St. Helena City Council
March 11, 2025

City of St. Helena
Regular City Council Meeting
Tuesday, March 11, 2025 @ 6:00 PM
Vintage Hall Board Room - Second Floor
465 Main Street, St. Helena

PLEASE NOTE: Any person who wishes to speak regarding an item on the agenda or make a comment under the "Oral Communication" portion of the agenda may do so, but please observe the time limit of four minutes. The Mayor may reduce the four minute time limit for all speakers in circumstances where a large number of citizens intend to make public comment.

The City Council meeting will be live streamed on Comcast 28 and on the City's website.

Public comment for meetings will be accepted via email to [email protected]. All public comments must be received three hours prior to the meeting. All other public comments received after the deadline will be attached to the item the next business day or soon thereafter. Public comments will not be read out loud but will be publicly available and attached to the on-line agenda.

The schedule of upcoming meetings and published meeting agendas can be found on the City of St. Helena website at https://sthelena.civicweb.net/portal/.

Page

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. ROLL CALL
Mayor: Paul Dohring, Vice Mayor: Michelle Deasy, City Council Members:

Aaron Barak, Kate Spadarotto, Billy Summers

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

4. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

5. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
Estimated start time: 6:05 p.m.

5.1. Consideration and proposed approval of Regular Meeting Minutes of February 25, 2025.

Regular City Council - 25 Feb 2025 - Minutes
7 - 13

6. PUBLIC FORUM:

Members of the public are entitled to speak on matters of municipal concern not on the agenda during Public Forum. Each person’s comments shall be limited to 4 minutes. Each person is entitled to speak on any non-agendized item only once at any meeting. Brief questions by Council Members for clarifications may be posed and answered, and Council Members may make requests that items be placed on future agendas, but in accordance with state law, no substantive discussion or action may take place unless and until the matter properly appears on the agenda.

Estimated start time: 6:10 p.m.

6.1. Public Comment.Kelly Wheaton
Public Comment.Daniel Hale
Public Comment.Philippa Ward
Public Comment.Elaine de Man
Public Comment.Christine Hale
15 - 27

7. REPORTS BY STAFF AND CITY COUNCIL, FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS, AND AB 1234 REPORTS:

Reports by staff and/or Council Members on items of general interest. Brief questions for clarification may be posed and answered, and Council Members may request that items be placed on a future agenda. Except under certain circumstances, the Brown Act prohibits any other discussion or action by the City Council.

Estimated start time: 6:20 p.m.

8. PRESENTATIONS AND PUBLIC RECOGNITIONS

8.1. Napa County Presentation on Property Tax and Vehicle License Fee (VLF)
Presentation
29 - 62

9. STAFF BRIEFING
Estimated start time: 6:50 p.m.

9.1. Provide project timeline for Main Street Sidewalk Rehabilitation Project (North of Adams St.) - Phase 1A

9.2. Staff to provide follow up to February 11, 2025 SMART Meter construction award authorization on a variety of questions from Council and Public.

Presentation
63 - 70

10. CONSENT ITEMS
Members of the Council or the public (present at the meeting) may ask that any items be considered individually for purposes of considering alternative action, for extended discussion, or for public comment. Unless that is done, one motion may be used to adopt all recommended actions. (Roll Call Vote) Estimated start time: 7:10 p.m.

10.1. Approval of the City of St. Helena Statement of Community Values.

CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: Anil Comelo, City Manager
Recommendation:

Approve the City of St. Helena Statement of Community Values Staff Report - Pdf
Public Comment.Maria Phelps
Public Comment.Pat Friday
Public Comment.Pam Krell
Public Comment.Brooke Casey
71 - 81

10.2. Consideration and approval of a resolution authorizing (1) a temporary closure of Adams Street and Library Lane on Sunday, June 15, 2025, from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.; and (2) mobile food vendors to park and operate on Library Lane during the car show event; and (3) a permit allowing the possession of open alcoholic beverages on the closed portions of Adams Street and Library Lane for the Rianda House Car Show event.

CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: Rebecca White, Administrative Assistant
Recommendation:

Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution.

Staff Report - Pdf
83 - 86

10.3. Consideration of a resolution approving (1) a temporary closure of Adams Street from Friday, May 16, 2025, at 6:00 p.m., to Sunday, May 18, 2025, at 6:00 p.m.; and (2) authorizing possession of open alcoholic beverages on this public street for the Neighborhood Community Table Event scheduled for Saturday, May 17, 2025, from approximately 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.

CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: Rebecca White, Administrative Assistant
Recommendation:

Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution.

Staff Report - Pdf
87 - 92

10.4. Consideration of a Resolution to set a Public Hearing for 6:00 p.m.

Tuesday, May 13, 2025, to consider objections to the proposed annexation of the property known as 1766 Sulphur Springs Avenue, St.

Helena, CA (APN 009-350-024), into the St. Helena Municipal Sewer District No. 1, MSD Annexation No. 151.

CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: Rebecca White, Administrative Assistant
Recommendation:

It is recommended City Council approve the Resolution and set a Public Hearing for May 13, 2025, to consider objections to the proposed annexation of the property known as 1766 Sulphur Springs Ave (APN 009-350-024), into the St. Helena Municipal Sewer District No. 1, MSD Annexation No. 151.

Staff Report - Pdf
93 - 98

11. PUBLIC HEARINGS
None.

12. OLD BUSINESS
Estimated start time: 7:20 p.m.

12.1. Discussion and direction to have a non-voting City Council liaison to Water/Wastewater Advisory Committee.
99 - 102

CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: April Mitts, Assistant City Manager
Recommendation:

Discuss and assign a City Council member to the Water/Wastewater Advisory Committee as a non-voting liaison.

Staff Report - Pdf

12.2. Provide an Updated Analysis of the City's Revenues and Expenditures to Determine the Extent of the Structural Deficit.

CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: April Mitts, Assistant City Manager
Staff Report - Pdf
Presentation
103 - 138

12.3. Consider a Temporary Freeze on all New Hires, Salary Increases not Contractually Obligated, Reclassifications, and Discretionary Spending.

CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: Anil Comelo, City Manager
Recommendation:

Discuss and provide direction to staff
Staff Report - Pdf
Presentation
139 - 149

12.4. Review options to reduce water and/or wastewater rates and provide feedback to staff.

CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: April Mitts, Assistant City Manager
Recommendation:

1. Staff will provide estimates of the magnitude of financial impact and possible rate reduction with which the City Council will be able to make informed decisions. Staff anticipates brining the relevant data including results of the cost allocation study and rate reduction options to City Council on April 22, 2025.

2. Based on initial review of options, staff will likely recommend a combination of measures if the City Council continues to want a reduction in the Water/Wastewater Rates.

Staff Report - Pdf
Presentation
Public Comment.Alan Galbraith
Public Comment.Kelly Wheaton
Public Comment.Elaine de Man
151 - 170

13. NEW BUSINESS
None.

14. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS:

14.1. A. Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) - Executive Board B. Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) - General Assembly C. Napa Valley Tourism Corporation (Umbrella for Napa County) D. League of California Cities – North Bay Division
E. Napa County City Selection Committee
F. Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District G. Napa County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) H. Napa Valley Transportation Authority (NVTA)
I. Napa County Watershed Information Center & Conservancy (WICC) J. Upper Valley Waste Management Agency
K. Napa County Groundwater Sustainability Plan Advisory Committee L. Napa County Regional Climate Action Committee
M. Council Ad Hoc and Standing Committee Reports

15. ADJOURNMENT
The next Regular City Council meeting is scheduled for March 25, 2025 at 6:00 p.m.

This agenda was posted at City Hall, 1088 College Avenue, and at Vintage Hall, 465 Main Street, St. Helena, California on March 6, 2025.

Erika Opp, Administrative Analyst
In Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please call the City Clerk’s Office (707) 967-2792. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.

CHALLENGING DECISIONS OF CITY ENTITIES
The time limit within which to commence any lawsuit or legal challenge to any quasi-adjudicative decision made by the City of St. Helena is governed by Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, unless a shorter limitation period is specified by any other provision, including without limitation Government Code section 65009 applicable to many land use and zoning decisions, Government Code section 66499.37 applicable to the Subdivision Map Act, and Public Resources Code section 21167 applicable to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Under Section 1094.6, any

lawsuit or legal challenge to any quasi-adjudicative decision made by the City must be filed no later than the 90th day following the date on which such decision becomes final. Any lawsuit or legal challenge, which is not filed within that 90-day period, will be barred. Government Code section 65009 and 66499.37, and Public Resources Code section 21167, impose shorter limitations periods and requirements, including timely service in addition to filing.

If a person wishes to challenge the above actions in court, they may be limited to raising only those issues they or someone else raised at the meeting described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of St. Helena, at or prior to the meeting. In addition, judicial challenge may be limited or barred where the interested party has not sought and exhausted all available administrative remedies.

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL RECEIVED AFTER THE POSTING OF THE AGENDA
Any supplemental writings or documents distributed to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this Agenda, after the posting of the Agenda, will be available for public review in the City Clerk’s Office located at 1088 College Avenue, St. Helena, California, during normal business hours and by appointment. In addition, such writings or documents will be made available on the City’s web site at https://sthelena.civicweb.net and will be available for public review at the respective meeting.

MINUTES
City of St. Helena
Regular City Council Meeting
Tuesday, February 25, 2025 @ 6:00 PM
Vintage Hall Board Room - Second Floor
465 Main Street, St. Helena
A complete video recording of this meeting, except for closed session, can be found at https://sthelena.civicweb.net/Portal/ or by calling the City Clerk at (707) 968-2742. The City Council video is the official record of the Council meeting.

Present: Mayor Paul Dohring, Council Member Aaron Barak, Vice Mayor Michelle Deasy, and Council Member Kate Spadarotto

Absent: Council Member Billy Summers

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. ROLL CALL

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

4. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

4.1 Vice Mayor Michelle Deasy moved to adopt the agenda. The motion was seconded by Council Member Kate Spadarotto and on voice vote carried by the following vote:

AYES: Mayor Paul Dohring, Council Member Aaron Barak, Vice Mayor Michelle Deasy, and Council Member Kate Spadarotto
NOES: None
ABSENT: Council Member Billy Summers
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None

5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

5.1 Consideration and proposed approval of Regular Meeting Minutes and Special Meeting Minutes of February 11, 2025.

Council Member Kate Spadarotto moved to approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of February 11, 2025. The motion was seconded by Vice Mayor Michelle Deasy and on voice vote carried by the following vote:

AYES: Mayor Paul Dohring, Council Member Aaron Barak, Vice Mayor Michelle Deasy, and Council Member Kate Spadarotto
NOES: None
Agenda Item #5.1.

Regular City Council
February 25, 2025
ABSENT: Council Member Billy Summers
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None

6. PUBLIC FORUM:

Dan Hale, Elaine de Man, Tracy Sweeney and Jim Sweeney addressed the City Council.

7. REPORTS BY STAFF AND CITY COUNCIL, FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS, and AB 1234 REPORTS:

City Attorney Ethan Walsh noted that there was no reportable action from the Special Closed Session meeting of February 19, 2025.

Lesley Milton, Deputy City Manager reported on a street closure of Money Way and Spring Street due to repairs.

Vice Mayor Michelle Deasy requested to appoint a non-voting Council Member Liaison to the Water and Waste Water Advisory Committee to a future agenda item. Council Member Barak seconded the request.

8. PRESENTATIONS AND PUBLIC RECOGNITIONS

8.1 Proclaiming March American Red Cross Month presented to American Red Cross of Napa and Sonoma

9. STAFF BRIEFING

10. CONSENT ITEMS
Members of the Council or the public may ask that any items be considered individually for purposes of considering alternative action, for extended discussion, or for public comment. Unless that is done, one motion may be used to adopt all recommended actions. (Roll Call Vote)

10.1 January 2025 Review and Forecasting of City Water Supply Availability.

CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: Ian Dale, Environmental Services Tech
Recommendation:

Receive and file.

10.2 This item was pulled.

Approve Resolution Authorizing: Amendment #1 to STH Contract: FY2024-065 With Toole Design (TDG Engineering Inc.) for Additional Services Related to Capital Improvement Project R24-01 Streets Master Plan for $95,428 bringing the total not-to-exceed contract value of $325,374 paid for through Traffic Impact Fees; authorizing a budget increase of the same for the unbudgeted Agenda Item #5.1.

Regular City Council
February 25, 2025
expense.

10.3 Approval of a resolution authorizing the purchase of a Compact Track Loader for a total cost of $73,312.18 from Bobcat of Santa Rosa for the Water Treatment Plant Operations as budgeted in the approved in the FY 2024-25 adopted budget.

CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: Carlos Uribe, Assistant Public Works Operations Manager, Lesley Milton, Deputy City Manager
Recommendation:

Staff recommends authorizing the purchase of the Bobcat Compact Track Loader as presented.

10.4 Authorize the purchase of a John Deere 410 P-Tier Backhoe from Pape Machinery for a total cost not to exceed $199,512 to be used by all Public Works Divisions and authorize the use of FY25 Public Works unspent funds in the amount of $110,000 and the use of General Fund reserves for the remaining $89,512 for the unbudgeted expense.

CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: Lesley Milton, Deputy City Manager
Recommendation:

Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the purchase of a John Deere 410 P-Tier Backhoe Loader for a total cost of $199,512. This critical equipment will be cost-shared between Public Works Operations (Streets, Parks & Trees) and enterprise funds for Water, Wastewater, Collections, and Distribution divisions.

Vice Mayor Michelle Deasy moved to approve items 10.1, 10.3 and 10.4. The motion was seconded by Council Member Aaron Barak and on roll call carried by the following vote:

AYES: Mayor Paul Dohring, Council Member Aaron Barak, Vice Mayor Michelle Deasy, and Council Member Kate Spadarotto
NOES: None
ABSENT: Council Member Billy Summers
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None

10.5 This item was pulled.

Consideration and Proposed Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Professional Services Agreement with Napa County Resource Conservation District (RCD), in an amount not-to-exceed $123,400 for York Creek Project Year 5 & 6 Monitoring Services as required for the Upper York Creek Ecosystem Restoration Project (W-26), authorize use of Agenda Item #5.1.

Regular City Council
February 25, 2025
$123,400 from Fund 237 for the unbudgeted expense, and authorize a budget increase of the same.

10.2 Approve Resolution Authorizing: Amendment #1 to STH Contract: FY2024-065 With Toole Design (TDG Engineering Inc.) for Additional Services Related to Capital Improvement Project R24-01 Streets Master Plan for $95,428 bringing the total not-to-exceed contract value of $325,374 paid for through Traffic Impact Fees; authorizing a budget increase of the same for the unbudgeted expense.

CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: Lesley Milton, Deputy City Manager
Recommendation:

Staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached Resolution.

Public Works Director, Joe Leach answered brief clarifying questions.

No public comment was received.

Vice Mayor Michelle Deasy moved to approve item 10.2. The motion was seconded by Council Member Aaron Barak and on roll call carried by the following vote:

AYES: Mayor Paul Dohring, Council Member Aaron Barak, Vice Mayor Michelle Deasy, and Council Member Kate Spadarotto
NOES: None
ABSENT: Council Member Billy Summers
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None

10.5 Consideration and Proposed Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Professional Services Agreement with Napa County Resource Conservation District (RCD), in an amount not-to-exceed $123,400 for York Creek Project Year 5 & 6 Monitoring Services as required for the Upper York Creek Ecosystem Restoration Project (W-26), authorize use of $123,400 from Fund 237 for the unbudgeted expense, and authorize a budget increase of the same.

CEQA Determination: Environmental Impact Report (SCH. No. 2006092096) Prepared By: Stephanie Killingsworth, Public Works Financial Analyst Recommendation:

Staff Recommends City Council Adopt the attached Resolution.

Public Works Director Joe Leach answered questions from the Council.

Public comment was received by Elaine de Man.

Agenda Item #5.1.

Regular City Council
February 25, 2025
Council Member Aaron Barak moved to approve item 10.5. The motion was seconded by Council Member Kate Spadarotto and on roll call carried by the following vote:

AYES: Mayor Paul Dohring, Council Member Aaron Barak, Vice Mayor Michelle Deasy, and Council Member Kate Spadarotto
NOES: None
ABSENT: Council Member Billy Summers
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None

11. PUBLIC HEARINGS

12. OLD BUSINESS

12.1 Consideration and Proposed Approval of a Resolution Rescinding Resolution 2023-63 and Adopting Updated Rules of Procedure for the Conduct of Council meetings and Standards of Conduct.

CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: April Mitts, Assistant City Manager
Recommendation:

Adopt the attached Resolution.

Assistant City Manager, April Mitts reported on the item.

No Public Comment was received.

Council Member Kate Spadarotto moved to approve the resolution. The motion was seconded by Vice Mayor Michelle Deasy and on roll call carried by the following vote:

AYES: Mayor Paul Dohring, Council Member Aaron Barak, Vice Mayor Michelle Deasy, and Council Member Kate Spadarotto
NOES: None
ABSENT: Council Member Billy Summers
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None

13. NEW BUSINESS

13.1 Fiscal Year 2023-24 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report and Independent Auditor's Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting.

Agenda Item #5.1.

Regular City Council
February 25, 2025
CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: Mandy Kellogg, Administrative Services Director Recommendation:

Staff recommends the City Council receive accept the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report of the City of St. Helena for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2024.

Administrative Services Director, Mandy Kellogg and Lindsey Zimmerman, Partner with Brown Armstrong CPA presented on the item.

No public comment was received.

City Council accepted the Comprehensive Financial Report for the City of St.

Helena for Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2024.

13.2 Fiscal Year (FY) 2024-25 2nd Quarter Finance Report and Consideration of a Resolution Approving Mid-Year Budget Adjustments for FY 2024-25.

CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: Mandy Kellogg, Administrative Services Director Recommendation:

Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution.

Administrative Services Director, Mandy Kellogg presented on the item.

Public Comment was received by Jim Sweeney, Tracy Sweeney and Elaine de Man.

Council Member Aaron Barak moved to approve the resolution. The motion was seconded by Council Member Kate Spadarotto and on roll call carried by the following vote:

AYES: Mayor Paul Dohring, Council Member Aaron Barak, Vice Mayor Michelle Deasy, and Council Member Kate Spadarotto
NOES: None
ABSENT: Council Member Billy Summers
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None

14. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS:

14.1 A. Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) - Executive Board B. Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) - General Assembly C. Napa Valley Tourism Corporation (Umbrella for Napa County) Agenda Item #5.1.

Regular City Council
February 25, 2025
D. League of California Cities – North Bay Division
E. Napa County City Selection Committee
F. Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District G. Napa County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) H. Napa Valley Transportation Authority (NVTA)
I. Napa County Watershed Information Center & Conservancy (WICC) J. Upper Valley Waste Management Agency
K. Napa County Groundwater Sustainability Plan Advisory Committee L. Napa County Regional Climate Action Committee
M. Council Ad Hoc and Standing Committee Reports

15. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Dohring adjourned the meeting at Time 7:40 p.m.

CHALLENGING DECISIONS OF CITY ENTITIES
APPROVED:
______________________________
Paul Jamison Dohring, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Erika Opp, Acting City Clerk
Agenda Item #5.1.

From: Kelly Wheaton
To: City Clerk
Subject: [External] Public Comment for Next City Council Meeting Date: Wednesday, February 26, 2025 5:22:00 PM
Erika,
Please attach to Next City Council agenda as a public comment the following.

Mayor Dohring and City Council Members,
This is a follow-up on a complaint I emailed to then Mayor Dohring and the then sitting council members. It is about an incident that happened shortly after City Manager, Anil Comelo, was hired. It refers to an unfortunate action, to the best of my recollection, that happened at the August 25, 2022, meeting of the Water and Wastewater Rate Study Committee that was held at the Fire Department classroom on Railroad Ave.

The reason I am sending this is the allegations made by Daniel Hale about the City Manager's unprofessional, retaliatory and illegal actions against him. I never got a written response to my original complaint. I did get a phone call from Mayor Paul Dohring in which he dismissed my complaint and blamed Mr Comelo's newness on the job for his actions. I told Mayor Dohring ignorance of the law is no excuse and just about anyone would know that trying to deny a citizen the right to file Freedom of Information requests by a public official is not legal. Here is what happened to the best of my recollection.

I group of five of us, after the meeting concluded, went to the back of the room to introduce ourselves to the new City Manger, Anil Comelo. We were representing ourselves and our non-profit organization WASH (Water Advocates St Helena). We were standing in a loose semi-circle in front of Mr Comelo and we each introduced ourselves by name and where we lived.

Tom was in the middle of us and I was to Tom's right. Immediately after the introduction, Mr Comelo stepped into the personal space of Tom Belt and began wagging his finger at him. We were all taken aback by his aggressiveness, but what he did next left us all speechless. He demanded Agenda Item #6.1.

that Mr Belt desist from filing Freedom of Information Requests from the City. At first I thought he had to be joking, as it was so bizarre and aggressive, not to mention illegal. Tom, a former Fish and Game Officer for the state of California, at 6 feet tall with this complete stranger aggressively trying to intimidate and bully him, through us all off balance. Mr Comelo kept repeating, “I don't want you filing any more Information Requests. My staff have better things to do with their time.” He reiterated it over and over and over again. I had never experienced anything like it from a public official. We were all upset and spent a while afterward discussing what had happened.

It was terribly humiliating for all of us, but especially for Tom, who had done nothing wrong.

I was so upset I drafted and sent an email to the Mayor and City Council.

The dismissiveness with which it was treated was very disturbing. Now with Mr Hale's allegations and all the people who have shared their interactions with Mr Comelo with me, I felt it was proper to speak out. There is a very long and clear pattern of bullying, intimidation and retaliation as Mr Hale notes. In preparation for this letter I sought permission from Tom, to use his name. He wrote, “I told Paul when it happened and yet I never heard back from him or never received an apology from Anil.”
This was and is unacceptable behavior by a City Administrator and then City Council. It seems the new council is inclined to take these allegations seriously, as they should. I take issue with people who misuse their power.

There is a long and clear history of abuse, but when the city council turns a deaf ear and the City Manger is the culprit it is very hard, short of suing the city to get anyone's attention. I am grateful to Mr Hale for speaking out. I had never met him or spoken with him before last night.

I will be happy to provide the names of the other witnesses upon request by a board of inquiry. This is not a "he said/ she said." You have the victim and 4 witnesses to corroborate what I am saying. If the City Attorney or other investigator goes looking there is a long list of residents who have been bullied, threatened and retaliated against by Anil Comelo in his role as City Manager. I hope that you take Mr Hale's allegations seriously as they are consistent with my personal experience and many others.

Agenda Item #6.1.

Sincerely,
Kelly Wheaton
1335 Inglewood Ave
707-963-9609
--
Kelly Wheaton
[email protected]
Beginners Guide to Genetic Genealogy
WheatonWood.com
Agenda Item #6.1.

City Council City of St Helena 6 MARCH 2025
Unauthorized and improper changes to St Helena Municipal Code:

On 17 October 2024, alongside City of St Helena interim planner Galbraith, it was discovered that some critical language in municipal code that governs the configuration of porches in residential projects was altered outside of the legally proscribed process. I asked, “how did that occur?” It was, and remains, an entirely reasonable question to ask.

I directly followed up that meeting via email with the question to planning director M DeRosa on how that change had occurred, and also asked the question of what other areas were similarly altered outside of correct processes. That question was not answered.

I hired attorney Katherine Philippakis, who asked the same question which was delivered on 6 Dec 2024 to Planning Director Maya DeRosa, Mayor Paul Dohring, and City attorney Ethan Walsh, and still, it remained unanswered.

That initial question was finally answered by the City attorney on 3 February 2025 (close to 4 months after the question was asked) where he confirmed that section of code was altered outside of correct process. That process includes public notice, public and open discussion and first and second readings of changed ordinances before both the Planning Commission, and the City Council, and finally motions and ratification (or not) by City Council. Those processes are vital to the safe, correct and productive functioning of government.

Since that time, it has become clear, that there appear to be numerous changes that were performed outside of the legally proscribed process. The bulk are changes in punctuation and formatting. But apparently there are dozens of more material changes that involve changes in values applied, and the manner in which projects will be analyzed as they relate to municipal code. Many of these alterations have far reaching consequences on existing homes as well as considerations that would be applied to new projects. These changes also set themselves at odds with other sections of code and set other sections adrift without purpose.

These changes set existing houses out of conformance and affect peoples assumptions and understandings moving forward; should they consider doing any sort of project. All improperly altered sections are not enforceable, as those sections were not properly created. This conduct puts the city at risk of legal action. These conducts also greatly degrade trust in government and any notion of the value of, and commitment to, transparency, and set challenges to the daily functioning of city staff as they engage and attempt to apply Municipal code, and serve the citizens of St Helena.

These are all correctable issues and I believe there should, and will be, ample opportunity to debate the finer points of the code sections in question.

I do not believe that I am the only person who believes this is a critical issue. I believe the responsibility rests with City Council to get to its root and to oversee its rectification.

Daniel Hale
1851 Madrona Avenue
St Helena CA 94574
Agenda Item #6.1.

From: Philippa Ward
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] City Zoning Changes
Date: Sunday, March 9, 2025 11:06:53 AM
To St. Helena City Council,
It has come to my attention that the SH City Zoning Code has had changes made to the approved code, without going through the legally required approval process. It seems that would render it invalid, making it difficult for those looking to get permits for anything in the city of SH to know what they can do. Please remedy this situation and bring transparency to this situation by going through the legal approval process of public notice, public comment, SH City Planning Committee approval and City Council approval.

This actually really does matter for the integrity of our building and renovation processes for the community and the residents who depend on the clarity and accuracy of what was adapted.

Thank you,
Philippa
Sent from my iPhone
Agenda Item #6.1.

St. Helena City Council
Public Comment
03/11/2025
Mayor Dohring & City Council Members,
Shortly after I made my comments at the last city council meeting (my written “script” from that meeting is attached), some new information regarding the troubling behavior of our City Manager came to light in the St. Helena Star.

From that article we learn that after meeting with Dan Hale regarding an unauthorized change in the Building Code, former planner Galbreath sent an email to City Manager, Anil Comelo, and Community Development Director, Maya DeRosa, on Oct. 17. This is Galbraith’s account of what Hale said:
“He made it clear that he did not agree and would fight me to the death over this decision and that he would also fight (DeRosa) to the death regarding this decision.” Strong language to be sure, but without knowing what led up to such passion, it’s difficult to fault Mr. Hale for threatening to get to the bottom of something the city wasn’t addressing.

However, the following day, according to the Star:

Comelo sent a letter to Hale, copied to the council and planning staff, claiming Hale had “made threatening statements” to Galbraith during their Oct. 17 meeting: “that included you would ‘fight to the death’ and the ‘death of Community Development Director DeRosa’ to get this decision reversed.”
This is a very troubling twist and misstatement of what was apparently said by planner Galbreath, and it appears to be an attempt by Mr. Comelo to not only intimidate Mr. Hale but to also besmirch his character to the members of the city council and the planning staff.

As troubling as that is, it is not the only disturbing thing about this incident.

From the Star:

On Oct. 22 Hale got a call from a St. Helena police officer saying he’d received a report that Hale had threatened Galbraith during their Oct. 17 meeting. Hale said the officer told him Galbraith had not filed the complaint with the police department, but the officer wouldn’t reveal who had. No charges were ever filed.

Agenda Item #6.1.

So if Galbraith didn’t file the complaint…who did? And, since no charges were ever filed, what was the purpose of filing a complaint if not to try and intimidate a whistle-blower? Unfortunately, all fingers for this point to City Manager, Anil Comelo.

In his own words, and at the expense of a member of the community, Mr. Comelo appears to have shown us the true nature of his character and the lengths he is willing to go to to protect himself. Is this the kind of person we want running our city? Is this going to cost us even more in litigation? I certainly hope the city council takes these allegations seriously and disciplines the city manager appropriately.

The other troubling thing to come out of all this is the alleged “cleaning” up of the code by city staff without any kind of oversight by the Planning Commission or City Council. Who authorized that? And why? We apparently have a beleaguered staff already…presumably the reason why we are so top-heavy. Was this a make-work project to keep someone busy and justify all the salaries? Is there a record of all the changes that were made to the code this way and justification as to why? How much staff and council time will now have to be spent straightening this out? And at what cost?
And to cap it off, Comelo now seems to be playing with the idea of installing a barrier in City Hall to prevent non-employees from entering the work spaces for the Community Development and Public Works departments. According to Comelo, that was the advice of the city’s attorney. We have never needed a “barrier” in the past. Why now? According to the Star, Mayor Paul Dohring said “I encourage the parties to reset and come together to clearly set forth their interests and expectations, eliminate misunderstandings, and improve communications.” That is an admirable goal to be sure. But in order for it to succeed, it will take some trust. Unfortunately Mr. Comelo has shown that his primary interest is keeping his job at all costs. To that end, he may say whatever it takes to achieve his goal, whether it aligns with that of the city (and its residents) or not.

Elaine de Man
03/10/2025
Agenda Item #6.1.

St. Helena City Council
Public Comments
February 28, 2025
I am here tonight mainly in response to the four comment letters submitted by Daniel Gale.

I presume you all have read them by now.

These are very disturbing allegations. I would hope that the rewording of the municipal building code that Mr. Hale refers to was an honest mistake. And if so, why wasn’t it simply dealt with immediately? Looking at the timing….it seems Mr. Hale’s interactions were in October. When was Mr/ Camelo’s performance revue? The one that got our city manager a little bonus and a one-year extension on his contract? Sometime after that? I can’t help but wonder if that had something to do with wanting to get this faux pas…intentional or not…swept under the rug.

Instead it appears that there was an attempt to, not only sweep Mr. Hale’s finding under the rug, but to castigate Mr. Hale by filing a police report claiming he had somehow threatened a city employee. Which was, apparently, unsubstantiated.

Mr. Hale’s courage in relating this incident, granted through his eyes only, reminded me of what had, up until now, been nothing but rumors. That some members of the city staff have been rude and abrasive towards members of the public who question them. That there is some kind of “hit list” of residents who have been too critical of the City Manager and that there have been incidents, such as the one related by Mr. Hale, of retaliation.

If this is true, it needs to stop right now. If it is not true, I do very sincerely apologize…but with a caveat. These accusations have been made by very well-respected members of the community.

They have a lot of credence. I only hope that Mr. Hale’s comments will give them the courage to also step up and speak out.

I also want to give a big shout-out to Vice Mayor Michelle Deasy for having the courage to jump into the fray on Nextdoor and engage the public with her thoughts.

In the end, that’s all I’m asking for…from the council members and from the citizens…to have the courage to stand up and shout, “The Emperor has no clothes!” Elaine de Man
Agenda Item #6.1.

From: Christine Hale
To: Public Comment; Erika Opp; Erika Opp
Subject: [External] Public Comment for March 11, 2025 City Council Meeting Date: Monday, March 10, 2025 10:47:36 PM
Erika,
Would you please submit the following for public comment for 3/11/2025 City Council Meeting.

St Helena City Council.

I have watched as the drama has unfolded regarding the changes to zoning code and witnessed a shocking display of abuse of power by the City Manager and City Planning Director.

While it all started with a simple question of a change to the approved zoning code, it seems to have cascaded into a smear campaign on a private citizen to avoid answering the question.

The simple question was, “how and when did the change in code regarding porches for residential properties take place?” What ensued was 4 months, and I wonder how much legal cost to the citizens of SH, to get around admitting that this was done improperly. It was finally acknowledged in February. This was an unnecessary waste of everyone’s time and money.

My understanding is that the code was approved in October 2023 and was not published on the website until October 1, 2024. (The previous code was left up for about 7 months despite the fact that it was no longer valid.Then for a period, there was nothing on the website.) In the meantime everyone that was trying to get a permit was relying on the approved draft code. So imagine the surprise when it was discovered after months of work on a project with long serving Planner Hecock, prior to his departure, that the code they had relied on had been altered in a consequential way and this new version was published after his departure. The new Interim Planner Galbraith, was just as surprised to discover this fact and understood that this was a problem. These changes make it difficult for staff who come into this situation, with no notice, to grapple with these changes and the confusion that they cause. There are many other changes that have occurred and the list has been requested, but not yet provided. It is important that the code changes go through the process that is required by law. This process includes public notice and comment, Planning Commission approval and City Council approval. This is the law and it is in place for a reason and I am concerned that these unapproved changes put the city at risk.

Rather than answer the question, Planning Director DeRosa and/or City Manager Comelo decided it was better to go after the messenger. They made outrageous, slanderous claims against a citizen, including a Police Report with the fabricated claim of a threat to Planner Galbraith. The Officer said that this report was not made by Galbraith.

The Police Report was requested along with any notes, and all that was provided was a blank page with an incident number. CM Comelo also threatened in a letter that he is holding this police report as leverage. If there is such a report, it should be provided as requested. When it was discovered by City Staff that Galbraith invited Hale in to his office and they had a cordial meeting the day after the supposed threat, the threat target seemed to have changed to Planning Director DeRosa, who was not present nor mentioned at the meetings, other than for Galbraith to mention that Planner DeRosa had promised an answer to the question regarding the code change. Could this not have been handled with a simple meeting between parties? Can we please do better? Can we have some transparency in this process? I know the process to get the code passed was arduous. There were bound to be some changes needed, but the citizens deserve that the process to make those changes be proper and legal. It is important to follow the law in order to avoid any appearance of corruption, or conflicts of interest and to have the code be enforceable. To be clear here, other than the City Manager and City Planning Director, the City Staff has been professional and collaborative.

Thank you,
Christine Hale
Agenda Item #6.1.

California Property Tax
Unraveling the Puzzle
Tracy A. Schulze, Napa County Auditor-Controller
Robert G. Minahen, Napa County Treasurer-Tax Collector
City of St. Helena Council Meeting, March 11, 2025
Agenda Item #8.1.

Discussion
Overview
City of St. Helena Budget Overview (2024-25)
Property Tax – How did we get here?
Napa County Property Tax Estimates (2024-25)
ERAF – what is it?
VLF – How does this fit in?
Recap and Review
Questions
2 Agenda Item #8.1.

Licenses and Permits,
$1,821,169 , 10%
Property Taxes,
$5,786,467 , 30%
State, Federal, Other
Govt, $58,906 , 0%
Sales Tax,
$6,378,617 , 34%
Other,
$376,387 , 2%
TOT (Hotel Tax),
$4,021,070 , 21%
Charges for Services,
$645,280 , 3%
CITY OF ST. HELENA

MAJOR REVENUE CATEGORIES FOR THE GENERAL FUND
(BASED ON FISCAL YEAR 2024-25 BUDGET) 3 $19,087,896
Agenda Item #8.1.

Adminstration & General
Gov't, $5,022,263 , 25%
Community
Development,
$1,262,103 , 6%
Police,
$4,335,798 , 22%
Fire,
$2,650,505 , 13%
Public Works,
$4,536,518 , 23%
Parks & Recreation,
$2,194,834 , 11%
CITY OF ST. HELENA

MAJOR EXPENDITURE CATEGORIES FOR THE GENERAL FUND
(BASED ON FISCAL YEAR 2024-25 BUDGET)
$20,002,021 4
Agenda Item #8.1.

Property
Tax – How
Did We
Get Here?
Pre-Prop 13 (1978) Tax
Levy based on budget
needs
Prop 13 Limited Property
Tax to 1% of Assessed
Value
5 Agenda Item #8.1.

Components of Prop 13 & AB8 Factors
Passed June 1978
 Instead of levy, restricted property tax to 1% of Assessed Valuation as of 1975 lien date
 Limited annual Assessed Valuation Growth to lesser of 2% or CPI
 Apportionment factors based on base Year of tax levy1977- 78 and on Geographical Boundaries (AB8 Factors)
 In Napa County, Schools received 60%, all other local agencies received 40%
 Reduced property tax by $7 billion in first year
Complications include annexations, redevelopment agencies, supplemental tax bills, and much more…
6 Agenda Item #8.1.

Let’s Look at Napa
County’s Property Tax
7 Revenues and Allocations…
Agenda Item #8.1.

AB8
Factors &
Distribution
Fiscal Year
2024-25
Esimated Property Tax
Taxing Entity Total AB8 Factors
Napa County 98,802,143 17.73%
Fire Non-Structural 8,666,179 1.56%
Napa County Library 11,556,975 2.08%
Fire Protection 8,053,376 1.45%
Total County 127,078,673 22.82%
City of Calistoga 2,675,732 0.48%
City of Napa 31,373,058 5.64%
City of St. Helena 5,475,951 0.98%
Town of Yountville 1,459,938 0.26%
City of American Canyon 11,591,932 2.08%
Total Cities/Town 52,576,611 9.44%
Lake Berryessa Resort Improvement District 41,450 0.01% Napa Berryessa Resort Improvement District 60,969 0.01% Monticello Cemetery District 37,728 0.01%
Circle Oaks Water District 43,194 0.01%
Congress Valley Water District 128,584 0.02%
American Canyon Fire District 6,183,353 1.11%
Napa County Mosquito Abatement District 2,036,305 0.37% Napa County Resource Conservation District 498,023 0.09% Napa River Reclamation District 34,025 0.01%
Bay Area Air Quality Management District 1,536,674 0.28% Total Special Districts 10,600,305 1.92%
Howell Mountain Elementary 1,905,111 0.34%
Pope Valley Elementary 1,752,996 0.31%
Fairfield-Suisun USD 785,601 0.14%
Calistoga Joint USD 18,362,668 3.30%
Napa Valley USD 171,990,756 30.90%
St. Helena USD 41,957,099 7.54%
Napa Valley Community College 44,996,576 8.09%
Solano County Office of Education 31,507 0.01%
Napa County Office of Education 17,065,893 3.07%
ERAF-Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund 67,424,188 12.12% Total School Districts 366,272,395 65.82%
Total Estimated Property Taxes 556,527,984 100.00%
8 Agenda Item #8.1.

Schools,
$366,272,395 , 66%
Special Districts,
$10,600,305 , 2%
County,
$127,078,673 , 23%
Cities/Town,
$52,576,611 , 9%

NAPA COUNTY ESTIMATED PROPERTY TAX REVENUES

COUNTY-WIDE
FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
TOTAL OF $556,527,984
9 Agenda Item #8.1.

City of Calistoga,
2,675,732 , 5%
City of Napa,
31,373,058 , 60%
City of St. Helena,
5,475,951 , 10%
Town of Yountville,
1,459,938 , 3%
City of American
Canyon,
11,591,932 , 22%

NAPA COUNTY ESTIMATED PROPERTY TAX REVENUES

CITIES/TOWN
FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
% OF $52,576,611
10 Agenda Item #8.1.

ERAF – What is it?
11 Agenda Item #8.1.

ERAF SHIFT
What is it?

EDUCATIONAL REVENUE AUGMENTATION FUND (ERAF)
Three SHIFTS 1992-93, 1993-94 and 2004-05
Purpose – to relieve State from a budget deficit of $1.3 million by having local taxing agencies pay the State’s Obligation to fund Schools
1992-93 Shift - $3.6 billion
 Factor of the shift the State calculated was never revealed  Some agencies were exempt (multi-county districts, local hospital districts, and some water agencies were limited 1993-94 Shift - $2.6 billion
 Factor was determined by Dept of Finance and was based on population
 Gave more exemptions to certain agencies
2004-05 Shift - $1.3 billion
 Temporary - over two years (no longer exists)
 Based on State Controller’s determination of who contributes what
12 Agenda Item #8.1.

ERAF and
Excess ERAF
Break it
down
please!
State Revenue Limit – (aka: LCFF) The guaranteed minimum amount of funding required for schools based on average daily attendance (Prop 98, passed in 1988)
Basic Aid School Districts – Annual Property Tax allocated using AB8 Factors equals or exceeds the State’s Revenue Limit for the District.

Non-Basic Aid School Districts – (aka: ERAF Entitlement) Annual Property Tax allocated using AB8 Factors is less than the State’s Revenue Limit for the District.

ERAF – A “taxing entity” funded by a SHIFT of local taxes based on a State requirement
Use of ERAF – Fill up the gaps of all Non-Basic Aid School Districts (which are the State’s responsibility)
Excess ERAF – Once all gaps are filled, return any excess “shifted” taxes back to the local jurisdictions in proportion of how they were originally shifted.
*Note: Only 5 counties in CA currently have Excess ERAF 13 Agenda Item #8.1.

Napa
County
Basic Aid?
Napa Valley Unified is the only School District in Napa County that is Non-Basic Aid (Property Taxes received are less than the States Guaranteed Minimum Revenue Limit)
Key components:
 Guaranteed Minimum Revenue based on Average Daily
Attendance (ADA)
 Assessed Valuation of Property within the School District’s Geographical Boundaries
Both relate to each other, and both can fluctuate each
year
14 Agenda Item #8.1.

AB8
Factors &
Distribution
Fiscal Year
2024-25
Esimated Property Tax
Taxing Entity Total AB8 Factors
Napa County 98,802,143 17.73%
Fire Non-Structural 8,666,179 1.56%
Napa County Library 11,556,975 2.08%
Fire Protection 8,053,376 1.45%
Total County 127,078,673 22.82%
City of Calistoga 2,675,732 0.48%
City of Napa 31,373,058 5.64%
City of St. Helena 5,475,951 0.98%
Town of Yountville 1,459,938 0.26%
City of American Canyon 11,591,932 2.08%
Total Cities/Town 52,576,611 9.44%
Lake Berryessa Resort Improvement District 41,450 0.01% Napa Berryessa Resort Improvement District 60,969 0.01% Monticello Cemetery District 37,728 0.01%
Circle Oaks Water District 43,194 0.01%
Congress Valley Water District 128,584 0.02%
American Canyon Fire District 6,183,353 1.11%
Napa County Mosquito Abatement District 2,036,305 0.37% Napa County Resource Conservation District 498,023 0.09% Napa River Reclamation District 34,025 0.01%
Bay Area Air Quality Management District 1,536,674 0.28% Total Special Districts 10,600,305 1.92%
Howell Mountain Elementary 1,905,111 0.34%
Pope Valley Elementary 1,752,996 0.31%
Fairfield-Suisun USD 785,601 0.14%
Calistoga Joint USD 18,362,668 3.30%
Napa Valley USD 171,990,756 30.90%
St. Helena USD 41,957,099 7.54%
Napa Valley Community College 44,996,576 8.09%
Solano County Office of Education 31,507 0.01%
Napa County Office of Education 17,065,893 3.07%
ERAF-Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund 67,424,188 12.12% Total School Districts 366,272,395 65.82%
Total Estimated Property Taxes 556,527,984 100.00%
15 Agenda Item #8.1.

Key Takeaways

WE ALL NEED TO BE AWARE AND UNDERSTAND

WHAT THE STATE IS DOING WITH OUR LOCAL

PROPERTY TAX FUNDING

WE ALL NEED TO BE AWARE AND UNDERSTAND

THAT SCHOOLS AND THE STATE ARE NOT BEING
HARMED IN ANY WAY…ONLY LOCAL

GOVERNMENTS ARE

OUR DISCRETIONARY REVENUES NEED TO STAY

DISCRETIONARY TO ALLOW FOR THE GREATEST

FLEXIBILITY TO RUN THE BEST GOVERNMENT FOR

OUR PEOPLE
16 Agenda Item #8.1.

VLF – How does it fit in?
17 Agenda Item #8.1.

City of Calistoga,
1,063,334 , 2%
City of Napa,
11,900,054 , 26%
Town of Yountville,
994,634 , 2%
County of Napa,
28,924,672 , 63%
City of St. Helena,
950,330 , 2%
City of American
Canyon,
2,293,754 , 5%

NAPA COUNTY ESTIMATED VLF REVENUES
FISCAL YEAR 2024-25 18 % OF $46,126,778
Agenda Item #8.1.

VLF SWAP - History
 In 1998, the State reduced the Vehicle License Fee (VLF) from 2% to 0.65% of the value of vehicles. Because VLF revenues were local funds, the reduction in rate would have severely impacted local services so the State included appropriations to backfill for local revenue losses.
 In 2004, the State, cities and counties worked together to develop a new mechanism for reimbursing cities and counties for their reduced VLF revenues while also helping to address a large State budget hole. The VLF Swap transferred VLF revenues to the State in exchange for additional property tax shares to cities and counties. As part of this agreement, local governments agreed to an additional ERAF Shift (ERAF III) for two fiscal years moving $1.3 billion each year from local governments to the State to help address the State’s budget deficit.
19 Agenda Item #8.1.

Current Law – The Problem
Revenue and Taxation Code 97.70
 County Auditor-Controller shall take funds from ERAF to fund VLF Adjustment. The State then backfills local school agencies by an increased General Apportionment. RT 97.70(a)(1)(A)
 If there in not enough funds in ERAF to fully fund the VLF Adjustment, County Auditor-Controllers shall reduce the amount of property tax allocated to non-basic aid school districts to fully fund the VLF Adjustment. The State then backfills local school agencies by an increased General Apportionment. RT

97.70(a)(1)(B)
 RT 97.70 does not address the funding mechanism when all K-14 school districts within a county turn basic aid.
20 Agenda Item #8.1.

Napa County Issue
 As mentioned, Napa County currently has one non-basic aid school district, NVUSD.
 NVUSD is the largest district in the county and is trending towards basic aid status.
 Once NVUSD becomes basic aid, the County AuditorController will have no available tax allocations to shift to fill the VLF Adjustment for the County, cities or town
resulting in, at a minimum, a two-year loss of discretionary funding totaling $100M to our local jurisdictions.
21 Agenda Item #8.1.

Factors Leading to Basic Aid
 Prop 13 – the apportionment factors arising out of Prop 13 allocates $2 out of every $3 of Napa County property tax revenues to local school agencies. For reference, neighboring Solano County only shifts $1 out of every $2 to schools. Napa’s increased school apportionment factor means a higher percentage of property tax revenues are apportioned to schools pushing them towards basic aid.
 Assessed Valuation – Napa County continues to see high assessed valuation pushing more property tax funds to local schools.  Declining Enrollment – According to the California Department of Education, NVUSD has experienced sharp declines in enrollment over the past four years.
 State’s General Fund revenue declines have resulted in a significant drop in the Prop 98 funding guarantee. Rapid school funding growth appears to be over.
22 Agenda Item #8.1.

Napa County Cities/Towns Special
Districts
ERAF $75M
23 Agenda Item #8.1.

Napa County Cities/Towns Special
Districts
ERAF $47M
Napa Valley Unified
$28M ERAF Entitlement
24 Agenda Item #8.1.

Napa County Cities/Towns Special
Districts
ERAF $47M
Napa Valley Unified
$28M ERAF Entitlement
VLF
$28M (still needs
$22M)
25 Agenda Item #8.1.

Napa County Cities/Towns Special
Districts
ERAF $0
Napa Valley Unified
$28M ERAF Entitlement
VLF
$28M (still needs
$22M)
Napa County Office of
Education
$10M
26 Agenda Item #8.1.

Napa County Cities/Towns Special
Districts
ERAF $0
Napa Valley Unified
$28M ERAF Entitlement
VLF
$50M-$28M = $22M
Napa County Office of
Education
$10M
27 Agenda Item #8.1.

Napa County Cities/Towns Special
Districts
ERAF $0
Napa Valley Unified
$28M ERAF Entitlement
VLF
$50M
State of CA
$50M to NVUSD
Napa County Office of
Education
$10M
28 Agenda Item #8.1.

Napa County Cities/Towns Special
Districts
ERAF $0
Napa Valley Unified
$28M ERAF Entitlement
VLF
$50M
State of CA
$50M
Napa County Office of
Education
$10M
29 Agenda Item #8.1.

NVUSD’s Trek Towards Basic Aid
30 Agenda Item #8.1.

Proposed
Legislative
Fix
 The proposed legislative fix would create a
continuous appropriation to plug the VLF hole.

This fix would impact Alpine and San Mateo
Counties immediately and remove the
uncertainty facing municipalities in Napa
County.
 The proposed legislation provides for payments
to be made to counties twice a year with trueup provisions which will be subject to audit by the State Controller’s Office. The proposal
included payment deferrals during periods
where the State was in budget crisis.
31 Agenda Item #8.1.

Impacts
to School
Funding
Despite past assertions made, our proposed legislative fix has no impact on School Funding:
 The bill has no impact on the Prop 98 Guarantee.
 Education funding is specifically held harmless from the impacts of the VLF Swap.
 All public schools in Napa County are currently funded to their Local Control Funding Formula Limit using local
property tax dollars.
 NVUSD, the county’s only non basic aid school district, is currently only backfilled by the State for property tax dollars shifted from the District to fund the State’s VLF Swap Obligation, in accordance with law.
32 Agenda Item #8.1.

Summary
 The State promised to reimburse local government for lost VLF revenues in negotiations to help the State through the 2004 budget crisis.
 The State currently reimburses 56 of the 58 California counties (including Napa) through current statutes.
 100% of Napa County schools are funded to the LCFF
guarantees using local property tax dollars.
 NVUSD, Napa County’s last non-basic aid school district, is trending towards basic aid status.
 Once NVUSD turns basic aid, there is no statutorily defined funding source for the State’s VLF Swap obligation owed to Napa County.
 The State is currently paying VLF in Napa County, they are simply funneling it through the school financing mechanism. 33 Agenda Item #8.1.

Agenda Item #8.1.

SMART Meter
Replacement
Project
Follow Up Questions
City Council Meeting
March 11, 2025
Agenda Item #9.2.

Question 1: Battery Life
• Batteries are fully encapsulated within register housing and are not replaceable.
• Future reference: Specifications for meters included in 2/11/25 agenda packet
Agenda Item #9.2.

Question 2: Ongoing Costs
Meter Replacements:
◦ 5/8” Meter: $218 per each
◦ 1” Meter: $256 per each
Meters & Hydrants Annual budget
GL: 561-50-31-22-19 = $24,000 per year
Agenda Item #9.2.

Question 3: Contract Review
Completed
A full contract review has been completed by the City
Attorney’s office to include:
◦ Contract Document
◦ All bid specification documents
◦ All pre-qualification documents
◦ All addendums
◦ Bond documents.

Agenda Item #9.2.

Implementation
Timeline Feb. 2025
Council approval &
contract execution
Spring 2025
Begin installation of
SMART meters
Late 2025
6-month timeline: Full
project completion by late
2025
Agenda Item #9.2.

Supplemental
Slides
Agenda Item #9.2.

Financial
Summary
(as proposed)
Total Project Cost: $2.3 million
Funding secured through Water
Revenue Bonds
Project Expenditure Total Cost Date
Approved
Project Management Professional
Services
$406,000 May 14,
2024
Badger Meter Purchase $1,056,966 July 15,
2024
Initial Pace Lid Purchase $123,586 October 22,
2024
Total Spent to date: $1,586,552
Construction for Meter
Replacement Base Bid
$491,359 February
11, 2024
Construction Contingency 15% $73,704 February
11, 2024
Remaining Lid Purchase $132,600 TBD
Lid contingency 15% $18,890 TBD
Total Cost of Project $2,303,105
Funding Approved 2025 CIP Budget $1,970,000
Project Shortfall ($333,105.11)
*Project Savings:
• Staff Coordinated inventory
• Purchase of lids and meters outside of construction
contract
Agenda Item #9.2.

Meter Installation Process
Meter Box Cleaning • 20
Minutes
Meter Removal &
Installation
• 15 -30
minutes
Record Into
Database, Activate
the endpoint, & Data
Transferred to Utility
Software
• 30
Minutes
Data Verification •15
minutes
1 hours 20 minutes
per meter
2600 meters
Agenda Item #9.2.

Agenda Report to the City Council
Agenda Section: CONSENT ITEMS
Department: Administration
DATE: March 11, 2025
FROM: Anil Comelo, City Manager
SUBJECT: Approval of the City of St. Helena Statement of Community Values.

RECOMMENDED
ACTION:

Approve the City of St. Helena Statement of Community
Values

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

April 11, 2017 - Community Statement on Immigration.

February 25, 2025 - Special City Council Meeting - Study Session on Statement of Community Values.

STATEMENT OF THE
PURPOSE:

The purpose is to approve the City of St. Helena's
Statement of Community Values.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: None.

BACKGROUND:

During the last couple of months, several public agencies have made proclamations in support of or against the new administration's policy of making deportation of undocumented immigration a priority. After the County of Napa Board of Supervisors approved a proclamation in support of immigrants and other groups, some members of the community requested that the City of St. Helena make a similar proclamation. In response, Mayor Dohring and Vice Mayor Deasy volunteered to draft a statement of values.

DISCUSSION:

A special meeting of the City Council was held on February 25, 2025 to receive input from the community. During the meeting, the City Council discussed the issues and received input from members of the public in a study session format. Attached is the resulting document which has benefited from that discussion.

A related document can be found at the following link: Community Statement on Immigration of April 11, 2017.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: None.

GOAL:

Miscellaneous/Other
DOCUMENTS ATTACHMENTS:

Agenda Item #10.1.

Statement of Values
Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena

STATEMENT OF COMMUNITY VALUES
WHEREAS, St. Helena is a community with a deep history, shaped by the contributions of all who call it home.

WHEREAS, we affirm our faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, and in the equal rights of all community members.

WHEREAS, we recognize that recent changes in policies—both locally and beyond— have created uncertainty and concern for some residents. We are committed to ensuring that St. Helena remains a welcoming and supportive place where all residents feel safe, valued, respected, and included in community life.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that:
• Our Community is Stronger When Everyone Feels Secure – We recognize that uncertainty about the future can create anxiety, and we are committed to fostering a sense of stability and trust for all residents.
• Access to Opportunity is Important for Everyone – We strive to ensure that every person in St. Helena—regardless of heritage, identity, background, income, or occupation—has access to public resources, services, and opportunities and the right to freely participate in local government and the civic and cultural life of our community.
• Open Dialogue Builds Trust – We acknowledge that not all residents experience change in the same way. We are committed to listening and engaging in thoughtful conversations, affirming freedom of thought, conscience, religion, opinion, expression, peaceful assembly, and association, and working together to address concerns that impact our community.
• Respect and Belonging Matter – Every person in St. Helena should feel safe and valued. Our city government, schools, businesses, and community organizations play a critical role in fostering an environment where all residents can thrive. • A Resilient Community Works Together – As St. Helena continues to evolve, we remain committed to preserving what makes our town special while ensuring that all residents—longtime and new—can feel a sense of belonging and stability.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this statement reflects our commitment to supporting the well-being of all who live and work in St. Helena. We pledge to keep these basic norms, rights and freedoms constantly in mind in our deliberations, decision-making and allocation of resources. We invite every member of our community to be part of the ongoing conversation and to work together to strengthen our shared future.

Dated: March 11, 2025
______________________________
Paul Jamison Dohring, Mayor
City of St. Helena
Agenda Item #10.1.

From: Maria Phelps
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Values statement
Date: Saturday, March 8, 2025 12:23:29 PM
I am unable to be at the City Council meeting on 3/11, but would like to express my support for the Values Statement as drafted. I approve of this statement and am grateful it has been drafted and will hopefully be approved.

Thank you!
Maria Phelps
Agenda Item #10.1.

From: Pat Friday
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Community Statement on Immigration
Date: Saturday, March 8, 2025 4:10:20 PM
I urge you to pass the statement on immigration.

Immigrants are such an important part of our town and I value each one. I want them to know that our town values them too; their safely, their well-being, access to opportunity and respect for them is important to communicate.

Please make a public statement in support of all of our marginalized neighbors. It’s a small town. We all want to know that each of us is valued.

Thank you,
Pat Friday
Pat Friday
1430 Wallis Court
St. Helena, CA 94574
Agenda Item #10.1.

From: Pam Krell
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Values statement
Date: Saturday, March 8, 2025 4:27:56 PM
I am not able to attend the upcoming meeting but fully support the values statement.

Thank you for your attention to this.

Pam Krell
1455 S Whitehall Lane
St. Helena, CA 94574
Agenda Item #10.1.

From: Brooke Casey
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] statement of values
Date: Sunday, March 9, 2025 6:09:26 PM
Dear City Council members,
I am unfortunately not able to attend the meeting this week and wanted to communicate my support of the Statement of Community Values proposed by Mayor Dohring and Vice Mayor Deasy. I am grateful for the time and attention the Council has given to this matter in the form of the community meeting, which I attended, and in drafting this statement. While I wish the statement had been more inclusive in terms of populations mentioned, I appreciate the thoughtful language and sentiments this more specific version offers. I believe it is incredibly important at this time to address some of the concerns and fears many members of our community are experiencing. Thank you for your consideration.

Best,
Brooke Casey
Agenda Item #10.1.

Agenda Report to the City Council
Agenda Section: CONSENT ITEMS
Department: Public Works
DATE: March 11, 2025
FROM: Rebecca White, Administrative Assistant
SUBJECT: Consideration and approval of a resolution authorizing (1) a temporary closure of Adams Street and Library Lane on Sunday, June 15, 2025, from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.; and (2) mobile food vendors to park and operate on Library
Lane during the car show event; and (3) a permit allowing the possession of open alcoholic beverages on the closed portions of Adams Street and Library Lane for the Rianda House Car Show event.

RECOMMENDED
ACTION:

Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

None.

STATEMENT OF THE
PURPOSE:

Authorize the road closure of Adams Street and Library
Lane, allow for mobile food vendors to park and operate on Library Lane, and allow for the possession of open
alcoholic beverages on the closed portions of the streets for the Rianda House Car Show.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: The Financial Impact is $2,175 resulting from the applicant submittal of a Request for Fee Waiver form for 6 permits related to this event including two encroachment permits, a banner permit, a road closure permit, and a raw water
permit.

BACKGROUND:

The Rianda House Car Show is presented by the Gunilda Rianda Senior Center Association ("Rianda House") for the purposes of raising awareness of the needs of older adults in the community and raising funds to support Rianda House's programs and services.

The event will require the temporary closure of Adams Street east of 1001 Adams Street to the dead end, and Library Lane. The closure will occur from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sunday, June 15, 2025, with the event itself expected to take place from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. The closure will allow for the event, which is planned to display 75 classic cars and vintage trucks, as well as set-up and clean-up of the event.

Additionally, it will allow for mobile food vendors to operate on Library Lane during the event.

Agenda Item #10.2.

DISCUSSION:

Rianda House will be taking the lead on communicating and coordinating with all residences and businesses within a 1,000-foot radius of the of the road closure, per the conditions of the road closure form, and will coordinate to ensure alternate access for any commercial driveways affected by the closure.

There will be a barricade equivalent to K-rail that will prevent errant vehicles driving through the closed portion of Adams Street for the actual event. The entrance fee has not yet been determined. Rented restrooms and trash cans will be placed in the closed portions of the street, and mobile food vendors will operate on Library Lane, which may include vendors selling alcohol. Rianda House is responsible for coordinating with their vendors to secure the necessary ABC licensing for the sale of alcohol at this event.

Vehicles in the car show will be lined up along the closed portion of Adams Street.

Members of the Rianda House team are working to secure sponsors from local businesses and will begin advertising the show 45 days in advance.

The event will require a permit from the Police Department if amplified music is being utilized and will require security should the gathering be planned for an excess of 250 people.

The event organizers will continue to coordinate and update City staff members from the Police and Public Works Departments and follow through with any additional requirements that staff may have for the actual event.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: None.

GOAL:

Goal 5: Enhance Quality of Life
DOCUMENTS ATTACHMENTS:

Resolution
Agenda Item #10.2.

CITY OF ST. HELENA
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-
CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING (1) A TEMPORARY

CLOSURE OF ADAMS STREET AND LIBRARY LANE ON SUNDAY, JUNE 15, 2025, FROM 6:00 A.M. TO 6:00 P.M., FOR THE RIANDA HOUSE CAR SHOW; (2) MOBILE FOOD VENDORS TO PARK AND OPERATE ON
LIBRARY LANE DURING THE RIANDA HOUSE CAR SHOW EVENT; AND (3) A PERMIT AUTHORIZING THE POSSESSION OF OPEN ALCOHOLIC

BEVERAGES ON THE CLOSED PORTION OF ADAMS STREET AND
LIBRARY LANE.

RECITALS
A. Rianda House Senior Activity Center is planning the Rianda House Car Show to bring the community together for the purpose of raising awareness of the needs of older adults in the community and raising funds to support Rianda House’s programs and services ; and
B. The St. Helena Public Works Department has requested temporary closure of Adams Street, east of 1001 Adams Street to the dead end, and Library Lane for the event; and
C. Closure of the City streets in the area will provide space for event activities; and
D. A request has been made by Rianda House for mobile food vendors to park and operate on Library Lane during the event; and E. St. Helena Municipal Code Section 9.04.010 authorizes the Council, by permit, to allow possession of open alcoholic beverages on public streets or any private or public off-street parking lot; and F. Section 21101(e) of the California Vehicle Code provides the local authorities may, by resolutions, temporarily close a portion of any street for celebrations, parades, local special events, and other purposes when, in the opinion of local authorities having jurisdiction or a public officer of employee that the local authority designated by resolution, the closing is necessary for the safety and protection of persons who are to use that portion of the street during the temporary closing.

Agenda Item #10.2.

RESOLUTION
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of St. Helena resolves as follows:

1. The City Council finds that the benefits derived from the temporary closing of the City streets for the Rianda House Car Show outweigh the anticipated inconveniences to the neighborhood and citizens, and authorize the closures of Adams Street, east of 1001 Adams Street to the dead end, and Library Lane on Sunday, June 15, 2025, from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

2. Mobile food vendors are permitted to park and operate on Library Lane while the event takes place.

3. Temporarily closing a portion of the subject street is necessary for the safety and protection of persons who are to use that portion of the street during the temporary closing.

4. The possession of open containers of alcohol is permitted on public streets and parking lots encompassed by this event.

5. The City Manager is directed to provide reasonable levels of City staff support to accomplish the closure of streets and related activities.

Approved at a Regular Meeting if the St. Helena City Council on March 11, 2025, by the following vote:

Mayor Paul Dohring: _____
Vice Mayor Michele Deasy: _____
Council Member Billy Summers: _____
Council Member Aaron Barak: _____
Council Member Kate Spadarotto: _____
APPROVED: ATTEST:
______________________ _____________________
Paul Jamison Dohring, Mayor City Clerk
Agenda Item #10.2.

Agenda Report to the City Council
Agenda Section: CONSENT ITEMS
Department: Public Works
DATE: March 11, 2025
FROM: Rebecca White, Administrative Assistant
SUBJECT: Consideration of a resolution approving (1) a temporary closure of Adams Street from Friday, May 16, 2025, at
6:00 p.m., to Sunday, May 18, 2025, at 6:00 p.m.; and (2) authorizing possession of open alcoholic beverages on
this public street for the Neighborhood Community Table Event scheduled for Saturday, May 17, 2025, from
approximately 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.

RECOMMENDED
ACTION:

Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

None.

STATEMENT OF THE
PURPOSE:

Authorize the road closure of Adams Street and allow for possession of open containers on said street for the
Neighborhood Table Event.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: The Financial Impact is $2,175 resulting from the applicant submittal of a Request for Fee Waiver form for 6 permits related to this event including two encroachment permits, a banner permit, a road closure permit, and a raw water
permit.

BACKGROUND:

The Neighborhood Table is presented by St. Helena Hospital Foundation to bring the community together in the spirit of health and connection while bringing awareness to Adventist Health St. Helena's mission and animating downtown St. Helena. This project is a collaboration to highlight the work being done by dynamic health and community visionaries who are committed to investing in each of us and our wellbeing, so that we may heal and create our most vital and connected lives. This is the 5th year the St.

Helena Hospital Foundation has produced The Neighborhood Community Table on Adams Street.

The event will require the temporary closure of Adams Street, east of Library Lane to the dead end. The closure would occur from Friday, May 16, 2025, at 6:00 p.m. to Sunday, May 18, 2025, at 6:00 p.m., with some local access to allow for set-up and tear down with the actual dinner taking place on Saturday, May 17, 2025, from approximately 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. The closure would allow for the event, as well as the authorization for possession of open alcoholic beverages on the public street, which occurs for the duration of the meal event only.

Agenda Item #10.3.

DISCUSSION:

The St. Helena Hospital Foundation will be taking the lead on communicating and coordinating with all adjacent businesses on the south side of Adams Street once an encroachment permit is approved to ensure alternate access for any commercial driveways affected by the road closure throughout the event.

The event will include large rentals such as executive restrooms, dining tables, and chairs that will begin set up on Friday evening and Saturday morning. There will be a barricade equivalent to K-rail that will prevent errant vehicles driving through the actual dinner event. The event itself will be a family style dinner catered by Tre Posti. Guests will bring their own wine and will serve themselves. Since alcohol is not served at this event, an ABC license is not required. All guests are twenty-one years of age or older and no one under twenty-one years of age is permitted to enter the event. Per ABC direction, guest ID's are checked at the door prior to entrance of the event. While the ticket price has not been finalized yet, there will be two tiers to make the event accessible to the entire community. The clean-up and pick-up will be completed on Sunday, May 18, 2025, by 6:00 p.m. The event organizers will be utilizing their own staff and volunteers for the entirety of the event.

The event will require a permit from the Police Department if amplified music is being utilized and will require security should the gathering be planned for an excess of 250 people. The event organizer has been compliant with both of these matters every year.

The event organizers will continue to coordinate and update City staff members from the Police and Public Works Departments and follow through with any additional requirements that staff may have for the actual event.

In response to public comment from past years, the permittee has agreed to place generators and mobile kitchens on the south side of Adams Street and to use whispering generators that operate at 64dB (A) which is below the 65 dB (A) allowed in the City's municipal code. The applicant has also agreed to include all residences on the even numbered side of the 900 block of Hunt Avenue in the mid-April notification which will remind the businesses and residents of the event set-up, the event day, and the tear down. This is standard operating procedure since 2022.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: None.

GOAL:

Goal 5: Enhance Quality of Life
DOCUMENTS ATTACHMENTS:

Resolution
Agenda Item #10.3.

Letterhead - TNT 2025-City of St Helena
Agenda Item #10.3.

CITY OF ST. HELENA
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-
CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING (1) A TEMPORARY CLOSURE OF ADAMS STREETS FROM FRIDAY, MAY 16, 2025, AT 6:00 P.M. TO SUNDAY, MAY 18, 2025, AT 6:00 P.M. FOR THE MAY 17, 2025, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMUNITY TABLE EVENT; AND (2) AUTHORIZING

POSSESSION OF OPEN ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES ON THE PUBLIC

STREET FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMUNITY EVENT SCHEDULED
FOR SATURDAY, MAY 17, 2025, FROM APPROXIMATELY 5:00 P.M. TO 9:00 P.M.

RECITALS
A. The St. Helena Hospital Foundation is planning the Neighborhood Community Table event to bring the community together in the spirit of health and connection; and
B. The Neighborhood Community Table Event is anticipated to continue to be an annual event; and
C. The St. Helena Public Works Department has requested temporary closure of Adams Street from East of Library Lane to the dead end of Adams Street for the event; and
D. Closure of the City street in the area will provide space for event activities; and
E. St. Helena Municipal Code Section 9.04.010 authorizes the Council, by permit, to allow possession of open alcoholic beverages on public streets or any private or public off-street parking lot; and F. Section 21101(e) of the California Vehicle Code provides the local authorities may, by resolutions, temporarily close a portion of any street for celebrations, parades, local special events, and other purposes when, in the opinion of local authorities having jurisdiction or a public officer of employee that the local authority designated by resolution, the closing is necessary for the safety and protection of persons who are to use that portion of the street during the temporary closing.

RESOLUTION
Agenda Item #10.3.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of St. Helena resolves as follows:

1. The City Council finds that the benefits derived from the temporary closing of the City street for the Neighborhood Community Table Event outweigh the anticipated inconvenience to the neighborhood and citizens, and authorize closure of:
• Adams Street from East of Library Lane to the dead end of Adams Street from May 16, 2025, at 6:00 p.m. to May
18, 2025, at 6:00 p.m., with some local access to allow for set-up and tear down with the actual dinner taking
place on May 17, 2025.

2. The possession of open containers of wine is permitted on public streets and parking lots encompassed by this event.

3. Temporarily closing a portion of the subject street is necessary for the safety and protection of persons who are to use that portion of the street during the temporary closing.

4. The City Manager is directed to provide reasonable levels of City staff support to accomplish closure of streets and related activities.

Approved at a Regular Meeting if the St. Helena City Council on March 11, 2025, by the following vote:

Mayor Paul Dohring: _____
Vice Mayor Michele Deasy: _____
Council Member Billy Summers: _____
Council Member Aaron Barak: _____
Council Member Kate Spadarotto: _____
APPROVED: ATTEST:
______________________ _____________________
Paul Jamison Dohring, Mayor City Clerk
Agenda Item #10.3.

The Neighborhood Table benefits St. Helena Hospital Foundation, a 501(c)3 organization • Tax ID #20-1384250 10 Woodland Road, St. Helena, CA 94574 • 707.963.6208 • Fax: 707.967.5620 • www.shhfoundation.org [ADVENTISTHEALTH:INTERNAL]
St. Helena Hospital Foundation

BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Daphne Araujo, Chair
Pat Stotesbery, Vice Chair
Karen Cakebread, Secretary
Jim Gamble, Treasurer
Michelle Baggett
Pam Bergman
Stacey Bressler
William Cary
Blakesley Chappellet
Susan Eisenberg, MD
Steven Fink
Leslie Frank
Michael Honig
Rick Jones
Robin Lail
Carol Lindstrom
Jillian Manus
Chuck McMinn, Emeritus
Frank Naeymi-Rad, PhD
Carol Norfleet
Deborah Novack
Kathleen Patterson
Oscar Renteria
Ethan Schram, MD
Bob Trinchero, Emeritus
Elyse Walker
Joe Wender
Glen Newhart, MBA, CFRE
President & CEO
St. Helena Hospital Foundation
Steven Herber, MD
President
Adventist Health St. Helena
December 5th, 2024
To : Rebecca White-Administrative Assistant to Joseph Leach, Director of Public Works
City of St. Helena | 1088 College Avenue | St. Helena CA 94574 Neighborhood Community Table 6th Annual activity outline for May 17th, 2025 The Neighborhood Table is presented by St. Helena Hospital Foundation to bring the community together in the spirit of health and connection. while bringing awareness to the Hospital's mission and animating downtown St.

Helena. This project is a collaboration to highlight the work being done by dynamic health and community visionaries who are committed to investing in each of us and our well-being. so that we may heal and create our most vital and connected lives.

We launched the first Neighborhood Table event on May 19 2019. It was a big success and when tickets went on sale for May 2020 they sold out in 3 hours. Clearly our local community strongly supports this event. We did provide a curbside dinner pickup at Tre Posti when our live event was postponed due to Covid. We came back live in 2022, 2023 & again in 2024 to sold-out tickets which clearly illustrates our continued support from the community. We are super excited to continue this annual celebration on May 17th. 2025.

On Behalf of the St. Helena Hospital Foundation, we appreciate your continued assistance with this event.

Thank you
Susan M Duryea
May 17th,2025
Downtown St. Helena
Agenda Item #10.3.

Agenda Report to the City Council
Agenda Section: CONSENT ITEMS
Department: Public Works
DATE: March 11, 2025
FROM: Rebecca White, Administrative Assistant
SUBJECT: Consideration of a Resolution to set a Public Hearing for 6:00 p.m. Tuesday, May 13, 2025, to consider objections to the proposed annexation of the property known as 1766 Sulphur Springs Avenue, St. Helena, CA (APN 009-350-
024), into the St. Helena Municipal Sewer District No. 1, MSD Annexation No. 151.

RECOMMENDED
ACTION:

It is recommended City Council approve the Resolution
and set a Public Hearing for May 13, 2025, to consider
objections to the proposed annexation of the property
known as 1766 Sulphur Springs Ave (APN 009-350-024),
into the St. Helena Municipal Sewer District No. 1, MSD Annexation No. 151.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

None.

STATEMENT OF THE
PURPOSE:

Consideration of a resolution to set a public hearing to consider objections to the proposed annexation into the St.

Helena Municipal Sewer District No. 1.

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 for special district annexations 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 #10.4.

(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.

Additionally, copies of the resolution shall also be posted in three public places within the area to be annexed not earlier than the 60th day nor later than the 30th day prior to the hearing. Similarly, a copy of the resolution shall also be mailed, postage prepaid, to each person to whom land in the area to be annexed is assessed as such owner is shown on the last equalized county assessment roll, at the address as shown upon the roll, and to each person who has any interest in any land within the area to be annexed whose name and address and a designation of the land in which they are interested is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

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 also 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 May 13, 2025, 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 encroachment and building permits.

DISCUSSION:

The City of St. Helena Public Works has received an annexation application from the following party:
1766 Sulphur Springs LLC, owner of 1766 Sulphur Springs Avenue, St. Helena, CA (APN 009-350-024), has applied to be annexed into the St. Helena Municipal Sewer District No. 1, MSD Annexation No. 151.

The application fees have been collected. The location map for the property is attached.

Staff request City Council to consider the applicant's annexation request and order a public hearing to be scheduled for May 13, 2025.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

Agenda Item #10.4.

Annexations to the District provide access to the City's sanitary sewer and wastewater treatment facilities. The City is agreeable to the abandonment of the onsite wastewater treatment system (septic system).

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:

Exhibit A
Resolution
Agenda Item #10.4.

1270.37'±
'-~a
~"-' V 3'a v...,

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

9. 10.

11. 12.

13. 14.

15. 16.

17. 18.

19. 20.

21. N43'41'W
N46'42'20"E
S89'26'W
R=/70.70'
S4J'18'W
R=230'
S69'22'W
R=830'
N88'34'W
R=430'
R=430'
R=440'
R=440'
S85'18'W
R=270'
S4fi04'W
S4fi04'W
N4fi34'10"E
N89'26'W
N46'43'E
S4fi26'30"W

13.53'
116.38'
243.73'±
L=/37.44'

21.93'
L=104.64'

69.61'
L=319.66'
293.21'
L=31.03'
L=176.61'
L=255.81'
L=3.75'
162.07'
L=/84.96'

82.50'
213.34'
295.57'
216.65'±
170.00'
170.00' S4'T02'W
1409.31'

DETAIL B
SCALE:1"=200'
S45'45'W
LIA 2005-19
@

11.64 Ac.±
624.54'±
S46'34'10"E ,
/
111.!,-• I
20' 20'
I N4fi49 E
5R/S93-3
@
5 .JJ
z3P /t.11.,,-2 I
p11'1 z3P I
@2~~1-54 :

12.90Ac.± I

DETAIL A
SCALE=/" 100'
I
I
I
)
SULPHUR SPRINGS AVE.
920.82

COUNTY ASSESSOR'S PARCEL MAP
PTN. RANCHO CARNE HUMANA
R.M. BK. D OF PATENTS, PG. 127
N4fi44'53"E 1274.57'
213.84' 1254.57'
23R/S17

16.25 Ac.±
0 0 0

5.03 Ac. 5.03 Ac.
3000 "' .34'
.00
85001 SEE DETAIL A
fiJ 1
----
6i!J 2
Tax Area Code
3000, 3002
85001
,7 ,,
~
'5?'0, V,
@
9-35
@
i-:
(/') I
_ _ s~~~ __________________ _ AYf _ _
N4'T02 E
@)

13.88 Ac.±
350-29 TRA CHG 12-31-15

REVISION DATE
S42'19'42"£
408.JO'
i
I 1
9-35
1766 Sulphur Springs Ave
Agenda Item #10.4.

CITY OF ST. HELENA
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-
CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION TO SET A PUBLIC HEARING FOR 6:00 P.M. ON TUESDAY, MAY 13, 2025, TO CONSIDER OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 1766 SULPHUR SPRINGS AVENUE, ST.

HELENA, CA (APN 009-350-024), INTO THE ST. HELENA MUNICIPAL SEWER DISTRICT NO. 1, MSD ANNEXATION NO. 151

RECITALS
A. The owner of 1766 Sulphur Springs Avenue, St. Helena, CA (APN 009-350-024) has requested annexation into the St. Helena Municipal Sewer District No. 1, MSD No. 151; and
B. The legal boundary for the property to be annexed is provided in Exhibit A.

RESOLUTION
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of St. Helena resolves as follows:

1. The City Council declares that the areas to be annexed to the district will be benefited by such annexation.

2. A hearing to consider any objection to the proposed annexation of the property into the City of St. Helena Municipal Sewer District No. 1 is hereby set for Tuesday, May 13, 2025, commencing at 6:00 p.m. or soon thereafter as the matter can be heard, at the Vintage Hall Board Room, 465 Main Street, St. Helena, CA.

3. The City Clerk shall cause a certified copy of this resolution, together with the names of the members of the City Council voting for and against it, to be published once a week for two consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 4610.

4. The City Clerk shall cause a certified copy of this resolution to be mailed to each person to whom land in the area to be annexed is assessed as such owner as shown on the last county assessment roll in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 4610.

Approved at a Regular Meeting of the St. Helena City Council on March 11, 2025, by the following vote:

Agenda Item #10.4.

Mayor Paul Dohring: _____
Vice Mayor Michelle Deasy: _____
Council Member Billy Summers: _____
Council Member Aaron Barak: _____
Council Member Kate Spadarotto: _____
APPROVED: ATTEST:
______________________ _____________________
Paul Jamison Dohring, Mayor City Clerk
Agenda Item #10.4.

Agenda Report to the City Council
Agenda Section: OLD BUSINESS
Department: Administration
DATE: March 11, 2025
FROM: April Mitts, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Discussion and direction to have a non-voting City Council liaison to Water/Wastewater Advisory Committee.

RECOMMENDED
ACTION:

Discuss and assign a City Council member to the
Water/Wastewater Advisory Committee as a non-voting
liaison.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
1/14/24 - City Council Approved the Formation of
Water/Wastewater Advisory Committee
2/11/25 - City Council appointed 5 members and 1
alternate to the Water/Wastewater Committee
2/25/25 - City Council requested an item be brought back to designate a non-voting liaison

STATEMENT OF THE
PURPOSE:

Designate a City Council non-voting liaison to the
Water/Wastewater Advisory Committee.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND:

The City Council annually, and as needed, reviews the list of assignments to determine interest in serving as the City's representative to the various boards, commissions, and committees throughout the County.

Unless predetermined through bylaws and/or policy, the Council's practice has been to determine assignments (representatives and alternates) through a process of discussion and consensus.

DISCUSSION:

On February 25, 2025, Council Member Deasy, supported by the rest of the Council, requested an item be brought back to City Council to designate a non-voting City Council liaison to the newly formed Water-Wastewater Advisory Committee.

The Committee consists of five members and one alternate. The Committee will operate on a 24-month trial period starting in March 2025, meeting every two months (minimum of 10 meetings) with more frequent meetings initially.

The Committee had its first meeting on 2/28/25 and has scheduled additional meetings.

The Water-Wastewater Committee will be dealing with several important issues and it would benefit from having a specific councilmember assigned as a liaison. The liaison's role is to take information to and from the committee and the council.

Agenda Item #12.1.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: N/A
GOAL:

Goal 4: Provide Effective Community Information & Opportunities for Engagement DOCUMENTS ATTACHMENTS:

Resolution - Water.Wastewater Advisory Committee Composition Agenda Item #12.1.

CITY OF ST. HELENA
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST.

HELENA UPDATING THE COMPOSITION OF THE

WATER/WASTEWATER ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO INCLUDE ONE
NON-VOTING COUNCIL MEMBER LIAISON.

RECITALS
A. The City of St. Helena is committed to promoting transparent governance and maintaining sound financial practices; and
B. In accordance with several City Council goals, staff was directed to bring a Water/Wastewater Advisory Committee recommendation to City Council for consideration; and
C. On February 11, 2025, the City Council appointed 5 members and one alternate member to the Water/Wastewater Advisory Committee; and D. The Water/Wastewater Advisory Committee will be engaged with several important issues that would benefit from having a specific councilmember assigned as a liaison; and
E. On February 25,2025, the City Council requested and item be brought back to council to update the composition of the Committee to include a non-voting City Council liaison.

RESOLUTION
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of St. Helena resolves as follows:

1. Updates the composition of the Water/Wastewater Advisory Committee to five residents as regular members, one resident as an alternate member, and one non-voting City Council liaison.

Approved at a Regular Meeting of the St. Helena City Council on March 11, 2025, by the following vote:

Agenda Item #12.1.

Mayor Paul Dohring: _____
Vice Mayor Michelle Deasy: _____
Council Member Aaron Barak: _____
Council Member Kate Spadarotto: _____
Council Member Billy Summers: _____
APPROVED: ATTEST:
______________________ ________________________
Paul Jamison Dohring, Mayor Cindy Tzafopoulos, City Clerk Agenda Item #12.1.

Agenda Report to the City Council
Agenda Section: OLD BUSINESS
Department: Administration
DATE: March 11, 2025
FROM: April Mitts, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Provide an Updated Analysis of the City's Revenues and Expenditures to Determine the Extent of the Structural
Deficit.

RECOMMENDED
ACTION:

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

January 14, 2025 - Direction to staff to bring an information item back to City Council.

January 28, 2025 - Staff updated City Council on
anticipated timeline.

STATEMENT OF THE
PURPOSE:

Provide information requested by City Council regarding the City's structural deficit.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: None.

BACKGROUND:

On January 14, 2025, Council Member Barak requested that staff undertake an analysis to define the true extent of the structural deficit. In accordance with the adopted City Council rules of procedure for the conduct at Council Meetings any Council Member may request that an item be considered on a future agenda and, upon agreement by a second Council Member, the item shall be placed on the soonest practical regularly scheduled Council meeting as determined by the City Manager.

The purpose of the request is to have staff conduct an analysis that will create a basis for the understanding of the City's financial health, serve as the foundation for better decision-making on budgeting and revenue generation that could be brought to voters.

The request is to:

1. Provide a detailed accounting of all changes to the City's financial obligations over the past two fiscal years, including employee raises, additional headcount, and discretionary spending approved by the previous City Council.

2. Update the forecast for long-term liabilities, factoring in the fiscal impacts of recent decisions and how they align with earlier deficit projections.

3. Categorize costs transparently into essential services versus aspirational goals to provide clarity for both the Council and residents.

Agenda Item #12.2.

Following the Council meeting, staff reviewed the request and started the process of consolidating the requested information. On January 28, 2025, staff reported to City Council that this item would be brought back to Council no later than March 25, 2025.

DISCUSSION:

1. Provide a detailed accounting of all changes to the City's financial obligations over the past two fiscal years, including employee raises, additional headcount, and discretionary spending approved by the previous City Council.

A detailed list of various personnel actions is included in Attachment 1. The City's headcount has not changed since 2009 to 2024-a 15-year period-except for two positions in the Public Works Department and the conversion of staff in the Fire Department, which added 12.12 Full-time Equivalents (FTE) (6 full-time firefighters and

6.12 FTE part-time firefighters).

Recognizing the need for additional staffing support in Public Works field operations, the City added a Public Works Maintenance Worker to the Streets Division in Fiscal Year 2024. Additionally, a Public Works Financial Analyst position was created to assist with contract tracking for the City’s large Capital Improvement Program.

In 2009, the City had 82.3 employees and currently the City has 93.7 authorized Fulltime Equivalent (FTE) positions including 81 full-time positions and 40 factionalize positions. In 2024 the city added two positions in Public Works to enhance streets maintenance and assist with the financial accounting of capital improvement plan projects. These changes are reflected in Chart 1.

Chart 1 - YOY Change in Positions
Fiscal Year Full-time
Employees
Full-time
Equivalent
Percentage
Change in Fulltime Positions
2004 66.3 75.9
2009 74.3 82.3 12.1%
2015 59.1 67.4 - 20.5%
2019 70.7 83.2 19.6%
2023 78.8 91.7 11.5%
2024 80.8 93.7 2.5%
In 2024 the city added two positions in Public Works to enhance streets maintenance and assist with the financial accounting of capital improvement plan projects. These changes are reflected in Chart 1.

The request also seeks a list of “discretionary” spending. There are two broad categories of potentially discretional spending: (1) staffing and (2) other spending.

Staffing – As it relates to staffing, there are two categories: essential and non-essential (e.g. “discretionary”). A literal interpretation would categorize as non-essential services Agenda Item #12.2.

like Parks & Recreation and Library services/programming. These functions are vital for the community but are not essential in the same regards as public safety, human resources, finance, public works, and building and planning.

Other Spending – This category is very broad and can be defined many ways. One example is the Police Department budget. The City budgets for the replacement of police vehicles and also budgets for certain give-away items such as pens or gunlocks.

Both expenses can be considered to be discretionary; however, the City would want to continue to purchase vehicles as well as purchase giveaways. This is a worthy discussion when there are insufficient revenues.

Every community needs to have some level of recreation, and a police department needs to be able to devote a small amount of money for giveaways. So, it may be helpful to have a council-level discussion on what the definition of “discretionary” is so that staff can provide data that is responsive to that intent. Arriving at such a definition will also be helpful in establishing parameters for future expenditures. For the purposes of this exercise, staff has interpreted that the current level and use of funds is an appropriate baseline budget.

2. Update the forecast for long-term liabilities, factoring in the fiscal impacts of recent decisions and how they align with earlier deficit projections.

The estimates of long-term liabilities/needs list has evolved over the last several years and now totals $145 million as of February 27, 2025. Of this amount the City has identified $77 million in funding leaving $68 million unfunded over the next 20-years. Not only should the list of items need to be verified to ensure their comprehensiveness and reasonableness, but the estimate of each item needs to be reevaluated for accuracy.

Recently, it has become clear that the sewer system in the city is a greater state of disrepair than previously thought and continues to get overwhelmed during heavy rains.

This will require a significant amount of investment and until they are completed, the city will likely be levied fines as a result of rainy season discharges into the Napa river.

Additionally, the cost of rehabilitation of the stormwater system has not been included in the long-term needs of $145 million. Similarly, other items may also be underestimated.

Therefore, this is an area that would benefit from a review from the new Finance Committee because a community-wide agreement is important to determining the annual financial obligation for these long-term liabilities/needs. Also, it would be helpful for the committee to identify options for revenue sources to address the needs.

3. Categorize costs transparently into essential services versus aspirational goals to provide clarity for both the Council and residents.

This request, a subset of the broader fiscal analysis, focuses on assessing the city's ongoing fiscal needs and structural deficit. The following attempts to calculate of costs for “essential services” vs. “aspirational goals”. As stated earlier, for the purposes of this Agenda Item #12.2.

exercise, staff is accepting the current expenditure and staffing levels as being the base level. The focus will be on providing analysis and estimate of the structural deficit.

Compensation
The 2023 BakerTilly report incorporated staff estimates of future needs, such as the anticipated hiring of up to 10 new positions and paying at the 75th. This was a proactive measure intended to create a budget standard to enable the city to meet community expectations as it relates to service delivery and maintenance of the built environment (non-water-wastewater enterprise funds). This was because the city was challenged with hiring and keeping employees and that was having a detrimental impact on service delivery and the city’s ability to complete projects.

Increasing staff compensation to above median can be seen as aspirational; however, it can also be seen as essential due to the extreme staffing challenges experienced by the City as noted below.

The following chart shows the compensation level of three of the city’s groups relative to the market in 2022. It shows double digit deviations and how significantly lower the city’s salary was from the competition.

Chart 2 - Market Comparison
Classification Group Average % +/- Median Average % +/- 75th Percentile
SHEA -12.2% -19.2%
POA -21.0% -30.1%
Mid-Managers/Exec. -12.4% -19.4%
The Police Officer’s Association (POA) was 21% below Market Median and 30% below the 75th percentile. General employees and mid-managers and executives were approximately 12% below the Market Median. This means that only 38% of comparative positions paid less than St. Helena. So, we could only hope to attract potential employees from the 38% who paid less. When our geographical location is factored, it made the city a less desirable employer. Unsurprisingly, the vacancy rate hit 19.7% in late 2022.

The chart illustrates that the city’s employees were significantly underpaid relative to the market, hindering recruitment and retention of qualified staff. To address this, the city council and staff recognized the need for a compensation strategy that was competitive and incorporated the reality of the geographical location of the city was necessary. The below-market pay led to high turnover in certain roles, policy stagnation, internal inconsistency, loss of institutional knowledge, lack of documentation, and operational challenges. These issues resulted in a lack of progress on critical infrastructure projects, inadequate follow-through on planning efforts, and a generally short-term outlook. The insufficient compensation also prevented the city from attracting and retaining top talent, which exacerbated these negative outcomes and discouraged investment by developers/businesses.

Agenda Item #12.2.

City data shows recruitment and retention challenges spanning over a decade. At its peak, the city’s nearly 20% vacancy rate meant that one in five positions remained unfilled, straining staff and causing burnout and contributing to resignations. The city at that point was operating with 20% fewer staff than authorized. Some departments, like the Police Department, faced even higher vacancies. The departure of experienced officers to jurisdictions offering significantly better compensation compounded this issue. In 2023, two out of eight Police Officer positions were vacant, with another on medical leave, forcing mandatory overtime and increasing physical and mental fatigue, morale issues, and an increased risk to public safety.

High vacancies also led to errors and delays, frustrating residents who experience disruptions in services. Frequent turnover disrupted team efficiency and contributed to internal inefficiencies, with about 60% of employees having less than 5 years of tenure.

The chart below illustrates employee tenure by workgroup.

Chart 3 - Employee Longevity
Department Total Employees Percentage < 5 Year
Administrative Services 6 66.7%
City Clerk 2 50.0%
City Manager 2 50.0%
Community Development 5 40.0%
Community Services 7 71.4%
Fire 8 25.0%
Police 15 33.3%
Public Works - Administration 9 77.8%
Public Works - Buildings &
Streets 4 100.0%
Public Works - Parks & Trees 5 80.0%
Public Works - Wastewater
Treatment 2 50.0%
Public Works - Water Distribution 4 100.0%
Public Works - Water Treatment 3 66.7%
Total 72 59.7%
The longevity data above should be disconcerting for any public agency, where longterm institutional knowledge is particularly crucial. For instance, understanding the history of specific land development or relationships with long-standing community members can significantly impact decision-making and future interactions. For example, familiarity of a police officer with a youth at 15 can be invaluable when the same officer interacts with the person 10 years later at 25.

The city has historically struggled to attract qualified candidates for vacant positions.

This was especially concerning in the Police Officer classification, where lowering standards was not an option. Only after the City Council approved an unprecedented Agenda Item #12.2.

19% salary increase did the city begin to see an influx of qualified candidates. This pattern has been repeated in other departments. For example, the Finance Department is currently facing severe strain with three vacancies, adding pressure on the remaining three staff members as they work on the analysis for long-term financial decisions, labor negotiations, and the upcoming FY 2025-26 & FY 2026-27 budget. As a result of the city council increasing compensation to city employees, the vacancy rate has improved overall (as of March 1, 2025 9.9%), and stability in the City’s executive team is now enabling progress in key areas.

In summary, the city’s compensation philosophy needed to be evaluated. The high cost of housing in St. Helena, the limited availability of middle-market housing, and the city’s location relative to population centers and lack of public transportation, all necessitate a compensation philosophy review.

Staff had previously recommended setting compensation at the 75th percentile of the market, aligning with the strategies of other jurisdictions aiming to be employers of choice and the delivery of excellent services. An alternative could be pegging salaries to the Market Median and then giving stipends (which are not tied to pensions and therefore cheaper for the city in the long run) or other incentives to induce employees to purchase a residence within a certain radius of the city. Regardless of which policy is eventually selected, it remains essential to adjust compensation for the region’s high housing costs and the need to recruit employees from over 30 minutes away.

Staffing Levels & Compensation
If the goal is to determine the level of staffing that would provide for average level services to the community, the city’s leadership team believes the City would needs about 98.2 FTE. We therefore consider this to be the base level of staffing. This means that 4.5 new positions would need to be added as follows:

Chart 4 - Additional Staffing Needs
Classification Total Comp.

Estimate
Count Total
1 Library Associate 110,000 1.0 110,000
2 Police Officer 200,000 1.0 200,000
3 Accounting Technician 125,000 1.0 125,000
4 Recreation
Coordinator* 100,000 0.5 50,000
5 HR Manager 200,000 1.0 200,000
735,000 4.5 685,000
*Increasing a part-time position to full-time position.

In comparing the cost of future oriented, “aspirational” level of staffing (10 full time positions with a compensation philosophy of 75th percentile) and other costs, as shown below, we estimate that the marginal cost would be $3,039,222 million higher than the current level of cost for staffing. The more modest level of staffing (the addition to 4.5 Agenda Item #12.2.

positions and a compensation philosophy of Market Median) would cost approximately $1,396,119.

The following two charts provide the details of the two scenarios. The cost would go up by between $1.4 million and $3 million.

Chart 5 - Addition of 10 Positions and Wages at 75th Percentile Description Estimated Costs
Current Positions 17,180,029
Additional Positions (10) 1,490,800
Cost of 75th Percentile 1,548,422
Capital Asset Replacement 1,000,000
Unfunded Liabilities 500,000
Updated Cost $21,719,251
Net Cost 4,539,222
Chart 6 - Addition of 4.5 Positions and Wages at Market Median Description Estimated Costs
Current Positions 17,180,029
Additional Positions (4.5) 726,599
Cost of Market Median 669,520
Capital Asset Replacement 1,000,000
Unfunded Liabilities 500,000
Updated Cost $20,076,148
Net Cost 2,896,119
The summary chart below shows that the range of the structural deficit is approximately $6 and $8 million when the cost of new positions, market-oriented compensation philosophy, and prudent budgeting for liabilities and the replacement of capital items is added (excluding CIP).

Chart 7 - Structural Deficit Range
Description Market Median 75th Percentile
Current Staffing Cost 17,180,029 17,180,029
New Total Cost 20,076,148 21,719,251
Difference 2,896,119 4,539,222
Current Deficit 3,200,000 3,200,000
Structural Deficit $6,096,119 $7,739,222
As the chart above shows, when items such as unfunded liabilities, capital asset replacement, and cost of paying for all employees plus 4.5 additional positions are factored, the structural deficit is approximately $6.1 million.

This estimate does not consider the geographical location of the city. When that is factored, the compensation needs to be higher, perhaps as high as the 75th percentile.

So, the range for the annual structural deficit is between $6.1 million and $7.7 million.

Agenda Item #12.2.

Capital Improvement Needs
The structural deficit noted above does not include investment in other general fund infrastructure as noted in the following reports:
 2017 Facilities Needs Assessment
 2021 Integrated Utility Master Plan
 2017 ADA Transition Plan
 Adopted General Plan
 Adopted CIP (Years 1 – 5)
 Pavement Management Technical Assistance Program (P-TAP) Report The February 2023 BakerTilly Report also included the long-term capital needs of the City utilizing the above resources. Staff has updated the 20-year infrastructure cost estimates and estimated revenues applying cost escalators based on CPI, the FY 2025 adopted CIP, and updated PTAP-24 Report (Roads). The comprehensive project list is included in Attachment 3 and the following chart provides a summary of the estimated costs, estimated funding available, and the estimated funding shortfall (20-year and annual). Please note there are several areas where studies are underway, and project estimates are unknown.

Chart 8 - Capital Improvement Needs
FY25 Adopted CIP (Years 1 - 5) Other Identified Projects (Years 1 - 20) Capital
Projects
20-Year Budget Available
Funding
Shortfal
l
Budget Available
Funding Shortfall
20-Year
Shortfall
Streets 14,307,80
4 14,307,80
4 - 79,476,055 50,124,24
1 (29,351,814
)
(29,351,814
)
Stormwate
r
1,364,986 1,364,986 - 19,182,000 10,500,00
0 (8,682,000) (8,682,000)
Civic 964,418 865,051 (89,367) 30,260,120 -
(30,260,120
)
(30,349,487
)
Subtotals
:
16,627,20
8 16,537,84
1 (89,367) 128,918,17
5 60,624,24
1 (68,293,934
)
(68,383,301
)
General Fund Estimated Annual Shortfall
(3,419,165)
If the full range of projects are completed, the estimated 20-year deficit is $68 million, or approximately $3.4 million annually, which will be in addition to the staffing/compensation range identified above.

The above structural deficit amounts are without any allowance for unanticipated expenditures and one-time needs such as the items listed below which the City is currently unable to fund due to budget constraints in the General Fund. There are also severe constraints in the Water and Wastewater funds.

Cost of the unfunded GF CIP
 Improved lighting in library - $100,000
 Design, study, and/or installation of public EV chargers - $100,000 Agenda Item #12.2.

 Fire Station Repaint - $100,000 (unfunded amount $86,000)  Asset Management System Development/Implementation - $115,000  Increase height of Corporation Yard above flood level - $500,000 The following are examples of critical improvements needed in the water fund that are currently unfunded:
 Water Treatment Plant Condition Assessment - $100,000  Bell House Valve Replacement - $470,000
 Water System SCADA Improvements - $800,000
November 2025 Ballot Measure - timeline
Based upon various discussions there seems to be a desire to create one of more stable revenue streams. Assuming that the city council wants to place a ballot item in this calendar year, it will require the declaration of a fiscal emergency and the scheduling of the measure on November 4, 2025. Council must call for the election at least 88 days prior to the intended election date which is Friday, August 8, 2025.

However, this will be earlier due to the County's schedule.

Dates Item
May 27, 2025 (Estimated Date) Declare Fiscal Emergency
June 24, 2025 City Council Places Measure on Ballot (at least 88 days prior to election)
July 29, 2025
County BOS approval, permitting the county
elections official to render specified services to the
City relating to the conduct of an election
November 4, 2025 Election
Because the County does not hold off-year election this would be a city special election specific just for St. Helena and the City would contract with the county to conduct the election. Cost would range from $35,000 to $90,000 which is dependent on choosing a manual county or use of County voting system. This does not include cost for polling or public education consultants.

If the city council wants to explore the possibility of having a revenue measure for a November 4, 2025 off-cycle election, staff can be directed to return with additional information. This could include data on the revenue potential of each option, more detailed timeline, previous polling data and the conduct of new polling, etc.

Committee Input:

Staff requests the new Finance Advisory Committee and/or Water/Wastewater Advisory Committee consider the following topics for analysis and input. It would be ideal to receive recommendations from the committee which can be incorporated into policy formulation and budgetary considerations.

Item Advisory
Committee
Agenda Item #12.2.

1 Verification of the list of long-term liabilities and needs Finance 2 Propose revenue source for each tranche of
liabilities/capital needs Finance
3 Use of Cost Allocation Plan to determine allocation of personnel costs to various funds Finance
4 Input on compensation philosophy to be competitive and address the geographical location of the City (Median, 75th Percentile, other)
Finance
5 Reprioritization of CIP projects to cope with reduced revenue collections in the Water Fund Water/Wastewater
6 Evaluation of options to consider reduction of water rates Water/Wastewater ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

None
GOAL:

Goal 1: Strengthen Financial Sustainability
Goal 5: Enhance Quality of Life
Goal 6: Improve Employee Recruitment, Retention, & Morale Goal 7: Enhance Organizational Effectiveness
DOCUMENTS ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1 - Staffing Updates
Attachment 3 - Long-term Capital Needs List
Agenda Item #12.2.

101 561 571 TOTAL

FREEZE /UNFREEZE
Freeze HR Manager for Remainder of FY 23 9/13/2022 (121,774) (37,469) (28,102) Position frozen to unfreeze the Parks & Trees Superintendent position. Still frozen position
Unfreeze Parks & Trees Superientedent for remainder of FY 23 9/13/2022 112,628 - - Meet community expectations Freeze Assistant to the City Manager for remainder of FY 25 11/12/2024 (135,496) (56,457) (33,874) To fund the Assistant Planner Position Unfreeze Planner position in Community Development Department 11/12/2024 149,628 - - Aid with Economic Developments SUB-TOTAL 4,986 (93,926) (61,976) (150,916)
RAISE
Increase Salary Range for Director of Public Works 9/13/2022 6,109 6,109 6,109 Aid with Retention & Align with Community Development Director Position Increase Salary Range for Senior Civil Engineer 9/13/2022 16,802 5,469 5,498 Aid with Recruitment & Retention, never filled and downgraded to CIP Project Manager Position.

Increase Salary Range for Finance Manager 1/10/2023 - - - **Note: Budget was for Assistant Administrative Services Director action had no budget impact.

Chief Building Official receive a 12.8% increase and other Unrepresented receive 10% increase 7/25/2023 145,906 21,145 15,337 Aid with Retention Underground Utilities position be brought to Market Median 7/25/2023 - Aid with Recruitment & Retention, *position still unfilled Treatment Plant Classifications be brought to the 75th percentile 7/25/2023 - Aid with Recruitment & Retention, *CPO for Wastewater still not filled Police Officer & Sergeant classifications receive a 19.4% increase and 14.8% increase respectively 7/25/2023 133,917 - - Aid with Recruitment & Retention Adopt Pay Schedule for PT Firefirefights to match FT Firefighter Hourly Rates 8/22/2023 66,500 - - Aligned salaries with Full-time salaries (same duties and responsibilities) Band Project Manager, PW Ops Manager, Senior Planner, and Treatment Manager Positions 8/22/2023 18,700 1,600 1,700 Aid with Recruitment & Retention and similarities of positions.

Underground Utilities position to be brought above market median 2/27/2024 879 5,271 2,635 Aid with Recruitment & Retention. Ongoing vacancy, unable to fill position Sign-on and Retention Bonus for the Water CPO and WW CPO 4/23/2024 25,000 25,000 Ongoing difficulty filling the position - Paid over 36-month period SUB-TOTAL 388,813 127,594 112,279 628,686

RE-CLASSIFICATION/NEW CLASSIFICATION
Reclassify Planning & Building Director to Director of Community Development 9/13/2022 15,308 - - Additional duties added to position Reclassification of Parks & Recreation Director to Community Services Director 4/9/2024 10,246 - - Additional duties added to position Reclassification of Library Director to Deputy Community Services Director - Library 4/9/2024 7,152 - - Product of new Community Services Department and aid Succession Planning Reclassification of Assistant to the City Manager to Program Manager 4/9/2024 7,748 - - Additional duties added to the position and aid with new functions of the Community Services Department
Reclassify Vacant Recreation Supervisor Position to Recreation Coordinator Position 5/14/2024 - - - **Note - Did not fund position Reclassify Assistant Public Works Director - Operations to Deputy City Manager 11/12/2024 2,142 1,606 1,606 Aid with Recruitment & Retention Reclassify CSO to Property & Evidence Technicial and increase position from 0.75 to 1 11/12/2024 5,298 - - Aid with Recruitment & Retention and better aligns with position duties Human Resources Analyst Classification & Establish Salary Range 9/13/2022 17,072 5,283 3,940 **Note: Downgraded back to HR Techncian, cost decrease noted in FY 25 mid-cycle budget update
Administrative Analyst Position Classification & Establish Salary Range 9/13/2022 28,207 8,059 4,030 Aid with Recruitment & Retention Part-Time Revised Salary Schedule Casual Worker 12/12/2023 11,126 - - COLA adjustment Addition of Part-time Associate Classifications (Technical, Professional, and Executive) 12/12/2023 - - - Provide City flexibility when vacancies occur - No Budget associated, use vacancy savings to fund
SUB-TOTAL 104,299 14,948 9,576 128,823

REALLOCATION OF FUNDING
Reallocate funding from vacant PW Mgmt Analyst to fund an additional Assistant to the CM Position 4/11/2023 51,561 (16,214) (3,264) Several failed recruitments for PW Mgmt Analyst. Utilized additonal Asst. to the CM position to assist with PW Mgmt. Analyst duties
SUB-TOTAL 51,561 (16,214) (3,264) 32,083

NEW POSITION
Addition of Recreation Manager 2/13/2024 59,120 - - Aid with retention and succession planning.

Temp Overhire Police Officer 9/12/2023 86,950 - - Operational necessity Officer - DUI Grant 1/23/2024 98,069 - - **Note: This is grant funded Temp Overhire Underground Utilities Superintendent 9/12/2023 - 26,900 13,450 **Note: Did not do, incumbent resigned before recruitment was posted Part-Time Recreation Staffing 1/23/2024 15,000 - - Operational necessity due to additional programming (e.g. summer concerts, programs, and holidays). Offset by increased revenue collections.

Addition of Public Works Financial Analyst Position 1/23/2024 47,539 71,309 39,616 Operational necessity SUB-TOTAL 306,678 98,209 53,066 457,953
TOTALS 856,337 130,611 109,681 1,096,629
63,000 56,000
Cost/(Saving)
Position Date to CC Justification
ATTACHMENT 1
Agenda Item #12.2.

1 x costs 20-year costs
1 x costs 20-year costs
FY 25 New WWTP/Napa River Enbankment Rehab
500,000 -
FY 25 New Dowdell Stormdrain Outfall
500,000 -
FY 25 New Groundwater Recharge Study to Utilize Stormwater Runoff 200,000 - Stormwater Systems Improvements (SD-1A through SD-12) 2021 Integrated Utility Master Plan 9,600,000 - Stormwater Systems Rehabilitation and Replacement (SD-1A through SD-12) 2021 Integrated Utility Master Plan 950,000 - SDRR-1 Storm Drain Rehabilitation and Replacement 2021 Integrated Utility Master Plan 7,432,000 - 19,182,000 -
1 x costs 20-year costs
New City Hall* 15,000,000 -
Carnegie Building - year costs 2017 Facilities Needs Assessment - 1,632,137 Fire Station - 20 year costs 2017 Facilities Needs Assessment - 5,609,812 Scout Hall - 20 year costs 2017 Facilities Needs Assessment - 533,252 Head Start Building - 20 year costs 2017 Facilities Needs Assessment - 835,372 Public Works Corporation Yard - 20 year costs 2017 Facilities Needs Assessment - 1,256,444 Signorelli Barn - 20 year costs 2017 Facilities Needs Assessment - 208,965 Library - 20 year costs 2017 Facilities Needs Assessment - 3,220,781 Lyman Park - 20 year costs 2017 Facilities Needs Assessment - 631,141 Lyman Park Upgrades/Maintenance** 170,000 -
Compliance ADA Transition Plan - Facilities***
ADA Transition Plan 06.27.17
Esclators Applied through FY 25 (1.39)
City Hall/Police Station/Vintage Hall
Removed
- 1,056,678
Compliance Install/maintain Recycling Receptacles downtown and in all public parks and major streets General Plan - PF4.B 75,000 30,539 15,245,000 15,015,120
1 x costs 20-year costs
Health & Safety Downton Sidewalk Improvements - Phase II & Phase III FY 2022 CIP (Notes Section) 11,500,000 - Enhancement Pavement Restoration to PCI of 78 (currently at 53) years: 1 - 5 PTAP-24 Report, 20-Year CIP Original - 10,798,090 Enhancement Pavement Restoration to PCI of 78: years 6 - 20 PTAP-24 Report, 20-Year CIP Original - 36,177,965 Health & Safety Bridge: Oak Avenue extension to Grayson. 10,000,000 - Enhancement Bridge: Adams Street extension to Silverado Trail 8,000,000 - Health & Safety Bridge: New Pratt Avenue Bridge 3,000,000 - 32,500,000 46,976,055

STORMDRAIN

UNFUNDED

STORMDRAIN TOTALS

CIVIC TOTALS

STREETS TOTALS

STREETS
CIVIC
*Used Financing Civic Infrastructure Task Force 2020 report - City Hall costs $11 million + 5% escalator each year for 2021-2027. Rounded to $15 million **TBD - based on Parks Master Plan scheduled for FY 24
***Park Upgrades may be include in the Parks Master Plan Document Category Project Source Document
Estimated Costs
ATTACHMENT 3
Agenda Item #12.2.

ANALYSIS OF

STRUCTURAL DEFICIT

AND FINANCIAL HEALTH
City of St. Helena – Fiscal Analysis Report
February 2025
Agenda Item #12.2.

AGENDA
• Review staffing data
• Receive estimates for Structural Deficit
Agenda Item #12.2.

PURPOSE OF THE REQUEST
• GOAL:
• Conduct a detailed analysis to understand the City's financial health for better decision-making. • KEY OUTCOMES:

1. Analyze changes to financial obligations in the past two fiscal years.

2. Update long-term liabilities forecast.

3. Categorize costs into essential services vs. aspirational goals.

4. Basis for potential November 2025 revenue measure.

Agenda Item #12.2.

KEY FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS CHANGES
• PERSONNEL CHANGES:
• 6 full-time firefighters added since 2009.
• 2 additional positions in Public Works in 2024.
• Resulting in staffing increase from 82.3 FTEs to 93.7 FTEs, • This includes 81 full-time positions.

Agenda Item #12.2.

SALARY DIFFERENTIAL – 2022
Classification Group Average % +/-
Median
Average % +/-
75th Percentile
SHEA -12.2% -19.2%
POA -21.0% -30.1%
Mid-Managers/Exec. -12.4% -19.4%
Agenda Item #12.2.

STAFF

LONGEVITY
Department Total
Employees
Percentage
< 5 Year
Administrative Services 6 66.7%
City Clerk 2 50.0%
City Manager 2 50.0%
Community Development 5 40.0%
Community Services 7 71.4%
Fire 8 25.0%
Police 15 33.3%
Public Works - Administration 9 77.8%
Public Works - Buildings & Streets 4 100.0%
Public Works - Parks & Trees 5 80.0%
Public Works - Wastewater Treatment 2 50.0%
Public Works - Water Distribution 4 100.0%
Public Works - Water Treatment 3 66.7%
Total 72 59.7%
Agenda Item #12.2.

RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION IMPACTS
• 20% vacancy rate in 2022, leading to operational inefficiencies. • High turnover in key positions including Police and Finance. • Additional pressure on remaining staff.
• Projects did not get completed and policy lethargy
Agenda Item #12.2.

CURRENT VACANCY RATE
• 9.9% at the time report was written
• As of today it is 8.7%
Agenda Item #12.2.

COMPONENTS OF BASE BUDGET
Items Included
• Current Staffing Cost
• Additional Positions
• Compensation philosophy
• Capital Asset Replacement
• Unfunded Liability
Items Excluded
• Vehicle License Fee (VLF) $1M
• Annual Cost of GF CIP $3.4M
Agenda Item #12.2.

ADDITION OF 4.5 POSITIONS & MEDIAN
Addition of 4.5 positions and wages at Market Median
Costs
Current Positions 17,180,029
Additional Positions (4.5) 685,000
Cost of Market Median 669,520
Capital Asset Replacement 1,000,000
Unfunded Liabilities 500,000
Updated Cost $20,034,549
Net Cost 2,854,520
Agenda Item #12.2.

NEW
POSITIONS Classification Total Comp.

Cost
Count Total
1 Library Associate 110,000 1 110,000
2 Police Officer 200,000 1 200,000
3 Accounting Technician 125,000 1 125,000
4 Recreation Coordinator* 100,000 0.5 50,000
5 HR Manager 200,000 1 200,000
Total 735,000 4.5 685,000
* Increasing a part-time position to full-time position Agenda Item #12.2.

STAFFING FOR BASE LEVEL SERVICE
• Estimated need for 4.5 full-time positions.
• Market Median = $1,354,520.
• Market Median salaries + stipends for local housing incentives.

Agenda Item #12.2.

STRUCTURAL DEFICIT RANGE
Market Median
Current Staffing Cost 17,180,029
New Staffing Cost 20,034,549
Difference 2,854,520
Current Deficit 3,200,000
Base Structural Deficit $6,054,520
General Fund CIP Need 3,400,000
Possible VLF loss 1,000,000
Total Structural Deficit $10,454,520
Agenda Item #12.2.

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT NEEDS - GF
Capital Projects
20-Year Other Identified Projects (Years 1 - 20)
Budget Available
Funding Shortfall
Streets 79,476,055 50,124,241 (29,351,814)
Stormwater 19,182,000 10,500,000 (8,682,000)
Civic 30,260,120 - (30,260,120)
Subtotals: 128,918,175 60,624,241 (68,293,934)
General Fund Estimated Annual Shortfall (3,419,165)
Agenda Item #12.2.

STRUCTURAL DEFICIT ESTIMATE
• $6 million to 10 million
• Excludes unexpected expenditures and one-time needs.

Agenda Item #12.2.

UNFUNDED GENERAL FUND CIP NEEDS
• Fire Station Repaint - $100,000 (unfunded amount $86,000) • Asset Management System - $115,000
• Increase height of Corporation Yard above flood level - $500,000 • Design strategy for energy generation - $125,000
• Design, and/or installation of public EV chargers - $100,000 Agenda Item #12.2.

UNFUNDED WATER FUND CIP NEEDS
• Water Treatment Plant Condition Assessment - $100,000 • Bell House Valve Replacement - $470,000
• Water System SCADA Improvements - $800,000
Agenda Item #12.2.

KEY TAKEAWAYS
• Structural deficit range - $6-10 million.
• Staffing and compensation adjustments are key to addressing longterm financial health. • Upcoming ballot measure preparation timeline.
• NEXT STEPS:
• Further council discussions on financial strategies and potential revenue solutions.

Agenda Item #12.2.

POTENTIAL NEXT STEPS
• Consider additional revenue options.
• Prepare for November 2025 ballot measure.

Agenda Item #12.2.

NOVEMBER 2025 BALLOT MEASURE - TIMELINE
Dates Item
May 27, 2025 (Estimated Date) Declare Fiscal Emergency
June 24, 2025 City Council Places Measure on Ballot (at least 88 days prior to election)
July 29, 2025
County BOS approval, permitting the county
elections official to render specified services to the
City relating to the conduct of an election
November 4, 2025 Election
Agenda Item #12.2.

POTENTIAL COMMITTEE ASSISTANCE
Item Advisory
Committee
1 Verification of the list of long-term liabilities and needs Finance 2 Propose revenue source for each tranche of
liabilities/capital needs
Finance
3 Input on compensation philosophy to be competitive and address the geographical location of the city (Median, 75th percentile, housing assistance, other)
Finance
4 Use of Cost Allocation Plan to determine distribution of personnel costs to various funds
Finance
5 Re-prioritization of CIP projects to cope with reduced revenue in the Water Fund
Water/Wastewater
6 Evaluation of options to consider reduction of water rates Water/Wastewater Agenda Item #12.2.

QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS?
Agenda Item #12.2.

YOY CHANGE IN POSITIONS
Fiscal Year Full-time
Employees
Full-time
Equivalent
Percentage Change
in Full-time
Positions
2004 66.3 75.9
2009 74.3 82.3 12.1%
2015 59.1 67.4 - 20.5%
2019 70.7 83.2 19.6%
2023 78.8 91.7 11.5%
2024 80.8 93.7 2.5%
Agenda Item #12.2.

ADDITION OF 10 POSITIONS & 75TH PERCENTILE
Addition of 10 positions and wages at 75th Percentile
Costs
Current Positions 17,180,029
Additional Positions (10) 1,490,800
Cost of 75th Percentile 1,548,422
Capital Asset Replacement 1,000,000
Unfunded Liabilities 500,000
Updated Cost $21,719,251
Net Cost 4,539,222
Agenda Item #12.2.

Agenda Report to the City Council
Agenda Section: OLD BUSINESS
Department: Administration
DATE: March 11, 2025
FROM: Anil Comelo, City Manager
SUBJECT: Consider a Temporary Freeze on all New Hires, Salary Increases not Contractually Obligated, Reclassifications, and Discretionary Spending.

RECOMMENDED
ACTION:

Discuss and provide direction to staff

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

January 28, 2025 - City Council directed staff to bring item back to City Council for possible action.

STATEMENT OF THE
PURPOSE:

Provide direction to staff.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: None associated with this report. Fiscal impact of implementation would be dependent on City Council
direction.

BACKGROUND:

On January 28, 2025, Council Member Barak requested an item be brought back to City Council for discussion.

Discuss and consider issuing a temporary fiscal freeze on all new hires, salary increases (not contractually obligated), reclassifications, and discretionary spending until the City's financial situation is clarified, and sustainable funding solutions are in place to address the deficits. Additionally, proposing that the City Council would retain authority to approve exceptions on a case-by-case basis when such actions are deemed critical for public safety, legal compliance or liability or other urgent needs at the Council's discretion where delaying action would result in significant harm to the City or its residents.

All Council Members agreed to this request.

DISCUSSION:

The original motion included several areas for which specific action(s) were desired.

The following is staff’s response and analysis which provides information and descriptions of likely impacts.

Temporary Freeze on Vacant Positions: Staff recommends continued recruitment to fill all the following positions except for the Assistant Planner and the Underground Utilities Lead positions.

Agenda Item #12.3.

Position
General
Fund Full
Cost
Water
Fund Full
Cost
Wastewater
Fund Full
Cost
Total Annual Cost
Recommend Filling Position Immediately
Accounting
Technician 84,900 35,375 21,225 141,500
Accounting
Technician 84,900 35,375 21,225 141,500
Part-time Firefighters 23,000 - - 23,000
Police Officer 197,000 - - 197,000
CPO - Wastewater - - 204,886 204,886
Subtotal 389,800 70,750 247,336 707,886
Recommend Temporarily Under Filling to December 31, 2025 Management Analyst
- AS
(Fill as Accounting
Technician)
105,525 35,175 26,915 167,614
Subtotal 105,525 35,175 26,915 167,614
Recommend Delaying Recruitment to December 31, 2025
City Clerk 179,347 22,418 22,418 224,183
Subtotal 179,347 22,418 22,418 224,183
Recommend Temporarily Freezing Position
Assistant Planner 149,628 - - 149,628
Lead Underground
Utilities MW 12,800 77,000 38,500 128,300
Subtotal 162,428 77,000 38,500 277,928
Total Annual Costs 837,100 205,343 335,169 1,377,612
Any decision to not fill vacant positions that are represented, will require bargaining with the applicable union.

Although the recommendations would reduce the overall salary and benefit costs by $416,134, additional costs will be incurred that would reduce the overall savings as a result contracts to provide necessary support due to expertise required to perform some functions and overtime costs resulting from reduced staffing levels.

Temporary Freeze on Salary Increases (not contractually obligated): The City is currently in negotiations with all bargaining groups. The average inflation for 2024 was Agenda Item #12.3.

2.9% and, at a minimum, making employees whole as it results to purchasing power will require a raise of 2.9%. This is compounded with each of the City’s bargaining groups being below the Market Median by at least 4%. While there is no immediate detrimental effect prior to June 30, 2025, not receiving any raise for the next year will risk not only retention challenges but recruitment difficulties too.

Over the past two and a half years, the City has made considerable effort into providing raises to employees in an effort to improve recruitment, retention, and morale. This was done because the City has historically experienced periods of high vacancies and staff turnover which is highly disruptive and inefficient. It should be noted that it is due to the salary increases that the vacancy rate has dropped to 9.9% from a high of 19.7% in 2022.

If a freeze on salary increases is enacted, such actions tend to cause declines in morale and casts a longer-term pall on a workforce. The executive team and the previous City Council have taken many actions to show that the City’s employees are valued, and a key component has been a commitment to pay competitive wages. If a pay freeze is not temporary and extends past June 30, 2025, it will undermine those previous efforts and create lack of trust. Such impacts have long-term detrimental effects including lower motivation and productivity.

Temporary Freeze on Reclassifications: No reclassifications are contemplated and any need for a reclassification will be brought to the City Council for approval.

Temporary Freeze on Discretionary Spending: The FY 2024-25 approved budget we developed to allocate monies strategically and invest in high-impact projects. Staff do not plan to initiate any discretionary expenditures which are not aligned with strategic initiatives. However, to align with Council’s request, a clear definition of “discretionary” is important. Traditionally, discretionary spending refers to non-essential expenses based on preference and available revenue, unlike mandatory costs such as rent, utilities, or debt payments.

While some expenses are clearly discretionary, others may appear non-essential but serve a broader purpose. For example, Parks & Recreation and Library services are often categorized as non-essential compared to water and wastewater services.

However, these community services play a vital role in the overall health and well-being of St. Helena.

It is important to remember: We want highly productive employees. High productivity comes from high motivation. High motivation comes from high morale.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: None
GOAL:

Agenda Item #12.3.

Goal 1: Strengthen Financial Sustainability
Goal 6: Improve Employee Recruitment, Retention, & Morale Goal 7: Enhance Organizational Effectiveness
Agenda Item #12.3.

DISCRETIONAL

SPENDING FREEZE
City Council Meeting – March 11, 2025
City Manager, Anil Comelo and Administrative Services Director, Mandy Kellogg Agenda Item #12.3.

AGENDA
• Discussion on the following Temporary Measures:
• Freeze on Vacant Positions
• Freeze on Salary Increases (not contractually obligated) • Freeze on Reclassifications
• Freeze on Discretionary Spending
Agenda Item #12.3.

FREEZE ON
VACANT

POSITIONS
Position General Fund
Full Cost
Water Fund Full
Cost
Wastewater
Fund Full Cost
Total Annual
Cost
Recommend Filling Position Immediately
Accounting Technician 84,900 35,375 21,225 141,500
Part-time Firefighters 23,000 - - 23,000
Police Officer 197,000 - - 197,000
CPO - Wastewater - - 204,886 204,886
Subtotal 304,900 35,375 226,111 566,386
Recommend Temporarily Under Filling Until December 31, 2025 Management Analyst – Underfill Acct. Tech 105,525 35,175 26,915 167,614 Subtotal 105,525 35,175 26,915 167,614
Recommend Delaying Recruitment Until December 31, 2025
City Clerk 179,347 22,418 22,418 224,183
Subtotal 179,347 22,418 22,418 224,183
Recommend Temporarily Freezing Position
Assistant Planner 149,628 - - 149,628
Lead Underground Utilities MW 12,800 77,000 38,500 128,300 Subtotal 162,428 77,000 38,500 277,928
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS 752,200 169,968 313,944 1,236,111 Agenda Item #12.3.

FREEZE ON SALARY INCREASES
• Does not apply to contractually obligated increases
• Currently in Negotiations with all Bargaining Groups
• Average Inflation for 2024 was 2.9%
Agenda Item #12.3.

FREEZE ON RECLASSIFICATIONS
• No planned Reclassifications
Agenda Item #12.3.

FREEZE ON DISCRETIONARY SPENDING
No Plans for Discretionary Expenditures that
does not Align with Strategic Initiatives
Agenda Item #12.3.

QUESTIONS
Agenda Item #12.3.

Agenda Report to the City Council
Agenda Section: OLD BUSINESS
Department: Administration
DATE: March 11, 2025
FROM: April Mitts, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Review options to reduce water and/or wastewater rates and provide feedback to staff.

RECOMMENDED
ACTION:

1. Staff will provide estimates of the magnitude of financial impact and possible rate reduction with which the City
Council will be able to make informed decisions. Staff
anticipates bringing the relevant data including results of the cost allocation study and rate reduction options to City Council on April 22, 2025.

2. Based on initial review of options, staff will likely recommend a combination of measures if the City Council continues to want a reduction in the Water/Wastewater
Rates.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

January 28, 2025 - Provided direction to staff to agendize discussion.

STATEMENT OF THE
PURPOSE:

Discuss, review, and provide direction on the current water and wastewater rates
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None associated with this report; however, the fiscal impact is dependent on Council decision(s).

BACKGROUND:

On January 28, 2025, Council Member Barak requested an item be added to a future agenda as described below.

Discuss and review the current and proposed water rates with the goal of significantly reducing the financial burden on residents. Discussion should include but not be limited to:
 Reviewing allocation of administrative salaries currently funded by the water and wastewater enterprise fund and consider a shift to the general fund where appropriate.
 Examine the City's water and wastewater reserve policies.  Evaluating current reserve levels and determining whether adjustments to the reserve targets are feasible without compromising financial stability.  Analyzing the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to access prioritization phasing and potential restructuring of projects to control costs and reduce ratepayer impact.

Agenda Item #12.4.

 Exploring immediate strategies to prevent the scheduled 8% rate increase in the fiscal year 2025 and assessing long-term options to lower future rate adjustments for residents.

DISCUSSION:

As part of the rate study process in 2022 and 2023, a committee of residents worked with a specialized consultant (Raftelis) and staff to recommend to the City Council new rates for the water and wastewater enterprises. The rates were approved by City Council effective September 2023 and increased water rates by 28% and wastewater rates by 50% in the first year. The five-year rate plan included increases each subsequent July 1st. On July 1, 2024, water rates increased by 8% and are scheduled to go up another 8% on July 1, 2025 and wastewater rates increased by 4% on July 1, 2024 and are scheduled to go up another 4% on July 1, 2025. The need for these steep increases is the severity of underfunding and underinvestment over the last couple of decades. The underinvestment has left the water and wastewater system (in addition to the stormwater system, which has no dedicated funding source other than Measure H General Obligation (GO) Bonds) in dilapidated states resulting in state fines, frequent pipe breaks, and discolored water in faucets among other detrimental effects.

The rate increases were anticipated to generate approximately $46.5 million for investment in the water and wastewater systems. This amount includes funds directly collected from ratepayers as well as issuance and payment of bonds which will fund approximately $33.5 million of the planned expenditures. In response to the request to propose ways to reduce the rates, staff developed the following matrix that describes the main options to reduce rates in the water and wastewater funds.

Water Enterprise Options:

During the rate study, Raftelis projected that with no rate increases over the study period the Water Enterprise’s reserves will fall below the target reserve policy and fail to meet minimum debt coverage in all years of the study period. Without revenue adjustments, fund balances would be negative in every year of the study period and decrease greatly over time due to operating, maintenance, and capital expenses.

Key factors influencing the need for proposed revenue adjustments include:

1. Cost of inflation: Operating costs continue to increase year over year due to inflationary pressures.

2. Reduction in baseline water demand: Water sales are significantly lower relative to pre-drought years, resulting in lower baseline variable water rate revenues.

3. Planned capital expenditures: CIP project expenditures through FY 2028-29, including substantial repair and replacement projects, totaling $59.5M (i.e. per adopted 5-year CIP, FY25 - FY29, which equates to approximately $11.9M per year on average).

Agenda Item #12.4.

The table below represents a number of options and implications for Council consideration/discussion.

Option Description Impact
1 Shift base and use costs
Ratepayers with lower use will see
savings, but it may result in revenue
volatility.
2 Increase allocation of personnel
charges from Water Fund to
General Fund
Already burdened General Fund, will in
effect, subsidize the enterprise funds.
3 Postpone CIP Projects
Delaying improvements of the water
systems leads to project escalation costs
and ever increasing risks of jeopardizing
life/safety due to aging infrastructure.
4 Reduce reserve levels
Cash flow would be strained during
emergency situations.

May shift funding from scheduled CIP
projects.

Could impact debt coverage
requirements.
5 Reduce operations budget Any substantive reductions would have impacts on service delivery.
6 Move from bonds to State
Revolving Fund (SFR) financing
SRF typically offers below-market
interest rates, reducing overall borrowing
costs. However, the process to secure
funding is longer than the issuance of
bonds.

SRF funding involves a rigorous
application process with specific eligibility
requirements, which can be timeconsuming and may not be suitable for all types of projects.

The amount of SRF funding available can
vary depending on federal funding
allocations, potentially leading to project
delays if sufficient funds are not
available.

Wastewater Enterprise:

Agenda Item #12.4.

During the rate study Raftelis projected that with no rate increases over the five-year study period the Wastewater Enterprise’s reserves would fall below the existing reserve policy and fail to meet its debt coverage requirement in each year of the study period.

Key factors influencing the need for the approved Wastewater Enterprise revenue adjustments included:

1. Cost of inflation: Operating costs continue to increase year over year due to inflationary pressures and the cost of staffing treatment facilities.

2. Planned capital expenditures: CIP project expenditures through FY 2028-29, including substantial repair and replacement projects, totaling $29.4M (i.e. per adopted 5-year CIP, FY25 - FY29, which equates to approximately $5.9M per year on average.

3. Reserve replenishment: the Wastewater Enterprise has reduced cash reserves during the past several fiscal years due to unforeseen operating costs as well as the completion of a significant capital project (i.e. the Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade Project).

Option Description Impact
1 Increase allocation of personnel
charges from Wastewater Fund
to General Fund
Already burdened General Fund will, in
effect, subsidize the enterprise funds.
2 Postpone CIP Projects
Delaying improvements of the
wastewater systems leads to project
escalation costs and ever increasing risks
of jeopardizing life/safety due to aging
infrastructure.

Scheduled CIP are required by the
negotiated Riverwatch Settlement
Agreement.
3 Reduce reserve levels
Cash flow would be strained in
emergencies and in emergency
situations.

May shift funding from scheduled CIP
projects.

Could impact debt coverage
requirements.
4 Reduce operations budget Any substantive reductions would have impacts on service delivery.

To better assess the impact of each option listed above and determine their potential to significantly reduce the financial burden on ratepayers, the following steps are being undertaken:

Agenda Item #12.4.

1. Estimates for Each Option - Raftelis has been tasked with evaluating the proposed options and providing an estimate of the potential savings or rate reductions for each scenario which should be received by the end of March.

2. City's Legal Covenant to Bond Holders - Any attempt to reduce rates must take into account the City's legal covenant to bond holders (i.e. both water and wastewater bond holders) which ensures the utility will generate enough revenue to pay back the bonds. This review is being conducted by Raftelis and will be received by the end of March.

3. Cost Allocation Study - This study, expected to be completed by April 2025, will provide updated financial data. The findings will be presented to the City Council for consideration and action on April 22, 2025.

4. Existing Debt Evaluation - City staff will work with the Municipal Advisor to evaluate if there are opportunities to restructure existing debt.

5. Incorporating Council Decisions into Budget Planning - Implementation of any of the ideas will result in budget implications. Based on Council's direction, staff will integrate the approved measures into the FY 2025-26 and FY 2026-27 biennial Operating and Capital Improvement Plan budgets.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: N/A
GOAL:

Goal 1: Strengthen Financial Sustainability
Goal 2: Improve Infrastructure & Further Environmental Sustainability Goal 3: Pursue Water Security & Sustainable Management of Water Resources Goal 5: Enhance Quality of Life
Agenda Item #12.4.

AGENDA ITEM 12.4

WATER &

WASTEWATER

RATE REDUCTION

DISCUSSION
City Council Meeting – March 11, 2025
Joe Leach, PE, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Agenda Item #12.4.

AGENDA
• Key Factors for Rate Adjustments
• Options for Consideration
• Next Steps
Agenda Item #12.4.

KEY FACTORS FOR RATE ADJUSTMENTS
• Cost of Inflation
• Reduction in Baseline Water Demand
• Planned Capital Expenditures (i.e. Risk Management)
• Reserve Replenishment
Agenda Item #12.4.

OPTIONS
Option Description Impact
1 Shift Base and Use Costs –
Water Only
- Ratepayers with lower use will see savings
- May result in revenue volatility
2 Increase Allocation of Personnel
Charges to General Fund
- Already burdened General Fund
- General Fund, in effect, subsidize the enterprise funds 3 Postpone CIP Projects - Delays improvement of the systems - Delays will lead to project escalation costs
- Jeopardize life/safety due to aging infrastructure
- Most likely result in breach of Settlement Agreement(s) (e.g. River Watch, Water Audit, etc.)
4 Reduce Reserve Levels - Challenging in emergencies
- May shift funding from CIP projects
- May affect debt coverage requirements
Agenda Item #12.4.

OPTIONS
Option Description Impact
5 Reduce Operations Budget - Impacts on service delivery 6 Moving from bonds to State
Revolving Fund (SRF)
Financing – Water Only
- SRF typically offers below-market interest rates, reducing overall borrowing costs.
- Process is longer than issuance of bonds.
- Involves difficult application process with specific eligibility requirements.
- Not suitable for all types of projects.
- Amount of funding availability is dependent on federal funding allocations, potentially leading to project delays if funding is not available.

Agenda Item #12.4.

NEXT STEPS
Description Responsible Deliverable/Timeline
Estimates for Each Option Raftelis - Evaluate proposed options - Provide estimate of potential savings per option
- Provide estimate of potential rate reductions per option - Timeline Estimate: Receive by end of March 2025
City’s Legal Covenant to Bond
Holders
Raftelis - Review of current debt and debt schedules to ensure the utility will generate enough revenue to pay back the bonds - Timeline Estimate: Receive by end of March 2025
Cost Allocation Study ClearSource - Provide updated financial data - Timeline Estimate: Presentation to Council for consideration and action on April 22, 2025.

Existing Debt Evaluation Municipal
Advisor
- Evaluate existing debt for opportunities to restructure Budget Planning Staff - Implement Council decisions regarding six options into the budget planning process.

Agenda Item #12.4.

QUESTIONS
Agenda Item #12.4.

From: [email protected]
To: City Clerk
Subject: [External] Public Comment: City Council Agenda Item 12.4 (water & wastewater options), March 11, 2025 Date: Friday, March 7, 2025 2:14:19 PM
> As I recall (but subject to check), the City’s legal covenants to bond holders include a covenant that states, in substance, that the City will maintain its water and wastewater systems “in good operating condition.” City staff reports that the water and wastewater systems are “in dilapidated states resulting in State fines, frequent pipe breaks, and discolored water in faucets among other effects.” This is a plain admission that the systems are NOT in good operating condition.
> Since the City is obligated by covenant to maintain its systems in good operating condition, Raftelis Financial Consultants should be specifically tasked with assessing the rates levels required to bring the water and wastewater systems into compliance with “good operating condition.” Specifically: (1) what rate levels are needed to come into compliance? (2) can the City reduce projected and/or current rates when it is in violation of the “good operating condition” covenant?
> As I see it, the legal issue (as referenced on the last page of the staff’s (excellent) staff report is not just whether the enterprises “will generate enough revenue to pay back the bonds.” The bond holders specifically bargained for and obtained a binding written promise that the enterprises would be maintained in good operating condition — a crucial component of their loan risk assessment. In short, rates must be sufficient to ensure that the City comes into compliance with its material promise to its bond holders. The issue cannot be avoided >
> Respectfully submitted,
>
> Alan Galbraith
> St. Helena Mayor, 2014-18
>
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
Agenda Item #12.4.

From: Kelly Wheaton
To: City Clerk
Subject: [External] Meeting item 12.4.Review options to reduce water and/or wastewater rates and provide feedback to staff.

Date: Monday, March 10, 2025 1:36:47 PM
Erika,
I would appreciate this brief comment to be included in the packet for Item 12.4 of Tuesday's City Council meeting.

Mayor Dohring and City Council Members.

In the staff report for "Review options to reduce water and/or wastewater rates" The staff reports re WATER (pg 3):

Option 2: Increase allocation of personnel charges from Water Fund to General Fund. And then Notes Already burdened General Fund, will in effect, subsidize the Enterprise funds.

This is repeated as
Option 1 in the WASTEWATER Chart (Pg 4).

The Fact of the matter is the Water and Wastewater ENTERPRISES, in violation of Prop 218, have been SUBSIDIZING STAFF executive salaries. For a staff report to state this is a fact is hypocritical on its face, disingenuous and seems to be more like what one would expect from a propaganda agency rather than what is expected from supposedly unbiased, independent fact finding by city staff. Whomever propagated this malarkey needs a thorough talking to by the City Council. How can the City Council be EXPECTED to make GOOD DECISIONS with NONSENSE like this?
I hope the Council will take this opportunity to send this back to the staff and ask for something other than mythology.

Respectfully,
Kelly Wheaton
Inglewood Ave.
--
Kelly Wheaton
[email protected]
Beginners Guide to Genetic Genealogy
WheatonWood.com
Agenda Item #12.4.

03/11/2025
Agenda Item 12.42
Mayor Dohring and Members of the City Council,
As I didn’t get my comment in in time for last night’s meeting, I am sending it again for your consideration going forward.

In looking at Water and Wastewater Report prepared for the meeting, I have some questions and concerns. According to the report:

However, nowhere in this report are possible increases in costs due to staffing.

The following table is based on 2024. But what has this same table looked like for the last 4 – 8 years? Historically, has there been an increase or decrease in costs based on staffing levels? Are there some savings to be had by reducing staffing…particularly at the higher-salary end? Does the city manager really spend 50% of his time on water on wastewater issues? And does it actually take an additional Asst. City Manager (45%) and an Assistant to the City Manager (40%) to deal with the Water & Wastewater Enterprises? Has there ever been an audit done to verify how much time any of these people actually spend on Water & Waste Water? And what about the other costs of their employment, in addition to their actual salaries, which are not included in this table? .

Agenda Item #12.4.

And nowhere in this report is reducing staffing mentioned as an alternative. And, if it turns out that water & waste water customers are being charged for services they are not receiving, (i.e. 50% of the city manager’s time; 85% (40+45%) of the 2 Assistants to the City Manager’s time; etc.) isn’t the city running afoul of CA Prop 218?
Instead, the report suggests the possibility of increasing the allocation of personnel to the General Fund. But under “Impact” the report basically dismisses this option by calling the general fund “Already burdened.” This in itself is odd because it seems the general fund has been burdening the Water and Wastewater Enterprises for years to make its ends meet.

Given this, I hope that the council will seek an independent review…one that will also take into effect ways of reducing top level staff and include an audit of the actual amount of time spent by staff members specifically on Water and Wastewater Issues. We need to take a hard look at all of the ways costs can be realistically reduced before putting any more burdens on Water and Waste Water Customers. This report seems to fall very short of that mark.

Elaine de Man
St. Helena
Agenda Item #12.4.