposal described herein with the Statewide General Election to be held on November 5, 2024; and
WHEREAS, the City Council further desires to set deadlines and rules for primary and rebuttal arguments for and against the Charter Proposal.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST. HELENA AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Recitals. The City Council of the City hereby finds and determines that the foregoing recitals are true and correct, are incorporated herein and by this reference made an operative part hereof.
SECTION 2. Submission of Charter Proposal. The City Council of the City, pursuant to its right and authority as contained in California Constitution Article XI, Section 3, California Government Code, Sections 34450 et. seq., and California Agenda Item #12.1.
Elections Code, Sections 1415 and 9255, and any other applicable requirements of the laws of the State of California relating to general law cities, hereby calls and orders to be held a General Municipal Election in the City of St. Helena to be consolidated with the Statewide General Election on Tuesday, November 5, 2024, for the purpose of submitting to a vote of the qualified electors of the City of St. Helena the following Charter Proposal:
“To enhance local control over funding essential City services YES and generate funds that must stay local, shall the City of St.
Helena Charter be adopted to establish St. Helena as a charter city with the ability to adopt local funding measures subject to voter approval, such as an increased real property transfer tax that could fund needed infrastructure improvements and public safety services throughout the City?”
NO
SECTION 3. Text of Charter Proposal. The text of the Charter Proposal to be submitted to the voters is attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference.
SECTION 4. Election Procedures.
A. Request for Consolidation. Pursuant to the requirements of §10403 of the Elections Code, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Napa is hereby requested to consent and agree to the consolidation of a General Municipal Election with the Statewide General Election on Tuesday, November 5, 2024, for the purpose of submitting to the voters the Charter Proposal.
B. Necessary Steps. The Board of Supervisors is requested to issue instructions to the Napa County Registrar of Voters/Elections Official to take any and all steps necessary for the holding of the consolidated election.
C. Canvass of Returns. The Napa County Registrar of Voters/Elections Official is authorized to canvass the returns and perform all other proceedings incidental to and connected with the General Municipal Election for the Charter Proposal. The Election shall be held in all respects as if there were only one election, and only one form of ballot shall be used. Pursuant to California Elections Code Sections 10403 and 10418, the election will be held and conducted in accordance with the provisions of law regulating the Statewide General Election.
D. Costs. The City Council determines and declares that the City will pay to the County the reasonable and actual expenses incurred by the County by the consolidation of the General Municipal Election with the Statewide General Election. The City shall reimburse the County for services performed when the work is completed and upon presentation to the City of a properly approved bill.
E. Form of Ballot. The ballots to be used at the election shall be in the form and Agenda Item #12.1.
content as required by law.
F. City Clerk Authorized to Coordinate with County. The City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed, in coordination with the Napa County Registrar of Voters/Elections Official, to procure and furnish any and all official ballots, notices, printed matter and all supplies, equipment and paraphernalia that may be necessary in order to properly and lawfully conduct the election.
G. Opening and Operation of Polls, Vote Centers, Etc. The polls, vote centers and/or vote-by-mail drop-off boxes shall be open and the procedures for submitting votes-by-mail or votes at polls and vote centers shall be in accordance with those times and procedures established by the County of Napa, except as otherwise provided in the Elections Code of the State of California.
H. Election to Follow Applicable Law. In all particulars not recited in this Resolution, the election shall be held and conducted as provided by law for holding municipal elections in the City.
I. Notice of Election. Notice of the time and place of holding the election is given and the City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to give further or additional notice of the election, in time, form, and manner as required by law.
J. Tallying of Ballots. All ballots shall be tallied at a central counting place and not at the precincts. Said central counting place shall be at a County center as designated by the Registrar of Voters.
K. Receipt of Election Results. The City Clerk of the City of St. Helena shall receive the canvass as it pertains to the election on the Charter Proposal measure, and shall certify the results to the City Council, as required by law.
SECTION 5. Direct Arguments and City Attorney’s Impartial Analysis.
A. The City Council authorizes (i) the City Council or any member(s) of the City Council, (ii) any individual voter eligible to vote on the above Charter Proposal, (iii) a bona fide association of such citizens or (iv) any combination of voters and associations, to file a written argument in favor of or against the Charter Proposal, in accordance with Article 4, Chapter 3, Division 9 of the Elections Code of the State of California and may change the argument until and including August 16, 2024, 2024 at 5:00 p.m. after which no arguments for or against the Charter Proposal may be submitted to the City Clerk.
Arguments in favor of or against the Charter Proposal shall each not exceed 300 words in length. Each argument shall be filed with the City Clerk, signed, and include the printed name(s) and signature(s) of the author(s) submitting it, or if submitted on behalf of an organization, the name of the organization, and the printed name and signature of at least one of its principal officers who Agenda Item #12.1.
is the author of the argument.
B. The City Clerk shall comply with all provisions of law establishing priority of arguments for printing and distribution to the voters, and shall take all necessary actions to cause the selected arguments to be printed and distributed to the voters.
C. Pursuant to Section 9280 of the Elections Code, the City Council directs the City Clerk to transmit a copy of the Charter Proposal to the City Attorney. The City Attorney shall prepare an impartial analysis of the Charter Proposal, not to exceed 500 words in length, showing the effect of the Charter Proposal on the existing law and the operation of the Charter Proposal. The City Attorney shall transmit such impartial analysis to the City Clerk, who shall cause the analysis to be published in the voter information guide along with the Charter Proposal as provided by law. The Impartial Analysis shall be filed with the City Clerk by August 9, 2024 at 5:00 p.m. The impartial analysis shall include a statement indicating whether the Charter Proposal was placed on the ballot by a petition signed by the requisite number of voters or by the City Council.
In the event the entire text of the Charter Proposal is not printed on the ballot, nor in the voter information portion of the sample ballot, there shall be printed immediately below the Impartial Analysis, in no less than 10-font bold type, the following: “The above statement is an Impartial Analysis of Charter Proposal/Measure “____”. If you desire a copy of the Charter Proposal/Measure, please call the election official’s office at (707) 968- 2742 and a copy will be mailed at no cost to you.”
D. The provisions herein shall apply only to the election to be held on November 5, 2024.
SECTION 6. Rebuttals.
A. That pursuant to Section 9285 of the Elections Code of the State of California, when the Clerk has selected the arguments for and against the Charter Proposal which will be printed and distributed to the voters, the Clerk shall send copies of the argument in favor of the Charter Proposal to the authors of the argument against, and copies of the argument against to the authors of the argument in favor. The authors or persons designated by them may prepare and submit rebuttal arguments not exceeding 250 words. The rebuttal arguments shall be filed with the City Clerk not later than August 23, 2024, at 5:00 p.m. Rebuttal arguments shall be printed in the same manner as the direct arguments. Each rebuttal argument shall immediately follow the direct argument which it seeks to rebut.
B. The provisions herein shall apply only to the election to be held on November 5, 2024.
SECTION 7. Placement on the Ballot. The full text of the Charter Proposal [shall] be printed in the voter information guide, and a statement shall be printed in the Agenda Item #12.1.
ballot pursuant to Section 9223 of the Elections Code advising voters that they may obtain a copy of this Charter Proposal/Measure, at no cost, upon request made to the City Clerk.
SECTION 8. Delivery of Resolution to County. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions. The City Council directs the City Clerk to deliver copies of this Resolution, including the Charter Proposal attached hereto as Exhibit “A”, to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Napa County and to the Registrar of Voters/Elections Official of Napa County.
SECTION 9. Public Examination. Pursuant to California Elections Code section 9295, this Measure will be available for public examination for no fewer than ten (10) calendar days prior to being submitted for printing in the voter information guide.
The City Clerk shall post notice in the Clerk’s office of the specific dates that the examination period will run.
SECTION 10. CEQA. The City Council hereby finds and determines that this Resolution and the Charter Proposal relates to organizational or administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment, and therefore is not a “project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the State CEQA Guidelines, section 15378(b)(5).
SECTION 11. Severability. If any provision of this Resolution or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the Resolution which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Resolution are severable. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Resolution irrespective of the invalidity of any particular portion thereof.
SECTION 12. Effective Date of Resolution. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council and attested by the City Clerk this 11th day of June, 2024.
Paul Jamison Dohring, Mayor
City of St. Helena
Attest:
Cindy Tzafopoulos, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
Agenda Item #12.1.
Ethan Walsh, City Attorney
Agenda Item #12.1.
CERTIFICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF NAPA ) ss
CITY OF ST. HELENA )
I HEREBY CERTIFY that this resolution was ADOPTED and PASSED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of St. Helena held on the 11th day of June, 2024, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
_________________________
Cindy Tzafopoulos, City Clerk
Agenda Item #12.1.
EXHIBIT “A”
CHARTER PROPOSAL/MEASURE “___”
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ST. HELENA DO HEREBY ADOPT A CITY CHARTER FOR THE CITY OF ST. HELENA AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Text of Charter Proposal. Subject to the approval of a majority of the voters of the City of St. Helena at the scheduled election so designated by City Council resolution placing the proposal on the ballot for such election, the voters of the City of St. Helena hereby adopt a City Charter to read as follows:
“
CITY OF ST. HELENA CHARTER
ARTICLE I
NAME AND BOUNDARIES
100. Name and Boundaries
The municipal corporation now existing and known as the City of St. Helena, hereafter referred to as "the City," shall remain and continue to be a municipal body corporate and politic, as at present, in name, in fact, and in law. The boundaries of the City shall be as established at the time this Charter takes effect, or as they may be changed thereafter in the manner authorized by law.
ARTICLE II
POWERS OF CITY
200. Exercise of Constitutional Power of Local Taxation and Assessment The City of St. Helena adopts this Charter to exercise all constitutional powers conferred on charter cities under Article XI sections 3 and 5 of the California Constitution with respect to municipal affairs in relation to local taxes, issuance of bonds and other financings secured by local taxes, and assessment, including a system for the imposition, levy and collection of a such tax or assessment. In the event of a conflict between this Charter and the general law, the provisions of this Charter shall govern. 201. City is Otherwise Subject to General Laws
Except as provided in this Charter with respect to the power of the City over local taxation and assessment, the powers of the City shall otherwise be constrained by, Agenda Item #12.1.
subject to, and governed by the general laws of the State as now and hereafter existing relating to cities organized under said general laws.
202. Severability
If any provision of this Charter is found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the remaining provisions of the Charter shall remain in full force and effect. 203. Intergovernmental Relations.
The City may exercise any of its powers or perform any of its functions jointly, or in cooperation, by contract or otherwise, with any one or more cities, counties, states, or civil divisions or agencies thereof, or the United States or any agency thereof. 204. Effective Date of Charter/Amendment
This Charter shall take effect upon its approval by St. Helena voters and by the Secretary of State of the State of California. Any amendment to this Charter shall be effective when approved by St. Helena voters and has been accepted and filed by the Secretary of State pursuant to Government Code Section 34460.
ARTICLE III
SUCCESSION
300. Rights and Liabilities
The City shall remain vested with and continue to have, hold, and enjoy all property, rights of property, and rights of action of every nature and description now pertaining to this municipality, and is hereby declared to be the successor of same. It shall be subject to all the obligations, contracts, liabilities, debts, and duties that now exist against or with the City.
301. Ordinances, Codes, and Other Regulations
All ordinances, codes, resolutions, regulations, rules, and portions thereof, in force at the time this Charter takes effect, and not in conflict or inconsistent herewith, shall continue in force until repealed, amended, changed, or superseded in the manner provided by this Charter and any other applicable laws. 302. Pending Actions And Proceedings
No action or proceeding, civil or criminal, pending at the time this Charter takes effect, brought by or against the City or any officer, office, or department thereof, shall be affected or abated by the adoption of this Charter, or by anything herein contained.
Agenda Item #12.1.
ARTICLE IV
FORM OF GOVERNMENT
400. Form of Government
The form of government shall be that commonly known as the Council-Manager form of government. The City Council, consisting of four councilmembers elected for four year staggered terms, and a separately elected mayor elected for two year terms in the manner in effect when this Charter was adopted, shall establish the policy of the City and the City Manager shall carry out that policy. Each Councilmember in office at the time this Charter takes effect shall continue in office until the end of the term for which they were elected or appointed.
401. Officers and Employees
Subject to the provisions of this Charter, the present officers and employees of the City shall continue to perform the duties of their respective offices and employment without interruption and for the same compensation and under the same conditions until the election, appointment or hiring and qualification of their successors and subject to such removal and control as provided herein or by applicable general law.” SECTION 2. Approval, Filing and Recordation of Charter Proposal.
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 34460, if approved by a majority of voters, the Mayor and City Clerk shall certify, authenticate and attest to the passage of this Charter Proposal. The City Clerk shall also (i) record one copy of this Charter Proposal with the Napa County Recorder’s Office, (ii) file one copy in the City’s archives and (iii) file one copy with the California Secretary of State. Each copy recorded with the County Recorder and filed in the City’s archives shall also be filed with the following documents:
A. Certified copies of all publications and notices required of the City by State law in connection with the calling of an election to propose the Charter Proposal.
B. Certified copies of any arguments for or against the Charter Proposal that were mailed to voters pursuant to California Elections Code Sections 9281 et. seq.
C. A certified abstract of the vote at the election at which the Charter Proposal was approved by the voters.
Agenda Item #12.1.
SECTION 3. Ratification and Effective Date. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 34459, this Charter Proposal shall be deemed ratified if approved by a majority of the eligible voters of the City of St. Helena voting at the General Municipal Election of November 5, 2024. However, this Charter Proposal shall not take effect until it has been accepted and filed by the Secretary of State pursuant to Government Code Section 34460.
SECTION 4. Severability. If any provision of this Charter Proposal or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the Charter Proposal and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.
I hereby certify that the foregoing Charter Proposal was PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the People of the City of St. Helena on the 5th day of November, 2024.
Paul Jamison Dohring, Mayor
City of St. Helena
Attest:
Cindy Tzafopoulos, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
Ethan Walsh, City Attorney
Agenda Item #12.1.
RESOLUTION NO. 2024 -___
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST.
HELENA, CALIFORNIA CALLING FOR THE PLACEMENT OF A
GENERAL TAX MEASURE ON THE NOVEMBER 5, 2024 GENERAL
MUNICIPAL ELECTION BALLOT FOR THE SUBMISSION TO THE
QUALIFIED VOTERS OF A PROPOSED SUPPLEMENTAL REAL
PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX; REQUESTING THE COUNTY OF NAPA
TO CONSOLIDATE SAID ELECTION WITH THE STATEWIDE
GENERAL ELECTION OF EVEN DATE; AND SETTING RULES AND
DEADLINES FOR ARGUMENTS AND REBUTTALS FOR AND
AGAINST THE MEASURE.
WHEREAS, pursuant to St. Helena Municipal Code, chapter 3.20, the City currently imposes a real property transfer tax at the rate of 27.5¢ per $500 of the sales price for any transfer of real property within the City with a sales price over $100, subject to certain conditions and exemptions; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No ______, the St. Helena City Council has placed a separate measure on the November 5, 2024 General Municipal Election ballot asking St. Helena voters whether the City should adopt a limited City Charter that would make St. Helena a charter city and would authorize it to enact real property transfer taxes and similar tax and assessment mechanisms beyond those provided by State law; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 9222 of the California Elections Code, the City Council has the authority to place a measure on the ballot regarding the imposition, extension or increase in a local tax to be considered by the voters at a Municipal Election; and
WHEREAS, based on the above, the City Council desires to submit a measure to the voters at the November 5, 2024 General Municipal Election seeking approval of a Supplemental Real Property Transfer Tax (“RPTT”) at the rate of $7.50 per $500 (1.5%) of the sales price for any transfer of real property within the City sold for between $1,000,000 and $5,000,000 and at a rate of $15.00 per $500 (3%) of the sales price for any transfer of real property within the City sold for more than $5,000,000, subject to certain conditions and exemptions (the “Measure”); and
WHEREAS, the RPTT would be a general tax the proceeds of which would be deposited into the City’s general fund and which pay for City services such as police and fire services, street operations and maintenance, library services, parks and recreation services and general municipal services to the public; and WHEREAS, on November 6, 1996, the voters of the State of California approved Proposition 218 (California Constitution, Article XIIIC), an amendment to the State Constitution which requires that all general taxes which are imposed, extended or increased must be submitted to the electorate and approved by a majority vote of the qualified electors voting in the election; and
Agenda Item #12.1.
City of St. Helena
Resolution No. 2024-___
WHEREAS, pursuant to Proposition 218 (California Constitution Article XIIIC, §2(b)), the general rule is that any local election for the approval of a new or increased general tax must be consolidated with a regularly scheduled general election for members of the governing body of the local government; and WHEREAS, the City’s general municipal elections for officers are held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of each even-numbered year. Therefore, the next regularly scheduled General Municipal Election for the election of members of the City Council will be held on Tuesday, November 5, 2024; and WHEREAS, the specific terms relating to the Measure are provided for in the ordinance to be considered by the qualified voters, attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and by this reference made an operative part hereof, and in accordance with all applicable laws; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Proposition 62 (Government Code Section 53724), a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the City Council membership is required to place the Measure on the November 5, 2024 ballot; and
WHEREAS, it is desirable that the General Municipal Election be consolidated with the Statewide General Election to be held on the same date and that within the City the precincts, polling places, voting centers and election officers of the two elections be the same, and that the Napa County election department canvass the returns of the General Municipal Election and that the election be held in all respects as if there were only one election; and
WHEREAS, it is also desirable to establish deadlines and rules for the submission of written arguments and rebuttals for and against the Measure in accordance with applicable California Elections Code procedures.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST. HELENA,
CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Recitals. The City Council hereby finds and determines that the foregoing recitals are true and correct, are incorporated herein and by this reference are made an operative part hereof.
SECTION 2. Submission of Ballot Measure. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 53724, Elections Code Section 9222 and any other applicable requirements of the laws of the State of California relating to the City, the City Council, by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of its membership, hereby orders the Measure to be submitted to the voters of the City at the General Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, November 5, 2024.
Agenda Item #12.1.
City of St. Helena
Resolution No. 2024-___
SECTION 3. Ballot Question. The City Council, pursuant to its right and authority, does hereby order that the Measure shall be presented and printed upon the ballot submitted to the qualified voters in the manner and form set forth in this Section 3.
On the ballot to be submitted to the qualified voters at the General Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, November 5, 2024, in addition to any other matters required by law, there shall be printed substantially the following ballot question:
YES “To fund essential City services including repairing local streets/potholes, downtown sidewalks/infrastructure,
maintaining emergency/fire response/evacuation routes,
for general government use, shall St. Helena adopt a
measure establishing a graduated real property transfer tax ranging from 1.5% - 3% of purchase price on sales
over $1,000,000 to be paid only by property
buyers/sellers generating approximately $5,300,000
annually until ended by voters, all funds staying in St.
Helena/cannot be taken by the state, be adopted?”
NO
SECTION 4. Election Procedures.
A. The ballots to be used at the election shall be in the form and content as required by law.
B. Pursuant to the requirements of Section 10403 of the Elections Code, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Napa is hereby requested to consent and agree to the consolidation of a General Municipal Election with the Statewide General Election on Tuesday, November 5, 2024, for the purpose of submitting to the voters the question relating to the City’s Measure.
C. The election services which the City of St. Helena requests the Registrar of Voters, or such other official as may be appropriate, to perform and which such officer is hereby authorized and directed to perform, if said Board of Supervisors consents, include: the preparation, printing and mailing of sample ballots; the establishment or appointment of precincts, polling places, voting centers, and election officers, the preparation, printing, mailing and furnishing of vote-by-mail ballots, making such publications as are required by law in connection therewith; the furnishing of ballots, voting booths and other necessary supplies or materials for polling places and voting centers; the canvassing of the returns of the election and the furnishing of the results of such canvassing to the City Clerk of the City of St. Helena; and the performance of such other election services as may be requested by the City Clerk.
D. The City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to procure and furnish, or cause to be procured and furnished through the County of Napa, any and all official ballots, notices, printed matter and all supplies, equipment and paraphernalia that may be necessary in order to properly and lawfully conduct Agenda Item #12.1.
City of St. Helena
Resolution No. 2024-___
the election.
E. The polls, vote centers and/or vote-by-mail drop-off boxes shall be open and the procedures for submitting votes-by-mail or votes at polls and vote centers shall be in accordance with those times and procedures established by the County of Napa, except as otherwise provided in the Elections Code of the State of California.
F. In all particulars not recited in this Resolution, the election shall be held and conducted as provided by law for holding municipal elections in the City.
G. Notice of the time and place of holding the election is given and the City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to give further or additional notice of the election, in time, form, and manner as required by law.
H. All ballots shall be tallied at a central counting place and not at the precincts.
Said central counting place shall be at a County center as designated by the Registrar of Voters.
I. The Napa County Registrar of Voters is hereby authorized to canvass the returns of said election.
J. The City Clerk of the City of St. Helena shall receive the canvass from the County as it pertains to the election on the Measures, and shall certify the results to the City Council, as required by law.
SECTION 5. Direct Arguments and City Attorney’s Impartial Analysis.
A. The City Council authorizes (i) the City Council or any member(s) of the City Council, (ii) any individual voter eligible to vote on the above measure, (iii) a bona fide association of such citizens or (iv) any combination of voters and associations, to file a written argument in favor of or against the Measure, in accordance with Article 4, Chapter 3, Division 9 of the Elections Code of the State of California, which arguments may be changed until and including, August 16, 2024 at 5:00 p.m. after which no arguments for or against the Measure may be submitted to the City Clerk. Arguments in favor of or against the Measure shall each not exceed 300 words in length. Each argument shall be filed with the City Clerk, signed, and include the printed name(s) and signature(s) of the author(s) submitting it, or if submitted on behalf of an organization, the name of the organization, and the printed name and signature of at least one of its principal officers who is the author of the argument.
B. The City Clerk shall comply with all provisions of law establishing priority of arguments for printing and distribution to the voters, and shall take all necessary actions to cause the selected arguments to be printed and distributed to the voters.
Agenda Item #12.1.
City of St. Helena
Resolution No. 2024-___
C. Pursuant to Section 9280 of the Elections Code, the City Council directs the City Clerk to transmit a copy of the Measure to the City Attorney. The City Attorney shall prepare an impartial analysis of the Measure, not to exceed 500 words in length, showing the effect of the Measure on the existing law and the operation of the Measure. The City Attorney shall transmit such impartial analysis to the City Clerk, who shall cause the analysis to be published in the voter information guide along with the Measure as provided by law. The Impartial Analysis shall be filed with the City Clerk by August 9, 2024 at 5:00 p.m.. The impartial analysis shall include a statement indicating whether the Measure was placed on the ballot by a petition signed by the requisite number of voters or by the City Council. In the event the entire text of the Measure is not printed on the ballot, nor in the voter information portion of the sample ballot, there shall be printed immediately below the impartial analysis, in no less than 10-font bold type, the following: “The above statement is an impartial analysis of Measure “____”. If you desire a copy of the Measure, please call the election official’s office at (707) 968- 2742 and a copy will be mailed at no cost to you.”
D. That the provisions of this Section 5 herein shall apply only to the election to be held on November 5, 2024, and shall then be repealed.
SECTION 6. Rebuttals.
A. Pursuant to Section 9285 of the Elections Code of the State of California, when the Clerk has selected the arguments for and against the various City initiated measures which will be printed and distributed to the voters, the Clerk shall send copies of the argument in favor of the measures to the authors of the argument against, and copies of the argument against to the authors of the argument in favor. The authors or persons designated by them may prepare and submit rebuttal arguments not exceeding 250 words. The rebuttal arguments shall be filed with the City Clerk not later than August 23, 2024 at 5:00 p.m. Rebuttal arguments shall be printed in the same manner as the direct arguments. Each rebuttal argument shall immediately follow the direct argument which it seeks to rebut.
B. The provisions of this Section 6 herein shall apply only to the election to be held on November 5, 2024, and shall then be repealed.
SECTION 7. Placement on the Ballot. The full text of the Measure shall be printed in the voter information guide, and a statement shall be printed in the ballot pursuant to Section 9223 of the Elections Code advising voters that they may obtain a copy of the Measure at no cost, upon request made to the City Clerk.
SECTION 8. Delivery of Resolution to County. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions. The City Council directs the City Clerk to deliver copies of this Resolution, Agenda Item #12.1.
City of St. Helena
Resolution No. 2024-___
including the Measure attached hereto as Exhibit “A”, to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Napa County and to the Registrar of Voters/Elections Official of Napa County.
SECTION 9. Public Examination. Pursuant to California Elections Code section 9295, the Measure will be available for public examination for no fewer than ten (10) calendar days prior to being submitted for printing in the voter information guide.
The City Clerk shall post notice in the Clerk’s office of the specific dates that the examination period will run.
SECTION 10. CEQA. The City Council hereby finds and determines that the ballot Measure relates to organizational or administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment, and therefore is not a project within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the State CEQA Guidelines, section 15378(b)(5).
SECTION 11. Severability. If any provision of this Resolution or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the Resolution which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Resolution are severable. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Resolution irrespective of the invalidity of any particular portion thereof.
SECTION 12. Effective Date of Resolution. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of June, 2024.
________________________________
Paul Jamison Dohring, Mayor
Attest:
Cindy Tzafopoulos, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
Ethan Walsh, City Attorney
Agenda Item #12.1.
City of St. Helena
Resolution No. 2024-___
CERTIFICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF NAPA ) ss
CITY OF ST. HELENA )
I HEREBY CERTIFY that this resolution was ADOPTED and PASSED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of St. Helena held on the 11th day of June, 2024, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
_________________________
Cindy Tzafopoulos, City Clerk
Agenda Item #12.1.
City of St. Helena
Resolution No. 2024-___
EXHIBIT “A”
ORDINANCE NO. 2024-____
AN ORDINANCE OF THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ST. HELENA,
CALIFORNIA, ADDING CHAPTER 3.22 TO TITLE 3 (REVENUE AND FINANCE) OF THE ST. HELENA MUNICIPAL CODE ENACTING A
SUPPLEMENTAL REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX AT THE RATE
OF $7.50 PER $500 (1.5%) OF THE SALES PRICE FOR ANY
TRANSFER OF REAL PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY SOLD FOR
BETWEEN $1,000,000 AND $5,000,000 AND AT A RATE OF $15.00 PER $500 (3%) OF THE SALES PRICE FOR ANY TRANSFER OF
REAL PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY SOLD FOR MORE THAN
$5,000,000.
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ST. HELENA DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Subject to the approval of a majority of the voters of the City of St.
Helena at the General Municipal Election so designated by the City Council in a separate resolution placing the proposal on the ballot for such election, Chapter 3.22 is hereby added to Title 3 of the St. Helena Municipal Code to read as follows:
"Chapter 3.22 – SUPPLEMENTAL REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX
3.22.010 – Short Title.
This chapter shall be known as the “Supplemental Real Property Transfer Tax Ordinance of City of St. Helena.” It is adopted pursuant to the authority contained in Part
6.7 (commencing with Section 11901 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code of the state of California) and St. Helena City Charter section 200.
3.22.020 – Imposition of Tax.
There is imposed a supplemental tax at the rate set forth below on each deed, instrument or writing by which any lands, tenements, or other realty sold within the city of St. Helena shall be granted, assigned, transferred or otherwise conveyed to or vested in the purchaser or purchasers, or any other person or persons, by his, her or their direction, when the consideration or value of the interest or property conveyed (exclusive of the value of any lien or encumbrances remaining thereon at the time of sale) exceeds the following:
(A) At a tax rate of seven dollars and fifty cents ($7.50) for each five hundred dollars ($500.00) or fractional part thereof on the entire purchase price of the property conveyed, when the total consideration or value of the interest of property conveyed (exclusive of the value of any lien or encumbrance remaining thereon at the time of sale) is between one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) and five million dollars ($5,000,000.00), or
Agenda Item #12.1.
City of St. Helena
Resolution No. 2024-___
(B) A tax rate of fifteen dollars ($15.00) for each five hundred dollars ($500.00) or fractional part thereof on the entire purchase price of the property conveyed, when the total consideration or value of the interest of property conveyed (exclusive of the value of any lien or encumbrance remaining thereon at the time of sale) exceeds five million dollars ($5,000,000.00).
(C)3.22.030 – Persons Obligated.
Any tax imposed pursuant to Section 3.22.020 shall be paid by any person who makes, signs or issues any document or instrument subject to the tax, or for whose use or benefit the same is made, signed or issued. The transferor and transferee of the real property shall be jointly and severally liable for payment of this tax to the City.
3.22.040 - Exemptions.
No tax shall be imposed upon any of the following:
A. Any instrument in writing given solely to secure a debt; B. Any deed, instrument or writing to which the United States or any agency or instrumentality thereof, any state or territory, or political subdivision thereof, is a party, when the exempt agency is acquiring title;
C. The making, delivering or filing of any deed, instrument, or writing to a beneficiary or mortgagee, which is taken from the mortgagor or trustor as a result of or in lieu of foreclosure; provided, that such tax shall apply to the extent that the consideration exceeds the unpaid debt, including accrued interest and cost of foreclosure. Consideration, unpaid debt amount and identification of grantee as beneficiary or mortgagee shall be noted on the deed, instrument or writing or stated in an affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury for tax purposes.
D. The making, delivering or filing of a conveyance to make effective any plan of reorganization or adjustment:
1. Confirmed under the Federal Bankruptcy Act, as amended;
2. Approved in an equity receivership proceeding in a court involving a railroad corporation, as defined in subdivision (m) of Section 205 of Title 11 of the United States Code, as amended;
3. Approved in an equity receivership proceeding in a court involving a corporation, as defined in subdivision (3) of Section 506 of Title 11 of the United States Code, as amended; or
4. Whereby a mere exchange in identity, form or place of organization is effected.
Agenda Item #12.1.
City of St. Helena
Resolution No. 2024-___
Paragraphs 1 through 4, inclusive, of this subsection shall only apply if the making, delivery or filing of instruments of transfer or conveyances occurs within five (5) years from the date of such confirmation, approval or change.
E. The making or delivery of conveyances to make effective any order of the Securities and Exchange Commission, as defined in subdivision (A) of Section 1083 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954; but only if:
1. The order of the Securities and Exchange Commission in obedience to which such conveyance is made recites that such conveyance is necessary or appropriate to effectuate the provisions of Section 79k of Title 15 of the United States Code, relating to the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935;
2. Such order specifies the property which is ordered to be conveyed; and
3. Such conveyance is made in obedience to such order.
F. The making, delivering or filing of any deed, instrument, or writing which purports to transfer, divide, or allocate community, quasi-community, or quasi-marital property assets between spouses for the purpose of effecting a division of community, quasi-community, or quasi-marital property which is required by a judgment decreeing a dissolution of the marriage or legal separation, by a judgment of nullity, or by any other judgment or order rendered pursuant to the Civil Code, Family Code, or by a written agreement between the spouses, executed in contemplation of any such judgment or order, whether or not the written agreement is incorporated as part of any of those judgments or orders. In order to qualify for the exemption provided herein, the deed, instrument, or other writing shall include a written recital, signed by either spouse, stating that the deed, instrument, or other writing is entitled to the exemption.
G. The making, delivering or filing of any deed, instrument, or writing by which realty is conveyed by the State of California, any political subdivision thereof, or agency or instrumentality of either thereof, pursuant to an agreement whereby the purchaser agrees to immediately reconvey the realty to the exempt agency.
H. The making, delivering or filing of any deed, instrument, or writing to which realty is conveyed by the State of California, any political subdivision thereof, or agency or instrumentality or either thereof, conveys to a nonprofit corporation realty the acquisition, construction, or improvement of which was financed or refinanced by obligations issued by a nonprofit organization on behalf of a government unit, within the meaning of Section 1.103-l(b) of Title 26 of the Code of Federal Regulations or as amended.
I. The making, delivering or filing of any deed, instrument, or writing which purports to grant, assign, transfer, convey, divide, allocate, or vest lands, tenements, or realty, or any interest therein, if by reason of such inter vivos gift or by reason of the death of any person, such lands, tenements, realty, or interests therein are Agenda Item #12.1.
City of St. Helena
Resolution No. 2024-___
transferred outright to, or in trust for the benefit of, any person or entity without consideration for the transfer. This includes any transfer of title to effectuate a right of survivorship in a joint tenant to the real estate.
J. The making, delivering or filing of any deed, instrument, or writing to confirm or correct a deed previously recorded or filed.
3.22.050 – Exemptions for Partnerships.
A. In the case of any realty held by a partnership or other entity treated as a partnership for federal income tax purposes, no levy shall be imposed pursuant to this chapter by reason of any transfer of an interest in the partnership or other entity or otherwise, if both of the following occur:
1. The partnership or other entity treated as a partnership is considered a continuing partnership within the meaning of Section 708 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; and
2. The continuing partnership or other entity treated as a partnership continues to hold the realty concerned.
B. If there is a termination of any partnership or other entity treated as a partnership for federal income tax purposes, within the meaning of Section 708 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, for purposes of this chapter, the partnership or other entity shall be treated as having executed an instrument whereby there was conveyed, for fair market value (exclusive of the value of any lien or encumbrance remaining thereon), all realty held by the partnership or other entity at the time of the termination.
C Not more than one tax shall be imposed pursuant to this chapter by reason of a termination described in Subsection B of this section, and any transfer pursuant thereto, with respect to the realty held by a partnership or other entity treated as a partnership at the time of the termination.
D. No levy shall be imposed pursuant to this chapter by reason of any transfer between an individual or individuals and a legal entity or between legal entities that results solely in a change in the method of holding title to the realty and in which proportional ownership interests in the realty, whether represented by stock, membership interest, partnership interest, co-tenancy interest, or otherwise, directly or indirectly, remain the same immediately after the transfer.
3.22.060 – County Recorder As Administrator/Additional City Rules for Administration.
The county recorder shall administer this chapter in conformity with the provisions of Part 6.7 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code and the provisions of any county ordinance adopted pursuant thereto. The City Council may, by ordinance, Agenda Item #12.1.
City of St. Helena
Resolution No. 2024-___
adopt additional rules for the collection of this tax, as well as provide for penalties and interest for nonpayment of this tax, provided said additional rules are consistent with this voter-approved ordinance.
3.22.070 - Refunds.
Claims for refund of taxes imposed pursuant to this chapter shall be governed by the provisions of Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 5096) of Part 9 of Division I of the Revenue and Taxation Code of the state of California."
SECTION 2. If any portion of this ordinance is declared invalid by a court of law or other legal body with applicable authority, the invalidity shall not affect or prohibit the force and effect of any other provision or application of the ordinance that is not deemed invalid. The voters of the City hereby declare that they would have circulated for qualification and/or voted for the adoption of this Section, and each portion thereof, regardless of the fact that any portion of the initiative may be subsequently deemed invalid.
SECTION 3. Pursuant to California Constitution Article XIIIC §(2)(b) and California Elections Code §9217, this ordinance shall take effect only if approved by a majority of the eligible voters of the City of St. Helena voting at the General Municipal Election to be held on November 5, 2024. Further, this ordinance shall take effect only if the proposed City Charter ballot measure (Measure “____” is also approved by a majority of the eligible voters of the City of St. Helena voting at the General Municipal Election to be held on November 5, 2024. The new taxing rate shall go into effect on January 1, 2025.
SECTION 4. The Mayor is hereby authorized to attest to the adoption of this Ordinance by the People voting thereon on November 5, 2024, by signing where indicated below.
I hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the People of the City of St. Helena on the 5th day of November, 2024.
Dated: _______________________ ______________________________
PAUL JAMISON DOHRING
MAYOR
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Agenda Item #12.1.
City of St. Helena
Resolution No. 2024-___
__________________________________ ________________________________
CINDY TZAFOPOULOS ETHAN WALSH
City Clerk City Attorney
Agenda Item #12.1.
BAKER TILLY • 1730 MADISON ROAD • CINCINNATI, OH 45206 • 513 861 5400 • FAX 513 861 3480 • BAKERTILLLY.COM 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 Agenda Item #12.1.
Long Range Financial Forecast Budget Strategies Page 2
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 Agenda Item #12.1.
Long Range Financial Forecast Budget Strategies Page 3
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
Agenda Item #12.1.
Long Range Financial Forecast Budget Strategies Page 4
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)
Agenda Item #12.1.
Long Range Financial Forecast Budget Strategies Page 5
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.
Agenda Item #12.1.
Long Range Financial Forecast Budget Strategies Page 6
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.
Agenda Item #12.1.
Long Range Financial Forecast Budget Strategies Page 7
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.
Agenda Item #12.1.
Long Range Financial Forecast Budget Strategies Page 8
Figure 2. Updated Baseline General Fund Forecast
Agenda Item #12.1.
Long Range Financial Forecast Budget Strategies Page 9
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
Agenda Item #12.1.
Long Range Financial Forecast Budget Strategies Page 10 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
Agenda Item #12.1.
Long Range Financial Forecast Budget Strategies Page 11 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.
Agenda Item #12.1.
Long Range Financial Forecast Budget Strategies Page 12 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.
Agenda Item #12.1.
Long Range Financial Forecast Budget Strategies Page 13 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.
Agenda Item #12.1.
Long Range Financial Forecast Budget Strategies Page 14 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.
Agenda Item #12.1.
Long Range Financial Forecast Budget Strategies Page 15 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 Agenda Item #12.1.
Long Range Financial Forecast Budget Strategies Page 16 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.
Agenda Item #12.1.
Long Range Financial Forecast Budget Strategies Page 17 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.
Agenda Item #12.1.
Long Range Financial Forecast Budget Strategies Page 18 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.
Agenda Item #12.1.
Long Range Financial Forecast Budget Strategies Page 19 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
Agenda Item #12.1.
Long Range Financial Forecast Budget Strategies Page 20 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
Agenda Item #12.1.
Long Range Financial Forecast Budget Strategies Page 21 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
Agenda Item #12.1.
Long Range Financial Forecast Budget Strategies Page 22 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.
Agenda Item #12.1.
Long Range Financial Forecast Budget Strategies Page 23 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
Agenda Item #12.1.
Long Range Financial Forecast Budget Strategies Page 24 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
Agenda Item #12.1.
Long Range Financial Forecast Budget Strategies Page 25 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
Agenda Item #12.1.
Long Range Financial Forecast Budget Strategies Page 26 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 Agenda Item #12.1.
November 5, 2024
Ballot Measure Package
June 11, 2024, City Council Meeting
April Mitts, Assistant City Manager
Agenda Item #12.1.
•Adopt 2 Resolutions Submitting a Package
of Ballot Measures to the Voters
• Charter City (likely A1)
• Real Property Transfer Tax (likely A2)
City Council Action Tonight
Agenda Item #12.1.
Key Notes
• Estimated Need: $7 - $10 million annually
• Pair of Ballot Measures for Consideration
• Charter City and Real Property Transfer Tax
• Estimated Revenue: $5.3 million annually
Agenda Item #12.1.
Timeline
Agenda Item #12.1.
Characteristics of Proposed Charter
• Simple and “limited” charter
• Provide legal authority to enact a RPTT by voter approval* • Continue to follow the General Law of the State of California in all other matters
* In order for the real property transfer tax to be implemented the City must become a charter city.
Both the real property transfer tax measure and the city charter measure would be placed on the November 2024 ballot as a separate ballot measures.
Agenda Item #12.1.
Ballot Language
Charter City – Likely A1
Agenda Item #12.1.
Characteristics of RPTT – Graduated Rate
Sales Price Tax Rate
as a %
Tax Rate
Per $500.00
$0 - $999,999.99 -0- -0-
$1 m - $5 m 1.5% $7.50
$5,000,000.01 and over 3% $15.00
Agenda Item #12.1.
Ballot Language
Real Property Transfer Tax – Likely A2
Typographical Fix
Resolution - page 9
Agenda Item #12.1.
Ballot Language
Real Property Transfer Tax – Likely A2
Agenda Item #12.1.
•Adopt 2 Resolutions Submitting a Pair of
Ballot Measures to the Voters
• Charter City (likely A1)
• Real Property Transfer Tax (likely A2)
City Council Action Tonight
Agenda Item #12.1.
Agenda Report to the City Council
Agenda Section: NEW BUSINESS
Department: Public Works
DATE: June 11, 2024
FROM: Joseph Leach, Public Works Director and City Engineer SUBJECT: Receive report and adopt a Resolution accepting the St.
Helena Flood Project Condition Assessment Report.
RECOMMENDED
ACTION:
Receive report and adopt associated Resolution.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
Reso 2004-015 adopted on 2/24/04: Council certified Final Environmental Impact Report for the Comprehensive
Flood Protection Project.
Reso 2004-016 adopted on 2/24/04: Council selected the
Flood Control Project, adopted the Mitigation & Monitoring Reporting Plan, etc. and directed staff to commence
funding and permitting of the preferred project.
Reso 2006-071 adopted on 6/27/06: Council adopted an
amendment to the CEQA document.
Reso 2006-091 adopted on 7/11/06: Council authorized
execution of a professional services agreement with Mead & Hunt.
Reso 2007-007 adopted on 1/9/07: Council authorized
execution of Amendment 1 of the professional services
agreement with Mead & Hunt.
Reso 2023-132 adopted on 10/10/23: Council authorized
execution of professional services agreement with Mead & Hunt to perform a Condition Assessment.
STATEMENT OF THE
PURPOSE:
Accept a Report documenting the condition of the St
Helena Flood Project as evaluated professional
engineering firm Mead & Hunt.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Beyond the continued monthly inspection by staff, monthly pest management services and seasonal maintenance of
the facility/systems, staff has not determined the fiscal impacts to address the various recommended actions
associated with this report.
BACKGROUND:
The St. Helena Flood Project has extensive history dating back to 1998. During the approval of the Hunter Subdivision in Fall 2023, a number of community members expressed concern over the integrity of the Flood Project. As noted above, at the October 10, 2023 Council meeting, the City Council authorized the execution of a professional services agreement with Mead & Hunt (MH), the original Engineer of Agenda Item #13.1.
Record for the Flood Project. The Presentation (Attachment 2) includes a brief summary of the actions taken to develop this critical piece infrastructure that greatly benefits the community.
DISCUSSION:
The St Helena Flood Project Condition Assessment (Attachment 1) was based upon the following:
Pre-Inspection Document Review:
Record Drawings
Operations and Maintenance Manual
City’s Periodic Inspection Reports (10/30/2015 – 10/31/2023) Conservation Easement Monitoring Report (dated 11/12/2023) Pest Control Inspection and Treatment Reports
Field Inspection/Coordination with St Helena Public Works Staff:
November 13, 2023
Consistent with the form utilized by City Staff to conduct the monthly inspection reports, MH followed the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Guidance for Periodic Inspection Procedures, including the systems and number of detailed items evaluated:
Levee Embankment Systems (15 items)
Floodwall Systems (9 items)
Interior Drainage Systems (15 items)
Pump Station Systems (21 items)
Flood Damage Reduction Channels Systems (11 items)
The presentation and report provide details on the evaluation process and the rating system outcomes (i.e. "Acceptable", "Minimally Acceptable", "Unacceptable" or "Not Applicable") for the systems and the items that comprise that system. Other than the items noted below, the items for the various systems received either "Acceptable" or "Not Applicable" rankings.
The items below received a "Minimally Acceptable" ranking:
Floodwall System, Component Item 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth Floodwall System, Component Item 5. Tilting, Sliding or Settlement of Concrete Structures
Floodwall System, Component Item 7. Monolith Joints
Pump Station System, Component Item 6. Fencing and Gates The following item received an "Unacceptable" ranking:
Agenda Item #13.1.
Interior Drainage System, Component Item 9. Culverts/Discharge Pipes Below represents the System, Component Item number, and proposed action from staff consistent with the recommendations in the Report.
Floodwall System, Component Item 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth. Staff will remove waterside vegetation within fifteen feet of the waterside face of the floodwall.
Floodwall System, Component Item 5. Tilting, Sliding or Settlement of Concrete Structures. Staff will closely monitor this area during and directly after high-water events and document conditions. Additionally, staff will initiate a detailed study of this area to evaluate the need and extent of bank stabilization required. Floodwall System, Component Item 7. Monolith Joints. Staff will put into place a repair/replacement program for the monolith joints in the floodwall. Additionally, Staff will regularly inspect the joints for continued deterioration. Specifically, where the handrail anchors were installed close to a floodwall joint, staff will pursue repairs to remove the spalled concrete, coat any exposed reinforcement to prevent reinforcement corrosion, patch the concrete, and re-secure the handrail.
Pump Station System, Component Item 6. Fencing and Gates. Staff will monitor the walls on the south side of the pump station on an annual basis for further tilting of the walls towards the inlet. If the cracks at the southeast and southwest corners continue to open further, staff will retain a consultant to perform a more detailed study to determine an appropriate course of action. Interior Drainage System, Component Item 9. Culverts/Discharge Pipes. Staff will pursue CCTV of the outfall/discharge pipes/culverts and provide the report to Mead & Hunt for review.
As noted under Fiscal Impacts, staff does not know the costs associated with the various mitigation measures but will follow city procedures to retain vendors (contractors or consultants) to remedy the items consistent with the recommendations.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The original development of the Flood Control Project was subject to CEQA and was approved by Council with associated amendments. The acceptance of the report is not subject to CEQA action.
GOAL:
Goal 1: Strengthen Financial Sustainability
Goal 2: Improve Infrastructure & Further Environmental Sustainability Goal 5: Enhance Quality of Life
DOCUMENTS ATTACHMENTS:
Agenda Item #13.1.
Resolution - Accepting St Helena Flood Project Condition Assessment Report 01 - St Helena FPP - Assessment Report_041224
02 - St Helena Flood Project Assessment Presentation_050624 Agenda Item #13.1.
CITY OF ST. HELENA
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
ACCEPTING THE 2024 CITY OF ST. HELENA FLOOD
PROJECT CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT
RECITALS
A. With history dating back to 1998, the St. Helena Flood Project has extensive history from preliminary development, CEQA certification, permitting and funding processing and flood plain modification processing through the Federal Emergency Management Agency, etc.; and
B. On October 10, 2023, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2023-132 authorizing the execution of a professional services agreement with Mead & Hunt, the original Engineer of Record for the Flood Project, to perform a Condition Assessment; and C. On November 13, 2023, representatives from Mead & Hunt and the City of St Helena Underground Utilities Division of the Public Works Department conducted a field inspection of the project; and
D. Utilizing inspection and evaluation criteria established by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Guidance for Periodic Inspection Procedures, Mead & Hunt evaluated five project systems with a number of items within each system; and E. Pages 1 and 2 of the Report delineate recommended actions.
RESOLUTION
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of St. Helena resolves as follows:
The City Council accepts the 2024 City of St. Helena Flood Project Condition Assessment (Attachment 1) as a final document.
Approved at a Regular Meeting of the St. Helena City Council on June 11, 2024, by the following vote:
Mayor Paul Dohring:
Vice Mayor Eric Hall:
Council Member Anna Chouteau:
Council Member Patrick Kenealy:
Council Member Billy Summers:
APPROVED: ATTEST:
Agenda Item #13.1.
________________________ ________________________
Paul Jamison Dohring, Mayor Cindy Tzafopoulos, City Clerk Agenda Item #13.1.
Project Assessment Report
FINAL REPORT
P R E P A R E D
BY
ST HELENA FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT
CITY OF ST HELENA
PROJECT NUMBER 1950000-232215.01
April 12, 2024
© 2024 MEAD & HUNT, INC.
Agenda Item #13.1.
PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Agenda Item #13.1.
© 2024 Mead & Hunt, Inc.
i CONTENTS
1. Executive Summary.........................................................................................1
2. Inspection Team and Date of Inspection .........................................................3 A. System Assessment ........................................................................................................... 3 B. Pre-Inspection..................................................................................................................... 3 C. Field Inspection .................................................................................................................. 3 D. Inspection Team ................................................................................................................. 3 E. Date of Inspection............................................................................................................... 3
3. System Background Information......................................................................4 A. Project Background and Purpose....................................................................................... 4 B. System Descriptions........................................................................................................... 5
4. Inspection Findings and Evaluations ...............................................................7 A. Levee Embankments System............................................................................................. 9 B. Floodwall System ............................................................................................................. 10 C. Interior Drainage System.................................................................................................. 14 D. Pump Station System ....................................................................................................... 15 E. Flood Damage Reduction Channel System ..................................................................... 16
5. Conclusions and Recommendations .............................................................17 A. Levee Embankment System............................................................................................. 17 B. Floodwall System ............................................................................................................. 17 C. Interior Drainage System.................................................................................................. 18 D. Pump Station System ....................................................................................................... 18 E. Flood Damage Reduction Channel System ..................................................................... 19
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A Exhibit
APPENDIX B Photographs
APPENDIX C References
Agenda Item #13.1.
© 2024 Mead & Hunt, Inc.
ii
The following individuals contributed to the development of this document and assessment presented herein:
Jeff Kashiwada, PE
Todd Petrik, PE
Stephen Sullivan, PE
Agenda Item #13.1.
© 2024 Mead & Hunt, Inc.
1 The Comprehensive Flood Protection Project (Project) is located within the City of St. Helena in Napa County. The Project is divided into five Systems, including the Levee Embankment, Floodwall, Interior Drainage, Pump Station, and Flood Damage Reduction Channel. Construction of the Project was completed in 2011, and the Project is operated and maintained by the City.
A visual field inspection was performed by Mead & Hunt engineers to evaluate the physical condition of the five Project Systems. In order to determine the rating of each Project System, the individual Components of each System were rated in accordance with the Project’s Flood Damage Reduction Segment/System Inspection Forms.
• Acceptable System: All Components are rated as Acceptable. • Minimally Acceptable System: If one or more Components are rated as Minimally Acceptable or one or more Components are rated as Unacceptable, and an engineering determination concludes that the Unacceptable items would not prevent the System from performing as intended during the next flood event.
• Unacceptable System: If one or more Components are rated as Unacceptable and would prevent the System from performing as intended, or a serious deficiency noted in past inspections (which had previously resulted in a minimally acceptable System rating) has not been corrected within the established timeframe, not to exceed two years.
The Levee Embankment System received an Acceptable rating because all system Components received an Acceptable rating.
The Floodwall System received a Minimally Acceptable rating because the system had Components that received Minimally Acceptable ratings. The Components that received less than acceptable ratings during the visual inspection are:
• Floodwall System, Component Item 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth – Minimally Acceptable
Minimal vegetation growth was observed on the waterside of the floodwall, within fifteen feet of the floodwall.
Recommendation: Remove waterside vegetation within fifteen feet of the waterside face of the floodwall.
• Floodwall System, Component Item 5. Tilting, Sliding or Settlement of Concrete Structures – Minimally Acceptable
The tilting, sliding, and settlement of the “T” wall section at the interface with the “I” wall section just upstream of STA 37+23.50 was observed to be Minimally Acceptable. The tilting, sliding, and settlement of this “T” wall section is evidence that this section of wall has rotated towards Sulphur Creek in relation to the adjacent “I” wall section.
Recommendation: It is recommended that City staff closely monitor this area during and directly after a highwater events and document conditions. It is further recommended that a detailed study of this area be initiated in the near-term to evaluate the need and extent of bank stabilization required.
Agenda Item #13.1.
© 2024 Mead & Hunt, Inc.
2 • Floodwall System, Component Item 7. Monolith Joints – Minimally Acceptable There are sixty-six joints from the start to the end of the floodwall. Thirty-seven of the sixty-six joints showed a slight widening of the joint and had some type of repair or addition of the sealant at the surface of the joint. Of those thirty-seven joints, about half have some type of sealant repair completed by adding additional sealant. Many of these sealant repairs were completed in a way that did not result the joint sealant being put back to its original condition and still leaving the sealant with cracks. In addition, a single location was identified where the top handrail anchors of the baseplate were installed close to a joint in the concrete wall. The movement of the joint in the plane of the wall in combination with the stiff handrailing has caused the concrete to pop and spall off the top corner of the joint.
Recommendation: It is recommended that City staff put in place a repair/replacement program for the monolith joints in the floodwall. Further, City staff should regularly inspect the joints for continued deterioration. At the location where the handrail anchors were installed close to a floodwall joint, it is recommended to remove the spalled concrete, coat any exposed reinforcement to prevent reinforcement corrosion, patch the concrete, and re-secure the handrail.
The Interior Drainage System received a Minimally Acceptable rating because the system had a Component that received an Unacceptable rating, but it was determined this Component would not prevent the System from performing as intended.
• Interior Drainage System, Component Item 9. Culverts/Discharge Pipes – Unacceptable The interior of the drainage culvert that passes through the levee embankment has not been visually inspected or inspected by video recording equipment within the past five years.
Recommendation: Perform a visual inspection and provide the report to the inspector for review.
The Pump Station System received a Minimally Acceptable rating because the system had a Component that received Minimally Acceptable rating. The Component that received a less than acceptable rating during the visual inspection is:
• Pump Station System, Component Item 6. Fencing and Gates – Minimally Acceptable The Concrete Masonry Unit (CMU) perimeter wall (fence) is a Proto II wall system. Most of the wall is in good condition except for the short wall sections on the inlet (south) side of the pump station. The CMU Proto II walls on the south side of the pump station were tilting away from the interior of the compound and resulted in a crack at the top of the wall at each of the southeast and southwest corners.
Recommendation: The City staff should monitor the walls on the south side of the pump station on an annual basis for further tilting of the walls towards the inlet. If the cracks at the southeast and southwest corners continue to open further, a more detailed study is recommended.
The Flood Damage Reduction Channels System received an Acceptable rating because all system Components received an Acceptable rating.
Based on the results of the Project System ratings, our opinion is that the Project is in sound condition.
The minimally acceptable Systems were found to not pose a significant risk to the integrity of the flood protection facilities.
Agenda Item #13.1.
© 2024 Mead & Hunt, Inc.
3 A. System Assessment
Due to heavy rainfall events since the Comprehensive Flood Protection Project’s (Project) completion and the age of the facility, the City requested an assessment of the Project’s flood protection features. To complete the Project assessment, Mead & Hunt, Inc. (Mead & Hunt) performed a visual inspection of the Project features. This inspection included the levee, floodwall, bank protection, detention basin, outlet culvert, pump station, and related drainage features.
B. Pre-Inspection
Pre-inspection documents of the Project were compiled and reviewed by the inspection team prior to the visual inspection. The documents included design documents, the operations and maintenance manual, previous periodic inspection reports (10/30/2015 to 10/31/2023), Conservation Easement Monitoring Report (dated 11/12/2023), Pest Control inspection and treatment reports, and record drawings.
C. Field Inspection
A visual field inspection was performed to evaluate the physical condition of the Project features. This inspection was performed by a multidisciplinary team of engineers. City maintenance crews were present during the field inspection to provide access to the stormwater pump station facility and answer questions during the inspection of the levee and floodwall.
D. Inspection Team
Jeff Kashiwada, PE – Civil Engineer, Mead & Hunt
Stephen Sullivan, PE – Senior Civil Engineer, Mead & Hunt Todd Petrik, PE – Senior Engineer, Mead & Hunt
Brian Arroyo – City of St. Helena Operations
Dave Valerga – City of St. Helena Operations
E. Date of Inspection
November 13, 2023
Agenda Item #13.1.
© 2024 Mead & Hunt, Inc.
4 A. Project Background and Purpose
Floods in 1986 and 1995 overtopped existing flood control structures along the Napa River, causing significant damage to the Vineyard Valley Mobile Home Park (VVMHP) and Hunts Grove Apartments, ultimately resulting in over $50 million in damages to the City. In March 1998, with the passage of Measure A, a countywide 0.5 cent flood protection sales tax initiative, the City had the resources necessary to effectively study and implement a flood protection strategy. In October 1998, the City joined in a collaborative effort with the Napa County Board of Supervisors and the Napa County Flood Control District (NCFCD) to perform a joint study of the Napa River to better understand the hydraulics of flood flows in the Napa River from Deer Park Road to below Pope Street. The study’s conclusions indicated a more serious flood hazard to the community than previously established by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and resulted in the enlargement of the 100-year flood plain.
Subsequently, the City received a grant from FEMA to further study potential ways to reduce flood damages, which the City used to conduct the Comprehensive Flood Protection Study (Study). The Study evaluated over 20 project elements and combinations of project elements involving the entire Napa River reach within the City’s jurisdictional boundaries. The results of the Study led the City to focus on the most vulnerable reach, located between Pratt Avenue and the Pope Street Bridge.
The City conducted three years of consultations with the community and developed several possible alternatives. In January 2003, the City released a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) analyzing three flood protection plans. Based on the comments received on the Draft EIR, the City decided to release a revised Draft EIR in August 2003, which analyzed the potential impacts of one of the plans. The City adopted the Final EIR in February 2004 with a preferred plan called the Enhanced Minimum Plan Modification A (EMP A), which involved:
• relocation of mobile homes,
• construction of a floodwall and levee system,
• excavation of flood overflow channels to increase flood conveyance, • removal of hard bank protection structures and replacement with natural shoreline and aquatic/riparian habitat,
• planting of native riparian plant communities, and
• installation of bioengineered bank stabilization.
Shortly following the City Council’s approval of the 2004 Plan, an environmental advocacy organization called Living Rivers Council (LRC) filed litigation against the City, alleging that the EIR certified by the City Council prior to project approval failed to satisfy the mandates of CEQA. Pursuant to settlement negotiations in 2005 between the City and LRC, a series of project refinements, proposed by LRC as part of a proposed Settlement Agreement between the parties, were considered and ultimately adopted by the City Council. These refinements were studied in an Addendum, which was considered by the City Council, along with the original EIR, prior to adopting the changes. The Addendum found, and the City Council concurred, that the refinements did not result in any new significant impacts nor any substantially more severe significant impacts than those disclosed in the original EIR, referred to as the "2005 Plan".
Agenda Item #13.1.
© 2024 Mead & Hunt, Inc.
5 In 2006, the City identified a funding shortfall that would make the full implementation of the 2005 Plan impossible for the foreseeable future. As a result of this fiscal reality, and because of the pressing need to obtain improved flood control for St. Helena, the City out of necessity examined design alternatives that could substantially reduce project costs. A revised plan, referred to as the “2006 Plan,” embodied the project refinements adopted by the City in response to these changed circumstances. Notably, the City developed these refinements to be fully consistent with the express terms of the Settlement Agreement reached between the City and LRC to settle the CEQA litigation filed by LRC.
The 2006 Plan became the Comprehensive Flood Protection Project, and the design was prepared by Mead & Hunt, Inc. (Mead & Hunt) and SH+G Engineering (now Waterways Consulting, Inc.). The City was the Construction Manager with the primary responsibility of verifying that the work was constructed according to the plans and specifications. The City also provided full time construction inspection and verified that the environmental training and monitoring were being performed. Kleinfelder, Inc. provided sampling and testing services. The Project construction was completed in two phases, which were mainly conducted in the 2009 and 2010 construction seasons; however, limited construction activities extended into the following calendar year for both phases. The construction contract was awarded on April 14, 2009 and the City Council adopted Notice of Completion on April 12, 2011.
B. System Descriptions
The Comprehensive Flood Protection Project included construction of the following Systems. Refer to the Exhibit in Appendix A that outlines the locations of the Project Systems.
Levee Embankment – A new levee was constructed to the east along the alignment of Adams Street between the extension of Starr Avenue and the existing VVMHP floodwall on the north side of the park.
Adams Street was not extended (as a road) along the levee as part of this project, but non-paved, gated gravel driveway was built to provide the required maintenance and emergency access to the Project area.
The levee is approximately 2,000 lineal feet in length and was built with waterside and landside slopes of 3H:1V and a top width that varies from 20- to 48-feet wide.
Floodwall – A new setback floodwall was constructed to surround the remaining homes within the VVMHP. The floodwall was extended from the existing VVMHP floodwall location to the Sulphur Creek confluence with the Napa River, and upstream along the Sulphur Creek north bank for an approximate distance of 250 feet to the Paseo Grand Drive bridge. Approximately 1,350 feet of compaction grouting soil stabilization and ground improvement measures were completed along the floodwall alignment adjacent to the Napa River to establish the proper foundation conditions. The cast-in-place concrete floodwall is approximately 2,000 lineal feet long. The floodwall was constructed as a “T-wall,” except for a portion of the floodwall along Sulphur Creek/Napa River confluence and upstream along the creek which was constructed as an “I-wall.” The “I-wall” is 198 lineal feet long and supported on 2-foot diameter castin-place concrete piers.
Interior Drainage System – A detention basin and pump station (see separate System below) was constructed inboard of the new levee northwest of the existing VVMHP floodwall. The two existing storm Agenda Item #13.1.
© 2024 Mead & Hunt, Inc.
6 drains were diverted into this basin and the two existing storm drain outfalls into the Napa River were removed. A new storm drain culvert with a positive closure gate structure was constructed through the levee embankment. A collection pipe along the inboard side of the floodwall is routed to the storm drain manhole for the gravity culvert at the pump station.
Pump Station – A pump station was constructed to evacuate stormwater from the Interior Drainage System when the water surface elevation within the Napa River is too high to allow for gravity flow through the levee culvert.
Flood Damage Reduction Channel – A drainage ditch was constructed along the outboard edge of the new levee and connected to the existing ditch from Fulton Lane. The existing drainage ditch was diverted at this point northward into the vegetated swale that flows to the Napa River. A 36-inch storm drain was also constructed to route storm water from Starr Avenue west to near the start of the Adams Street Levee and discharges into the vegetated drainage ditch waterward of the levee.
Agenda Item #13.1.
© 2024 Mead & Hunt, Inc.
7 A rating summary of the Project System Components based on our visual inspection are provided in the table below. The ratings were determined in accordance with the criteria set forth in the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Inspection Forms, which are the same forms used by City staff during their monthly inspections of the Project condition. The Exhibit in Appendix A outlines the Project Systems and locations of our visual inspection observations, and Appendix B includes select photographs of our visual inspection.
The condition of each Project System is determined based on the rating of the individual Components of each System, in accordance with the Project’s Flood Damage Reduction Segment/System Inspection Forms.
• Acceptable System: All Components are rated as Acceptable. • Minimally Acceptable System: If one or more Components are rated as Minimally Acceptable or one or more Components are rated as Unacceptable, and an engineering determination concludes that the Unacceptable items would not prevent the System from performing as intended during the next flood event.
• Unacceptable System: If one or more Components are rated as Unacceptable and would prevent the System from performing as intended, or a serious deficiency noted in past inspections (which had previously resulted in a minimally acceptable System rating) has not been corrected within the established timeframe, not to exceed two years.
CITY OF ST HELENA COMPREHENSIVE FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT NOVEMBER 2023 VISUAL INSPECTION RATING SUMMARY
A=Acceptable; M=Minimally Acceptable; U=Unacceptable; N/A=Not Applicable System Component Rating
Levee
Embankments
Item 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth A
Item 2. Sod Cover A
Item 3. Encroachments A
Item 4. Closure Structures N/A
Item 5. Slope Stability A
Item 6. Erosion/Bank Caving A
Item 7. Settlement A
Item 8. Depressions/Rutting A
Item 9. Cracking A
Item 10. Animal Control A
Item 11. Culverts/Discharge Pipes N/A
Item 12. Riprap Revetments and Bank Protection N/A
Item 13. Revetments Other than Riprap N/A
Item 14. Underseepage Relief Wells/Toe Drainage Systems N/A Item 15. Seepage N/A
Agenda Item #13.1.
© 2024 Mead & Hunt, Inc.
8 CITY OF ST HELENA COMPREHENSIVE FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT NOVEMBER 2023 VISUAL INSPECTION RATING SUMMARY
A=Acceptable; M=Minimally Acceptable; U=Unacceptable; N/A=Not Applicable System Component Rating
Floodwalls
Item 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth M
Item 2. Encroachments A
Item 3. Closure Structures N/A
Item 4. Concrete Surfaces A
Item 5. Tilting, Sliding or Settlement of Concrete Structures M Item 6. Foundation of Concrete Structures A
Item 7. Monolith Joints M
Item 8. Underseepage Relief Wells/Toe Drainage Systems A Item 9. Seepage A
Interior
Drainage
System
Item 1. Vegetation and Obstructions A
Item 2. Encroachments A
Item 3. Ponding Areas A
Item 4. Fencing and Gates N/A
Item 5. Concrete Surfaces A
Item 6. Tilting, Sliding or Settlement of Concrete and Sheet Pile Structures A Item 7. Foundation of Concrete Structures A
Item 8. Monolith Joints A
Item 9. Culverts/Discharge Pipes U
Item 10. Sluice/Slide Gates A
Item 11. Flap Gates/Flap Valves/Pinch Valves A
Item 12. Trash Racks A
Item 13. Other Metallic Items A
Item 14. Riprap Revetments of Inlet/Discharge Items A
Item 15. Revetments Other than Riprap N/A
Pump
Station
Item 1. Pump Stations Operating, Maintenance, Training, and Inspection Records A
Item 2. Pump Station Operations and Maintenance Equipment Manuals A Item 3. Safety Compliance N/A
Item 4. Communications A
Item 5. Plant Building N/A
Item 6. Fencing and Gates M
Item 7. Pumps A
Item 8. Motors, Engines, Fans, Gear Reducers, Back Stop Devices, etc. A Item 9. Sumps/Wet Well A
Item 10. Mechanical Operating Trash Rakes N/A
Item 11. Non-Mechanical Trash Racks A
Item 12. Fuel System for Pump Engines N/A
Item 13. Power Source A
Agenda Item #13.1.
© 2024 Mead & Hunt, Inc.
9 CITY OF ST HELENA COMPREHENSIVE FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT NOVEMBER 2023 VISUAL INSPECTION RATING SUMMARY
A=Acceptable; M=Minimally Acceptable; U=Unacceptable; N/A=Not Applicable System Component Rating
Item 14. Electrical Systems A
Pump Station
(Continued)
Item 15. Megger Testing on Pump Motors and Critical Power Cables A Item 16. Enclosures, Panels, Conduits and Ducts A
Item 17. Intake and Discharge Pipelines A
Item 18. Sluice/Slide Gates N/A
Item 19. Flap Gates/Flap Valves/Pinch Valves A
Item 20. Cranes N/A
Item 21. Other Metallic Items A
Flood Damage
Reduction
Channels
Item 1. Vegetation and Obstructions A
Item 2. Shoaling A
Item 3. Encroachments A
Item 4. Erosion A
Item 5. Concrete Surfaces A
Item 6. Tilting, Sliding or Settlement of Concrete Structures A Item 7. Foundation of Concrete Structures A
Item 8. Slab and Monolith Joints A
Item 9. Flap Gates/Flap Valves/Pinch Valves N/A
Item 10. Riprap Revetments and Banks A
Item 11. Revetments Other than Riprap N/A
A. Levee Embankments System
The visual inspection of the levee began at the transition of the levee and floodwall on the waterside. The inspection team proceeded southwesterly to the beginning of the levee. Once inspection of the waterside slope was completed, the inspection team crossed the levee and inspected the landside slope, terminating at the transition of the levee and floodwall on the landside.
No unwanted vegetation growth was observed on either the waterside or landside of the levee. The levee slopes were recently mowed, and no trees or bushes were observed within the vegetation free zone (which extends 15 feet from the toe of the levee embankment). There was adequate coverage of sod over the waterside and landside levee slopes. Refer to Levee Photo 1 in Appendix B-1.
No encroachments to the levee embankment were observed.
There are no closure structures along the levee segment of the Project.
No slides, sloughs, tension cracking, slope depressions, bulges, or any other slope stability issues of the levee embankment were observed.
Agenda Item #13.1.
© 2024 Mead & Hunt, Inc.
10 No erosion or bank caving of the levee embankment was observed.
No depressions of the levee embankment that would indicate settlement were observed. The levee embankment was well established without any indications of surface irregularities which would cause water to pond.
Longitudinal cracking was observed in the upper portion of the landside slope. The cracking began approximately 350 feet north of the beginning of the levee and extended in segments along the levee approximately 150 feet in length. The cracking was observed to be less than an inch wide and less than 3 inches deep, well within the surface of the widen levee embankment. No vertical movement or sloughing was observed above or below the longitudinal cracking along the slope. In our opinion, these observed longitudinal cracks are normal desiccation cracking resulting from low surface moisture in the clay embankment soils that will close when the material expands during saturation. There is no indication of embankment deterioration or movement, and the surficial cracking does not pose any risk to the levee integrity. Refer to Levee Photo 8 in Appendix B-1.
Evidence of burrowing animal activity was observed in both the waterside and landside slopes of the levee, in areas as identified on Exhibit A. The animal burrow holes were typically less than 2-inches in diameter and less than 6-inches deep. The City contracts with a commercial pest control company to routinely treat the levee embankment, and City staff routinely fills existing burrows with soil material. In our opinion, since the animal burrows were observed to be less than 6-inches deep and are well outside the core of the levee embankment, they do not pose any risk to the levee integrity. Refer to Levee Photos 2 through 7 in Appendix B-1.
There are no revetments (riprap or other non-riprap) for the levee segment of this Project.
There are no under-seepage relief wells or toe drainage systems for the levee segment of this Project.
There were no areas of observed seepage for the levee segment of this Project.
B. Floodwall System
No unwanted vegetation growth was observed on the landside of the floodwall. There were no trees or bushes observed within the easement area on the landside of the floodwall (which typically extends 12 feet from the landside face of the wall).
Minimal vegetation growth was observed on the waterside of the floodwall, within 15 feet of the floodwall.
No encroachments to the floodwall system were observed.
There are no closure structures along the floodwall segment of the Project.
Concrete Surfaces: The concrete surfaces of the floodwalls were in good condition. There was no visible concrete spalling or corrosion of reinforcing bars. A survey of both the water-side and dry-side of the walls shows little to no cracking in the walls. The small cracks that were visible were very tight and did not have Agenda Item #13.1.
© 2024 Mead & Hunt, Inc.
11 any associated spalling of concrete on either side of the crack. There were a few locations along the length of the wall where a caulking sealant had been placed into the wider concrete cracks. This sealant was applied on the surface, and it appeared that the sealant had not been injected into the crack.
Tilting, Sliding or Settlement: The “T” wall section of the floodwall had no visible Tilting, Sliding, or Settlement for the entire length of the wall except for a short distance upstream of the transition point between the “T” wall and the “I” wall at STA 37+23.50 (see below Details of the “T” wall and “I” wall from the Project Record Drawings, and refer to Floodwall Photos 5 through 9 in Appendix B-2. At the transition from “T” wall to “I” wall, the following was observed in the “T” wall section:
• The top of the “T” wall is approximately 1-1/2” lower than the top of the “I” wall. This implies the “T” wall is settling or has settled.
• The top of the “T” wall is tilting towards Sulphur Creek approximately 1-1/2”. The 1-1/2” distance is the difference measured between the face of the “T” wall and the adjacent “I” wall at the top of the wall. Since the “T” wall section offset is combined with 1-1/2” settlement stated above, this implies that the foundation and wall are rotating towards Sulphur Creek. • A determination of the “T” wall sliding towards Sulphur Creek was not determined by direct measurements during this inspection. However, when the bottom of the “T” wall to “I” wall transition at ground level is viewed from the creek side, it appears that the faces of both walls are in the same plane. This too, supports the concept that the wall is tilting, or rotating towards Sulphur Creek.
FIGURE 1. "T" WALL DETAIL (REFER TO RECORD DRAWINGS FOR CLARITY) Agenda Item #13.1.
© 2024 Mead & Hunt, Inc.
12 FIGURE 2. "I" WALL DETAIL (REFER TO RECORD DRAWINGS FOR CLARITY) Foundations: The only foundations that are visible along the entire section of the floodwalls are short top sections of the drilled, cast-in-place concrete piers along the length of the “I” wall. There was no visual cracking or spalling of concrete, or corrosion of reinforcement visible in any of the piers that could be seen above grade.
Monolith Joints: For the purposes of this report, Monolith Joints are defined as joints between concrete placements. These joints in this floodwall vary in width between 1/2" to 1” with waterstops at the core and are filled with preformed expansion joint filler and sealed at the outside face of the concrete section with a joint sealant (see Detail below from the Project Record Drawings).
Agenda Item #13.1.
© 2024 Mead & Hunt, Inc.
13 FIGURE 3. MONOLITH JOINT DETAILS
There are a total of sixty-six joints from the start to the end of the floodwall. Thirty-seven of the sixty-six joints showed a slight widening of the joint and had some type of repair or addition of the sealant at the out face of the joint. The in-plane widening of the joints is to be expected over time as the in-plane lengths of the concrete panel sections continue to expand and contract due to temperature changes. In about half of the joints, the sealant was able to stretch such that the sealant was still intact and did not show cracking or stretching. In the thirty-seven joints noted above, the in-plane widening resulted in the sealant tearing of varying degree. Refer to Floodwall Photos 1 and 2 in Appendix B-2. Of those thirty-seven joints, about half have some type of sealant repair completed by adding in additional sealant. Many of these sealant repairs were surficial and did not result the joint sealant being put back to its original condition and still leaving the joint seals with cracks.
One other issue worth mentioning under Joints is a single location where the top handrail anchors of the baseplate were installed close to a joint in the concrete wall. The concrete joint is opening ever so slightly as the walls shrink in the plane of the wall and the stiff solid pipe handrailing stays fixed, which puts pressure on the anchor bolts against the joint face. The movement of the joint in the plane of the wall in combination with the stiff handrailing has caused the concrete to pop and spall off the top corner of the joint. Refer to Floodwall Photos 3 and 4 in Appendix B-2.
Visible portions of the floodwall toe drainage piping appeared to be in acceptable condition. There were no visible issues with the piping and the inlets were free from debris.
There were no areas of observed seepage for the floodwall segment of this Project.
Agenda Item #13.1.
© 2024 Mead & Hunt, Inc.
14 C. Interior Drainage System
For this assessment, the components of the Interior Drainage System include the storm drain pipeline parallel to Del Rio Court that connects to the detention basin and continues through the levee embankment (levee culvert), the detention basin, the levee culvert positive closure gate structure within the levee embankment, and the storm drain outfall structure. Refer to Appendix A for component locations.
The vegetation around the interior drainage system was well maintained, except for the area around the levee culvert outfall structure. The levee culvert outfall structure was not visible from the waterside bench between the toe of levee and terrace excavation. However, the inspection team was able to access the outfall structure from within the terrace excavation and determined the vegetation was adequately setback to allow for proper operation of the flap gate mounted to the outfall structure and drainage out of the levee culvert was not restricted. Refer to Levee Photo 9 in Appendix B-1.
No encroachments to the interior drainage system were observed.
No areas of significant surface irregularities which would cause water to pond were observed for the interior drainage system.
There are no fences or gates as part of the interior drainage system.
The reinforced concrete detention basin weir, levee culvert positive closure structure, and levee culvert outfall structure were all in acceptable condition. There were no visible issues with the concrete surfaces, no observed tilting, sliding, or settlement, no observed issues with the structure foundations, and no observed issues with the structure joints.
Visible portions of reinforced concrete storm drain piping appeared to be in acceptable condition.
However, the culverts received an Unacceptable rating because the condition of the pipe interiors has not been verified using television camera videotaping or other visual inspection methods within the past five years.
The slide gate within the positive closure structure appeared to be in acceptable condition. City operations staff indicated the slide gate is trial operated annually, prior to the beginning of the rainy season in accordance with the Operations & Maintenance Manual.
The flap gate mounted to the reinforced concrete outfall structure was in acceptable condition. The vegetation is maintained to allow unrestricted operation of the flap gate.
The galvanized steel trash rack for the detention basin weir was observed to be in acceptable condition, without any signs of damage or rust.
The detention basin weir metal grating and steel access cover for the positive closure gate structure at top of levee were observed to be in acceptable condition.
Agenda Item #13.1.
© 2024 Mead & Hunt, Inc.
15 The rip rap in the detention basin around the weir structure, the pump station sump, and drainage ditches/swales were all in stable condition and well keyed into the surrounding grade. There were no signs of rip rap movement or settlement. At the levee culvert outfall structure, there was an observed void in the riprap behind the back wall of the structure on the westside. Refer to Levee Photo 10 in Appendix B-1, but this appears to have been intentionally moved due to installation of the irrigation system for the terrace excavation plantings, with no evidence of adverse impact. No riprap movement, settlement, or erosion was observed.
There are no revetments other than riprap for the interior drainage system.
D. Pump Station System
The perimeter chain link vehicle and pedestrian gates were observed to have no damage and to be in good working order.
The Concrete Masonry Unit (CMU) perimeter wall (fence) is a Proto II wall system. The majority of the wall is in good condition except for the short wall sections on the inlet (south) side of the pump station.
The CMU Proto II walls on the south side of the pump station were tilting away from the interior of the compound and resulted in a crack at the top of the wall at each of the southeast and southwest corners.
The Proto II wall systems do not include any horizontal reinforcement extending around each of the corners in the top course of the wall. As such, the south-side walls tilt outward, and this opens the crack at the top of the wall. Refer to Pump Station Photos 4 and 5 in Appendix B-3.
The pumps and motors appeared to be in adequate operational condition. City staff reported that the pumps and motors were last trial operated in October 2023. For the trial operation of the pump station, the system was set to “Automatic” mode and the floats were manually lifted to simulate high water conditions to allow the pump station programming to activate the pumps. Drawdown of the water inside the pump station sump was observed. The 60 HP lead and lag pumps both had adequate levels of oil.
Refer to Pump Station Photo 1 in Appendix B-3.
The reinforced concrete pump station sump was in acceptable condition. Minor cracking was observed at the corners of the elevated deck access hatch opening and along the interface of the elevated deck and the concrete wingwalls on both sides of the pump station inlet, including visible concrete repair work on the exterior face of both walls. Refer to Pump Station Photos 2 and 3 in Appendix B-3.
The galvanized steel trash rack was observed to be in acceptable condition, without any signs of damage or rust.
The main power source for the pump station is provided by overhead utility service. An on-site generator was installed after completion of construction for the Project that can operate the pump station during instances of utility power outage. The on-site generator is trial operated monthly, with the last operation performed in October 2023 during the pump station operation as discussed above.
Agenda Item #13.1.
© 2024 Mead & Hunt, Inc.
16 The pump station electrical and controls (including visible panels and conduits) appeared to be in sound operational condition. In October 2023, the City’s electrician was on-site to perform re-wiring of the control panel. After completion of the work, the system was trial operated without issues.
Visible portions of the pump station discharge piping appeared to be in adequate condition. A portion of the protective tape wrap on the western discharge pipe within the vault on the top of the levee was peeling off but appears to be original construction with no signs of corrosion attack. Refer to Pump Station Photo 6 in Appendix B-3. The pump station outfall structure was not visible during the visual inspection due to the vegetation growth. Following the site inspection, City staff cleared the vegetation and provided photographs of the outfall structure. Refer to Pump Station Photo 7 in Appendix B-3. Based on the photographs, the flap gates mounted to the reinforced concrete outfall structure were in acceptable condition, and the vegetation is maintained to allow unrestricted operation of the flap gate.
The pump station sump metal access hatch and grating were observed to be in acceptable condition.
E. Flood Damage Reduction Channel System
For this assessment, the components of the Flood Damage Reduction Channel include the junction structure that combines stormwater from the storm drain pipeline routed from Starr Avenue and the existing ditch from the Fulton Lane, the outlet of the junction structure to the vegetated swale, and the vegetated swale that flows through the excavated terrace.
No unwanted vegetation growth was observed in the vicinity of the junction structure or swale.
No shoaling (sediment deposition) was observed in the swale.
No unwanted encroachments were observed in the vicinity of the junction structure or swale.
No erosion was observed in the vicinity of the junction structure or within the swale.
The reinforced concrete junction structure was observed to be in acceptable condition. There were no visible issues with the concrete surfaces, no observed tilting, sliding, or settlement, no observed issues with the structure foundations, and no observed issues with the structure joints.
There are no flap gates, flap valves, or pinch valves for the flood damage reduction channel system.
The rip rap at the outlet of the junction structure into the vegetated swale was in stable condition and well keyed into the surrounding grade. There were no signs of rip rap movement or settlement.
There are no revetments other than riprap for the flood damage reduction channel system.
Agenda Item #13.1.
© 2024 Mead & Hunt, Inc.
17 A. Levee Embankment System
The Levee Embankments System received an Acceptable rating since all Components were observed to be in Acceptable condition. The City staff should continue to maintain the system in accordance with the Project Operations and Maintenance Manual and current practices. Continue to monitor the desiccation cracking to confirm there is no vertical movement of the levee embankment along the crack, the cracking is limited to the levee surface (less than 6 inches deep), and the cracking does not extend continuously through the levee crest. Continue the current animal burrow control program and monitor the depth of burrow holes to confirm the holes are limited to the levee surface (less than 6 inches deep).
Consider the enhancement of predator activity by establishment of perches for bird species to control rodent populations.
B. Floodwall System
The Floodwalls System received a Minimally Acceptable rating because the system had Components that received Minimally Acceptable ratings, as discussed below.
The landside vegetation growth, encroachments, concrete surfaces, foundations, underseepage relief wells/toe drainage systems, and visible seepage Components were all observed to be in Acceptable condition. The City staff should continue to maintain and inspect these elements of the flood wall system in accordance with the Project Operations and Maintenance Manual and current practices.
Vegetation growth on the waterside of the floodwall was observed within 15 feet from the waterside face of the floodwall, resulting in a Minimally Acceptable rating. City staff should remove vegetation within this 15-foot zone on the waterside of the floodwall. While this vegetation should be removed, the vegetation does not currently threaten the operation or integrity of the floodwall.
The concrete surfaces of the Floodwall were observed to be in Acceptable Condition. The small, tight cracks in the surfaces of the wall are a common occurrence in concrete and likely occurred during the initial drying of concrete after placement. It is recommended that the City staff inspect the wall surfaces on a regular basis for any new cracks or to determine if any existing cracks are opening further.
The tilting, sliding, and settlement Component of the “T” wall section just upstream of STA 37+23.50 was observed to be Minimally Acceptable. The tilting, sliding, and settlement of this “T” wall section is evidence that this section of wall is gradually rotating towards Sulphur Creek. In the short term, City staff should monitor the slope downhill of the wall for further erosion and movement of the soils into the creek.
It is recommended that the City closely monitor this area during and directly after a highwater events and document conditions. It is further recommended that a detailed study of this area be initiated in the nearterm to evaluate the need and extent of bank stabilization required.
The monolith joints Component were observed to be Minimally Acceptable. Many of the joints have sealant that has deteriorated to the point where the sealant should be completely removed and replaced.
It is recommended that City staff put in place a repair/replacement program for the monolith joints in the flood wall. Further, City staff should regularly inspect the joints for continued deterioration. It is important Agenda Item #13.1.
© 2024 Mead & Hunt, Inc.
18 to note that the joint sealant has no direct effect upon the watertightness of the floodwall during high water events, as the joint waterstops provide the water barrier. The sealant protects the waterstop from exposure that could deteriorate the waterstop material over time.
The joint at the handrailing anchor bolts was observed to be Minimally Acceptable. The spalled concrete should be removed and repaired. We recommend coating any exposed reinforcement to prevent any possible reinforcement corrosion prior to patching the concrete. The rail should be resecured to concrete.
Modifications to the railing/anchorage should be made to provide for some in-plane movement to prevent future concrete damage.
C. Interior Drainage System
The Interior Drainage System received a Minimally Acceptable rating because the system had a Component that received an Unacceptable rating, but it was determined this item would not prevent the System from performing as intended.
With the exception of the reinforced concrete levee culvert, the Components of the Interior Drainage System were observed to be in Acceptable condition. The City staff should continue to maintain the system in accordance with the Project Operations and Maintenance Manual and current practices.
Continue the routinely trial operation of the levee culvert slide gate located in the positive closure gate structure and exercise the flap gate located on the outfall structure in the terrace excavation to confirm proper function. Maintain vegetation within the terrace excavation to avoid growth that would restrict free discharge and routinely clear outfall structures to prevent development of any restrictions to flap gate opening and closing. It is recommended that the vegetation around the outfall structure be cleared to provide line of sight to the outfall structure from the bench at the top of the terrace excavation.
The culverts Component received an Unacceptable rating due to lack of visual inspection of the reinforced concrete levee culvert. However, since there was no evidence of any embankment depressions or irregularities that would signify an issue with the culvert condition, it was determined that there is no reason to believe the culvert is not capable of functioning as intended, and therefore the Interior Drainage System would receive a Minimally Acceptable rating. The condition of the culvert interiors shall be examined using television camera videotaping (i.e., CCTV) or by other visual inspection methods. Perform the visual inspection and provide the report to the inspector for their review during future periodic inspections.
D. Pump Station System
The Pump Station System received a Minimally Acceptable rating because the system had a Component that received Minimally Acceptable rating, as discussed below. The City staff should continue to maintain the system in accordance with the Project Operations and Maintenance Manual and current practices, including performing megger tests on pump motors and power cables during the annual load tests of the generator.
The perimeter chain link vehicle and pedestrian gates were observed to be in Acceptable Condition. City staff should continue with periodic maintenance to keep the gates in working order.
Agenda Item #13.1.
© 2024 Mead & Hunt, Inc.
19 The Proto II Concrete Masonry Unit (CMU) perimeter wall (fence) was found to be in suitable condition except for the short wall sections on the inlet (south) side of the pump station, which were found to be in Minimally Acceptable condition. The City staff should monitor the walls on the south side of the pump station on a regular basis for further tilting of the walls towards the inlet. If the cracks at the southeast and southwest corners continue to open further, a more detailed study of this issue is recommended.
The concrete elevated deck and inlet walls in the Pump Station were observed to be in Acceptable condition. While there are small cracks in the elevated deck as noted above, these cracks are narrow, tight cracks that do not appear to be significant enough to be of concern at this time. The cracking and spalling of concrete on the upper corners of the wingwalls where they meet the elevated deck are considered negligible. The City staff should continue to monitor the cracking in the elevated deck and the upper corners of the wingwalls on a regular basis for further crack widening or continued spalling of the concrete on the wingwalls.
E. Flood Damage Reduction Channel System
The Flood Damage Reduction Channels System received an Acceptable rating because all system Components received an Acceptable rating. The City staff should continue to maintain the system in accordance with the Project Operations and Maintenance Manual and current practices. Continue to routinely mow grass and weeds, remove unwanted vegetation growth, and monitor for and repair any damage caused by erosion or other causes. No updates to the current operations, maintenance, and inspection program are recommended.
Agenda Item #13.1.
APPENDIX A Exhibit
Agenda Item #13.1.
600 ft
N
➤Agenda Item #13.1.
APPENDIX B Photographs
Agenda Item #13.1.
Agenda Item #13.1.
Levee Photo 1: Waterside levee slope recently mowed with adequate vegetation setback.
Levee Photo 2: Typical rodent hole less than 3” in diameter and less than 6” deep.
Agenda Item #13.1.
Levee Photo 3: Typical rodent hole less than 3” in diameter and less than 6” deep.
Levee Photo 4: Typical rodent holes in top of levee. Holes are less than 3” in diameter and less than 6” deep.
Agenda Item #13.1.
Levee Photo 5: Typical rodent hole less than 3” in diameter and less than 6” deep.
Levee Photo 6: Typical rodent hole less than 3” in diameter and less than 6” deep.
Agenda Item #13.1.
Levee Photo 7: Rodent activity on waterside of levee near the Oak trees adjacent to the storm drain outfall to terrace excavation.
Levee Photo 8: Typical minor dessication crack on the landside of the levee, less than 6 inches in depth.
Agenda Item #13.1.
Levee Photo 9: Levee culvert outfall structure. Vegetation maintaned to allow flap gate operation and free discharge.
Levee Photo 10: Southwest corner of levee culvert outfall structure. Rock moved for irrigation piping; no scour observed.
Agenda Item #13.1.
Agenda Item #13.1.
Floodwall Photo 1: Typical floodwall joint with caulking separation and previous repair work.
Floodwall Photo 2: Typical floodwall joint with caulking separation and previous repair work.
Agenda Item #13.1.
Floodwall Photo 3: Floodwall crack at handrail baseplate (waterside pictured) Floodwall Photo 4: Floodwall crack at handrail baseplate (landside pictured) Agenda Item #13.1.
Floodwall Photo 5: Joint movement at interface of T-wall and I-wall, Sta 37+23.5 (landside pictured).
Floodwall Photo 6: Joint movement at interface of T-wall and I-wall, Sta 37+23.5. Measured approximately 1.5” vertical deflection.
Agenda Item #13.1.
Floodwall Photo 7: Joint movement at interface of T-wall and I-wall, Sta 37+23.5. Measured approximately 1.25” horizontal offset.
Floodwall Photo 8: Joint movement at interface of T-wall and I-wall, Sta 37+23.5 (waterside pictured) Agenda Item #13.1.
Floodwall photo 9: Joint movement at interface of T-wall and I-wall, Sta 37+23.5 (waterside pictured) Agenda Item #13.1.
Agenda Item #13.1.
Pump Station Photo 1: Lead and Lag Pumps, with Kohler generator and contol panel in the background.
Pump Station Photo 2: Minor cracking along interface of pump sump elevated deck and wingwall with visible concrete repair work.
Agenda Item #13.1.
Pump Station Photo 3: Minor cracking along interface of pump sump elevated deck and wingwall with visible concrete repair work.
Pump Station Photo 4: Southeast corner of CMU perimeter wall cracking.
Agenda Item #13.1.
Pump Station Photo 5: Southwest corner of CMU perimeter wall cracking.
Pump Station Photo 6: West pump station discharge pipe inside valve vault with pipe tape wrap peeling off.
Agenda Item #13.1.
Pump Station Photo 7: Pump station discharge pipes concrete outfall structure with flap gates.
Agenda Item #13.1.
APPENDIX C References
Agenda Item #13.1.
Agenda Item #13.1.
Service Report
INVOICE #:
WORK DATE:
34367958
11/09/2023
CA - FR43382
CA - QAL120991
License #:
Ronald Vale
Time In:
Time Out:
11/9/2023 7:04:00 AM
11/9/2023 8:42:47 AM
Technician Signature
Customer Signature
Customer is unavailable to sign
LOCATION 3483750
707-339-1053
City of St. Helena Flood Wall
Flood Wall Zone A
1572 Railroad Ave
Saint Helena, CA 94574-1169
Phone:
BILL-TO 3483750
707-339-1053
City of St. Helena Flood Wall
Flood Wall Zone A
1088 College Ave
Saint Helena, CA 94574-1169
Phone:
Alt. Phone: 707-968-2750 xAP
Purchase Order Terms Service Description Quantity Amount None DUE UPON RECEIPT Burrowing Pest Control 1.00 640.00 Subtotal
Tax
640.00
0.00 Total 640.00
Prior Balance: 0.00
Total Due: 640.00
GENERAL COMMENTS / INSTRUCTIONS
Inspected and found gopher activity in Levi wall. Treated accordingly with Percmachine. Thank you have a wonderful day.
CONDITIONS / OBSERVATIONS Reported Severity Responsibility Reviewed None Noted.
PRODUCTS APPLICATION SUMMARY
None Noted.
PEST ACTIVITY # Areas # Devices Pest Totals
None Noted.
DEVICE INSPECTION SUMMARY
AREA COMMENTS
None Noted.
DEVICE INSPECTION EXCEPTIONS
None Noted.
Printed: 12/06/2023 Page: 1/2
Agenda Item #13.1.