Agenda packet, regular meeting — St. Helena City Council, July 28, 2026 (part 1 of 3)

City of St. Helena
City Council Regular Meeting
Tuesday, July 28, 2026 @ 6:00 PM
Vintage Hall Board Room - Second Floor
465 Main Street, St. Helena CA
PLEASE NOTE: Any person who wishes to speak regarding an item on the agenda or make a comment under the "Public Forum" portion of the agenda may do so, but please observe the time limit of four minutes.

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

Public comment for City Council meetings will be accepted via email via 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 online City Council agenda.

To ensure interpreters are available, requests must be made at least 72 hours in advance by calling the Office of the City Clerk at (707) 968-2640 or emailing [email protected].

The schedule of upcoming meetings and published meeting agendas can be found on the City of St. Helena website at cityofsthelena.gov.

Servicios de interpretación en español durante la reunión pueden ser solicitados por el público.

Para asegurar que los intérpretes estén disponibles, los servicios tienen que ser solicitados al menos 72 horas antes de la reunión llamando a la oficina de la Secretaria de la Ciudad al (707) 968-2640 o por correo electrónico a [email protected].

El horario de las reuniones publicadas y próximas puede ser localizado en el sitio de web de la Ciudad en cityofsthelena.gov

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. ROLL CALL
Mayor: Paul Dohring, City Council Members: Aaron Barak, Michelle Deasy, Kate Spadarotto

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

4. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

5. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES

5.1. Approval of the Minutes

Page 1 of 311 ends

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

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.

7.1. Street Saver Report Update

8. PRESENTATIONS AND PUBLIC RECOGNITIONS

9. STAFF BRIEFING AND PRESENTATIONS

9.1. Water Service and Quality Discussion following event of July 18, 2026

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: 6:40 p.m.

10.1. Adoption of a Resolution authorizing a new Professional Services Agreement with North Coast Community Planning for an amount not to exceed $97,300.

CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA Project (CEQA Guidelines §15378) Prepared By: Jackie Oneal, Senior Planner
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a new Professional Services Agreement with North Coast Community Planning for continued planning support services in an amount not to exceed $97,300.

10.2. Sesquicentennial "Cheers to 150 Years" Celebration Road Closure CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA Project (CEQA Guidelines §15378) Prepared By: Ashley Sylvester, Director of Community Services Department Recommendation: Staff recommends City Council review and adopts the attached resolution.

Page 2 of 311 ends

10.3. Waiver of second reading and adoption of an ordinance, amending Chapter

3.04 of the Municipal Code Purchasing of Supplies, Equipment and Services, and Procedures for Public Works Projects to update the City Manager's signing authority to add a new section providing Authority to Adopt Implementing Regulations and Administrative Policies
CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA Project (CEQA Guidelines §15378) Prepared By: Mandy Kellogg, Director of Administrative Services Recommendation: Waiver of second reading and adoption of an Ordinance, amending Chapter of Purchasing Municipal Code of 3.04 the Supplies, Equipment and Services, and Procedures for Public City Works Projects to update the Manager's signing authority and add a new section providing Authority to Adopt Implementing Regulations and Administrative Policies.

10.4. June 2026 Review and Forecasting of City Water Supply Availability CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA Project (CEQA Guidelines §15378) Prepared By: Ian Dale, Environmental Serv Tech
Recommendation: Receive and File.

10.5. Approving the R24-02 Oak Avenue Surface Restoration Project Plans; Authorizing the Bid Request; Finding the Oak Avenue Surface Restoration Project Exempt from CEQA.

CEQA Determination: Categorical Exemption
Prepared By: Mario Traverso, Project Manager
Recommendation: Approve the Resolution

10.6. Resolution Authorizing (1) a Temporary Closure of Tainter Street between Kearney Street and Oak Avenue on Sunday, August 23, 2026, from 6:00a.m. to 8:00p.m.; and (2) Authorizing Possession of Open Alcoholic Beverages and the Operation of Mobile Food Vendors on this Public Street for the Guelaguetza St. Helena 2026 Event Scheduled for Sunday, August 23, 2026, from Approximately 11a.m. to 7:00p.m.

CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA Project (CEQA Guidelines §15378) Prepared By: Rebecca White, Administrative Assistant
Recommendation: Staff recommends City Council approve the attached resolution.

10.7. Authorizing the City Manager to execute a construction contract with Ron's Quality Construction in the amount of $114,020 for the installation of the manufactured house at the water treatment plant, Authorizing the Director of Public Works to approve change orders up to $28,407.

CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA Project (CEQA Guidelines §15378) Prepared By: Mario Traverso, Project Manager
Recommendation: Approve the Resolution

Page 3 of 311 ends

10.8. Consideration and proposed adoption of a Resolution authorizing a FY2026- 2027 budget amendment to increase appropriation within CIP R18-81 Downtown Sidewalk Improvement Project budget to $73,698 for additional construction management, funded by Measure U, and the corresponding contract amendment with Coastland/DCCM.

CEQA Determination: Addendum to Previously Certified EIR or Adopted MND Prepared By: Eric Janzen, Asst. PW Director
Recommendation: Adopt associated Resolution.

11. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Estimated start time: 6:50 p.m.

11.1. Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance Clarifying the Regulation of On-Site Storage
CEQA Determination: Common Sense Exemption (§15061(b)(3)) Prepared By: Jackie Oneal, Senior Planner
Recommendation:

Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Find that the proposed ordinance is exempt from environmental review pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3); and

2. Introduce and waive the first reading of an ordinance amending Section

17.33.010 (Definitions of Uses), Table 17.17.020(A) (Use Regulations—Commercial and Mixed-Use Zoning Districts), and Table

17.18.020(A) (Use Regulations—Business and Industrial Zoning Districts) of the St. Helena Municipal Code to clarify the regulation of on-site storage and distinguish storage that is incidental and subordinate to a lawfully established primary use from storage regulated as a separate use.

12. OLD BUSINESS
Estimated start time: 7:05 p.m.

12.1. Consideration and proposed approval of a resolution approving a facility use agreement between the City of St. Helena and St. Helena Little League for the use of baseball facilities located at Crane Park.

CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA Project (CEQA Guidelines §15378) Prepared By: Ashley Sylvester, Director of Community Services Department Recommendation: City Staff recommend approving the proposed resolution approving the facility use agreement between the City of St. Helena and St.

Helena Little League.

13. NEW BUSINESS
Estimated start time: 7:15 p.m.

Page 4 of 311 ends

13.1. Consideration of a Resolution to appoint an applicant to the Active Transportation and Sustainability Committee for a term expiring June 2027.

CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA Project (CEQA Guidelines §15378) Prepared By: Andrew Bradley, Program Manager (City Clerk) Recommendation: Appoint Antionette Freeman to the Active Transportation and Sustainability Committee (ATSC) as member to fill a term that is now vacant, expiring June 30, 2027.

13.2. Fiscal Year 2024-25 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report and Independent Auditor's Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting.

CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA Project (CEQA Guidelines §15378) Prepared By: Mandy Kellogg, Director of Administrative Services Recommendation: Staff recommends the City Council receive and accept the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report of the City of St. Helena for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2025.

13.3. Approval of a resolution authorizing the Interim City Manager to Execute a Professional Services Agreement with Bob Murray & Associates in the amount of $36,500 for recruitment services related to the City Manager vacancy.

CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA Project (CEQA Guidelines §15378) Prepared By: James McCann, Interim City Manager
Recommendation: Staff recommends approving the attached resolution and requests the City Council provide direction on the next steps.

14. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS

15. ADJOURNMENT
The next Regular City Council meeting is scheduled for August 11, 2026.

This agenda was posted at City Hall, 1088 College Avenue, and at Vintage Hall, 465 Main Street, St. Helena, California on July 23, 2026.

Andrew Bradley, City Clerk
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

Page 5 of 311 ends

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 website at cityofsthelena.gov and will be available for public review at the respective meeting.

Page 6 of 311 ends

MINUTES
City of St. Helena
Regular City Council Meeting
Tuesday, June 23, 2026 @ 6:00 PM
Vintage Hall Board Room - Second Floor
465 Main Street, St. Helena CA
A complete video recording of this meeting, except for closed session, can be found at https://sthelenaca.portal.civicclerk.com/ 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, Vice Mayor Michelle Deasy, City Council Member Aaron Barak, City Council Member Kate Spadarotto

Absent: City Council Member Scott Diaz

1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Dohring called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.

2. ROLL CALL
Mayor: Paul Dohring, Vice Mayor: Michelle Deasy, City Council Members: Aaron Barak, Kate Spadarotto

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Dohring led the Pledge of Allegiance.

4. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
City Council Member Kate Spadarotto moved to adopt the agenda. The motion was seconded by City Council Member Aaron Barak and on voice vote carried by the following vote:

AYES: Mayor Paul Dohring, Vice Mayor Michelle Deasy, City Council Member Aaron Barak, City Council Member Kate Spadarotto
NOES: None
ABSENT: City Council Member Scott Diaz
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None

5. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES

5.1. Regular City Council Minutes of June 9, 2026

Page 7 of 311 ends

Vice Mayor Michelle Deasy moved to approve the Regular City Council minutes of June 9, 2026. The motion was seconded by City Council Member Kate Spadarotto and on voice vote carried by the following vote:

AYES: Mayor Paul Dohring, Vice Mayor Michelle Deasy, City Council Member Aaron Barak, City Council Member Kate Spadarotto
NOES: None
ABSENT: City Council Member Scott Diaz
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None

Estimated start time: 6:05 p.m.

6.1. Public Comment
No public comment was received.

City Attorney Ethan Walsh reported that there was no reportable action from the Closed Session Meeting held on June 23, 2026.

Interim City Manager, Jim McCann reminded the Council that there will be no City Council meeting on July 14. The next Regular City Council meeting will be held on Tuesday, July 28, 2026.

8. PRESENTATIONS AND PUBLIC RECOGNITIONS

8.1. Parks and Recreation Month Proclamation
Mayor Dohring presented the proclamation to Director of Community Services, Ashley Sylvester.

Page 8 of 311 ends

9. STAFF BRIEFING AND PRESENTATIONS

9.1. Fire Safety and Evacuation Presentation
Fire Chief John Sorensen and Acting Police Chief Justin Tharp presented on the item.

Mayor Dohring opened the Public Comment. Public Comment was received by Chris Warner.

10.1. Adoption of a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a construction contract with JD General Engineering in the amount of $168,992 for the R25-79 Hudson Pavement Restoration Project, authorizing the Director of Public Works to approve construction change orders not to exceed 15% of the total contract amount, and determines the R25-79 Hudson Pavement Rehabilitation Project is exempt from CEQA under Class 1 Existing Facilities.

CEQA Determination: Categorical Exemption
Prepared By: Mario Traverso, Project Manager
Recommendation: Approve the Resolution

10.2. Consideration of Second Amendment to Agreement for City Attorney Legal Services.

CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA Project (CEQA Guidelines §15378) Prepared By: Mandy Kellogg, Director of Administrative Services Recommendation: That the City Council approve the attached Resolution Approving the Second Amendment to Agreement for City Attorney Legal Services between City of St. Helena and Best Best & Krieger LLP.

Page 9 of 311 ends

10.3. Consideration and Proposed Adoption of a Resolution Adopting a List of Projects for Fiscal Year 2026-27 funded by SB1: The Road and Repair and Accountability Act of 2017.

CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA Project (CEQA Guidelines §15378) Prepared By: Mario Traverso, Project Manager
Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution.

10.4. Consideration and Recommended adoption of a Resolution authorizing a twoyear agreement with the Housing Authority of the City of Napa for contract housing services in a baseline amount not-to-exceed $131,450 for the twoyear period starting on July 1, 2026, and authorizing up to $20,000 for additional housing-related services for Fiscal Year 2027-28.

CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA Project (CEQA Guidelines §15378) Prepared By: Natalie Bresee, Assistant Planner
Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a two-year agreement with the Housing Authority of the City of Napa for contract housing services for Fiscal Years 2026-27 and 2027-28, in a baseline amount not to exceed $131,450, and authorizing the City Manager to approve up to $20,000 in additional housing-related services during FY2027-28, as needed.

10.5. May 2026 Review and Forecasting of City Water Supply Availability CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA Project (CEQA Guidelines §15378) Prepared By: Ian Dale, Environmental Serv Tech
Recommendation: Receive and File.

Page 10 of 311 ends

10.6. Approval of a Resolution of the City Council of the City of St. Helena, State of California, Calling and Giving Notice of a General Municipal Election to be Held on Tuesday, November 3, 2026; Requesting the Consolidation by the Napa County Supervisors for the Statewide General Election and that Napa County Provide Election Services with full Reimbursement by the City of St.

Helena.

CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA Project (CEQA Guidelines §15378) Prepared By: Andrew Bradley, Program Manager (City Clerk) Recommendation: Approve the resolutions:
• Resolution calling for election of Mayor and two (2) City Council Members
• Resolution for consolidated election for Mayor and two (2) City Council members.

10.7. Consideration of a Resolution to Reappoint a current Planning Commissioner whose term currently expires on June 30, 2026.

CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA Project (CEQA Guidelines §15378) Prepared By: Andrew Bradley, Program Manager (City Clerk) Recommendation: Reappoint current Planning Commission Chair, Chris Warner, to the Planning Commission for a new four-year term, expiring June 30, 2030.

10.8. Consideration of a Resolution to Reappoint current Active Transportation and Sustainability Committee Members/Alternates whose terms currently expires on June 30, 2026.

CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA Project (CEQA Guidelines §15378) Prepared By: Andrew Bradley, Program Manager (City Clerk) Recommendation: Appoint current member, Shannon Nolan, and alternates, Antony Rabin and Emma Leggat, to the Active Transportation and Sustainability Committee (ATSC) as members for new two-year terms, expiring June 30, 2028.

Page 11 of 311 ends

City Council Member Aaron Barak moved to adopt consent calendar. The motion was seconded by Vice Mayor Michelle Deasy and on roll call carried by the following vote:

AYES: Mayor Paul Dohring, Vice Mayor Michelle Deasy, City Council Member Aaron Barak, City Council Member Kate Spadarotto
NOES: None
ABSENT: City Council Member Scott Diaz
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None

11. PUBLIC HEARINGS

11.1. Public Hearing on Vacancies, Recruitment and Retention Efforts in compliance with Assembly Bill 2561, Government Code Section 3502.3.

CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA Project (CEQA Guidelines §15378) Prepared By: Martin Beltran, Finance Manager
Recommendation: Receive and file.

Interim City Manager Jim McCann introduced the item and Finance Manager Martin Beltran presented the staff report.

Mayor Dohring asked for any clarifying questions from the Council.

Mayor Dohring opened the Public Comment. Deanna Griffin addressed the Council.

The item was returned to the City Council for discussion. Council members asked questions and provided comments.

12. OLD BUSINESS

13. NEW BUSINESS
Estimated start time: 7:00 p.m.

13.1. Consideration of a Resolution to appoint an applicant to the Library Board of Trustees.

CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA Project (CEQA Guidelines §15378) Prepared By: Andrew Bradley, Program Manager (City Clerk) Recommendation: Consideration of a Resolution to appoint an applicant to fill a vacancy on the Library Board of Trustees, which has terms expiring on June 30, 2026.

Page 12 of 311 ends

Interim City Manager Jim McCann introduced the item. City Clerk, Andrew Bradley presented on the item.

Mayor Dohring opened the public comment; public comment was made by Deanna Griffin.

Mayor Paul Dohring moved to approve resolution. The motion was seconded by City Council Member Aaron Barak and on roll call carried by the following vote:

AYES: Mayor Paul Dohring, Vice Mayor Michelle Deasy, City Council Member Aaron Barak, City Council Member Kate Spadarotto
NOES: None
ABSENT: City Council Member Scott Diaz
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None

13.2. Consideration of a Resolution to Appoint a new and reappoint a current Parks and Recreation Commission Member for terms ending June 2028.

CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA Project (CEQA Guidelines §15378) Prepared By: Andrew Bradley, Program Manager (City Clerk) Recommendation: Consideration of a Resolution to appoint a new member and reappoint a current member with applicants to fill vacancies on the Parks and Recreation Commission, that has terms expiring on June 30, 2026.

City Clerk Andrew Bradley presented the item.

Mayor Dohring opened the public comment; no public comment was made.

Mayor Paul Dohring moved to approve the resolution. The motion was seconded by City Council Member Aaron Barak and on roll call carried by the following vote:

AYES: Mayor Paul Dohring, Vice Mayor Michelle Deasy, City Council Member Aaron Barak, City Council Member Kate Spadarotto
NOES: None
ABSENT: City Council Member Scott Diaz
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None

Page 13 of 311 ends

13.3. Reappointment of Three Finance Committee Members and Discuss Vacancy CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA Project (CEQA Guidelines §15378) Prepared By: Andrew Bradley, Program Manager (City Clerk) Recommendation:

1. Adopt resolution to reappoint three Finance Committee members:

George Schisler, Richard Garber, and Gregg Dawley.

2. Provide feedback on options for filling vacancy.

City Clerk Bradley presented the item.

Mayor Dohring opened the public comment; no public comment was received.

Interim City Manager Jim McCann recommended that the vacancy remain unfilled at this time. The City Council concurred with the recommendation.

Mayor Paul Dohring moved to approve resolution. The motion was seconded by City Council Member Aaron Barak and on roll call carried by the following vote:

AYES: Mayor Paul Dohring, Vice Mayor Michelle Deasy, City Council Member Aaron Barak, City Council Member Kate Spadarotto
NOES: None
ABSENT: City Council Member Scott Diaz
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None
Mayor Dohring called for a 10-minute break at 7:06 p.m.

The meeting resumed at 7:15 p.m.

Page 14 of 311 ends

13.4. Qualification of Initiative Measure Proposing to Amend the City’s Municipal Code to Codify by Ordinance the “St. Helena Trails and Open Space Plan:

Walking Routes, Trails and Publicly Accessible Open Space Report” CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA Project (CEQA Guidelines §15378) There may be CEQA needs if/when projects within the plan are begun.

Prepared By: Andrew Bradley, Program Manager (City Clerk) Recommendation: That the City Council:
• Receive, file, and accept the certificate of sufficiency of petition signatures as valid in all respects.

Select one of the following three options:
• Adopt the following resolution:

Resolution No. 2026-____: Resolution of the City Council of the City of St.

Helena, California submitting to the qualified voters of the City of St.

Helena on the November 3, 2026 General Municipal Election ballot an initiative measure amending the City’s Municipal Code to codify by ordinance the “St. Helena Trails and Open Space Plan: Walking Routes, Trails and Publicly Accessible Open Space Report”; requesting the County of Napa to consolidate said election with the Statewide General Election of even date; and setting rules and deadlines for arguments and rebuttals for and against the measure; or
• Adopt the initiative measure as an ordinance, without alteration:

Adopt Ordinance No. 2026-______: an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of St. Helena, California, adding Chapter 17.32 to Title 17 of the St. Helena Municipal Code to codify by ordinance the “St. Helena Trails and Open Space Plan: Walking Routes, Trails and Publicly Accessible Open Space Report” (the “Walking Plan”), pursuant to California Elections Code Section 9215(a); or
• Order the preparation of an impact report pursuant to California Elections Code Section 9212 to be brought back to the council no more than 30 days later, to analyze the initiative’s impact on City finances, regulations and ability to provide public services.

Page 15 of 311 ends

Interim City Manager, Jim McCann introduced the item and David Knudsen, from the Walk St. Helena board, presented on the item.

Mayor Dohring opened up the public comment. Public Comment was received by Sandra McCorkle, Edward Kuntz, Paul Asmuth, Linda Brown, Kristin Martin, James Decker, Mr. Martin, Patrick Kenealy, Richard Sieferheld Mayor Dohring closed the public comment period and turned the matter over to the Council for deliberation.

City Council Member Aaron Barak moved to adopt initiative measure as an ordinance, without alteration. The motion was seconded by Vice Mayor Michelle Deasy and on roll call carried by the following vote:

AYES: Mayor Paul Dohring, Vice Mayor Michelle Deasy, City Council Member Aaron Barak, City Council Member Kate Spadarotto
NOES: None
ABSENT: City Council Member Scott Diaz
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None

14. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
Council Member Barak reported on Upper Valley Waste Management Agency meeting.

Vice Mayor Deasy reported on the Water and Wastewater Committee.

Mayor Dohring congratulated the community and organizers on the Pride event that happened over the weekend. Also reported on Napa Valley Transportation Authority (NVTA) in which he was appointed to the Chair.

15. ADJOURNMENT
The next Regular City Council meeting is scheduled for July 28, 2026, at 6 p.m.

Mayor Dohring adjourned the meeting at 8:29 p.m.

APPROVED: ATTEST:
____________________________
Paul Jamison Dohring, Mayor
____________________________
Andrew Bradley, City Clerk

Page 16 of 311 ends

MINUTES
City of St. Helena
Special City Council Meeting
Tuesday, July 7, 2026 @ 6:00 PM
Vintage Hall Board Room - Second Floor
465 Main Street, St. Helena CA
A complete video recording of this meeting, except for closed session, can be found at https://sthelenaca.portal.civicclerk.com/ 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, Vice Mayor Michelle Deasy, City Council Member Aaron Barak, City Council Member Scott Diaz

Absent: City Council Member Kate Spadarotto

1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Dohring called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m.

2. ROLL CALL
Mayor: Paul Dohring; Vice Mayor: Michelle Deasy; City Council Members: Aaron Barak, Kate Spadarotto, Scott Diaz

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Dohring led the Pledge of Allegiance.

4. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
City Council Member Aaron Barak moved to adopt the agenda. The motion was seconded by City Council Member Scott Diaz and on voice vote carried by the following vote:

AYES: Mayor Paul Dohring, City Council Member Aaron Barak, City Council Member Scott Diaz
NOES: None
ABSENT: Vice Mayor Michelle Deasy, City Council Member Kate Spadarotto ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None
Mayor Dohring called for a 5 minute recess at 6:03 p.m. Vice Mayor Deasy arrived to meeting at 6:07 p.m. Mayor Dohring resumed the meeting.

5. PUBLIC FORUM
Under California law, public comments at special meetings are limited to subjects on the agenda only. Therefore public comment will take place during consideration of the item. Each person’s comments shall be limited to 4 minutes.

Page 17 of 311 ends

6. NEW BUSINESS

6.1. Approval of a Resolution of the City Council of the City of St. Helena, State of California, Calling and Giving Notice of a Municipal General Election and consider Ballot Measure for Measure "S" (a ½ cent sales tax) to be Held on Tuesday, November 3, 2026.

CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA Project (CEQA Guidelines §15378) Prepared By: James McCann, Interim City Manager, Mandy Kellogg, Director of Administrative Services, Andrew Bradley, Program Manager (City Clerk) Recommendation: Approve the resolution to place Measure "S" on the November 3, 2026 Ballot.

Interim City Manager Jim McCann introduced the item. Administrative Services Director Mandy Kellogg presented the financial information related to the item. Lucia del Puppo, representing FM3, presented the results of the community survey.

Mayor Dohring invited brief clarifying questions from the Council before opening the public comment period.

Public Comment was received by Chris Warner, Garry Rose, Tamara Sorensen, Deanna Griffin, Michelle Liu Covell and Gregg Dawley. Mayor Dohring then closed the public comment period.

The matter was returned to the Council for deliberation. Council Members asked additional questions and provided comments.

City Council Member Aaron Barak moved to approve the resolution to place Measure "S" on the November 3, 2026 ballot. The motion was seconded by City Council Member Scott Diaz and on roll call carried by the following vote:

AYES: Mayor Paul Dohring, Vice Mayor Michelle Deasy, City Council Member Aaron Barak, City Council Member Scott Diaz
NOES: None
ABSENT: City Council Member Kate Spadarotto
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None

7. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Dohring adjourned the meeting at 7:35 p.m.

The next Regular City Council meeting is scheduled for July 28, 2026.

APPROVED: ATTEST:

Page 18 of 311 ends

____________________________
Paul Jamison Dohring, Mayor
____________________________
Andrew Bradley, City Clerk

Page 19 of 311 ends

Page 20 of 311 ends

!

"#$
"%$
&
'
(
$

)

*

$*&
$

&
+* ,-*$*

).

/%*&

&

))
&

&
'*&

)*

0

'

$*

'))

&

)
*

&

$*

1-

&

(
&

$$)+

2"3
,456

7,0*& 8
)(

8

$

$

9&8
$

)

'

)
$

&
8
0 :
& $
$

'(
&

&

&

"'&(;(

<6
=
'
>

?>(
$

&

7,$
0

'2"@

7,

A4 A

&
$

'

&

,-*$1%"B*&:

8)C4D

:C4D'$&

*&
$$

1%"B5
8&

8

)

1%"B$

&

;
$)C4D

$
&

.

$
8

)

.

'
/*

*&

(81 *&

>
A 4 E$
$
.A4 &:$&

&(81

;

&
(8"6
E
'$
0

21
$&
(8"

(8"'

6

&5
&

8$*
8&

7F6 G
(

D=

$

$

H &

5
&

8

&)
&
&

C6E+

E

&'H
&$

5
&

8 Page 21 of 311

%
&!'(
$

&
+

)

!'(

&.

)

&
/&#

.

1

+

%
&!'(

%
&!'(*

2

4

5
*

.

)

&
+

&
7&#

)

2-.#

*

*

&+

:
#

)

&.
)

9
)

&

)

&
.

;; 1&#
<

Page 22 of 311
1 FORMER MAYOR ALAN GALBRAITH'S COMMENTS ON
2025-2026 NAPA COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT ENTITLED "LAPSED LEADERSHIP: St. HELENA'S PROBLEMATIC PIPES AND MURKY WATERS" A. BACKGROUND: MY INVOLVEMENT WITH THE WATER ENTERPRISE The Grand Jury states in its report (p. 7) that "it focuses on the city's leadership failures and how they have a>ected the St. Helena Water Enterprise negatively since at least 2011." Since I was involved with water issues as a city leader in the period 2009 to 2018, I begin with a recap of my involvement in those years.

The City Council appointed me to the Planning Commission in June 2009. At that time the city was undertaking to update its 1993 General Plan. After I joined the Commission the City Council instructed the Planning Commission to nominate two of its members to the General Plan Update Steering Committee ("GPUSC"). The Planning Commission chose Peter McCrea and me. In December 2010 the City Council appointed a subcommittee of ten (notably Vice Mayor Eric Sklar, Council Member Bonnie Schoch.

Planning Commission Chair Peter McRea, and GPUSC co-chair John Sales) to comprise a GPUSC subcommittee to investigate the City's water and wastewater issues. The Subcommittee's title: The Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Subcommittee of the General Plan Update Steering Committee.

As the needs of the Wastewater Enterprise related largely to a single facility (the Wastewater Treatment Plant), while the Water Enterprise had numerous facilities, large and small, that required attention, the work of the Infrastructure Subcommittee, including briefing sessions and document gathering, focused largely on the Water Enterprise.

I was the author of the Subcommittee's report: Baseline Report of the Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Subcommittee. I worked closely with Public Works Director John Ferons, who joined the city as Associate Engineer in 2005 and became Public Works Director in 2008. Mr. Ferons was informed, cooperative, and, importantly, ensured that I timely received all requested water and wastewater information from the Public Works Department. I also obtained and reviewed documents from many other sources, including bond documentation relating to the Water and Wastewater Enterprises. Subcommittee members Tim Nieman and John Sales contributed significantly to the work of the Subcommittee.

The Infrastructure Subcommittee approved and released its report on June 24, 2010. It was 38 pages, single-space type long. We said (p. 3): "[A] true understanding of St.

Helena's water situation is not possible without diligent review of the extensive baseline information, organized topic by topic, presented in section 6 (Baseline Findings of the Subcommittee)." There were 16 topics in total: Sources of Water, Bell Canyon, Napa Water, City Well Water, Lower Reservoir, Recycled Water Potential, Operational Issues, Water Usage by Category, Unaccounted for Water, Current City Water Usage Restrictions, Water

Page 23 of 311 ends

2 Rates, including in Nearby Communities, Capital Needs, Current Population Inside and Outside the City, Current Per Person Per Day Water Usage, Climate Change, Water Conservation, Wastewater Treatment Plant and Sewer Lines.

Each topic was developed in multiple subparts. For example, under Capital Needs (pp. 18-20) the Committee began: "The St. Helena water system has significant capital needs. The fact that the system has had unmet needs in the past is irrelevant to what is now required, and the Subcommittee so finds." The Committee then listed out 13 separate needs, each being discussed as necessary for an understanding, starting with the Upper York Creek Dam Reservoir and the city's agreement, following a lawsuit, to remove the dam by November 1,1993. The Committee noted that the dam and spillway constituted "take" structures under the Endangered Species Act, and the city was liable for their removal. In section 7, the Committee identified its sources (pp. 26-35), with description, often detailed, as to the content of each source. For example, the Committee described the Bell Canyon Permits 9157 and 14180, including detailing each order issued by the State Water Board and its predecessors back to 1952, the date of the first Bell Canyon Permit. The Subcommittee presented its report with an extensive PowerPoint presentation to the City Council on July 13, 2010 (81 Slides).

The next day, a Friday, was Farmers' Market Day in St. Helena. I guessed that Mayor Britton would be at the city booth and handed him a copy of the Subcommittee Report. He began to look through it. A few days later, Mayor Britton invited me to his home for an afternoon discussion. As I arrived, he came out with wine and cheese. We sat down at a table on the patio in front of his home (which was set back from Madrona Avenue and private) and went over the Report for an hour or so. He was especially focused on the needs of the Water Enterprise. Mayor Britton would become a solid supporter of a large rate increase. The political fallout did not move him. There were now three Council supporters behind a large rate increase (Mayor Britton, Vice Mayor Sklar, and Council Member Bonnie Schoch).

The report received widespread local attention. The city posted the Infrastructure Subcommittee Report on its website. The St. Helena Star (July 10, 2010) wrote an editorial about the Report, Report answers water questions, calling it a "Herculean job." I followed up with a letter (August 12, 2010) to the St. Helena Star. The issue in those years was quantity not quality. In my letter, St. Helena water demand can't be allowed to grow, I noted that since coming into compliance with its Bell Canyon bypass requirement in 2007, the city had lost 25% of average annual yield from the reservoir. It noted that Napa water had come into the system to o>set some of the loss, and that the city had turned to the Stonebridge wells for significant additional supply. This was a "true concern" because Subcommittee trend charts prepared by Mr. Sales showed that the elevation level in spring 2010 was 17 feet below the 2007 spring level. The letter noted that the city could count on just 400AF from Napa in a drought year (the conditional 200AF above the 400AF was questionable in drought years). The letter put a spotlight on the Napa contract and the supply weakness of the take-or-pay provision cutting o> at 400AF.

Page 24 of 311 ends

3 I was now a "vocal advocate" for rate increases, as City Manager Neilan described me in an email on October 15, 2010. The previous day the St. Helena Star published my commentary: "Now, as I see it, the unmet capital needs of the system are so large because of decades of failure to face up to and fund necessitous capital projects." I singled out the removal of Upper York Creek Dam, noting that the city had promised to remove thein 1993 but had not done so. I also noted (as had been pointedly noted in the Subcommittee Report (p. 26)) that the State Water Board in 1973 had ordered the city to install monitoring equipment at Bell Canyon to verify that the city was meeting its water bypass requirement, but the city had not done so. I also noted that decline in usage was an issue. "But the unhappy result, from a rate perspective, is that more cost must be loaded onto fewer units of water." I concluded: "In short, an exceptionally large water rate increase is inescapable." The city had hired The Reed Group, Inc. to perform an updated study. It had done the study in support of the prior 2008 rate increase, but that study was just a two-year study, with the last projected rate increase (10%) set for January 2011. The city received the draft study on October 20, just days after my commentary. It recommended (p. 3) a 65% rate increase beginning January 2011. Significant community opposition developed to such a large rate increase. I spoke out strongly in favor.

In January 2011, Mr. Ferons went before the City Council with a PowerPoint presentation. He entitled his presentation "Water & Sewer Rate Increases, Anatomy of a Water System." His subtitles were: (1) Water Source and Treatment, (2) Water Distribution, (3) Water Users, (4) Wastewater Collection, (5) Wastewater Treatment. I have seen many PowerPoint presentations. Mr. Ferons' PowerPoint was well done in organization, coverage, and clarity. He made note of the Subcommittee's work.

In his PowerPoint Mr. Ferons listed many potable water infrastructure needs. I understood, and it was obvious, that only some could be fully addressed in the 5-year rate study time. Many were significant projects that required analysis, design, and cost estimating that would stretch them into subsequent 5-year rate periods before ready for inclusion in a capital improvement program. Mr. Ferons impressed on me that the city had managed the Water Enterprise to "capital depletion". Like Rome, the water system was not going to be rebuilt to modern requirements in a day but over many years.

In January 2021 the O>ice of the Director of Public Works (Mr. Ferons) released a four-page brochure, Why? Water & Wastewater Rate Increase. The colorful brochure went over a long list of needed capital improvements with dollar cost guestimate. The brochure (p. 4) contained a separate box, Upper York Creek Timeline, devoted to removal of the Upper York Creek Dam. The brochure stated that the City's share of the removal cost was $4 million.

In February 2011 the City Manager asked me for my thoughts on di>erential rates and charges potentially allocable to specific groups of customers. She provided me with a letter that The Reed Group had sent the city years earlier (February 3, 2005) on outside-thecity rate issues. In a several paragraph email (February 7, 2011) I communicated my lack of enthusiasm on practical and discrimination grounds. "My general view is that we

Page 25 of 311 ends

4 operate a system serving customers both inside and outside City limits, that Capital costs are system costs, and they should be shared equally." I underscored that the city would need good records to justify discriminatory rates. My discussion expressly excluded the Meadowood Napa Valley ("Meadowood") surcharge.

The Final Report of The Reed Group is dated March 18, 2011. Table 1 ("Water Rates and Charges") showed an initial rate increase of 58% beginning July 1, 2011, with no increase in January 2012 and 3% increases in January 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016. I suggested technical wording changes to the Report relating to the Napa Contract. with which I was intimately familiar. The Reed Group made them, as reflected in an email from the city dated April 2.

In spring 2011 (my copy is undated), as required by Proposition 218, the City Clerk issued City of St. Helena Public Hearing Notice. The notice noticed a Council Meeting to be held on April 26, 2011, on "proposals to adopt increases in water and wastewater rates (bolding in original). It stated (p. 1) that "water rates are proposed to increase an overall 58% in July 2011." It set forth the current and proposed water rates inside-the-city and outside the city, as well as the current and proposed Meadowood Surcharges. There were no surcharges proposed for other lift customers whether inside or outside city limits. City of St. Helena, Water and Wastewater Study, Final Report, March 18, 2011, pp. 23-24, Exhibit II-6 & Exhibit II-7 (The Reed Group).

In my role as a planner I spoke in favor of the rate increases before the City Council on April 26, 2011, as it was considering adopting the recommended rates. I reviewed supportive wording in the 1993 General Plan (p. 9-5) and the 2010 Update. I noted that the Update (at p. 2-27) "specifically directs the City to work with the City of Napa to increase the available water supply and extend the contract beyond 2035." I commented on "the unpleasant truth" that "legacy issues" had resulted in "very large" capital needs, citing the June 2010 Baseline Report and Baseline Slide 18 because they "meticulously documented the long-standing capital needs of the water system." I noted that the city had not met its 1993 commitment to remove Upper York Creek Dam and that would cost the city "about $3,000,000."
I concluded: "The rate increases are necessitous. This is demonstrated by The Reed Report. Further, they arise because the City is carrying out the policy mandates in the 1993 General Plan and in the 2010 Update. They therefore reflect our community values as plainly stated in our critical planning guidance documents. The City Council should approve the proposed rate increases."
The Sta> Report for the April 26, 2021, Council meeting contained the following statement: "In a change from the water rate proposal, it is recommended that the City adopt water rates for outside of City customers at the same level as the rates proposed for inside of City customers." The Sta> stated "recent court decisions " as its reasons for recommending the change.

Page 26 of 311 ends

5 I do not recall whether the Council acted on the Sta> recommendation but assume that it did so. In consequence, the new rates starting June 1 imposed the same inside and outside rates, a separate Meadowood rate schedule, but no other lift charges either inside or outside the city. The city had gone along with my thinking as set forth in my email letter of February 7, 2011.

During my Subcommittee work, I reviewed the water chapter in the 1993 General Plan. I noticed that that the 1993 Plan recommended that the city undertake an analysis of the "safe yield" of the water system. I could not determine if the 1993 recommendation had been carried out. I knew that even if done, 17 years had passed, the supply and supply mix were quite di>erent, and there was an urgent need for a new safe yield estimate. I had drafted the several page water section of the 2010 Update. Update finding PF 1.1 stated:
"Require that the approval of new development be contingent upon the ability of the City to provide water without exceeding the safe annual yield of the water system." Why the urgency? When preparing the Infrastructure Subcommittee Report, I had come across these two sentences in on page A-12 in Attachment A to Draft West Yost Technical Memorandum No. 2 (May 12, 2010): "The average required bypass for the years 1990 through 2009, based on weekly actual reservoir operations, was estimated to be 900 acre-feet per year. The estimated actual bypass for 1989 through 2009 was approximately 380 acre-feet per year." I was stunned. West Yost confirmed that I was understanding correctly the plain words: the city had overdrawn the Bell Canyon Reservoir, despite the two September 7,1989 State Water Board's bypass orders (one for each permit), by on average 525AF per year over a twenty-year period. The city had operated the reservoir for 20 years in clear and substantial violation of its State Water Boar permits. The city going forward was now faced with an immediate overall annual supply reduction of 25%. (West Yost Associates was (and is) a water resource and management consulting firm; during my Subcommittee work I learned that West Yost had performed studies for the city in 2005 and 2010, requested them, and received them. The studies filled a four-inch notebook binder; I read them all.)
In the fall of 2010, with the Baseline Report behind me, I requested that the City Council appoint a Safe Yield Committee, composed of Tim Nieman, John Sales, and myself. The Council approved our mission, our unique definition of safe yield, and appointed the three of us on December 14, 2010. We wasted no time. The work fell mostly on Mr. Nieman, our computer modeler. I wrote the report. We issued the report on March 17, 2011, and presented to the City Council on March 22. We supported our work with 26 Slides.

Our City Council presentation included an overview of Mr. Nieman's innovative computer modelling of Bell Canyon Reservoir to determine its yield under various scenarios from extensive data pulled together by the Infrastructure Subcommittee and further refined by the Safe Yield Committee. We provided our annual safe yield number:
1950AF. We fixed the net safe yield which adjusted for "unavailable" water (largely unaccounted water lost in the distribution system). The net safe yield was 1658AF. We showed annual and average metered usage (1833AF) over the past five years which, after

Page 27 of 311 ends

6 adjusting upward for "unavailable water," resulted in an average five-year usage of 2156AF.

In consequence, average total usage exceeded the safe yield by 206AF. We made four recommendations, including immediately seeking an amendment in the Napa contract to remove a summertime operational restriction that reduced the safe yield.

At this time the City of Napa was in the process of revising its rate structure. Its rate structure was a single inside-the-city rate and a single outside-the city-rate.

Subcommittee Report, p. 17 (§12(f)(iii)). St. Helena was paying the same outside rate as all outside customers. The City of Napa was moving to a cost-of-service rate design structure.

When the City of Napa released its consultant's study, I went right away to the Napa Water Division's downtown Napa o>ice to review the study. I wanted to see the rate recommendation for St. Helena. The Napa consultant had classified St. Helena with all outside Napa City residential customers. The consultant had not proposed a separate cost-based rate for St. Helena, its largest wholesale customer, as I thought should have been done.

The Napa consultant recommended an initial increase followed by significant annual increases during the rate study period for outside-the-city customers. I relayed what I learned to the City of St. Helena with three concerns: (1) the City of St. Helena was a wholesale customer, not a retail customer, and therefore the rate classification did not fit; (2) the new initial rate might be too high, (3) the annual increases thereafter were significant.

The City of Napa noticed its new proposed rates in August 2011 and adopted them on September 20, 2011. They were in place when the City of St. Helena opened negotiations with the City of Napa on an amendment to St. Helena's water supply contract.

I had no involvement (nor should I have had) in the discussions leading to the December 15, 2011 Amendment No. 3 to the Napa contract but, when it came before the City Council for approval on November 8, 2011l, I recognized (1) the amended contract removed the summertime operational constraint that lowered the safe yield, (2) increased the take-or-pay from 400AF to 600AF, and (3) while the initial price was the same as recommended by the Napa rate consultant for outside residential customers, the price in subsequent years would be under that rate. Napa Water Supply Agreement, Amendment No. 3 (e>ective December 15, 2011).

After alerting the city to my concerns about the proposed new pricing for St. Helena by the Napa rate consultant, I followed water issues from my position on the Planning Commission, where I was now its chair. I was especially interested in unaccounted water loss, what went into it, how it was calculated, and how the loss could be minimized. Mr.

Ferons shared with me a full-page diagram that he had prepared to show the many factors that went into the calculation. By then he had learned that treated water at the Water Treatment Plant, used in treating raw water, had not been considered in the calculation. He corrected that (which reduced the unaccounted-for loss percentage).

Page 28 of 311 ends

7 I followed closely developments at the Water and Wastewater Enterprises during my four years as Mayor (2014-2018). This emerges on subsequent pages. I have continued to follow the progress of the Enterprises from city published sources since that time, especially the monthly Water Reports.

About myself: I served on the St. Helena Planning Commission from 2009-13 and then as Mayor from 2014-18. I chaired the 2013-014 Napa County Civil Grand Jury. I also served on two county water committees, appointed by the Board of Supervisors: The Groundwater Resources Advisory Committee (2011-13) and the Groundwater Sustainability Plan Advisory Committee (2019-2021), of which I was vice-chair. I served on the Board of Directors of the Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (2014-18).

My background: following law school, I became a member of the Massachusetts, California, District of Columbia, and Maryland Bars. Professional career: instructor (UC Berkeley), sta> attorney, California Rural Legal Assistance (Santa Rosa O>ice (Indian law issues)), research attorney, California Supreme Court (Justice Stanley Mosk), and 40-year career with Williams & Connolly LLP (Washington, D.C.), a national trial practice firm. I accumulated expertise in regulatory law (including ratemaking), pipeline operations (natural gas), and open channel flow measurement (wastewater systems, open channels, and reservoirs). I became exceptionally familiar with take-or-pay contracts (oil and gas industry).

B: COMMENTS ON GRAND JURY MAJOR THEMES

1. Grand Jury Qualifications
As I know from being a Napa County Civil Grand Jury Chair, Napa County civil grand juries often issue constructive reports but at times they do not. I have read many over the years. I am familiar with the California Penal Code provisions governing civil grand juries as well as the instructional materials for incoming grand jurors. This Grand Jury in this case did not do its job.

The report is replete with factual error, inconsistencies, misuse of documents, and unsupported opinion.

I select one consequential error for starters (much more in subsequent pages). On page 20 the Grand Jury, assessing City Council responsibility, blames "council members for hiring management sta>." The Grand Jurors display in these words their collective lack of understanding of the council-manager form of government.

A quick primer, from the International City/County Management Association ("ICMA"):

1. "The elected o>icials hire a professional city, town, or county manager based on that person's skills and abilities and NOT their political allegiances. The elected o>icials supervise the manager's performance, and if that person is not responsive or e>ective in their role, the elected o>icials have the authority to remove him or her at any time."

Page 29 of 311 ends

8 2. "The manager is an at will-employee [who] recruits, hires, supervises, and terminates government staS." Italics added.

This is basic stu>. The Council, acting as a body, hires and fires the city manager.

The city manager is the chief administrator. The council has NO role in the hiring or firing of city sta>.

Because the Grand Jury (with no foundation) asserts (p. 27) that council members and senior management need "governance training," I add, in my case, that I was familiar with the ICMA, read much of its literature, and had read with special care the ICMA's Code of Ethics for City Managers.

During my mayorship I played NO role in the hiring and firing of management sta> under the City Manager. If I had done so, I would have provoked the City Manager's speaking resignation. I received no complaint from any of the three (one interim) City Managers during my time as Mayor that a council colleague asserted himself or herself into management sta> hiring or firing. I met privately with the City Manager (with Vice Mayor Peter White) for an hour or so every two weeks during my mayorship without fail. I interacted with the City Manager regularly.

Conclusion: a report purporting to pass judgment on Council and city sta> leadership has NO credibility when its authors lack minimal grasp of the council-manager form of government.

2. Water Quality
I focus on water quality through 2018, when I left city government. I am not personally knowledgeable after 2018. I have not experienced a water taste or appearance problem at my Allyn Avenue home in St. Helena through today.

No customer-driven water quality complaints were brought to the attention of the Infrastructure Subcommittee in 2010. Its June 2011 report is thus silent on the subject. I recall no significant water quality issues being reported city-wide in the period 2011-14 before coming Mayor. I also recall no customer-driven water quality complaints during my mayorship (2014-18). As to other customer-driven complaints, they were not systemic, but local and sporadic, and handled by the St. Helena Public Works Department in the ordinary course of business, including installation of a carbon filtration system at the Bell Canyon Treatment Plant.

I do recall learning of one interesting water taste issue, though I cannot place it in time. Napa Water comes from two sources: treated water from its Jameson Canyon Water Treatment Plant and treated water from its Hennessey Water Treatment Plant. Napa water from both sources is delivered in a single water main to St. Helena at its Rutherford Pump Station. There was a short period when the City of Napa was not timely advising the City of St. Helena when it was switching from one source to the other. This a>ected treatment at the Rutherford Station -- and customer taste. The issue was promptly addressed through better coordination between the two cities.

Page 30 of 311 ends

9 3. Water Quantity
The Grand Jury (p. 7) provides the City's total water production (from its three sources of potable water (Bell Canyon Reservoir, City of Napa, City Stonebridge Production Wells) for fiscal year ending June 30, 2024. The total produced was 1,159AF.

The city today publishes monthly water reports. They were once weekly. They provide the data that enables the tracking of city water production by source by water year.

For trend analysis the key reports are those ending on June 30; they show total production for the full water year, as well as the year before.

The Grand Jury should have provided a trend analysis over several years, readily assembled from the monthly Water Reports on the city's website. The Infrastructure Subcommittee did so in Baseline Slide Two, prepared by Mr. Sales. It showed that the city produced on average 2037AF per water year in the period 2000-2009, with a high of 2290AF (2002) and a low of 1814AF (2009).

So, what is remarkable is the extraordinary decline in water production over the period 2011 through 2024, from 2156AF to 1,159AF, a drop of 1,000AF in that timeframe.

The decline in water production translates directly into a large loss in water sales revenue. Further, the revenue loss especially hurts because it is incremental: in standard cost accounting the cost of producing the last unit is less, and typically much less, than the cost of producing the first unit. This principle a>ects rate design: more of the cost must be placed on the fixed charge (connection fee) than on customer usage, which both increases revenue stability and reduces the customers' ability to lower their water bills -- and it hurts at the customer level. In St. Helena, Napa water is both baseline water (take-or-pay) and expensive, has become a much greater percentage of total production, and has strongly pushed up water rates.

Knowing that production has drastically declined, the Grand Jury might have explored the underlying reasons to understand better the revenue implications.

Without doubt, rising water bills have dramatically driven down usage; that is apparent from landscape conversions in St. Helena and probably lower household usage as well. The second reason is population loss: Based on Census data, the Grand Jury notes (p. 6) the City's population dropped nearly 10% between 2010 and 2020. Permanent population loss is somewhat o>set by second homeowners (not counted in the Census); the "somewhat" is because second homeowners use significantly less water than full-time households. The third is greater e>iciency in water use, perhaps more of a factor on the commercial side than the residential side.

None of this is discussed in the Grand Jury Report. It is not possible to make a responsible assessment of the city's management of the Water Enterprise, including its scheduling of capital improvements, without coming to grips with the e>ect on revenue of the nearly 50% reduction in water demand over the years under review by the Grand Jury.

4. Grand Jury Math and Council Leadership

Page 31 of 311 ends

10 The Grand Jury states (pp. 2 (Summary), 16) that in its study period (2011-2023+) that water rates have increased "approximately 183%." The Grand Jury (pp. 12, 12, 14) provides box tables showing "Recommended Rate Increases" and "Actual Rate Increases." Its math does not hold up.

The rate increases (FY 2011/12 through FY 2027/28), when added, total 220% for "Recommended Rate Increases" and, when added, total 130.5% for "Actual Rate Increases." The Grand Jury's fault with the City, leading to its many derogatory descriptors (e.g., pp. 3: "dysfunction," "poor-decision-making," "poor oversight," "poor governance"), is that actual rate increases were much less than recommended rate increases, leading to poor performance over many years
Problem: this did not happen.

The only way to reach the Grand Jury's183% increase is if the City Council in fact approved the recommended rate increases. The recommended rate increases total188% if the four 8% increases following the rate initial FY 2023/24 28% rate increase are subtracted out, close to the Grand Jury's 183%.

Now, as shown in Background Section A, the City Council in fact adopted the 2011 recommended rate increase of 58%. The Grand Jury Report shows that the 2023 Council adopted the Recommended 28% Increase. The 2016 increase was during my mayorship. I do not have at my personal disposal the city records pertaining to the 2016 rate increase. I recall that it was substantial. I am confident that the Council adopted the consultantrecommended rate increase. If the Grand Jury report correctly states (p. 13) that the recommended increase was 63%, then that was the increase that the Council adopted. (The city could not have proceeded to a lesser-than-recommended increase (still an increase over prior rates) without going again through the Proposition 218 process. I am confident that did not happen.)
Bottom-line: the Grand Jury Report (pp. 111, 13 (boxed numbers), with its many derogatory comments on city governance, is based on the faulty premise that the City Council in 2011 and 2015 slashed in half (2011) and more than half (2016) recommended rates. Its house of cards collapses due to its faulty rate math.

I would add that it is di>icult to be in a governance position when called upon to approve large rate increases. I recall the deeply felt resentment of residents opposing the 2016 increase. Council leadership is at its best when, as happened in St. Helena, the Council approved huge initial rate increases. The Grand Jury did not live it -- and its allegation of "poor governance" is hurtful and wrong.

Note: The Grand Jury in its boxes does not provide rate increase information for FY 2021/2022 and FY 2022/2023. If there were increases in those years, as likely, and they were around 4% (2016 rate increase rate after initial 63% increase), then the total increase would rise to 191%, close to the 188% discussed above.

Page 32 of 311 ends

11 5. DiWerential Rates and Special Surcharges
a. Terminology
"Di>erential rates" are general rates that di>er for the same class of customer between inside-the-city customers and outside-the city-customers. Outside customers pay more. "Lift" rates are rates charged to customers behind elevated tanks; they consider pumping and related costs; they are typically localized to a specific service area. These customers can be inside-the-city or outside-the-city.
b. Background to Discussion
St. Helena discontinued di>erential rates (which had come into rates by 1958) in 2011. It does not appear that St. Helena charged lift rates at any time except for the Meadowood surcharge. Letter from The Reed Group to City of St. Helena, February 3, 2005.

This surcharge was a separately stated rate on the city's water rate schedules. The city discontinued this surcharge in 2016.

The Grand Jury writes (pp. 21-22): "In 2016, the City Council changed the water rate fee structures and cancelled water assessment and surcharges to OSSA customers [outside-the-city customers with water service agreements] and customers in high elevations without having a plan in place to replace the lost revenues." This statement is overbroad. There were no customers inside or outside the city (since 2008 and perhaps at no time) in high elevations paying lift charges other than Meadowood. All outside customers (not just those with service contacts) paid a (higher) di>erential rate prior to the new rates in 2016.

The Grand Jury assumes (p. 18) that because the City of Napa can charge di>erential rates, so can the City of St. Helena. The Infrastructure Subcommittee documented that the City of Napa had one inside-the-city rate and one outside-the city rate in 2010. Baseline Report, p. 17 (§12(f)(iii). Napa switched to cost-of-service based rate in 2011 based on the work of its consultant. Napa thus had cost-based justification for di>erential and lift rates. St. Helena had no such justifying study. The history is stated in Section A of this Comment. (I retained the Napa rate records so I write here not just with a strong memory but with documentary substantiation.)
The Saint Helena City Council, following the recommendation of an ad hoc resident committee, decided to forego all di>erential rates, including the Meadowood surcharge. I supported that decision as Mayor. The highly knowledgeable Vice Mayor Peter White supported this decision. I recall no Council dissent.

The city could not legally, practically, or as matter of sound policy adopt di>erential pricing in 2016.
c. The legal landscape
In April 2015, the California Court of Appeal decided Capistrano Taxpayers Ass'n v.

City of San Juan Capistrano, 235 Cal.App.4th 1493 (2015). It resolved the question of

Page 33 of 311 ends

12 applicability of Proposition 218 to water rates. The Court of Appeal held that under Proposition 218 public agencies for property-related services could not charge more than the proportional cost of providing the service to that specific parcel. The Capistrano case was a landmark case; it reshaped the way in which California water agencies charged for water. It was immediately clear that the St. Helena, lacking a study, could not legally adopt di>erential and lift rates.

I knew that an informed consideration of di>erential and elevated rates would require the city to accumulate supportive documentation as Napa had done in 2011.

Having read the Napa 2011 rate consultant study, I knew that a rate study would take significant time at significant expense once the data was in the hands of the rate consultant. That would take a significant period to accumulate. I knew at that Council consideration of di>erential and elevated rates was an impossibility if new 2016 rates were soon to be adopted, as was financially imperative.

I did not view the legal issue as a close call. I do not today recall the city's public legal advice. Interim City Manager Jim MCann writes (St. Helena Star (July 2-8, 2026)) that the City’s outside legal counsel advised that the City could not justify di>erential rates under Proposition 218. Importantly, there is nothing in the Grand Jury Report that signifies that it understood the significance of the Capistrano case in taking issue with past Council decisions not to impose di>erential and lift rates.
d. Practical Considerations
I knew that not reviving di>erential rates would be controversial. The Council formed an ad hoc committee to evaluate the issue. The committee, led by Jack Stuart, recommended against di>erential rates. I do not recall today the specifics of the ad hoc committee's recommendation. I do recall my own thinking.

The city's water service area is small, geographically compact, and city water employees in the ordinary course of business service Water Enterprise facilities outside city limits, such as the Rutherford Pump Station, near water customers outside city limits on the south side of the city. The city has customers east of the Napa River inside city limits not far from other east side customers outside city limits. (As an aside, and though generally not understood, the city's Bell Canyon property is within city limits (an island surrounded by the County)). It seemed apparent that the ongoing operation and maintenance costs of providing service to customers outside city limits was not significantly di>erent than for inside the city customers. I foresaw a bookkeeping nightmare as, for example, in untangling chargeable travel time from nonchargeable time or sorting out chargeable lift expenses if lift charges were imposed by elevated tank zone. I also doubted that pumping expense was truly significant. The larger point is that the Grand Jury did not investigate these practical issues in castigating the city for discontinuing di>erential rates in 2011 and not reviving them in 2016, and not outside imposing zonebased lift rates (cost-of-service would vary by tank zone).

Page 34 of 311 ends

13 Turning to Meadowood: It is a party to one of twenty-five service agreements with the city. The Grand Jury states (pp. 17, 25) that there are "more than 30." A spreadsheet (initially prepared by me in 2011) listing the customers with service agreements is posted on the City's website; the potable water agreements number is 25. The one that matters most is the Meadowood Service Agreement. Its agreement provides for the most treated water (27,405 HCF/yr) among all treated water service agreements. It is the only one mentioned by name in the Grand Jury Report (p. 18). The Grand Jury missed the main point of the Meadowood Agreement. Its key clause is Clause 5.

Clause 5 states: "While water is furnished to Meadowood pursuant to this Agreement, Meadowood shall be bound by and subject to all lawful resolutions, rules, regulations and orders of the City pertaining to water service as may be enacted from time to time for all other applicable users of City water, including, without limitation, provisions relating to rate charges and water shortage emergencies." Italics added. Clause 5 was a legal showstopper: it precluded the city from attempting to impose a special surcharge.

With rates greatly rising, I foresaw that Meadowood would press not just a Proposition 218 argument but also a sound contract argument.

There is no mention of Clause 5 in the Grand Jury Report. It is not justifiable to criticize the Council for discontinuing the Meadowood Surcharge in the face of Section 5 of the Meadowood Service Agreement, wholly apart from the Proposition 218 roadblock for want of adequate record cost support.
e. Policy Considerations
There are also strong public policy arguments against imposing di>erential and lift rates.

As to lift rates: the higher storage tanks provide fire flow water. This is an important public benefit. It justifies spreading out the cost and not loading it onto the customers in each tank zone. The 2017 and 2018 fires make the point.

There is also a strong logical argument against di>erential rates. I made this argument in my email to the city on February 7, 2011 (discussed in Background Section A).

I quote from the argument I made in a July 29, 2019, letter. The letter was written in the context of the Meadowood surcharge, but its logic also extends to di>erential rates and lift rates. "As for the city-owned-Meadowood tanks, . . . assume that not a physical drop of Napa water reaches the Meadowood tanks (my understanding is that the water flow in the water main hung on the Pratt Avenue Bridge -- the only pipeline from Bell Canyon into the City -- is solely east to west. Now, if customers behind the Meadowood tanks should bear the significant cost of their replacement, why isn't it also the case that their rates should be calculated not to include the cost of Napa water (by far our most expensive water source), the likely huge cost of replacing the pipeline up from Rutherford (carrying Napa sourced water), the substantial Tank 2 rehabilitation cost, and so on? Also, the administrative cost of sorting all of this out would no doubt require significant sums spent on a consultant,

Page 35 of 311 ends

14 plus meeting Prop. 218 requirements. I can also envision significant litigation if the city were to go down this road."
The Grand Jury notes (p. 15) that the Holmes Tank requires replacement, that the estimated cost is approximately $3.6 million, and that (p. 17) there are six households behind the Holmes tank. The cost per household, then, is $600,000. I would hope that the St. Helena community, as represented by the Council, would reject a $600,000 surcharge on each of six households. The Holmes Tank is situated in a local of high wildfire risk.

I thought that a uniform rate structure was a fair community value that should be championed and not questioned. A grand jury has no business second-guessing the wellconsidered decision of an informed council.

6. Asserted Inability to Manage Major Projects
The Grand Jury asserts (p. 3) that the city lacks "adequate project management expertise" and an "inability to problem solve e>ectively." These sweeping statements are belied by accomplishment. Three examples from my time as Mayor:
a. Comprehensive Flood Protection Project
The o>icial project start date was about June 7, 2006, and the project end date was January 1, 2016. The project was in response to repeated flooding on the east side of the city near the Napa River. The city was the lead agency on the project. It managed the project to completion. The total project cost exceeded $30 million. With completion, the project protected numerous homes from a 200-year flood event with additional freeboard margin.

This was no simple construction project. It presented many significant project issues and, therefore, involved numerous reviewing agencies: California Department of Parks and Recreation; California Highway Patrol; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Sacramento Region 5 and San Francisco Region 4; California Department of Water Resources; California O>ice of Emergency Services; O>ice of Historic Preservation; State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water Quality; California Department of Transportation; California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Division 4, Bay Delta Region 3.

Then, at the Federal level, there was the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

The one project issue that I recall during my mayorship related to the recovery of Indian artifacts at the construction near the confluence Sulphur Creek and the Napa River.

It was addressed with no controversy.
b. Upper York Creek Dam Removal
The dam was built around 1900. The Water Enterprise removed the reservoir behind the dam from treated water service in 1989. Public Works Brochure, January 2011, p. 4.

The goal of the Dam Removal Project was to restore access for steelhead to more than 1.5 miles of stream above the 50-foot earthen dam. The City of St. Helena was the Non-Federal Sponsor.

Page 36 of 311 ends

15 Based on its "investigation" the Grand Jury states (p. 11) that "the removal of Upper Reservoir Dam [cost] $3,100,000." The final cost, as stated by Public Works Director Erica Smithies, was $9.5 million. Upper York Creek Dam Removal Video (available on city website; a "must-see" for anyone interested in the project). She states that roughly half the final cost was in upfront engineering and design. The final modifications followed the heavy rains in 2017. They took advantage of lessons learned from the removal of the San Clemente Dam on the Carmel River.

The Public Works Department on the city website provides a listing of those involved in the project, in addition to the City of Helena. The listing lists twelve project consultants, eight cooperating agencies, two contractors, two local cooperators, and three elected representatives.

Here we go: Project Consultants: EKI Environmental & Water, Inc.; Green Valley Consulting Engineers; Kubik EHS Solutions, Inc.; Middletown Rancheria; Rincon Consultants, Inc.; Stillwater Sciences; Terra Firma Surveys, Inc.; Tra>ic Control Pros, Inc.; WRA, Inc.; WRECO; Yarborough Architectural Resources. Cooperating Agencies: California Department of Fish and Wildlife; Napa County Flood Control and Conservation District; National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration -- Fisheries; Regional Water Quality Control Board -- SF Bay; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers -- SF Region; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Contractors: Britton Tree Service; McCullough Construction, Inc. Local Cooperators: Spring Mountain Vineyard; Upper Valley Disposal & Recycling Landfill.

Elected representatives: State Assembly Member Cecillia Agar-Curry; State Senator Bill Dodd; U.S. Congressman Mike Thompson.

The funding came from three sources: the California Department of Water Resources, the City of St. Helena Water Enterprise and General Fund, and the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency.

My point: St. Helena showed the project management expertise, as Project Sponsor, to bring this long and complex project to a conclusion. Interim City Manager Jim Mcann summed up well in his letter in the St. Helena Star (July 2-8, 2026): the dam removal "stands as one of the city's most significant environmental achievements that is now a model for other projects in our region and beyond."
c. Wastewater Treatment Upgrades
In his January 2011 City Council Presentation Public Works Director John Ferons identified the need to rehabilitate Pond 1A, in continuous operation since the Wastewater Treatment Plant opened in 1966.

The Pond 1A project su>ered a severe mishap. With renovation complete, city employees filled the pond with raw sewage which, over a few days, sank into the ground due to inadvertent removal of the pond's impermeable clay bottom. The city reported the event to the Regional Water Quality Control Board ("RWQCB"). It responded with a proposed $2.8 million fine. The City Manager, working with the Public Works Director and a consultant, eventually persuaded the RWQCB to settle for a $280,000 fine.

Page 37 of 311 ends

16 The mishap then started a long process that led to a cease-and-desist order requiring the city to make specified upgrades and to do so within a fixed schedule. The city would complete an $18.8 million wastewater treatment upgrade, a major accomplishment.

So, what started from an unfortunate mishap resulted in a modern wastewater treatment facility at an $18.8 million cost, and in the end a success.

6. Rate Study Expectations
I discuss the 2011 and 2016 water rate studies. I was significantly involved in each of them: the 2011 rate study due to my authorship of the2Infrastructure Subcommittee Report and follow-on involvement in the of spring 2011and the 2016 rate study as Mayor. a. The 2011 Rate Study
As already discussed in Comment Section A and, the approved rate increase was 58%, not 29%. I here focus on page 10 of the Grand Jury Report to deal with incorrect textual points.

First Text Point: the Grand Jury quotes six lines that are found on page 12 the Reed Group's 2011 Final Study in a section devoted to the "Capital Improvement Program." When read in context, the Reed Group makes the point that the recommended increase (58%) is not su>icient to provide for funding for all 36 projects totaling about $11.5 million in the city's $11.5 million 6-year capital improvement plan. "As a result, approximately $1.1 million of the planned capital improvement has been deferred beyond the planning period used for this study."
The statement in fact substantiates my memory (see Section A), that the 2011 rates were not designed to fund all projects, and that it was contemplated that projects would need to be extended beyond the six-year study period (and five-year rate period). When read in the context in which it was written, the statement undercuts the Grand Jury's assessment that the City Council was slow-walking progress on capital improvements by approving substantially less than recommended rates in 2011 and 2016. It substantiates the obvious: not all projects were going to be completed within the five-year rate period or the six-year study period. The Grand Jury did not understand that.

Second Text Point: the Grand Jury (p. 10) writes that the 2011 City Council "made a conscious decision to defer capital improvements and approved a smaller rate increase, than recommended, prioritizing debt covenants over long-term infrastructure and deferring maintenance again." Italics added.

I focus on the words "prioritizing" and "conscious decision. By using the word "prioritizing," the Grand Jury seems to be suggesting that the 2011 Council should have preferred and authorized greater capital spending over spending money to satisfy financial debt covenants. Its use of "conscious decision (when decisions in their nature are "conscious") seems to be underscoring the Grand Jury's belief that, faced a "conscious" choice, the City Council should have chosen a larger capital budget over covenant compliance.

Page 38 of 311 ends

17 If this is what the grand jury is messaging, then my response is emphatic: II would never have voted in favor of a rate increase that did not cure non-compliance with a bond covenant. I can envision Mr. Jesse Duarte's bolded frontpage headline in the St. Helena Star: "Mayor and Council snub bond holders; St. Helena's credit-rating plunges; City becomes laughingstock." No thanks.

The Grand Jury (p. 11) complains that funds from the 2011 rate increase were not dedicated to the distribution system. It notes (p. 11) that 29 capital projects were completed by June 30, 2016. The Grand Jury does not provide a listing of these completed capital improvement projects in its Report or in an appendix. It appears that the Grand Jury does not deem pumping stations to be part of the distribution system (see p. 11, last sentence). I viewed them as being an integral part of the distribution system. The same is also true for water storage tanks. During my mayorship the city completed installation water Tank 1A. Grand Jury Report, p. 30 (W-83 on "Projects Delivered" list). Tank 1A is downstream of the Bell Canyon Water Treatment Plant and is a critical part of the distribution system. I have now forgotten its capacity but at minimum one million. It cost around $1.5 million.

As a footnote, care of the water distribution system is a basic task of the Water Enterprise. City water employees patrol the distribution system daily. Prompt attention t leaks is a priority. Public Works Slide Presentation, January 2011, Operations & Maintenance Slide. (The leaks I most remember were automobiles on three occasions (outside Vineyard Valley, near the Safeway, near the Elm Tunnel) crashing into and disabling into fire hydrants. The Vineyard Valley crash was no minor weekend challenge. The water spills (then shows up as unaccounted-for water loss).
b. The 2016 Rate Study
The Grand Jury Report states (p. 13) that the initial recommended rate increase was 63% and that the approved initial rate increase was 25%.

During my mayorship I did not keep a personal file of o>icial city documents or records. I do not have immediately available materials generated by the city during my time as mayor (2014-18).

I can say with certainty that the city did not go through the Proposition 218 process as would have been required if it had rejected the recommended rate increase.

That did not happen.

I discussed di>erential, lift, and the Meadowood surcharge issues in Section B (5).

C. COMMENTS ON SELECTED STATEMENTS IN THE GRAND JURY REPORT

1. Page 2: The Grand Jury asserts that in the period 2011-2025 "the water system as whole has fallen into further decline." As of 2018, when I left the mayorship, that was not my assessment; a completely depleted system was being revived. As for the full period assessed by the Grand Jury, Interim City Manager Jim McCann summed up well (St. Helena

Page 39 of 311 ends

18 Star, July 2-8, 2026): "According to city documentation, approximately 73% of planned capital improvement between 2011 and 2021 was invested, resulting in 62 completed projects. More investment is needed, but suggesting ratepayer dollars produced little or no benefit is simply incorrect."

2. Page 3: The Grand jury alleges "poor oversight" by several terms of the City Council." I categorically reject this claim. It is inconsistent on its face with the Grand Jury's finding that City Councils in the years under Grand Jury reviewed raised water rates by an astonishing 183%, an amount that far exceeds the rise in the Consumer Price Indes in that time (about 35%).

I never failed to keep myself informed about the state of the Water and Wastewater Enterprises, and the rate issues needed to support them. The Council did not have the luxury of adequate revenue to recapitalize immediately all needed water (and wastewater projects). Beyond Council meetings, as previously noted, Vice Mayor Peter White (with whom I had an excellent collegial relationship) and I met every two weeks with the City Manager for a review of City matters, including the Enterprises if needed. I reviewed the many documents generated in the ordinary course of business concerning the Water Enterprise (budget, capital improvement plan) as well as periodic updates (with questions) at bi-weekly City Council meetings.

3. Page 3: The Grand Jury references an increase in taxes to support the Water Enterprise. The reference is to Measure H, adopted by the voters in June 2022, to enable the City to incur bonded indebtedness. Measure H proceeds fund both Enterprise and non-Enterprise municipal projects, with project costs totaling $18,318,295. The Water Enterprise is receiving 31%; the Wastewater Enterprise about 61%. A good link:
https://sthelenaca.portal.civicclerk.com/event/1588/files/attachment/170.

4. Page 5: The Grand Jury states "St. Helena's City Council should require its members and Senior Management Sta> to attend governance training in addition to training on the Brown Act. Grand Jury recommends (p. 27) "training opportunities" as are sponsored by the Mayors and Council Members Academy and The League of California Cities. I attended meetings and seminars sponsored by The California League of Cities during my four years as a Planning Commissioner and my four years as Mayor. They were in Sacramento (several), Monterey, Long Beach, and near the Ontario Airport (likely Pomona).

The city paid expenses. During my mayorship, City Manager Jennifer Phillips encouraged sta> to participate in professional organizations and attend training and conferences. I also recall that the City Council approved Ms. Philips' request that she attend a course at Harvard's Kennedy School in Cambridge MA.

5. Page 16: The Grand Jury asserts that Water Enterprise customers pay "exorbitantly higher rates for water than in neighboring communities." The Grand Jury provides no comparative information to support this statement, nor any definition of its scope of "exorbitantly." A professional grand jury report would contain this information so that the reader can assess the matter. The 2011 Infrastructure Baseline Report (p. 16) did

Page 40 of 311 ends

19 precisely that with a detailed recitation of rates in each nearby city (City of Calistoga, Town of Yountville, City of Napa).

6. Page 17: The Grand Jury, in addressing outside-the-city customers, states "there is no monitoring for prohibited usage (using treated water for irrigation for example)." I am not sure of its point. In general, allegations of a water violation are complaint-driven. The Grand Jury does not explain what it thinks the city should do, and at what municipal expense. Cities generally do not proceed based on guilty unless proven innocent. St.

Helena is not an outlier.

7. Page 18: The Grand Jury asserts that outside-the-city customers with outside service area agreements unfairly benefit from Measure H projects for water, stormwater, and sewage services when they are not taxed for their share of these services. I admit that I am not well informed here. My memory is that the city does not provide sewage services outside city limits. As to stormwater: I am skeptical that the city provides stormwater service outside the city unless under an arrangement with the county and therefore decline to accept the Grand Jury's assertion without substantiation. As to water service, there is some benefit, though most Measure H spending is on wastewater projects. See Comment Section B (5).
8: Page 19: The Grand Jury discusses City Council turnover. It asserts that turnover was "high" (though not providing comparative data with comparable small cities) with a loss of institutional knowledge (p. 20). The Grand Jury does not provide any detail that would suggest the loss of "institutional knowledge" negatively a>ects Water Enterprise operations. For example, Water Treatment Plant managers are certified; they can surely assess the state of facilities for themselves. The Grand Jury omits that Mayor Paul Dohring has served on the Council continuously since 2014; few cities enjoy a mayor with longer "institutional knowledge." The Grand Jury refers to a "near recall" (me) but there was no "near recall." The signatures necessary to force a recall election were not gathered. The Grand Jury states: "In fact, the most recent example saw a City Council member expelled due to lack of attendance in April 2026." Italics added. The Council member was not "expelled" by the City Council. This is harsh -- and, it must be said mean too. He lost his Council seat by operation of California Government Code section 365513 due to consecutively missed regular City Council meetings. Reporting by the city and press was careful to explain that his departure was by operation of law and not by Council action.

9. Pages 19-20: The Grand Jury writes (p. 19) "Multiple council members have faced conflict-of-interest scrutiny tied to their personal and financial interests. Ultimately, dysfunctional conflict has hindered if not totally impeded much needed progress in St.

Helena, especially for the St. Helena Water Enterprise." The same theme appears on page 20 ("High turnover and council disfunction"). Also, on page 21, "Dysfunctional conflict has prohibited much-needed progress," presumably with respect to the Water Enterprise.

This is a baseless allegation. It is basically stating that progress on the Water Enterprise has been impeded by council members with a personal or financial interest in their vote, in violation of the Brown Act.

Page 41 of 311 ends

20 The Grand Jury does not cite a single for instance.

During my time as Mayor there was NO recusal at any time with respect to the Water Enterprise. Perhaps my imagination is limited but I find it di>icult to think that any council member at any time would have a personal or financial interest in conflict with the Water Enterprise.

In fact, during my time as mayor there were almost no recusals on any matter at any time for conflict of interest. The handful that occurred were handled correctly under the Brown Act.

For the record, in my case I had no business interest in St. Helena and no personal financial interest other than my Allyn Avenue home. Prior to becoming Mayor, I served for three years on the Board of Directors and as Corporate Secretary of Rianda House; my term expired shortly before I became Mayor. I did not seek reappointment to avoid a conflict of interest with Rianda House (a recipient of funds from the city). The Grand Jury (p. 50) worries about "personal relationships." I state no personal relationship a>ected my conduct of city business. (I am not sure what the Grand Jury thinks is the scope of a "personal relationship." I would define it as my wife and children; none had any business interest in St. Helena.)

10. Page 20: The Grand Jury discusses turnover of Public Works Directors. Here are the facts through 2018: John Ferons started as Associate City Engineer in 2005 and was Director from 2008 to 2013. He hired Debby Hight as Assistant Public Works Director in about 2010; she became Acting Public Works Director when Mr. Ferons left in late 2013, leaving before Ms. Smithies' arrival in September 2016. Mr. Palmer become Director in 2014, leaving in March 2017. Erica Smithies became Assistant Public Works Director in September 2016, becoming Public Works Director in April 2017 when Mr. Palmer left. Ms.

Smithies was Public Works Director through the end of my term as Mayor, and, according to the Grand Jury (p. 37), left in March 2021.

I did not then view the turnover of Public Works Directors as out of the ordinary.

Also, in each case there was a smooth hand-o>: Ms. Hight overlapped between Mr. Ferons and Mr. Palmer and Ms. Smithies was Assistant Public Works Director under Mr. Palmer before she became Public Works Director.

11. Page 23: The Grand Jury writes: "It is important to note that no recent improvements have been made to the Stonebridge Wells or the Rutherford pump station." The Grand Jury does not elaborate on the importance of "important." On page 30, a "Capital Improvement Projects Delivered" listing in the period 2011-16, the listing lists Project W-69 - Stonebridge Wells Upgrade." On page 33, a similar 2016-2023 project delivered listing, the listing lists "Project 03005-W-1 10 -Rutherford Pump Upgrade." If these are the projects that the Grand Jury deems "important to note," then the Grand Jury listing shows they are noted and completed.

Page 42 of 311 ends

21 D. MY CONCLUDING COMMENTS
The Napa County Court, in advertising for grand jurors, promises that they will conduct "rigorous" investigations. Indeed, as I know from being a Napa County Civil Grand Jury Chair, there is written guidance and significant instructional training on the proper conduct of a grand jury investigation. The Grand Jury's Final Report in this case is not the product of a meaningful investigation, much less one in accordance with training materials. A sure sign: The Grand Jury in Table 1states that the St. Helena Public Works Director in 2010 and 2011 is "Unknown." It did not have the energy or interest to find out.

So let us be clear as to what happened. The Grand Jury relied on the assessment of a confidential source with a strong bias against the St. Helena city leadership and management. The Grand Jury instructional materials, as I remember them, warned against such reliance. The result is a brutal report with no evidentiary foundation.

I look back on my service to St. Helena with pride. I look back with respect and appreciation for the City Managers and their Public Directors. I knew many city employees.

I admired their skills, dedication, helpfulness, and friendliness. And just how good: my first City Manager, Jennifer Phillips, in 2016 received a Career Excellence Award from Women Leading Government ("WLG"). WLG is an a>iliate of the International/County Management Association ("IMCA"), the national leader in promoting "best practices" in local government.

I especially look back on the work my colleagues and I did on St. Helena water issues with pride. the Slide Shows that Mr. Nieman, Mr. Sales, and I put together for the City Council on our Infrastructure Committee and Safe Yield Committee reflected work of the highest caliber. I regret that the Grand Jury was not made aware of our work.

Contrary to the Grand Jury, I paid especially close attention to the Water and Wastewater Enterprises during my mayorship. I knew exactly what was going on. I studied the stream of sta> reports, studies, budgets, and capital plans that the city generated in the ordinary course of business, along with sta> briefings and Council meetings. I made it a point to visit the major Public Works facilities from time-to-time: the Corporate Yard, the Wastewater Treatment Plant, and the Water Treatment Plant at Bell Canyon.

I had great respect for the Public Works Directors (Mr. Ferons, Mr. Palmer, and Ms.

Smithies) and Public Works sta>, talking with field sta> at every opportunity (and there were many as I regularly walked the full town) -- with open ears. I recall that one Christmas Holiday my wife (now gone), who prided herself on her chocolate chip cookies, decided to make a cookie basket for each of the major Public Works’ facilities. I delivered her holiday cheer.

But beyond that, it is inherent, when addressing facilities in service for years after their useful life, that disasters happen, that priorities shift, that engineering is more timeconsuming, that initial cost guesstimates are too low, that regulators have insightful, challenging, and changing requirements, that nongovernment parties and interests demand their say, and so on. These things happen under the best of leadership. My wife

Page 43 of 311 ends

22 lived for 45 years in an Edina MN home next to an old bridge over Minnehaha Creek (which descends through Minnehaha Falls, a well-known attraction in Minneapolis) into the Mississippi River). The City of Edina advised for at least the last fifteen years that it will soon replace the bridge. Edina is well-run and, unlike St. Helena, has real scale which greatly facilitates running a full-service city. The old bridge lives on, pushed aside by more pressing projects.

The Grand Jury might have reflected on its finding that rates in its study period increased by 183%, far above the cost of living. An increase of that magnitude does not come about through magic. It requires public education, strong leadership, and acceptance of the political blows.

The past ended in 2009-2010, with the 1993 General Plan Update, a logical time for examining anew the state of the Water and Wastewater Enterprises. The Infrastructure Subcommittee (with two City Councilpersons among its ten members) so stated on page 2 of its report: "The fact that the system has unmet needs in the past is irrelevant to what is now required, and the Subcommittee so finds." No uninformed Grand Jury report can overshadow the impressive progress that has been made and continues to be made since 2010 in rehabilitating the Water Enterprise -- a business that had been managed to "capital depletion."
I provide these comments because:
(1) I want a public record on file with the city of my service to the Water Enterprise in a leadership role with accurate detail showing that there is no merit in the Grand Jury's condemnatory Report.
(2) Though now eight years have gone by since my mayorship, I want city employees (then and now) to understand my deep appreciation and respect for their skilled dedication to the betterment of the Water and Wastewater Enterprises. They did not deserve this lousy Grand Jury Report.

Respectfully submitted,
J. Alan Galbraith
Mayor, City of St. Helena, 2014-18
Emailed to City: July 20, 2026

Page 44 of 311 ends

Page 45 of 311 ends

!"#!$%
&'%
(

!"#!$%
&'%) *+,-
#./#./0/1
2300
4,
56

'
7%%8-
(9

''%%8-$'
:;<88-&=)

>%
?8
(%
8$'%'<&-8)
@8-
;
%
%:

6-8
?8
-
;
A
B8B
%8<<83
CDEFG
>,
?HI>
(%
8$'%'<&-8)
JKLMG
N:
/!O
/0/1

P/3/1302
6,
7Q>
REG
4-
S

(

!"#!$%
&'%) TUVWMXLG
YZL[
YEU\XZ]
^UV]ZX
YEFFM\L
_`ab
cbd
eafgbahijk

l
mnoi
b`ap
qrnb
sbhii`t
ungfhv
vrww`ti
ongwhii`p
xrb
ij`
ynfq
z{k
z|z}
~id
`f`ta
vhiq
vrntvhf
w``ihtd

o
a
waii`b
rx
xavik
l
php
tri
b`v`h`
qrnb
f`ii`b
pai`p
ynfq
zk
z|
ht
sjhvj
qrn
vfahwd

f`ao`
`bhxq
ht
a
b`ourto`
ijai
qrn
ja`
ubrrx
ijai
l

b`v`h`p
ijai
f`ii`bd

l
pr
b`vrff`vi
waht
vrww`tio
ai
uaoi
nihfhiq
bai`
oinpq
w``ihto
b`abpht
ij`
vrntvhfo
p`vhohrt
ir
phovrtihtn`
ij`
|k|||
attnaf
onbvjab`
ir
c`aprsrrpd

l
b`waht
oi`apxaoi
ijai
vrntvhfo
p`vhohrt
sao
at
htvrbb`vi
rt`
gao`p
nurt
ij`
vhiqo
phohti`b`oi
rb
htaghfhiq
ir
``u
vrwuf`i`
b`vrbpo
rx
ij`
app`p
vroi
ir
ubrhp`
sai`b
o`bhv`
ir
ij`
sai`b
vnoirw`bo
b`ohpht
ht
ijb``
phxx`b`ti
jhj
`f`aihrt
rt`o
rniohp`
vhiq
fhwhio

l
hthi`
qrn
ir
b`h`s
ij`
vhiqo
hp`r
b`vrbphto
rx
ij`
z|}z|
nihfhiq
bai`
oinph`o
rt
ij`
vhiqo
s`gohi`
ht
sjhvj
y`tthx`b
n`ff
vrww`ti`p
ungfhv
srbo
u`bortt`f
pbh`
nu
ir
c`aprsrrpo
sai`b
oqoi`w
rt
a
pahfq
gaoho
ou`tpht
at
jrnb
rb
wrb`
`avj
paq
ir
vj`v
rt
ij`
wahti`tatv`
rx
ij`
oqoi`wd

j`t
qrn
saivj
ij`
hp`rk
uaq
aii`tihrt
ir
~i``

afw`b
nhvfq
vniiht
j`b
rxx
xbrw
p`ovbhght
ungfhv
srbo
b`ourtohghfhiq
shij
c`apsrrpo
sai`b
oqoi`wd

ao`p
nurt
oiaxx
ihw`
pbhht
nu
ir
c`aprsrrp
rt
a
pahfq
gaohok
ij`
s`ab
atp
i`ab
rt
ij`
`jhvf`ok
atq
wahti`tatv`
ijai
ho
u`bxrbw`p
rt
ij`
unwuok
afrt
shij
ij`
app`p
`f`vibhvhiq
`u`to`
ir
unwu ij`
sai`b
ir
ij`
iato
srnfp
v`biahtfq
app
nu
ir
wrb`
ijat
|k|||
a
q`abd

j`
xavi
ijai
rnb
xhtatv`
p`uabiw`ti
pr`oti
ja`
ij`
ihw`
rb
hti`b`oi
ir
prvnw`ti
ij`o`
`iba
vroio
ho
fanjagf`
atp
phoht`tnrno
ir
ij`
sai`b
vnoirw`bo
ht
rnb
vhiqd

tp
f`i
w`
appk
sjhf`
ij`
|k|||
ongohpq
oub`ap
rni
awrt
z||
~ik
`f`ta
sai`b
vnoirw`bo
appo
nu
ir
agrni
z
a
q`ab
u`b
vnoirw`bk
ij`
ongohpq
ho
oaht

Page 46 of 311 ends

"
#

$$

&

'(

"

)

$

$

*

$

%$
$

"
#

$
-
"

$

$

$
$ $

.$

$

/

+
%

$

)

.

+
0

Page 47 of 311 ends

Dear Tom:

I am taking you up on your suggestion that your Friday email and my response be filed with the City Clerk as Public Comment to the forthcoming Council meeting. I respond to your letter points in the order you make them. So as not to overburden the public record I refer at times to my public comment on the Grand Jury Report, submitted some days before the Grand Jury comment but made public at the same time as my public comment attaching my 2019 letter to you.

1. My letter of July 28, 2019: You seek proof from me that you received the letter (you do not challenge that I mailed it to your home address). I do not have proof. I relied on postal General Delivery inside St. Helena. I did not have a problem with it. I provided the letter to the City Council due to its direct relevance to Grand Jury recommendation R4 in which it recommends implementing diOerential rates, surcharge rates for elevated customers, and special rates for outside-the-city customers with service contracts. The fact that you were the addressee was an incidental bonus given your similar public advocacy going back years. I think we can agree that the Grand Jury was not in possession of my 2019 letter to you and therefore did not have the benefit of the counter considerations to its recommendation R4 as enumerated by me in that letter.

2. Discontinuation of the annual Meadowood surcharge: I don't recall today the revenue received annually from the Meadowood surcharge prior to discontinuation in though the $50,000 you state in your Friday email rings a bell with me. You conclude that loss of the surcharge annually raised water customer bills by $2.00 and resulted in a Meadowood "subsidy" of $1,000. The practical considerations mitigating against your position and were persuasive to the ably led 2016 ad hoc Committee are stated in even more depth in section B.5. of my public comment on the Grand Jury Report. I only add that your expressed concern over a $1,000 annual Meadowood "subsidy" does astound me ("the subsidy is saving Meadowood customers about $1,000 a year. If that isn't a subsidy, I don't know what is.") My goodness this $1,000 "subsidy," even if real, is not worth the time of day (probably no more than a discounted night's stay at Meadowood).

You invite me to watch the City's video recordings of discussions around the 2016- 17 rate studies. I am not sure why 2017 would be relevant; according to the Grand Jury the 2016 rates took eOect on July1, 2016 (FY 2016/17). Anyway, I decline. As to the practical considerations I relied on my independent review and on the assessment of the ad hoc Committee. It unanimously concluded there was no meaningful net financial benefit in a Meadowood surcharge and so recommended. I do think City Council members are entitled to give weight to thoughtful recommendations of resident committees without being called out for "poor governance."

Page 48 of 311 ends

Now, in any discussion of the 2016 discontinuation of the Meadowood surcharge i don't want the public legal advice to be overlooked: the City could not lawfully continue the surcharge. During my mayorship we followed outside legal advice, no matter how disagreeable and without concern for political cost. That, in my mind, is real leadership. I am proud I was part of it. I am sorry that the Grand Jury did not possess the understanding to see it that way.
3A. The Town of Yountville: I decline to respond on Yountville's diOerential water rates for outside-the-city customers. I just don't know enough about it. I do know from my extensive comments on a significant LAFCO study that commonalities among the five cities' water systems are not easily found. (Commonalities would facilitate formation of a common water district, arguably to the benefit of all. There has been no movement along these lines to my knowledge despite LAFCO's urging.)
3B. Document request for City 2016 water policy: We are now nearly six years past my mayorship, and you are requesting me to provide you with the City policy to which Public Works Director Steve Palmer was referring when, as remembered by you, he "said it was city policy that all water customers pay the same?" It should be no surprise to you that your document request is misdirected; you should file a Public Records Act request with the City Clerk, a process with which, as I understand it, you are familiar. Of course, if I had a document meeting your request II would send iit to you; I do not.) I would only add if Mr.

Palmer made the statement as you allege prior to adoption of the 2016 rates, I speculate that it was in the context of the City's discontinuation of diOerential rates in 2011. Now, I know I should avoid speculation, but this does seem reasonable. 3C. One Circulating Water System, Meadowood Included: You state that I supported elimination of the Meadowood surcharge because I thought City some water went up the steep hill to the Meadowood tanks and back down and into a City water main -- one circulating system, as you put it your Friday letter. I certainly agree that water pumped up to the Meadowood tanks never returned to the City's system. That borders on the absurd.

But if I made the improbable factual error that you describe, and you understood it was the essential to my thinking in discontinuing the Meadowood surcharge, then you should have come back at me, and suggested that I reconsider my position because I had misapprehended an essential fact. This is normal process in my experience. I certainly would have listened; careful listening to the concerns of residents was an essential aspect of my job as Mayor. I made no exception for you. You did not bring the matterdirectly up with me, as I think we can agree.

Now in 2016, as documented in my public comment on the Grand Jury Report (section B.5.e "Policy Considerations")), I took a holistic approach; we were all in this

Page 49 of 311 ends

together, and it was not fair to separate out costs among water customers. I have no second thoughts even today about the wisdom of my position. But in this discussion, I do not want to lose sight of the fact that practical and policy considerations were not relevant considering the convincing legal advice of the City's outside attorney (which also accorded with my own legal analysis, including the contractual roadblock of section 5 of the Meadowood Service Agreement)
3D. Upper York Creek Dam Removal: Contrary to your assertion, I was a strong proponent of the removal of York Creek Dam, and my public support for its removal was clear. As author of the 2010 Infrastructure Subcommittee Report, and with no discussion with any other Committee member, I made sure the Report contained a clear statement of the City's obligation to remove the Dam: "Significant Unit Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss or CCC Steelhead), an endangered species, habitat above the dam. As stated by NOAA, the dam and spillway constitute 'take' structures under the Endangered Species Act and the City is liable for their removal." I included the scientific name of the endangered fish precisely because I wanted our community to understand the importance of the Dam's removal to this specific species aOording them an opportunity to return to their historic breeding grounds above the Dam and breed. I wrote the water section of the General Plan Update. My recollection is that it contained strong language supporting removal of the Dam. I reiterated that removal of the Dam was a priority in urging the City Council to approve the 2011 58% rate increase (Public Comment on Grand Jury Report, section A. A fact of which you were unaware: I represented the Defenders of Wildlife in a lawsuit against the Department of Interior seeking to end a federal program that had brought the Black Footed Ferret to the edge of extinction. The Humane Society joined the lawsuit as a party-plaintiO. DOI ended the program. It was this experience that led me to make specific mention of the Endangered Species Act in the 2010 Subcommittee Report.

Let me provide some additional information: The great fisherman Bill Ryan took me bass fishing in Clear Lake in Lake County. Bill would not have invited me if I had not supported removal of the Dam. Also, the County Board of Supervisors made me a public member of The Groundwater Sustainability Plan Advisory Committee (2018-21). My appointment would not have happened if I had opposed removal of the Dam. Also, over the years I have publicly cautioned against large water takes from the City Stonebridge wells precisely because of my concern that the Napa River was being adversely impacted, to the detriment of fish migration.

As to my quip at a City Council meeting that it would be cheaper to pay the NOAA $70/day fine and earn the interest on the $7+ million than to pay the $7+ million to remove the Dam, here is something you do not know: my qup did not originate with me. It was

Page 50 of 311 ends

Rodney Friedrich. During my mayorship, I visited Mr. Friedrich several times to check on the latest on his Vineland Station Hotel Project. My interest was in the TOT revenue. He made the quip that I repeated at the Council meeting. You are the only person I know who did not take my comment as a quip. I am sorry that you were unique in not seeing it that way.

Certainly, removal of the Dam was a significant and good environmental achievement. It also put an end to a significant financial drain on the Water Enterprise that I knew had gone back to at least 2004 when the City spent $600,000 to remove the Diversion Channel and restore fish passage to Lower Reservoir.

With my responses to your Friday email now concluded, I have just one request of you: did you communicate with the Grand Jury and provide it with your documents going back to 2011? The St. Helena community is entitled to an answer to this question as it reads and assesses your continuing commentary on the Water Enterprise.

As you know, I was a trial lawyer with a major trial law firm. I handled cases with considerable success in jury and nonjury trials in federal and state courts around the country. I especially enjoyed closing arguments in jury trials. They provided an opportunity to pull together for an attentive lay audience the often-scattered trial evidence, and to argue reasonable inferences to be drawn from them. As I was preparing this response to your Friday letter, it occurred to me that it might be an interesting exercise twenty years since my last major trial to see whether I could bring together strands from the available public record that would support a jury inference that you were the significant confidential source behind the Napa County Civil Grand Jury's St. Helena Water Report.

I list below the evidence that I would cite in closing argument in a jury trial in support of the inference that you were the significant Grand Jury informant:

1. in a social media post this weekend, your statement that your St. Helena water rate records start with the 2011 rate increase. The Grand Jury Report starts with the 2011 rate increase. This is not a likely coincidence.

2. The Grand Jury's recommendation of rates beyond rates of general applicability. This has been your mantra year in and year out.

3. The Grand Jury's specific mention of Meadowood, the only water customer named in the Grand Report. You have been on a campaign for years to resurrect a Meadowood surcharge.

Page 51 of 311 ends

4. Your personal hostility toward Public Work's Director Steve Palmer. This stands out in your Friday email to me. The Grand Jury Report singles out St. Helena Public Works Directors for want of expertise.

5. Your praise on social media of the Grand Jury's Report shortly after its release -- "hit the nail on the head." I would suggest to the jury that you were praising the Grand Jury because it fell in line with your persistent public advocacy denigrating City governance (including me).

6. The Grand Jury's note of my "near recall." You were a principal participant behind the failed recall eOort. The confidential informant was clearly hostile toward me.

That hostility rises right up to the surface in your Friday email ("false public statement").

7. The Grand Jury's statement that Council members Sharon Crull and Greg Pitts "did not seek re-election" in 2016. The oOicial record of the Napa County's Election OOice, which would be in evidence before the jury, authoritatively shows that they ran for re-election and were defeated. The Grand Jury did not check the oOicial record and instead relied on the informant's poor memory. I would argue that this was strong evidence in support of an inference.

8. I would make the same argument about my election loss in 2016. it was by 59 votes, not 44, showing that the Grand Jury did not consult the oOicial Final Election Report on the County website. (Note: 2016 is currently the first election year on the Election Division's listing of past elections and about to roll oO.)

9. I would also make the same argument about the Grand Jury's statement that the City Council "expelled" one of its members, when his seat was declared vacant by operation of California Government Code Section 365513 with no Council action. This characterization could have come only from an informant with significant hostility toward St. Helena. It points in your direction.

10. I would place before the jury whether you received my letter of July 29, 2019.

The jury could draw the inference that you received the letter, given the outstanding reputation of the St. Helena Post OOice (which I would prove through the Postmaster) but that you declined to provide it to the Grand Jury because not supportive of your diOerential and surcharge rate mantra. Indeed, I would argue that you denied receipt of the 2019 letter out of legitimate concern that it could surface that you were the confidential source and it could be regarded as potentially deceptive that you had withheld the letter from the document collection that you provided the Grand Jury. The jury would certainly debate whether your denial of receipt supported the inference that you were the informer. I doubt that jury would challenge the competence of the St. Helena Post OOice.

Page 52 of 311 ends

11. I would make note of your social media statement, coming after you read my Public Comment on the Grand Jury Report, that the Grand Jury rate math makes no sense at all. As you hold yourself out on social media as a close observer of the City's Water Enterprise, I would note your failure of attribution of this discovery to me, in keeping with your desire to be the City resident out-in-front on City water matters. I would also add that in the same post you state that rates since 2011 have increased 600%. Yet, you made no mention of compounding eOect of rate increases due to lack of analytical skill, which further corroborates the inference that I am asking the jury to make. ( At trial, I would have called a qualified rate expert to provide the correct real dollar percentage increase after adjusting for inflation and no doubt several other relevant factors within a rate expert's expertise.

12. I would take advantage of the Grand Jury's statement that one of the capital projects delivered following the 2011 rate increase was "Pratt Avenue Transmission Bridge." There is no such structure, as I think we can agree. This much is clear: the 2011 Reed Report lists as a capital improvement project "Pratt Avenue Transmission Main" -- the visible pipeline hung on the south side of the Pratt Avenue Bridge. It is common knowledge that a "Main" is a pipeline. This is important because a predicate of the Grand Jury's opinion about poor governance is inattention to the water distribution system in the capital improvement listing in the 2011 rate study ("No Capital Improvement Projects were dedicated to the water distribution system.")
The question becomes how did it happen that "Main" was changed to "Bridge" on the Grand Jury's appendix listing of "Capital Projects Delivered" after the 2011 rate increase? This list consists of a compilation prepared either by the informant and given to the Grand Jury or compiled by the Grand Jury from information given to it by its informant.

Given the Grand Jury's reliance on information supplied by the informant, I would suggest to the jury that you gave the Grand Jury the data for the compilation or the compilation itself, which the Grand Jury copied into its Report. The Grand Jury did not know that "Pratt Avenue Transmission Bridge" was an oxymoron (though it certainly should have so reflected) and, assuming it had a copy of the 2011 rate report, did not read the line entry in the capital improvement listing that said, "Pratt Avenue Transmission Main." I would argue that the error points in your direction because the error facilitated your pitch that the distribution system was being ignored since 2011, as confirmed by your social media post that the Grand Jury Report "hit the nail on the head."

13. I would also point out that the 2011 The Reed Report, the key report supportive of the 2011 rate increase, under Operations and Maintenance has an entry of roughly $500,000 annually over the study period devoted to the water distribution system. I

Page 53 of 311 ends

would note that you complained vociferously about a $1,000 annual "subsidy" to Meadowood in your Friday email, stressing that $500,000 is more than $1,000 per day, and a really big number for you, and that it could not have gone unnoticed by you who worries over a $1,000 annual Meadowood "subsidy." I would argue that you did not bring the $500,000 annual pipeline expenditure to the attention of the Grand Jury because, again, you were pushing the idea that the City did not pay attention to the water distribution system, consistently with your praise of the Grand Jury Report in social media that the Grand Jury "nailed it.".

Closing argument in civil jury trials is typically limited but I think even today I could cover thirteen points in an hour's time -- the frequently allowed time for closing argument in civil jury cases. Of course, you don't know how a jury is going to decide, but I let me say, I like my chances that the jury would draw the inference and find that you were the major source of Grand Jury's misinformation.

I look forward to your answer to the bolded question above.

Sincerely yours,
Alan Galbraith
St. Helena Mayor, 2014-18
Dated: July 31, 2026

Page 54 of 311 ends

Page 55 of 311 ends

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CITY OF ST. HELENA
Powered by:

PAVEMENT AREA

0.15 Square Miles

CENTERLINE MILES

24.83 LANE MILES

50.45 SECTIONS
221
*PEER COMPARISON AS OF:6/30/2026
57 Similar size agency PCI
41%
Your percentile rank
HISTORICAL PAVEMENT CONDITION TRENDS AS OF 6/30/2026 PCI AS OF 6/30/2026 BY: FUNCTIONAL CLASS **HISTORICAL PCI 1 since12/31/2025
PERCENT OF AREA BY: SURFACE TYPE HISTORICAL NETWORK CONDITION TRENDS Very Good
49%
-1
Good
23%
1 Poor
9%
0 Very Poor
19%
0 AS OF 6/30/2026

REMAINING SERVICE LIFE (YEARS)
No Changesince12/31/2025
*Based on the closest peers in your geographic location with a comparable number of Sections. **For display purposes only, Current PCI graph shows Condition Category colors based on default PCI Breakpoint values of 70, 50 and 25. Please Note: Historical PCI values are calculated as of 12/31 of the year shown.

Page 56 of 311 ends

Agenda Report to the City Council
Agenda Section: CONSENT ITEMS
Department: Community Development Department - Planning Division DATE: July 28, 2026
FROM: Jackie Oneal, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Adoption of a Resolution authorizing a new Professional Services Agreement with North Coast Community Planning for an amount not to exceed $97,300.

RECOMMENDED
ACTION:

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a new Professional Services Agreement with North Coast Community Planning for continued planning support services in an amount not to exceed $97,300.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION: On October 26, 2023, the City entered into Professional Services Agreement FY2024-026 with North Coast Community Planning in the amount of $25,000 to provide contract planning services associated with the processing of development applications.

On August 13, 2024, the City Council approved Amendment No. 1, increasing the agreement by $125,000 for a total not-to-exceed amount of $150,000. The amended agreement provided for
consultant services through December 30, 2025, and expired on December 31, 2025.

STATEMENT OF THE
PURPOSE:

To authorize a new Professional Services Agreement with North Coast Community Planning for continued planning and project coordination services associated with two complex development applications currently under City review.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

The proposed Professional Services Agreement establishes a fully burdened hourly rate of $200 and a total contract amount not to exceed $97,300 for services provided through June 30, 2027.

Of the proposed contract amount, approximately $25,300
represents previously authorized but unspent funding remaining when the prior agreement expired. The remaining $72,000

Page 57 of 311 ends

represents additional contract authority based on the estimated cost of completing the ongoing work.

Consultant costs will be charged to the applicant-funded deposit and reimbursement accounts associated with the assigned development applications. The applicants have provided funding estimates for the remaining work, and staff will monitor account balances and require additional deposits as necessary. No General Fund impact is anticipated.

CEQA DETERMINATION: Not a CEQA Project (CEQA Guidelines §15378) BACKGROUND:

North Coast Community Planning has provided contract planning support to the City since 2023. The consultant was initially retained to assist the Community Development Department with development applications requiring additional staff capacity. In 2024, the agreement was amended to support the processing of a major hotel application and other complex entitlement work.

The prior agreement expired on December 31, 2025. Two development applications previously assigned to North Coast Community Planning remain under review and require continued planning, coordination, environmental review, and public hearing support:
• PL24-045, 1001 Adams Street, Castellucci Hotel & Residences Project: Major Design Review, Demolition Permit, Conditional Use Permit, Tentative Subdivision Map, Planned Development, General Plan Amendment, and Development Agreement applications.
• PL24-056, 1915 Main Street, Alila Napa Valley Hotel Expansion Project: Design Review, Demolition Permit, and Conditional Use Permit Amendment applications.

Because the prior agreement has expired, a new agreement is required for North Coast Community Planning to provide further services associated with these applications. The proposed agreement would allow this work to continue under the scope of services described below.

DISCUSSION:

Under the proposed scope of services, North Coast Community Planning will continue to coordinate with City staff and project applicants; attend project meetings; assist with entitlement and environmental review activities; support the procurement and coordination of specialty consultants; facilitate interdepartmental review; assist with development agreement processing; and prepare materials for consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council.

Page 58 of 311 ends

North Coast Community Planning has existing knowledge of both applications, including their procedural history, outstanding review issues, and coordination needs. Continuing to use the consultant will maintain continuity in project management and avoid the additional time and expense that would be required to transfer the applications to another consultant or reassign the work entirely to existing staff. The proposed agreement would authorize services through June 30, 2027.

Consultant services will be performed on a time-and-materials basis, and separate invoices will be submitted for each project to allow the City to track costs against the applicable applicantfunded accounts. Staff will monitor expenditures and available account balances throughout the term of the agreement.

Approval of the proposed agreement will allow the City to maintain consistent project coordination and continue processing the applications through entitlement and environmental review. City staff will retain responsibility for interpreting City regulations, overseeing the consultant’s work, and making staff recommendations.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

The proposed action involves approval of a contract for planning consulting services. This action does not constitute a “project”under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378, as it is an administrative and fiscal activity that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable physical change in the environment.

GOAL:

Miscellaneous/Other
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution Authorizing the Professional Services Agreement with North Coast Community Planning

2. Exhibit A – Professional Services Agreement

Page 59 of 311 ends

CITY OF ST. HELENA
RESOLUTION NO 2026-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST. HELENA AUTHORIZING A NEW

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH NORTH COAST COMMUNITY PLANNING FOR CONTINUED PLANNING SUPPORT SERVICES IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $97,300.

RECITALS
A. On October 26, 2023, the City entered into Professional Services Agreement FY2024-026 with North Coast Community Planning for contract planning services in an amount not to exceed $25,000; and
B. On August 13, 2024, the City Council authorized Amendment No. 1 to the agreement, increasing the contract amount by $125,000 for a total amount not to exceed $150,000 and extending consultant services through December 30, 2025; and C. The prior agreement expired on December 31, 2025; and D. North Coast Community Planning has provided ongoing planning and project coordination services associated with the following active development applications:

1. PL24-045, 1001 Adams Street (Castellucci Hotel & Residences Project): Major Design Review, Demolition Permit, Conditional Use Permit, Tentative Subdivision Map, Planned Development, General Plan Amendment, and Development Agreement applications; and

2. PL24-056, 1915 Main Street (Alila Napa Valley Hotel Expansion Project): Design Review, Demolition Permit, and Conditional Use Permit Amendment applications; and E. Both applications require continued entitlement processing, environmental review coordination, interdepartmental coordination, applicant and consultant meetings, development agreement support, and preparation of public hearing materials; and F. North Coast Community Planning has existing knowledge of the applications, their procedural histories, and outstanding review issues, and continued use of the consultant will maintain continuity in project processing; and
G. The City desires to enter into a new Professional Services Agreement with North Coast Community Planning for continued planning support services through June 30, 2027, at a fully burdened hourly rate of $200, for a total amount not to exceed $97,300; and H. Of the proposed contract amount, approximately $25,300 represents funding remaining from the prior contract as of June 10, 2026, and the remaining $72,000 represents additional contract authority based on estimates for the anticipated ongoing work; and I. Consultant costs will be charged to applicant-funded deposit and reimbursement accounts associated with the assigned development applications, and no General Fund impact is anticipated provided sufficient applicant funding is maintained; and J. Approval of the Professional Services Agreement is not a “project” under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 because it is an

Page 60 of 311 ends

administrative and fiscal activity that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable physical change in the environment; and
K. Approval of the agreement does not constitute approval of either development application or determine the appropriate environmental review for either project.

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

1. The City Council hereby finds that approval of the Professional Services Agreement is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 because it is an administrative and fiscal activity that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable physical change in the environment.

2. The City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement with North Coast Community Planning, substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A, for continued planning support services associated with PL24-045 and PL24- 056, for a term ending June 30, 2027, and in an amount not to exceed $97,300, subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney.

3. The City Manager is authorized to make minor, non-substantive modifications to the agreement that are consistent with the purpose of this Resolution and do not increase the total not-to-exceed amount.

4. Funding for the agreement will be provided through the applicable applicant-funded deposit and reimbursement accounts.

Approved at a Regular Meeting of the St. Helena City Council on July 28, 2026, by the following vote:

Mayor Dohring: __________
Vice Mayor Deasy: __________
Council Member Barak: __________
Council Member Spadarotto: ___________
Council Member Diaz: ___________
APPROVED: ATTEST:
__________________________ __________________________
Paul Jamison Dohring, Mayor Andrew Bradey, City Clerk
Attachments:

1. Exhibit A – Professional Services Agreement

Page 61 of 311 ends

North Coast Community Planning FY2026-2027
1 CITY OF ST. HELENA

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT

NORTH COAST COMMUNITY PLANNING
This Agreement is made and entered into as of July 28, 2026 by and between the City of St. Helena, a public agency organized and operating under the laws of the State of California (“City”), and North Coast Community Planning, a Sole Proprietorship with its principal place of business at 310 South Harold Street, Fort Bragg, CA 95437 (hereinafter referred to as “Consultant”). City and Consultant are sometimes individually referred to as “Party” and collectively as “Parties” in this Agreement.

RECITALS
A. City is a public agency of the State of California and is in need of professional services related to the continued processing of the following development applications:
• PL24-045, 1001 Adams Street (Castellucci Hotel & Residences Project): Major Design Review, Demolition Permit, Conditional Use Permit, Tentative Subdivision Map, Planned Development, General Plan Amendment, and Development Agreement applications; and
• PL24-056, 1915 Main Street (Alila Napa Valley Hotel Expansion Project): Design Review, Demolition Permit, and Conditional Use Permit Amendment applications (hereinafter referred to collectively as “the Project”).

B. Consultant is duly licensed and/or has the necessary qualifications to provide such services.

C. The Parties desire by this Agreement to establish the terms for City to retain Consultant to provide the services described herein.

AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS:

1. Services.

Consultant shall provide the City with the services described in the Scope of Services attached hereto as Exhibit “A.”

2. Compensation.
a. Subject to paragraph 2(b) below, the City shall pay Consultant for services performed under this Agreement at a fully loaded rate of $200 per hour. b. In no event shall the total amount paid for services rendered by Consultant under this Agreement exceed the sum of $97,300. This amount is to cover all printing and related costs, and the City will not pay any additional fees for printing expenses. Periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of receipt of an invoice which includes a detailed description of the work performed. Payments to Consultant for work performed will be made on a monthly billing basis.

Page 62 of 311 ends

North Coast Community Planning FY2026-2027
2 3. Additional Work.

If changes in the work seem merited by Consultant or the City, and informal consultations with the other party indicate that a change is warranted, it shall be processed in the following manner: a letter outlining the changes shall be forwarded to the City by Consultant with a statement of estimated changes in fee or time schedule. An amendment to this Agreement shall be prepared by the City and executed by both Parties before performance of such services, or the City will not be required to pay for the changes in the scope of work. Such amendment shall not render ineffective or invalidate unaffected portions of this Agreement.

4. Maintenance of Records.

Books, documents, papers, accounting records, and other evidence pertaining to costs incurred shall be maintained by Consultant and made available at all reasonable times during the contract period and for four (4) years from the date of final payment under the contract for inspection by City.

5. Term.

The term of this Agreement shall be from July 28, 2026 to June 30, 2027, unless earlier terminated as provided herein. The Parties may, by mutual, written consent, extend the term of this Agreement if necessary to complete the Project. Consultant shall perform its services in a prompt and timely manner within the term of this Agreement and shall commence performance upon receipt of written notice from the City to proceed (“Notice to Proceed”). The Notice to Proceed shall set forth the date of commencement of work.

6. Delays in Performance.
a. Neither City nor Consultant shall be considered in default of this Agreement for delays in performance caused by circumstances beyond the reasonable control of the non-performing party. For purposes of this Agreement, such circumstances include but are not limited to, abnormal weather conditions; floods; earthquakes; fire; epidemics; pandemics; war; riots and other civil disturbances; strikes, lockouts, work slowdowns, and other labor disturbances; sabotage or judicial restraint. b. Should such circumstances occur, the non-performing party shall, within a reasonable time of being prevented from performing, give written notice to the other party describing the circumstances preventing continued performance and the efforts being made to resume performance of this Agreement.

7. Compliance with Law.
a. Consultant shall comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, codes and regulations of the federal, state and local government, including Cal/OSHA requirements.
b. If required, Consultant shall assist the City, as requested, in obtaining and maintaining all permits required of Consultant by federal, state and local regulatory agencies.

Page 63 of 311 ends

North Coast Community Planning FY2026-2027
3 c. If applicable, Consultant is responsible for all costs of clean up and/ or removal of hazardous and toxic substances spilled as a result of his or her services or operations performed under this Agreement.

8. Standard of Care; Performance of Employees
a. Consultant’s services will be performed in accordance with generally accepted professional practices and principles and in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions. b. Consultant’s employees and subcontractors shall have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services assigned to them. Consultant represents that it, its employees and subcontractors have all licenses, permits, qualifications and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the Services, including a City Business License, and that such licenses and approvals shall be maintained throughout the term of this Contract. As provided for in the indemnification provisions of this Contract, Consultant shall perform, at its own cost and expense and without reimbursement from the City, any services necessary to correct errors or omissions which are caused by the Consultant’s failure to comply with the standard of care provided for herein. Any employee of the Consultant or its sub-consultants who is determined by the City to be uncooperative, incompetent, a threat to the adequate or timely completion of the Project, a threat to the safety of persons or property, or any employee who fails or refuses to perform the Services in a manner acceptable to the City, shall be promptly removed from the Project by the Consultant and shall not be re-employed to perform any of the Services or to work on the Project.

9. Assignment and Subcontracting
Consultant shall not assign, sublet, or transfer this Agreement or any rights under or interest in this Agreement without the written consent of the City, which may be withheld for any reason. Any attempt to so assign or so transfer without such consent shall be void and without legal effect and shall constitute grounds for termination. Subcontracts, if any, shall contain a provision making them subject to all provisions stipulated in this Agreement. Nothing contained herein shall prevent Consultant from employing independent associates and subcontractors as Consultant may deem appropriate to assist in the performance of services hereunder.

10. Independent Contractor
Consultant is retained as an independent contractor and is not an employee of City. No employee or agent of Consultant shall become an employee of City. The work to be performed shall be in accordance with the work described in this Agreement and Exhibit A, subject to such directions and amendments from City as herein provided.

11. Insurance. Consultant shall not commence work for the City until it has provided evidence satisfactory to the City it has secured all insurance required under this section. In addition, Consultant shall not allow any subcontractor to commence work on any subcontract until it has secured all insurance required under this section. a. Commercial General Liability

Page 64 of 311 ends

North Coast Community Planning FY2026-2027
4 (i) The Consultant shall take out and maintain, during the performance of all work under this Agreement, in amounts not less than specified herein, Commercial General Liability Insurance, in a form and with insurance companies acceptable to the City. (ii) Coverage for Commercial General Liability insurance shall be at least as broad as the following:
(1) Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (Occurrence Form CG 00 01) or exact equivalent. (iii) Commercial General Liability Insurance must include coverage for the following:
(1) Bodily Injury and Property Damage
(2) Personal Injury/Advertising Injury
(3) Premises/Operations Liability
(4) Products/Completed Operations Liability
(5) Aggregate Limits that Apply per Project
(6) Explosion, Collapse and Underground (UCX) exclusion deleted
(7) Contractual Liability with respect to this Agreement (8) Property Damage
(9) Independent Contractors Coverage
(iv) The policy shall contain no endorsements or provisions limiting coverage for (1) contractual liability; (2) cross liability exclusion for claims or suits by one insured against another; (3) products/completed operations liability; or (4) contain any other exclusion contrary to the Agreement.
(v) The policy shall give City, its officials, officers, employees, agents and City designated volunteers additional insured status using ISO endorsement forms CG 20 10 10 01 and 20 37 10 01, or endorsements providing the exact same coverage. (vi) The general liability program may utilize either deductibles or provide coverage excess of a self-insured retention, subject to written approval by the City, and provided that such deductibles shall not apply to the City as an additional insured. b. Automobile Liability
(i) At all times during the performance of the work under this Agreement, the Consultant shall maintain Automobile Liability Insurance for bodily injury and property damage including coverage for owned, non-owned and hired vehicles, in a form and with insurance companies acceptable to the City.
(ii) Coverage for automobile liability insurance shall be at least as broad as Insurance Services Office Form Number CA 00 01 covering automobile liability (Coverage Symbol 1, any auto).
(iii) The policy shall give City, its officials, officers, employees, agents and City designated volunteers additional insured status.

Page 65 of 311 ends

North Coast Community Planning FY2026-2027
5 (iv) Subject to written approval by the City, the automobile liability program may utilize deductibles, provided that such deductibles shall not apply to the City as an additional insured, but not a self-insured retention.
c. Workers’ Compensation/Employer’s Liability
(i) Consultant certifies that he/she is aware of the
provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code which requires every employer to be insured against liability for workers’ compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and he/she will comply with such provisions before commencing work under this Agreement. (ii) To the extent Consultant has employees at any time during the term of this Agreement, at all times during the performance of the work under this Agreement, the Consultant shall maintain full compensation insurance for all persons employed directly by him/her to carry out the work contemplated under this Agreement, all in accordance with the “Workers’ Compensation and Insurance Act,” Division IV of the Labor Code of the State of California and any acts amendatory thereof, and Employer’s Liability Coverage in amounts indicated herein. Consultant shall require all subconsultants to obtain and maintain, for the period required by this Agreement, workers’ compensation coverage of the same type and limits as specified in this section.
d. Professional Liability (Errors and Omissions)
At all times during the performance of the work under this Agreement the Consultant shall maintain professional liability or Errors and Omissions insurance appropriate to its profession, in a form and with insurance companies acceptable to the City and in an amount indicated herein.

This insurance shall be endorsed to include contractual liability applicable to this Agreement and shall be written on a policy form specifically designed to protect against acts, errors or omissions of the Consultant. “Covered Professional Services” as designated in the policy must specifically include work performed under this Agreement. The policy must “pay on behalf of” the insured and must include a provision establishing the insurer's duty to defend. e. Minimum Policy Limits Required
(i) The following insurance limits are required for the Agreement:

Combined Single Limit
Commercial General Liability $1,000,000 per occurrence/ $2,000,000 aggregate for bodily injury, personal injury, and property
damage
Automobile Liability $1,000,000 combined single limit
Employer’s Liability $1,000,000 per accident or disease Professional Liability $1,000,000 per claim and aggregate (errors and omissions)

Page 66 of 311 ends

North Coast Community Planning FY2026-2027
6 (ii) Defense costs shall be payable in addition to the limits. (iii) Requirements of specific coverage or limits contained in this section are not intended as a limitation on coverage, limits, or other requirement, or a waiver of any coverage normally provided by any insurance. Any available coverage shall be provided to the parties required to be named as Additional Insured pursuant to this Agreement. f. Evidence Required
Prior to execution of the Agreement, the Consultant shall file with the City evidence of insurance from an insurer or insurers certifying to the coverage of all insurance required herein. Such evidence shall include original copies of the ISO CG 00 01 (or insurer’s equivalent) signed by the insurer’s representative and Certificate of Insurance (Acord Form 25-S or equivalent), together with required endorsements. All evidence of insurance shall be signed by a properly authorized officer, agent, or qualified representative of the insurer and shall certify the names of the insured, any additional insureds, where appropriate, the type and amount of the insurance, the location and operations to which the insurance applies, and the expiration date of such insurance.
g. Policy Provisions Required
(i) Consultant shall provide the City at least thirty (30) days prior written notice of cancellation of any policy required by this Agreement, except that the Consultant shall provide at least ten (10) days prior written notice of cancellation of any such policy due to non-payment of premium. If any of the required coverage is cancelled or expires during the term of this Agreement, the Consultant shall deliver renewal certificate(s) including the General Liability Additional Insured Endorsement to the City at least ten (10) days prior to the effective date of cancellation or expiration.
(ii) The Commercial General Liability Policy and Automobile Policy shall each contain a provision stating that Consultant’s policy is primary insurance and that any insurance, self-insurance or other coverage maintained by the City or any named insureds shall not be called upon to contribute to any loss.
(iii) The retroactive date (if any) of each policy is to be no later than the effective date of this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain such coverage continuously for a period of at least three years after the completion of the work under this Agreement. Consultant shall purchase a one (1) year extended reporting period A) if the retroactive date is advanced past the effective date of this Agreement; B) if the policy is cancelled or not renewed; or C) if the policy is replaced by another claims-made policy with a retroactive date subsequent to the effective date of this Agreement.
(iv) All required insurance coverages, except for the professional liability coverage, shall contain or be endorsed to provide a waiver of subrogation in favor of the City, its officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers or shall specifically allow Consultant or others providing insurance evidence in compliance with these specifications to waive their right of recovery prior to a loss. Consultant hereby waives its own right of recovery against City, and shall require similar written express waivers and insurance clauses from each of its subconsultants.

Page 67 of 311 ends

North Coast Community Planning FY2026-2027
7 (v) The limits set forth herein shall apply separately to each insured against whom claims are made or suits are brought, except with respect to the limits of liability.

Further the limits set forth herein shall not be construed to relieve the Consultant from liability in excess of such coverage, nor shall it limit the Consultant’s indemnification obligations to the City and shall not preclude the City from taking such other actions available to the City under other provisions of the Agreement or law.
h. Qualifying Insurers
(i) All policies required shall be issued by acceptable insurance companies, as determined by the City, which satisfy the following minimum requirements:
(1) Each such policy shall be from a company or companies with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A:VII and admitted to transact in the business of insurance in the State of California, or otherwise allowed to place insurance through surplus line brokers under applicable provisions of the California Insurance Code or any federal law.
i. Additional Insurance Provisions
(i) The foregoing requirements as to the types and limits of insurance coverage to be maintained by Consultant, and any approval of said insurance by the City, is not intended to and shall not in any manner limit or qualify the liabilities and obligations otherwise assumed by the Consultant pursuant to this Agreement, including but not limited to, the provisions concerning indemnification.
(ii) If at any time during the life of the Agreement, any policy of insurance required under this Agreement does not comply with these specifications or is canceled and not replaced, City has the right but not the duty to obtain the insurance it deems necessary and any premium paid by City will be promptly reimbursed by Consultant or City will withhold amounts sufficient to pay premium from Consultant payments. In the alternative, City may cancel this Agreement.
(iii) The City may require the Consultant to provide complete copies of all insurance policies in effect for the duration of the Project. (iv) Neither the City nor any of its officials, officers, employees, agents or volunteers shall be personally responsible for any liability arising under or by virtue of this Agreement.
j. Subconsultant Insurance Requirements. Consultant shall not allow any subcontractors or subconsultants to commence work on any subcontract until they have provided evidence satisfactory to the City that they have secured all insurance required under this section.

Policies of commercial general liability insurance provided by such subcontractors or subconsultants shall be endorsed to name the City as an additional insured using ISO form CG 20 38 04 13 or an endorsement providing the exact same coverage. If requested by Consultant, City may approve different scopes or minimum limits of insurance for particular subcontractors or subconsultants.

12. Indemnification.

Page 68 of 311 ends

North Coast Community Planning FY2026-2027
8 a. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall defend (with counsel of City’s choosing), indemnify and hold the City, its officials, officers, employees, volunteers, and agents free and harmless from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, costs, expenses, liability, loss, damage or injury of any kind, in law or equity, to property or persons, including wrongful death, in any manner arising out of, pertaining to, or incident to any acts, errors or omissions, or willful misconduct of Consultant, its officials, officers, employees, subcontractors, consultants or agents in connection with the performance of the Consultant’s services, the Project or this Agreement, including without limitation the payment of all damages, expert witness fees and attorney’s fees and other related costs and expenses. Consultant's obligation to indemnify shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any, received by Consultant, the City, its officials, officers, employees, agents, or volunteers.
b. If Consultant’s obligation to defend, indemnify, and/or hold harmless arises out of Consultant’s performance of “design professional” services (as that term is defined under Civil Code section 2782.8), then, and only to the extent required by Civil Code section 2782.8, which is fully incorporated herein, Consultant’s indemnification obligation shall be limited to claims that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the Consultant, and, upon Consultant obtaining a final adjudication by a court of competent jurisdiction, Consultant’s liability for such claim, including the cost to defend, shall not exceed the Consultant’s proportionate percentage of fault.

13. California Labor Code Requirements.
a. Consultant is aware of the requirements of California Labor Code Sections 1720 et seq. and 1770 et seq., which require the payment of prevailing wage rates and the performance of other requirements on certain “public works” and “maintenance” projects (“Prevailing Wage Laws”). If the services are being performed as part of an applicable “public works” or “maintenance” project, as defined by the Prevailing Wage Laws, and if the total compensation is $1,000 or more, Consultant agrees to fully comply with such Prevailing Wage Laws. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officials, officers, employees and agents free and harmless from any claims, liabilities, costs, penalties or interest arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with the Prevailing Wage Laws. It shall be mandatory upon the Consultant and all subconsultants to comply with all California Labor Code provisions, which include but are not limited to prevailing wages (Labor Code Sections 1771, 1774 and 1775), employment of apprentices (Labor Code Section 1777.5), certified payroll records (Labor Code Sections 1771.4 and 1776), hours of labor (Labor Code Sections 1813 and 1815) and debarment of contractors and subcontractors (Labor Code Section 1777.1). The requirement to submit certified payroll records directly to the Labor Commissioner under Labor Code section 1771.4 shall not apply to work performed on a public works project that is exempt pursuant to the small project exemption specified in Labor Code Section 1771.4. b. If the services are being performed as part of an applicable “public works” or “maintenance” project, then pursuant to Labor Code Sections 1725.5 and 1771.1, the Consultant and all subconsultants performing such services must be registered with the Department of Industrial Relations. Consultant shall maintain registration for the duration of the Project and require the same of any subconsultants, as applicable. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the contractor registration requirements mandated by Labor Code Sections 1725.5 and 1771.1 shall not apply to work performed on a public works project that is exempt pursuant to the small project exemption specified in Labor Code Sections 1725.5 and 1771.1.

Page 69 of 311 ends

North Coast Community Planning FY2026-2027
9 c. This Agreement may also be subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the Department of Industrial Relations. It shall be Consultant’s sole responsibility to comply with all applicable registration and labor compliance requirements. Any stop orders issued by the Department of Industrial Relations against Consultant or any subcontractor that affect Consultant’s performance of services, including any delay, shall be Consultant’s sole responsibility. Any delay arising out of or resulting from such stop orders shall be considered Consultant caused delay and shall not be compensable by the City. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officials, officers, employees and agents free and harmless from any claim or liability arising out of stop orders issued by the Department of Industrial Relations against Consultant or any subcontractor.

14. Safety.

Consultant shall execute and maintain its work so as to avoid injury or damage to any person or property. In carrying out its Services, the Consultant shall at all times be in compliance with all applicable local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations, and shall exercise all necessary precautions for the safety of employees appropriate to the nature of the work and the conditions under which the work is to be performed. Safety precautions as applicable shall include, but shall not be limited to: (A) adequate life protection and life-saving equipment and procedures; (B) instructions in accident prevention for all employees and subcontractors, such as safe walkways, scaffolds, fall protection ladders, bridges, gang planks, confined space procedures, trenching and shoring, equipment and other safety devices, equipment and wearing apparel as are necessary or lawfully required to prevent accidents or injuries; and (C) adequate facilities for the proper inspection and maintenance of all safety measures.

15. Verification of Employment Eligibility.

By executing this Agreement, Consultant verifies that it fully complies with all requirements and restrictions of state and federal law respecting the employment of undocumented aliens, including, but not limited to, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, as may be amended from time to time, and shall require all subconsultants and sub-subconsultants to comply with the same.

16. INTENTIONALLY DELETED

17. Laws and Venue.

This Agreement shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California.

If any action is brought to interpret or enforce any term of this Agreement, the action shall be brought in a the Superior Court of California for the County of Napa.

18. Termination or Abandonment
a. City has the right to terminate or abandon any portion or all of the work under this Agreement by giving ten (10) calendar days written notice to Consultant. In such event, City shall be immediately given title and possession to all original field notes, drawings and specifications, written reports and other documents produced or developed for that portion of the work completed and/or being abandoned. City shall pay Consultant the reasonable value of services rendered for any portion of the work completed prior to termination. If said termination occurs prior to completion of any task for the Project for which a payment request has not been received, the charge for services performed during such task shall be the reasonable value of

Page 70 of 311 ends

North Coast Community Planning FY2026-2027
10 such services, based on an amount mutually agreed to by City and Consultant of the portion of such task completed but not paid prior to said termination. City shall not be liable for any costs other than the charges or portions thereof which are specified herein. Consultant shall not be entitled to payment for unperformed services, and shall not be entitled to damages or compensation for termination of work.
b. Consultant may terminate its obligation to provide further services under this Agreement upon thirty (30) calendar days’ written notice to City only in the event of substantial failure by City to perform in accordance with the terms of this Agreement through no fault of Consultant.

19. Ownership of Documents and Confidential Information. a. All deliverables and other documents generated by Consultant in the performance of the Services, including all work papers, work-in-progress, designs, drawings, documents, data, computations, specifications, studies and reports prepared by Consultant as a part of the Services or authorized Additional Services (“Consultant Work Product”) shall belong to and be subject to the sole ownership and use of City. b. Except as otherwise provided in “Termination or Abandonment,” above, all original field notes, written reports, drawings and specifications and other documents, produced or developed for the Project shall, upon payment in full for the services described in this Agreement, be furnished to and become the property of the City. c. During the course of the performance of this Agreement, Consultant may receive written or verbal information from City, its representatives or agents, not in the public domain. Such information may include City’s know how, trade secrets, and other proprietary and confidential information and Consultant agrees to treat such information as confidential information belonging to City. Consultant agrees that neither it, nor its officers, employees, representatives, agents, successors, or assigns, will disclose such information to any third party or use the same in any manner without the prior written consent of City. Moreover, Consultant agrees to safeguard such proprietary and confidential information from unauthorized disclosure and/or use using the same degree of care it uses to protect its own proprietary and confidential information, but not less than a reasonable standard of care. In the event that disclosure of such information is sought pursuant to any law or regulation, Consultant shall promptly notify City of such fact to allow City to assert whatever exclusions or exemptions may be available to it under applicable law or regulation.

20. Organization
Consultant shall assign Linda Ruffing as Project Manager. The Project Manager shall not be removed from the Project or reassigned without the prior written consent of the City.

21. Limitation of Agreement.

This Agreement is limited to and includes only the work included in the Project described above.

22. Notice

Page 71 of 311 ends

North Coast Community Planning FY2026-2027
11 Any notice or instrument required to be given or delivered by this Agreement may be given or delivered by depositing the same in any United States Post Office, certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, addressed to:

CITY:

City of St. Helena
1088 College Ave.

St. Helena, CA 94574
Attn: City Manager
CONSULTANT:

North Coast Community Planning
310 South Harold Street
Fort Bragg, CA 95437
Attn: Linda Ruffing
and shall be effective upon receipt thereof.

23. Third Party Rights
Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to give any rights or benefits to anyone other than the City and the Consultant.

24. Equal Opportunity Employment.

Consultant represents that it is an equal opportunity employer and that it shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, age or other interests protected by the State or Federal Constitutions. Such non-discrimination shall include, but not be limited to, all activities related to initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination.

25. Entire Agreement
This Agreement, with its exhibits, represents the entire understanding of City and Consultant as to those matters contained herein, and supersedes and cancels any prior or contemporaneous oral or written understanding, promises or representations with respect to those matters covered hereunder. Each Party acknowledges that no representations, inducements, promises or agreements have been made by any person which are not incorporated herein, and that any other agreements shall be void. This Agreement may not be modified or altered except in writing signed by both Parties hereto. This is an integrated Agreement.

26. Severability
The unenforceability, invalidity or illegality of any provision(s) of this Agreement shall not render the remaining provisions unenforceable, invalid or illegal.

27. Successors and Assigns
This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the successors in interest, executors, administrators and assigns of each Party to this Agreement. However, Consultant shall not assign or transfer by operation of law or otherwise any or all of its rights, burdens, duties or obligations without the prior written consent of City. Any attempted assignment without such consent shall be invalid and void.

Page 72 of 311 ends

North Coast Community Planning FY2026-2027
12 28. Non-Waiver
None of the provisions of this Agreement shall be considered waived by either Party, unless such waiver is specifically specified in writing.

29. Time of Essence
Time is of the essence for each and every provision of this Agreement.

30. City’s Right to Employ Other Consultants
City reserves its right to employ other consultants, including engineers, in connection with this Project or other projects.

31. Prohibited Interests
Consultant maintains and warrants that it has not employed nor retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, to solicit or secure this Agreement. Further, Consultant warrants that it has not paid nor has it agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement. For breach or violation of this warranty, City shall have the right to rescind this Agreement without liability. For the term of this Agreement, no director, official, officer or employee of City, during the term of his or her service with City, shall have any direct interest in this Agreement, or obtain any present or anticipated material benefit arising therefrom.
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]

Page 73 of 311 ends

North Coast Community Planning FY2026-2027
13 SIGNATURE PAGE FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
BETWEEN CITY OF ST. HELENA

AND NORTH COAST COMMUNTY PLANNING
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first written above.

CITY OF ST. HELENA NORTH COAST COMMUNITY PLANNING
By: By:

James McCann Title:

Interim City Manager
Printed Name: Linda Ruffing
ATTEST:

By:

Page 74 of 311 ends

North Coast Community Planning FY2026-2027
14 EXHIBIT A
Scope of Services

Page 75 of 311 ends

Page 2 ends

linda ruffing
707 272 2343 | l inda@ nccplanning.com
310 s harold street fort bragg ca 95437

PROPOSAL FOR PROFESSIONAL PLANNING SERVICES
FOR THE CITY OF ST. HELENA, CALIFORNIA

1. North Coast Community Planning ("Consultant") will provide professional services as an independent contractor to the City of St. Helena, California (“City”) to assist the Community Development Department with the continued processing of the following active development applications and related entitlements:
• PL24-045 – 1001 Adams Street (Castellucci Hotel & Residences Project): Major Design Review, Demolition Permit, Conditional Use Permit, Tentative Subdivision Map, Planned Development, General Plan Amendment, and Development Agreement applications; and • PL24-056 – 1915 Main Street (Alila Napa Valley Hotel Expansion Project): Design Review, Demolition Permit, and Conditional Use Permit Amendment applications.

2. Services to be provided by Consultant in connection with the continued processing and coordination of assigned development applications include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Coordinate with Community Development Department staff and project applicants, developers, consultants, and agencies regarding assigned projects; • Attend meetings with City staff, applicants, consultants, public agencies, and other stakeholders, as requested by the Community Development Director or designee;
• Assist City staff with coordination of entitlement processing, environmental review, and development review activities for assigned projects, including general plan amendments, zoning amendments, and related land use applications; • Assist the City, as requested, with coordination and procurement support for specialty consultant services, including environmental review consultants; • Facilitate interdepartmental coordination meetings related to assigned projects and assist in identifying and resolving project-related issues; • Provide professional support related to development agreement review and processing, including coordination of draft documents and public hearing materials, as requested;
• Prepare reports, resolutions, presentation materials, and related documents for review by City staff, and assist with presentations before the Planning Commission and City Council, as requested.

3. Consultant shall perform services as an independent contractor and not as an employee of the City. Consultant shall retain full control over the means and methods of performing the services requested by the City. The Community Development Director or designee shall serve primary point of contact to the Consultant for purposes of communicating project needs, providing access to City staff and records, and coordinating the flow of information between Consultant and the City. The parties may, by mutual written agreement, adjust the scope,

Page 76 of 311 ends

Page 2 ends

schedule, or priorities of services as project needs evolve.

4. Consultant shall not be responsible for the performance or quality of work by third parties, including City’s staff, agents, or other contractors not retained or controlled by Consultant.

5. Consultant will submit invoices to City on a monthly basis requesting payment for services rendered in the prior month. Separate invoices will be submitted for each project. Invoices shall identify the project name, personnel performing the work, hours worked, hourly rates, reimbursable expenses, and a summary of services performed during the billing period.

6. Fees for services performed by Consultant will be billed at a fully loaded rate of $200/hour.

Consultant will not charge for travel time, mileage expenses or incidental copying, postage, etc.

Lodging and meals will be billed at the actual cost and receipts provided.

7. Consultant will maintain a City of St. Helena business license and comprehensive general liability, professional liability and automobile insurance, each with coverage of no less than $1 Million per occurrence and in the aggregate. Consultant is exempt from the requirement to maintain workers compensation insurance.

8. All notices, requests, demands or other communications required or permitted by the terms of this agreement will be given in writing and delivered to the Parties at the following addresses:
a. City of St. Helena Community Development Department
1088 College Avenue
St. Helena, CA 94574
Attn: Leza Mikhail
or [email protected]
b. North Coast Community Planning
310 S. Harold Street
Fort Bragg, CA 95437
Attn: Linda Ruffing
or [email protected]

Page 77 of 311 ends

Agenda Report to the City Council
Agenda Section: CONSENT ITEMS
Department: Community Services Department - Parks and Recreation Division DATE: July 28, 2026
FROM: Ashley Sylvester, Director of Community Services Department SUBJECT: Consideration and proposed adoption of a resolution (1) Approving temporary street closures; and (2) Authorizing possession of open alcoholic beverages on public streets and parking lots for the 2026 Sesquicentennial "Cheers to 150 Years" Celebration.

RECOMMENDED
ACTION:

Staff recommends City Council review and adopts the attached resolution.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

City Council has adopted several resolutions of similar nature with the most recent taking place at the August 26, 2025 City Council meeting. Resolution No. 2025-103.

STATEMENT OF THE
PURPOSE:

Staff is seeking City Council's approval to temporarily close several streets and allow the possession of alcoholic beverages on specific public streets to support the implementation of the Sesquicentennial "Cheers to 150 Years" Celebration.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: All staff time and associated event costs will be funded from approved FY 26-27 departmental budgets as well as money fundraised at a previous Sesquicentennial Event.

CEQA DETERMINATION: Not a CEQA Project (CEQA Guidelines §15378) BACKGROUND:

The "Cheers to 150 Years" event has been developed by Sesquicentennial Committee members and city staff. The event will be implemented by the St. Helena Community Services Department and Public Works Department in coordination with the St. Helena Police Department and St. Helena Fire Department. Additionally, in partnership with various community-based organizations and local vendors. The event is most similarly related to the St. Helena Harvest Festival. The event is free to attend, and all community members and visitors are welcome.

DISCUSSION:

This year's annual Harvest Festival celebration is scheduled to take place on Saturday,

Page 78 of 311 ends

September 5, 2026. With City Council's approval of the proposed resolution, the event will include an all-day street fair, food and beverages, live music and other various community activities.
(1) Street Closures
In order to safely accommodate these activities, staff is requesting the following street closures:
• Adams Street, between Railroad Avenue and 899 Adams Street, from 11am –11:00pm • Library Lane, the entirety of Library Lane, from 11:00am – 11:00pm Staff will implement the following precautionary traffic control measures to ensure a safe event for attendees and limit the impact the proposed road closures have on the community:
• Electronic sign boards will be placed around the proposed street closures to notify the community in advance of the event.
• No parking signage will be placed within the proposed street closure area 72 hours in advance of the event.
• City staff will directly notify and provide details of potential impacts on the businesses and residents in the adjacent event area in advance of the event. • City staff in the Fire, Parks & Recreation, Public Works, and Police Departments will be working the day of the event.
• City staff will supply, set-up, and remove traffic control items (signage, barricades, traffic cones, vehicle blockades) to limit any potentially dangerous vehicle/pedestrian interface.
• Event staff will abide by all conditions of the encroachment permit and traffic safety as stipulated by the Public Works and Police Departments.
(2) Open Alcohol Possession
Historically, local non-profit organizations have sold alcoholic beverages at similar events, including St. Helena Kiwanis Foundation, St. Helena Rotary Club, and St. Helena Oddfellows.

Staff will once again work in partnership with local non-profits to provide the same service at this year's event. The organizations will be responsible for securing a permit from the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) and will meet all insurance and security requirements as stipulated by City staff, St. Helena Police Department, and ABC.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

Staff will coordinate with the City's Environmental Service technician and ensure event activities and associated amenities are implemented in accordance with all applicable environmental management practices.

GOAL:

Goal 5: Enhance Quality of Life

Page 79 of 311 ends

ATTACHMENTS:

1. 2026 Sesquicentennial Cheers to 150 Year Celebration Resolution-AS v1

Page 80 of 311 ends

CITY OF ST. HELENA
RESOLUTION NO. 2026 -
RESOLUTION (1) APPROVING TEMPORARY STREET
CLOSURES; AND (2) AUTHORIZING POSSESSION OF OPEN

ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES ON PUBLIC STREETS FOR THE
SESQUICENTENNIAL “CHEERS TO 150 YEARS”
FESTIVITIES ON SEPTEMBER 5, 2026
WHEREAS, the City’s Parks and Recreation Department, in partnership with community organizations, has hosted a number of community events throughout 2026, for the 150th Celebrations of St. Helena, known as the Sesquicentennial; and
WHEREAS, Temporary closure of City streets and lots within the event area will provide adequate space for “Cheers to 150 Years” activities to take place and create a safe environment for event attendees, staff, and vendors; and WHEREAS, The St. Helena Recreation Department is requesting temporary closures of portions of Adams Street and Library Lane for the Sesquicentennial “Cheers to 150 Years” Celebration on September 5, 2026; and WHEREAS, The St. Helena Municipal Code Section 9.04.010 authorizes the City Council to allow possession of open alcoholic beverages on public streets or any private or public off-street parking lot: and
WHEREAS, Parks and Recreation Department is requesting City Council allow possession of alcohol on specific public streets during the duration of the “Cheers to 150 Years” and will work in partnership with local non-profit organizations to sell beer and wine at the event; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Helena hereby approves the following:

1. Temporary closures of the following streets on September 5, 2026:
• Adams Street, between Railroad Avenue and 899 Adams Street, from 11:00am – 11:00pm
• Library Lane, entirety of Library Lane, from 11:00am – 11:00pm • Possession of open alcoholic beverages on public streets and parking lots encompassed by the “Cheers to 150 Years” event footprint on September 5, 2026.

Page 81 of 311 ends

Approved at a Regular Meeting of the St. Helena City Council on July 28, 2026, by the following vote:

Mayor Dohring:

Vice Mayor Deasy:

Councilmember Barak:

Councilmember Spadarotto:

Councilmember Diaz:

APPROVED: ATTEST:

Paul Jamison Dohring, Mayor Andrew Bradley, City Clerk

Page 82 of 311 ends

Agenda Report to the City Council
Agenda Section: CONSENT ITEMS
Department: Administrative Services Department
DATE: July 28, 2026
FROM: Mandy Kellogg, Director of Administrative Services SUBJECT: Waiver of second reading and adoption of an ordinance, amending Chapter 3.04 of the Municipal Code Purchasing of Supplies, Equipment and Services, and Procedures for Public Works Projects to update the City Manager's signing authority to add a new section providing Authority to Adopt Implementing Regulations and Administrative Policies

RECOMMENDED
ACTION:

Waiver of second reading and adoption of an Ordinance,
amending Chapter of Purchasing Municipal Code of 3.04 the Supplies, Equipment and Services, and Procedures for Public City Works Projects to update the Manager's signing authority and add a new section providing Authority to Adopt Implementing Regulations and Administrative Policies.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

Purchasing Authority was last updated on November 24, 2015. On December 9, 2025, the City Council approved the first reading of the ordinance amendment.

STATEMENT OF THE
PURPOSE:

Streamline purchasing process in response to previous City Council direction.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: None.

CEQA DETERMINATION: Not a CEQA Project (CEQA Guidelines §15378) BACKGROUND:

St. Helena Municipal Code (SHMC) Chapter 3.04 Purchase of Supplies, Equipment and Services and Procedures for Public Works Projects establishes the City's purchasing system, including bid procedures and contract award thresholds, which may be updated periodically based on inflation or recommendation to ensure the purchasing process remains efficient.

Section 3.04 as it relates to the purchasing authority was last updated in 2015, when the City council increased administrative approval authority for purchases of supplies, equipment, and services from $10,000 to $25,000. The 2015 update made the City's procurement process more efficient by decreasing the time and costs associated with small dollar purchases and enabled the City Council to focus on policymaking.

Page 83 of 311 ends

DISCUSSION:

In the 10 years since SHMC Section 3.04 was updated, the costs of all goods and services have risen significantly. This has increased the number of contracts and purchases that require City Council action. Higher inflation since the pandemic has dramatically eroded purchasing power, requiring limited staff resources to be spent on preparing agenda reports for minor purchases that previously could have been approved administratively.

The City recently conducted a survey of neighboring agencies within Napa and Sonoma Counties to assess City Manager's purchasing authority levels. The table below provides a comparative summary of the survey results.

Agency Purchasing Authority
Napa County
American Canyon 100,000
Calistoga 30,000
Napa 125,000
St. Helena 25,000
Yountville 45,000
Sonoma County
Bodega 50,000
Cloverdale 50,000
Cotati 25,000
Geyserville 50,000
Guerneville 50,000
Healdsburg 50,000
Rohnert Park 100,000
Santa Rosa 100,000
Sebastopol 50,000
Sonoma 25,000
Windsor 50,000
Marin County
Belvedere 75,000
Corte Madera 75,000
Fairfax 200,000
Larkspur 60,000
Novato 50,000
San Anselmo 50,000
San Rafael 50,000
Sausalito 75,000
Tiburon 60,000
Solano County
Benicia 100,000

Page 84 of 311 ends

Vallejo 100,000
Fairfield 100,000
Dixon 25,000
Vacaville 100,000
As the data above shows, only 2 other cities out of the 30 listed above have a signing authority of $25,000 or less and the average authority is $68,000. In addition to surveying other cities, the recommendation to update the City Manager's administrative purchasing authority is based on several factors:
• The previous City Council had requested staff to bring back an item to City Council to increase certain purchasing thresholds to improve operational efficiencies. • Inflationary Adjustments. The Consumer Price Index (CPI) is the most widely recognized measure of inflation. Between 2015 and 2025, the Bay Area CPA (as published by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics for the San Francisco-OaklandHayward region) increased by approximately 37 percent, meaning that a $25,000 purchase in 2015 is now equivalent to $34,250 in 2025.
• Growth in the City's budget. In FY2015, the General Fund operating budget was $9.4 million. In FY 2025-26, it has increased 139% to 22.2 million. In FY2015, $25,000 represented 0.27 percent of the General Fund operations budget. In 2025, $25,000 represents 0.11 percent of the General Fund operating budget, while $60,000 represents 0.27 percent of the General Fund operating budget. • The volume of contracts that require City Council consideration. The City Council has considered 42 contracts and purchases in FY2025. 16 (38%) were less than $60,000 and 22 (52%) were more than $60,000. 100% of these purchases were approved by the City Council.
• The recommended administrative approval threshold updated would free up approximately 128 hours of staff time a year.

The recommended amount is also consistent with the limit established in St. Helena Municipal Code Section 3.04.020 regarding uniform construction contracts.

Additionally, it is common for departments to bring notable matters to the City Council for consideration even when the contract/purchase is below the established signing authority and that practice will continue with the recommended update.

Below is a summary of the recommended updates.

1. The threshold for administrative approval for agreements is set at $60,000.

2. The 60,000 is updated every five years based on CPI and rounded to the nearest $5,000.

No other changes are recommended to the purchasing system or policies, and all other requirements of Chapter 3.04 remain in effect. This action will rescind the Council's March 11,

Page 85 of 311 ends

2025 adjustment to the City Manager's signing authority (which had temporarily lowered the signing authority to $10,000) and establish a new authorization level.

Streamlining the approval process for lower-value contracts will enhance operational efficiency by reducing administrative tasks and allowing staff to direct time and attention on delivering services and projects. There is no direct budget impact associated with this recommendation.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

None
GOAL:

Goal 1: Strengthen Financial Sustainability
Goal 7: Enhance Organizational Effectiveness
ATTACHMENTS:

1. St. Helena Municipal Code Chapter 3.04 Purchasing (Redline)

2. St. Helena Municipal Code Chapter 3.04-c1

Page 86 of 311 ends

St. Helena Municipal Code Chapter 3.04, Purchase of Supplies, Equipment and Services, and Procedures for Public Works Projects Page 1 of 27
The St. Helena Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 25-3, passed June 24, 2025.

Chapter 3.04

PURCHASE OF SUPPLIES, EQUIPMENT AND SERVICES, AND

PROCEDURES FOR PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS
Sections:

Article 1.

Generally

3.04.010 Purpose—Objectives—Scope—Responsibilities.

3.04.020 Definitions.

3.04.030 Staging prohibited.

3.04.040 Appeals.

Article 2.

Supplies, General Services and Equipment

3.04.050 Purchasing officer—Powers and duties.

3.04.055 Standards of conduct pertaining to procurement.

3.04.060 Requisitions.

3.04.070 Purchase orders.

3.04.080 Contracts.

3.04.090 Encumbrance of funds.

3.04.100 Bidding procedures for various purchase amounts.

3.04.110 Departmental purchases.

3.04.120 Informal bid procedure.

3.04.130 Formal bid procedure.

3.04.140 Special equipment/supplies, sole source purchases, and bid exceptions.

3.04.150 Cooperative purchasing with other agencies.

3.04.160 Recycled supply products specification.

3.04.170 Emergencies.

3.04.175 Declared emergencies.

3.04.180 Surplus supplies and equipment.

3.04.190 Inspection and tests.

Page 87 of 311 ends

St. Helena Municipal Code Chapter 3.04, Purchase of Supplies, Equipment and Services, and Procedures for Public Works Projects Page 2 of 27
The St. Helena Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 25-3, passed June 24, 2025.

Article 3.

Public Works Projects

3.04.200 Uniform construction cost accounting procedures.

3.04.210 Bidding procedures for various project amounts.

3.04.220 Negotiate contract or purchase order procedures.

3.04.230 Informal bidding procedures.

3.04.240 Formal bidding procedures.

3.04.250 Bonds.

3.04.260 No bids received.

3.04.270 Tie bids.

3.04.280 Rejection of bids.

3.04.290 Emergencies.

3.04.300 Prevailing wages required.

3.04.310 Pre-qualification of bidders.

Article 4.

Professional Services

3.04.320 Award of professional service contracts based upon competence.

3.04.330 Request for proposal/qualification.

3.04.340 Contracting authority.

Article 1. Generally

3.04.010 Purpose—Objectives—Scope—Responsibilities.

The purpose of this chapter is to establish an efficient procedure for the purchase of supplies, equipment, and services, and to establish a procedure for performing or contracting for the construction of public works consistent with state law. These procedures are intended to allow the city to obtain the best professional services, to acquire quality supplies, general services and equipment, to construct public works at the lowest possible cost commensurate with quality needed, and to exercise positive financial control over purchases and also to define

Page 88 of 311 ends

St. Helena Municipal Code Chapter 3.04, Purchase of Supplies, Equipment and Services, and Procedures for Public Works Projects Page 3 of 27
The St. Helena Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 25-3, passed June 24, 2025. authority for the purchasing function. These procedures apply to all city employees. These procedures apply to all purchases of supplies, equipment and services, including purchases made online or over the phone. Employees are responsible for reading and understanding the requirements of this chapter. (Ord. 22-7 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 19-7 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 15-8 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 01-14; prior code § 2.90.010)

3.04.020 Definitions.

As used in this chapter:
“Bidder’s list” means a list of responsible prospective vendors capable of providing the items being bid upon.
“Contract” means an agreement, regardless of how titled, for the procurement of supplies, equipment or services, including without limitation a verbal or written agreement between the city and a contractor, the city and a service provider, and/or the city and a vendor. “Emergency” means a sudden, unexpected occurrence that poses a clear and imminent danger, requiring immediate action to prevent or mitigate the loss or impairment of life, health, property, or essential public services.
“Equipment” means furnishings, machinery, vehicles, rolling stock, and other personal property used in the city’s business.
“General services” are services such as janitorial, uniform cleaning, maintenance work and other services which do not require any unique skill, special background, or training. Obtaining such services at the lowest cost is the single most important factor in selection, as opposed to personal performance.
“Maintenance work” means:

1. Routine, recurring, and usual work for the cleaning, preservation or protection of any publicly owned or publicly operated facility for its intended purposes;

2. Minor repainting;

3. Resurfacing of streets and highways at less than one inch;

Page 89 of 311 ends

St. Helena Municipal Code Chapter 3.04, Purchase of Supplies, Equipment and Services, and Procedures for Public Works Projects Page 4 of 27
The St. Helena Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 25-3, passed June 24, 2025.

4. Landscape maintenance, including mowing, watering, trimming, pruning, planting, replacement of plants, and servicing of irrigation and sprinkler systems;

5. Work performed to keep, operate, and maintain publicly owned water or waste disposal systems including, but not limited to, dams and reservoirs. “Professional or special services” means any work performed by an attorney, doctor, architect, engineer, land surveyor, construction manager, appraiser, expert, accounting firm, planner, consultant or those services such as computer services, and other services which require special performance criteria, specific experience, training, personal judgment, quality of work or factors other than simply obtaining the service at the lowest cost to the city. “Public work” means a type of public construction project subject to the regulation of the California Public Contract Code, such as:

1. The erection, construction of, alteration, major painting, repair, or demolition of public buildings, streets, walkways, water and sewer facilities, drainage facilities, or other public facilities, whether owned, leased, or operated by the city;

2. Furnishing supplies for any of the above works or projects;

3. Public work does not include “maintenance work” as defined in this chapter. “Purchase” includes the renting, leasing, purchasing, licensing, or a trade of equipment or supplies.
“Purchase order” is a written contract for equipment, supplies, or services with a specified consultant, contractor, or vendor and is initiated by a purchase order requisition. A purchase order submitted by an authorized person becomes a legally binding contract. It can stand alone or include attachments for clarification purposes. A purchase order encumbers the specified amounts to provide specified equipment, supplies, services, and/or fixed assets. Regular purchasers may be paid through a one-time payment of an amount up to the purchase order amount at the conclusion of performance (delivery of supplies, services, etc.), and/or incremental (progress) payments as provided in the contract for each time items are purchased.
“Purchasing officer” means the finance director or their designated representative.

Page 90 of 311 ends

St. Helena Municipal Code Chapter 3.04, Purchase of Supplies, Equipment and Services, and Procedures for Public Works Projects Page 5 of 27
The St. Helena Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 25-3, passed June 24, 2025. “Requisition” is a request to authorize the acquisition of equipment, supplies or services from a specified consultant, contractor, or vendor.
“Services” means the furnishing of labor, time or effort to perform or complete a designated task.
“Special equipment/supplies” means unique supplies, machinery, computers, or other equipment which are not generally and regularly ordered in bulk by the city and which must perform complex tasks, or integrate efficiently with existing equipment or supplies. “Supplies” means office supplies, janitorial supplies, materials, goods, tools, or other commodities used in the general conduct of the city’s business, excepting supplies for a public work which is regulated under Section 3.04.210.
“Uniform construction cost accounting procedures” means those procedures and rules established by the State Uniform Construction Cost Accounting Commission pursuant to California Public Contract Code Section 22030 et seq. (Ord. 22-7 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 19-7 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 15-8 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 01-14; prior code § 2.90.020)

3.04.030 Staging prohibited.

Purchases and public works contracts shall not be knowingly staged or separated into smaller units or segments solely for the purpose of evading the competitive formal or informal bidding requirements of this chapter. (Ord. 22-7 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 19-7 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 15-8 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 01-14; prior code § 2.90.030)

3.04.040 Appeals.

Any dispute, contention, or disagreement relative to interpretation, application or enforcement of this chapter shall be submitted to the city council for determination in accordance with the appeal provisions of Chapter 1.16. (Ord. 22-7 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 19-7 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 15-8 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 01-14; prior code § 2.90.040)

Page 91 of 311 ends

St. Helena Municipal Code Chapter 3.04, Purchase of Supplies, Equipment and Services, and Procedures for Public Works Projects Page 6 of 27
The St. Helena Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 25-3, passed June 24, 2025.

Article 2. Supplies, General Services and Equipment

3.04.050 Purchasing officer—Powers and duties.

The duties of the purchasing officer may be combined with those duties of any other officer or position in the city. The purchasing officer shall have the authority to:

A. Purchase needed city supplies, general services, equipment and special equipment/supplies which are not included within the construction contract or proposed specifications for a construction contract of a public work being administered by any other city department; B. Investigate, keep knowledgeable about, negotiate, and recommend on the execution of contracts or the purchasing of supplies, general services, and equipment pursuant to the procedures of this chapter and such administrative rules and regulations as prescribed by the city;
C. Keep informed of current developments concerning purchasing, prices, market conditions, and new products;
D. Prescribe and maintain such forms as necessary for the proper operation of this purchasing system;
E. Supervise the inspection of all supplies, general services, and equipment purchased under this chapter in order to assure conformance with city specifications; F. Supervise the transfer of surplus and unused supplies and equipment or sale or disposal of such;
G. Maintain up-to-date bidder’s list, vendors’ catalogs, files and such other records as needed to perform these duties;
H. Ensure that purchasing specifications are open and nonrestrictive to encourage full competition; and
I. Perform such other tasks as may be necessary for the proper conduct of purchasing of supplies, general services, and equipment. (Ord. 22-7 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 19-7 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 15-8 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 01-14; prior code § 2.91.010)

Page 92 of 311 ends

St. Helena Municipal Code Chapter 3.04, Purchase of Supplies, Equipment and Services, and Procedures for Public Works Projects Page 7 of 27
The St. Helena Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 25-3, passed June 24, 2025.

3.04.050.1 Authority to Adopt Implementing Regulations and Administrative Policies.

Notwithstanding the provisions set forth in Chapter 3.04, the City Council reserves the right to adopt implementing regulations and administrative policies for the procurement of equipment, supplies, and public works while concurrently aligning such activities with the City’s General Plan and City Council Goals.

3.04.055 Standards of conduct pertaining to procurement.

No employee, officer, or agent may participate in the selection, award, or administration of a contract if they have a real or apparent conflict of interest. Such a conflict of interest would arise when the employee, officer, or agent, any member of their immediate family, their partner, or an organization which employs or is about to employ any of the parties indicated herein, has a financial or other interest in or a tangible personal benefit from a firm considered for a contract. All city employees and persons in city service are required to adhere to applicable local, state, and federal conflict of interest requirements and prohibitions, including but not limited to the provisions of Article 4 of Title 1, Division 4, Chapter 1 of the Government Code, and Title 2 CFR Section 200.318(c)(1), General procurement standards.

A. Reporting of Improper Activities. The city has a responsibility to conduct its affairs ethically and in compliance with the law. City employees and persons in city service are expected and encouraged to promptly raise questions and concerns regarding possible violations of city policy or local, state, or federal law.

B. Enforcement. In addition to any other penalty as provided by law, any employee found to be in violation of the code of ethics shall be subjected to appropriate disciplinary action up to and including employment termination. (Ord. 22-7 § 1 (Exh. A))

3.04.060 Requisitions.

Except as authorized under Section 3.04.100(A), any department requesting supplies, general services, equipment, or special equipment/supplies shall submit to the immediate supervisor a Formatted: Font: Open Sans, 10.5 pt
Formatted: Font: Open Sans, 10.5 pt

Page 93 of 311 ends

St. Helena Municipal Code Chapter 3.04, Purchase of Supplies, Equipment and Services, and Procedures for Public Works Projects Page 8 of 27
The St. Helena Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 25-3, passed June 24, 2025. requisition on the purchasing officer’s approved form prior to initiating any procurement. (Ord. 22-7 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 19-7 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 15-8 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 01-14; prior code § 2.91.020)

3.04.070 Purchase orders.

Except for departmental purchases as authorized in Section 3.04.100(A), purchases of supplies, general services, most special equipment/supplies and general equipment not covered within a construction contract or public works specification may be made only by purchase orders issued by the purchasing officer and any other contractual document they determine is necessary. (Ord. 22-7 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 19-7 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 15-8 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 01-14; prior code § 2.91.030)

3.04.080 Contracts.

The purchasing officer does not have the authority to sign contracts, nor to bind the city contractually. Contracts may only be entered into by the city manager. Subject to Section

3.04.340 contracts may only be entered into by the city manager; contracts in excess of city manager authority require city council approval, without which such contract is not valid. (Ord. 22-7 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 19-7 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 15-8 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 01-14; prior code § 2.91.040)

3.04.090 Encumbrance of funds.

Except in case of an emergency or where specific authority is first obtained from the city council or the city manager, the purchasing officer shall not issue any purchase order for purchasing of supplies, general services or equipment unless there exists an unencumbered appropriation in the fund account against which the purchase is to be charged. (Ord. 22-7 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 19-7 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 15-8 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 01-14; prior code § 2.91.050)

Page 94 of 311 ends

St. Helena Municipal Code Chapter 3.04, Purchase of Supplies, Equipment and Services, and Procedures for Public Works Projects Page 9 of 27
The St. Helena Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 25-3, passed June 24, 2025.

3.04.100 Bidding procedures for various purchase amounts.

Except as authorized in Sections 3.04.140 and 3.04.150, or in the case of emergencies as described in Sections 3.04.170 and 3.04.175, the purchase of supplies, general services, equipment and special equipment/supplies not included in a construction contract or bid specification for a public work, shall be made as follows:

A. A purchase of five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) or less may be made by departmental purchase in accordance with Section 3.04.110.

B. A purchase greater than five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) to sixtytwenty-five thousand dollars ($6025,000.00) may be made by an informal bid procedure in accordance with Section

3.04.120.

C. A purchase of more than sixtytwenty-five thousand dollars ($6025,000.00) shall be made by formal bid procedure in accordance with Section 3.04.130. (Ord. 22-7 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 19-7 § 1 (Exh.

A); Ord. 15-8 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 01-14; prior code § 2.91.060)

3.04.110 Departmental purchases.

A department may, independently of the purchase officer, purchase specified and limited supplies, equipment, special equipment/supplies and general services not included in a construction contract or bid specification for a public work, as follows:

A. Purchases of five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) or less: requestor receives a verbal/written approval from supervisor, department keeps a record of such purchases and exercises reasonable prudence in seeking price quotes and purchasing such items. All purchases shall be made with funds in an unencumbered appropriation. (Ord. 22-7 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 19-7 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 15-8 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 01-14; prior code § 2.91.070)

3.04.120 Informal bid procedure.

Page 95 of 311 ends

St. Helena Municipal Code Chapter 3.04, Purchase of Supplies, Equipment and Services, and Procedures for Public Works Projects Page 10 of 27
The St. Helena Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 25-3, passed June 24, 2025. thousand dollars ($6025,000.00), shall be made by a purchase order as required by this chapter. Said purchases, subject to the department head’s discretion, based upon a small amount, or urgent need and timeliness, may be let without the formal bidding procedures described in Section 3.04.130. In such case, the following procedures shall be followed:

A. Solicitation of Bids. If it is determined that the request is of a sufficient size and time allows, the purchasing officer or designee, before issuing the purchase order to a specific contractor/vendor, shall: for purchases greater than five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) to sixtytwenty-five thousand dollars ($6025,000.00), obtain at least three written bids or price quotes. The purchasing officer or designee may negotiate to obtain the lowest possible contract amount from any vendor contacted who can provide supplies, general service, or equipment within the time constraints of the department’s request. The purchasing officer or designee may solicit or determine bids of prospective vendors by written request, telephone, or may base award recommendations upon current catalogs or advertisements.

B. Local Preference. Quality and service being equal, a local preference of one percent shall be given to local bidders located within the city, the difference being the sales tax the city would receive on the sale in the case of vendors.

C. Maintenance of Records. After placing the order, a written record of the contract, bids, quotes or advertisements used or received shall be open public records and maintained by the purchasing officer or the department for a period of two years.

D. Award. The purchasing officer or designee shall award the contract to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, vendor or offeror whose quote, bid, or proposal fulfills the purpose intended, provided the amount is within the unencumbered appropriation for that item, or reject such bids or proposals, or negotiate further for terms more favorable to the city. (Ord. 22-7 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 19-7 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 15-8 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 01-14; prior code § 2.91.080)

3.04.130 Formal bid procedure.

For supplies, equipment, special equipment/supplies and general services not included in a construction contract or bid specification for a public work with an estimated value in excess of sixtytwenty-five thousand dollars ($6025,000.00), purchases shall be made in accordance with the following formal written bid procedures:

Page 96 of 311 ends

St. Helena Municipal Code Chapter 3.04, Purchase of Supplies, Equipment and Services, and Procedures for Public Works Projects Page 11 of 27
The St. Helena Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 25-3, passed June 24, 2025.

A. Published Notices. A notice inviting bids shall be published at least ten (10) calendar days before the date of the opening of bids. The notice shall be published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation printed and published in the city, and also in appropriate trade publications, if any, circulated within the general area. Such other notice as the purchasing officer or designee deems appropriate shall be made.

B. Notices Inviting Bids. Notices inviting bids shall include a general description of the goods, articles, services or equipment to be purchased, any required bidder’s security or performance bonds, state where bid blanks and specifications may be secured and the time and place for the opening of bids.

C. Bidder’s List. The purchasing officer or designee shall maintain a list of responsible bidders for various categories of supplies, equipment, and general services. A solicitation for a bid shall be sent to all responsible prospective contractors or suppliers whose names are on the bidder’s list for the category of equipment, supplies or general services subject to the bid request.

D. Bidder’s Security/Failure to Sign Contract. If the city requires a bidder’s bond or other form of security, the bidder’s security shall be prescribed in the notice inviting bids in an amount equal to ten percent (10%) of the bid amount. Bidder’s security shall be either a cash deposit with the city, a cashier’s or certified check payable to the city, or a bidder’s bond. Unsuccessful bidders shall be entitled to the return of bid security within sixty (60) days of the date of the award.

However, the lowest responsive and responsible bidder shall forfeit all or part of its bid security, as may be determined by the city council, upon the bidder’s refusal or failure to execute the contract within ten (10) days after the date of the award of the contract. On the refusal or failure of the lowest responsive and responsible bidder to execute the contract, the council may award the contract to the next lowest responsive, responsible bidder.

E. Bid Opening Procedure. Sealed bids shall be submitted to the city clerk’s office and shall be identified as to bidder, project, and “Bid” on the envelope. Bids shall be opened by city staff in public at the time and place stated and as described in the notice inviting bids. A written record and tabulation shall be made at that time of all bids received, and shall be open for public inspection during regular business hours for a period of two years after the bid opening.

F. Local Preference. Quality and service being equal, a local preference of one percent shall be given to local bidders located within the city, the difference being the sales tax the city would receive on the sale in the case of vendors.

Page 97 of 311 ends

St. Helena Municipal Code Chapter 3.04, Purchase of Supplies, Equipment and Services, and Procedures for Public Works Projects Page 12 of 27
The St. Helena Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 25-3, passed June 24, 2025.

G. Bid Evaluation Procedures. All bids and bidders shall be analyzed by purchasing officer or designee and the responsible department for bidder’s qualifications and compliance with bid specifications. The purchasing officer or designee shall prepare a recommendation to the department for award or rejection; the department shall then prepare a recommendation for award or rejection to the city council.

H. Rejection of Bids. In its discretion, the city council may reject all bids and readvertise. If no bids are received, the city council may proceed with the procurement without further complying with this chapter using whatever method it deems appropriate, such as rebid, abandon acquisition, or negotiate a contract.

I. Award of Contracts. Contracts shall be awarded by the city council to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder whose bid fulfills the purpose intended according to criteria designated in the solicitation, provided the award amount is within the unencumbered appropriation for that item. The city council may waive any minor bid irregularities.

J. Tie Bids. If two or more bids received are for the same total amount or unit price, quality and service being equal, and if the public interest will not permit the delay of readvertising for bids, the council may accept either bid or accept the lowest bid made by negotiation with the tied bidders.

K. Performance Bonds. The city may require a performance bond in such amount as it shall find reasonably necessary to protect the public interest. If the city requires a performance bond, the form and amount of the bond shall be described in the notice inviting bids. (Ord. 22-7 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 19-7 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 15-8 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 01-14; prior code § 2.91.090)

3.04.140 Special equipment/supplies, sole source purchases, and bid exceptions.

A. Special Equipment/Supplies. In purchasing any special equipment or supplies needed to be compatible with existing equipment, or to perform complex or unique functions, the purchasing officer or department head may:

1. Limit bidding to a specific product type, or a brand name product; or

Page 98 of 311 ends

St. Helena Municipal Code Chapter 3.04, Purchase of Supplies, Equipment and Services, and Procedures for Public Works Projects Page 13 of 27
The St. Helena Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 25-3, passed June 24, 2025.

2. Utilize a request for proposal approach where warranties, servicing obligations, and product performance will be evaluated in addition to the price of the product, and the award of the contract is made by the council to the proposer it deems is in the best public interest.

B. Sole Source Purchases. Commodities or services that can be obtained from only one vendor, or one distributor authorized to sell in this area, are exempt from the competitive bidding requirements in Section 3.04.100 and are deemed sole source purchases. Sole source purchases may include proprietary items sold direct from the manufacturer. All sole source purchases shall be supported by written documentation indicating the facts and nature supporting the determination of a sole source, signed by the appropriate department head and forwarded to the purchasing officer. Approval of any sole source acquisition shall be obtained from the city council for an award of a contract or purchase order greater than sixtytwenty-five thousand dollars ($6025,000.00).

C. Bid Exceptions. The competitive bid process is not applicable to certain purchases. The following are exempt from bid processes of this chapter:

1. Departmental purchases, as defined in Section 3.04.110;

2. Subscriptions;

3. Trade circulars or books;

4. Newspaper advertisements and notices;

5. Utility payments;

6. Land. (Ord. 22-7 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 19-7 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 15-8 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 01-14; prior code § 2.91.100)

3.04.150 Cooperative purchasing with other agencies.

Page 99 of 311 ends

St. Helena Municipal Code Chapter 3.04, Purchase of Supplies, Equipment and Services, and Procedures for Public Works Projects Page 14 of 27
The St. Helena Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 25-3, passed June 24, 2025. purchasing officer is authorized to “piggy-back” onto or join into an existing written purchase contract, which contract was obtained within the last twelve (12) months through a competitive bidding process prepared by and awarded by another public, local, state or federal government agency. However, the city council’s approval shall be required prior to and for the joining of a “piggy-back” purchase or cooperative purchase for a purchase greater than sixtytwenty-five thousand dollars ($6025,000.00). (Ord. 22-7 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 19-7 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 15-8 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 01-14; prior code § 2.91.110)

3.04.160 Recycled supply products specification.

If in procuring supplies a recycled product can achieve the necessary city performance standard, and if such recycled product is readily available, specifications should, if economically feasible, require products made with recycled materials be bid. If the department head determines that: (A) a recycled product lacks performance capabilities or needed quality levels; or (B) a sufficient amount of such recycled or reusable product is not currently available in the market, then a reduced percentage can be required, or the supply specification can be limited to nonrecycled or virgin materials. When recycled products are required, reasonable efforts shall be made to label the products as containing recycled materials. As used in this section, “recycled products” does not mean used products, but is limited to new products made with materials which have been recycled. (Ord. 22-7 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 19-7 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 15-8 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 01-14; prior code § 2.91.120)

3.04.170 Emergencies.

Bidding procedures may be dispensed with in the case of an emergency. The city council delegates to the city manager the authority to declare a public emergency and enter into contracts for any purchase in accordance with Section 3.04.175. The city manager’s authority is subject to confirmation by the city council at its next meeting for any purchase in excess of sixtytwenty-five thousand dollars ($6025,000.00). (Ord. 22-7 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 19-7 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 15-8 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 01-14; prior code § 2.91.130)

Page 100 of 311 ends

St. Helena Municipal Code Chapter 3.04, Purchase of Supplies, Equipment and Services, and Procedures for Public Works Projects Page 15 of 27
The St. Helena Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 25-3, passed June 24, 2025.

3.04.175 Declared emergencies.

A. Purpose. This section modifies the city’s normal purchasing practices only during a proclaimed emergency. With this revised policy, the city is able to acquire goods and services required to address an immediate threat to life, public health or safety, or an immediate threat of significant damage to improved public and private property while maintaining an effective purchasing policy.

B. Definitions. For the purposes of this section, the following definitions are applicable:

A “proclaimed disaster” or “emergency” exists if (1) the Governor has declared a state of emergency for an area which includes the geographic territory of the city, or (2) the city manager or their designee has declared an emergency in the city. “Exigent circumstances” are situations in which (1) a disaster or emergency has been proclaimed, and (2) the public exigency for goods and services required to address an immediate threat to life, public health or safety, or improved public and private property will not permit competitive solicitation.

C. Delegation of Purchasing Authority in Exigent Circumstances. If the city manager or their designee determines that goods and services must be procured before the city council is to assemble and approve purchases, the city manager or their designee has the authority, subject to the limitations set forth below, to approve the immediate rental and/or purchase of any equipment, supplies, services, or other items necessary to respond to an immediate threat to life, public health or safety, or improved public and private property.

1. Limits of Single Purchase Authority. The city manager or their designee shall have the authority to make individual purchases up to one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00) on their signature alone. The city manager or their designee shall have the authority to make purchases in excess of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00) up to a maximum of five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000.00) when countersigned by the mayor or, in the mayor’s absence, countersigned by another council member.

2. Limits of Aggregate Purchase Authority. The city manager or their designee shall have the authority to make aggregate purchases up to one million five hundred thousand dollars ($1,500,000.00) on their signature alone per disaster declaration. The city manager or their designee shall have the authority to make aggregate purchases in excess of one million five

Page 101 of 311 ends

St. Helena Municipal Code Chapter 3.04, Purchase of Supplies, Equipment and Services, and Procedures for Public Works Projects Page 16 of 27
The St. Helena Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 25-3, passed June 24, 2025. hundred thousand dollars ($1,500,000.00) and up to a maximum of two million five hundred thousand dollars ($2,500,000.00) per disaster declaration when countersigned by the mayor or, in the mayor’s absence, countersigned by another council member. a. Sub-delegation to the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) Director. The EOC director shall be a designee of the city manager at any time that the city manager is not available to approve purchases as allowed in this section. b. Sub-delegation of Purchasing Authority to Department Heads. If neither the city manager or their designee nor the EOC director is available, then any city department head has the authority to rent or purchase from the nearest source, any equipment, supplies, services, or other items necessary for any department to respond to an immediate threat to health, safety, or improved property, up to a maximum of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00).
c. Sub-delegation of Purchasing Authority to Mid-Managers. If neither the city manager or their designee, EOC director, or any department head is not available, then any employee classified as a mid-manager has the authority to rent or purchase from the nearest source any equipment, supplies, services, or other items necessary for any department to respond to an immediate threat to health, safety, or improved property, up to a maximum of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00).

D. Administrative Procedures and Reporting Requirements.

1. As soon as possible after purchases are made under subsection C of this section, the city manager or their designee, EOC director, department head or midmanager shall submit to the finance director or designee a purchase order requisition and a notation that the commodity has been ordered on an emergency basis from the vendor designated.

2. The finance director will inform the city manager or their designee and the city council of any individual purchase under this section with a contract amount greater than sixtytwenty-five thousand dollars ($6025,000.00), and also whenever the aggregate of purchases under this section is greater than two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000.00).

Page 102 of 311 ends

St. Helena Municipal Code Chapter 3.04, Purchase of Supplies, Equipment and Services, and Procedures for Public Works Projects Page 17 of 27
The St. Helena Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 25-3, passed June 24, 2025.

3. The finance director will obtain the city manager’s or their designee’s (or EOC director as the city manager’s designee) approval prior to any purchase by a department head if the amount is twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00) or more.

4. If the city manager or their designee and the EOC director are unavailable, and the delay in getting their signature would imperil life, public health or safety, or improved public or private property, then any department head (except the requestor) may approve the emergency purchase of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00) or more.

5. The finance director or designee shall have the authority to approve all disaster-related purchases under fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00).

6. The finance director or designee will expedite the verification of funds available and complete the preparation of the purchase order.

E. Procurement Procedures in Exigent Circumstances. Upon receipt of the requisitions under subsection D of this section, the finance director or designee shall prepare purchase orders for emergency equipment, supplies, services or other items in accordance with the requirements of this section.

1. Exempt Purchases. Purchases of two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000.00) or less shall not be required to be formally bid. Purchases greater than two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000.00) may be made following the procedures specified in this section. The signature(s) of the city manager or their designee, finance director, or department head are still required as provided in subsections C and D of this section.

2. Justification of “Sole Source” or “No Bid” Contracts. Where exigent circumstances require immediate procurement from the nearest available source, the finance director or designee shall justify the emergency sole source purchase or no bid purchase on the purchase order.
a. Procurement should be limited to that portion of the work that must be performed immediately, and subsequent procurement by competitive proposal for the remainder of the work under the city’s normal purchasing policy (this chapter). b. “Sole source” or “no bid” acquisitions shall be necessary for one of the following reasons: placement of emergency protective measures; procurement of scarce commodities, goods, or services; or acquisition or rental of emergency equipment,

Page 103 of 311 ends

St. Helena Municipal Code Chapter 3.04, Purchase of Supplies, Equipment and Services, and Procedures for Public Works Projects Page 18 of 27
The St. Helena Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 25-3, passed June 24, 2025. emergency consulting services, emergency road clearance, or other emergency requirements.

3. Provision for Alternate Bid Solicitation Procedures. The city’s normal requirements for quotes, sealed bids, or local preference shall not apply to this section (Declared emergencies). However, the finance director or designee shall conduct telephonic or other electronic bid solicitation from potential vendors or suppliers, in lieu of written and/or sealed bids, in an effort to obtain multiple competitive proposals when and if time allows in light of the exigent circumstances.

4. Posting Locations for Requests for Proposals or Solicitations of Bids. The finance director or designee may waive normal requirements for public posting of requests for proposals or solicitation of bids for the procurement of emergency equipment, goods or services.

Notices soliciting bids or requests for proposals shall be posted, at minimum, at the emergency operations center or the alternate emergency operations center, if the primary emergency operations center is not being used.

5. Length of Time for Posting Requests for Proposals or Solicitation of Bids. The finance director or designee shall determine the posting period. The finance director or designee will make reasonable efforts to ensure that multiple suppliers are able to place a bid during the shortened time period.

F. Notification and Ratification.

1. Posting of Contract Awards. All contracts awarded that exceed sixtytwenty-five thousand dollars ($6025,000.00) shall be presented to the city council for ratification and thereafter shall be publicly posted within sixty (60) days of the award.

2. Authority to Cancel Emergency Procurements. The city manager has the absolute authority to rescind a contract for nonperformance within twenty-four (24) hours when a contractor or vendor, once awarded a contract, is unable to perform under the terms of the contract and the resulting delay or nonperformance presents an immediate threat to life, public health or safety, or improved public or private property.

3. Notification Requirement for Emergency Services. For any purchase in excess of sixtytwenty-five thousand dollars ($6025,000.00), the city manager shall report all such purchases to the city council within thirty (30) days of the onset of the disaster.

Page 104 of 311 ends

St. Helena Municipal Code Chapter 3.04, Purchase of Supplies, Equipment and Services, and Procedures for Public Works Projects Page 19 of 27
The St. Helena Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 25-3, passed June 24, 2025.

4. Requirement for Separate Invoicing. All purchases or rentals made during the proclaimed emergency or disaster conditions shall require separate invoicing from routine (nondisaster) purchases. All invoices must state the goods, services, or equipment provided and must specify the location where the goods or services were delivered.

5. Limitations of Declared Emergencies Purchasing Policy. Any purchases that do not meet the standard of being necessary for responding to an immediate threat to life, public health or safety, or improved public or private property as outlined in this section shall follow the city’s regular purchasing provisions. (Ord. 22-7 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 19-7 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 16-5 § 1 (Exh.

A))

3.04.180 Surplus supplies and equipment.

All departments shall submit to the purchasing officer, at such times and in such forms as they may prescribe, reports showing all supplies and equipment which are no longer used or which have become obsolete or worn out. The purchasing officer may direct that the designated supplies or equipment be:

A. Transferred to another city department or agency;
B. Exchanged or traded in on new supplies and equipment; or C. Disposed of in some other suitable manner, which may include sale at auction or deposit at a landfill. (Ord. 22-7 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 19-7 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 15-8 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 01-14; prior code § 2.91.140)

3.04.190 Inspection and tests.

The purchasing officer or designee or department requesting the item shall inspect all deliveries of supplies and equipment to assure conformance with the contract or order specifications. The purchasing officer or designee, at their discretion, may require such reasonable chemical and physical tests of samples of supplies and equipment as they deem necessary to determine the quality in conformance with those specifications. (Ord. 22-7 § 1 (Exh.

A); Ord. 19-7 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 15-8 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 01-14; prior code § 2.91.150)

Page 105 of 311 ends

St. Helena Municipal Code Chapter 3.04, Purchase of Supplies, Equipment and Services, and Procedures for Public Works Projects Page 20 of 27
The St. Helena Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 25-3, passed June 24, 2025.

Article 3. Public Works Projects

3.04.200 Uniform construction cost accounting procedures.

The city council has elected to become subject to the Uniform Public Construction Cost Accounting Act and procedures as established by the California Uniform Construction Cost Accounting Commission in California Public Contract Code Section 22000 et seq. (Ord. 22-7 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 19-7 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 15-8 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 01-14; prior code § 2.92.010)

3.04.210 Bidding procedures for various project amounts.

A. A public work project of sixty thousand dollars ($60,000.00) or less may be performed by city force account, by negotiated contract, or by purchase order in accordance with Section

3.04.220.

B. A public work project greater than sixty thousand dollars ($60,000.00) and less than or equal to two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000.00) may be let to contract by informal bid procedures in accordance with Section 3.04.230.

C. A public work project of more than two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000.00) shall, except as otherwise provided in this chapter, be let to contract by formal bidding procedure in accordance with Section 3.04.240.

The described project cost limits of subsections A through C of this section shall be increased automatically as authorized pursuant to the adjustments made by the California Uniform Construction Cost Accounting Commission under California Public Contract Code Section 22034. (Ord. 22-7 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 19-7 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 15-8 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 01-14; prior code § 2.92.020)

3.04.220 Negotiate contract or purchase order procedures.

For those projects qualifying under Section 3.04.210(A), the applicable department head shall obtain a cost estimate from the project engineer or architect prior to issuing a purchase order

Page 106 of 311 ends

St. Helena Municipal Code Chapter 3.04, Purchase of Supplies, Equipment and Services, and Procedures for Public Works Projects Page 21 of 27
The St. Helena Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 25-3, passed June 24, 2025. or negotiating a contract with a responsible contractor. For any city force account work, the department head shall first comply with the guidelines established by the California Uniform Construction Cost Accounting Commission in determining the cost of the public work. The city manager shall have the authority to award and to execute any contract for the public work qualifying under Section 3.04.210(A). (Ord. 22-7 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 19-7 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 15-8 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 01-14; prior code § 2.92.030)

3.04.230 Informal bidding procedures.

For those projects which qualify under Section 3.04.210(B) for informal bidding, the following procedures shall be used:

A. Bidder’s List. The city shall maintain a list of qualified contractors, identified according to categories of work. Minimum criteria for development and maintenance of the contractors’ list shall be consistent with the Uniform Public Construction Cost Accounting Act rules.

B. Notice. The city clerk shall prepare a notice inviting bids.

1. Contents of Notice. The notice inviting bids shall include a general description of the services and/or articles to be purchased, where bid blanks and specifications may be obtained, the time and place for bid openings, and whether bid deposit or bond and faithful performance and/or warranty bond will be required.

2. Mailing of Notice. Unless the product or service is proprietary, all contractors on the city’s list for the category of work being bid shall be mailed a notice inviting informal bids, or an announcement/advertisement shall be placed in all construction trade journals, or both such mailing and advertising. The trade journals shall be those identified by the California Uniform Construction Cost Accounting Commission as appropriate for this area, in accordance with California Public Contract Code Section 22036.

3. Ten (10) Day Notice. Notices inviting informal bids shall be posted at the city hall and mailed at least ten (10) calendar days before the due date of submission of bids to all firms or suppliers on the bidder’s list for the category of work being bid and to such other vendors as the public works director deems appropriate.

Page 107 of 311 ends

St. Helena Municipal Code Chapter 3.04, Purchase of Supplies, Equipment and Services, and Procedures for Public Works Projects Page 22 of 27
The St. Helena Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 25-3, passed June 24, 2025.

4. Proprietary Products or Services. If the product or service is proprietary in nature such that it can be obtained only from a certain contractor or contractors, the notice inviting bids may be sent exclusively to such contractor or contractors.

C. Award. The city council shall award the contract to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder whose bid or proposal fulfills the purpose intended according to criteria designated in the solicitation. The council may waive any minor bid irregularities.

D. Bids in Excess of Statutory Amount. If all bids received are in excess of two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000.00), the city council may, by passage of a resolution by a four-fifths vote, award the contract to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder up to an amount not to exceed two hundred twelve thousand five hundred dollars ($212,500.00) if it determines the cost estimate of the city was reasonable. (Ord. 22-7 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 19-7 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 15-8 § 1 (Exh.

A); Ord. 01-14; prior code § 2.92.040)

3.04.240 Formal bidding procedures.

For those projects which qualify under Section 3.04.210(C) for formal bidding, the following procedures shall be used:

A. Adoption of Plans. Prior to soliciting bids, unless otherwise delegated by the city council to the public works director, the city council shall approve and adopt the plans, specifications and working details, and authorize the bid request for all public work projects in excess of two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000.00).

B. Notice. The city clerk shall prepare a notice inviting bids.

1. Contents of Notice. The notice inviting bids shall state the time and place for the receiving and opening of sealed bids and distinctly describe the project.

2. Publication of Notice. The notice shall be published at least once fourteen (14) calendar days before the date of opening the bids in a newspaper of general circulation, which is circulated within the jurisdiction of the city.

3. Mailing of Notice. The notice inviting formal bids shall also be sent electronically, if available, by either facsimile or electronic mail and mailed to all construction trade journals specified by the California Uniform Construction Cost Accounting Commission as

Page 108 of 311 ends

St. Helena Municipal Code Chapter 3.04, Purchase of Supplies, Equipment and Services, and Procedures for Public Works Projects Page 23 of 27
The St. Helena Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 25-3, passed June 24, 2025. appropriate for the area. The notice shall be mailed at least fifteen (15) calendar days before the date of opening the bids.

4. Other Notice. In addition to notice required by this section, the city may give other notice as it deems proper.

C. Bid Opening Procedure. Sealed bids shall be submitted to the city clerk’s office and shall be identified as to bidder, project and bid on the envelope. Bids shall be opened by the city clerk’s staff in public at the time and place stated and as described in the notice inviting bids. A written record and tabulation shall be made at that time of all bids received, and shall be open for public inspection during regular business hours for a period of two years after the bid opening.

The public works director shall make an analysis of the bids for compliance with bid specifications and thereafter make a recommendation for award or rejection.

D. Award. Contracts shall be awarded by the city council to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder whose bid fulfills the purpose intended, according to criteria designated in the solicitation. The council may waive minor bid irregularities. (Ord. 22-7 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 19-7 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 15-8 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 01-14; prior code § 2.92.050)

3.04.250 Bonds.

A. The city shall require payment bonds for projects in excess of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00) in accordance with California Civil Code Section 9550, as may be amended from time to time. The city council may require bid security or bid bonds and performance and/or warranty bonds from an acceptable surety in such amounts as it finds reasonably necessary to protect the public interest. If the city requires a bond, the form and amount of the bond shall be described in the notice inviting bids.

B. Unsuccessful bidders shall be entitled to the return of bid security within sixty (60) days of the date of the award. However, the lowest responsive and responsible bidder shall forfeit all or part of its bid security, as may be determined by the council, upon the bidder’s refusal or failure to execute the contract within ten (10) days after the date of the award of the contract. On the refusal or failure of the lowest responsive and responsible bidder to execute the contract, the city council may award the contract to the next lowest responsible bidder. (Ord. 22-7 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 19-7 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 15-8 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 01-14; prior code § 2.92.060)

Page 109 of 311 ends

St. Helena Municipal Code Chapter 3.04, Purchase of Supplies, Equipment and Services, and Procedures for Public Works Projects Page 24 of 27
The St. Helena Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 25-3, passed June 24, 2025.

3.04.260 No bids received.

If no bids are received through the formal or informal procedure, the project may be performed by city employees by force account or by negotiated contract without further complying with this chapter. (Ord. 22-7 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 19-7 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 15-8 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 01-14; prior code § 2.92.070)

3.04.270 Tie bids.

If two or more bids received are for the same total amount or unit price, quality and service being equal, and if the public interest will not permit the delay of readvertising for bids, the city council may accept either bid or accept the lowest bid made by negotiation with the tied bidders. (Ord. 22-7 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 19-7 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 15-8 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 01-14; prior code § 2.92.080)

3.04.280 Rejection of bids.

In its discretion, the council may reject any bids presented. If after the first invitation of bids all bids are rejected, the city shall state the reasons for the rejection and after reevaluating its cost estimates of the project, the city shall have the option of any of the following:

A. Abandoning the project;
B. Readvertising for bids in the manner described in this chapter; or C. By passage of a resolution by a four-fifths vote of the council declaring that the project can be performed more economically by city employees, may have the project done by force account without further complying with this chapter. (Ord. 22-7 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 19-7 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 15-8 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 01-14; prior code § 2.92.090)

3.04.290 Emergencies.

A. In cases of emergency as defined in this chapter, the city, pursuant to a four-fifths vote of the council, may proceed at once to replace or repair any public facility, take any directly related

Page 110 of 311 ends

St. Helena Municipal Code Chapter 3.04, Purchase of Supplies, Equipment and Services, and Procedures for Public Works Projects Page 25 of 27
The St. Helena Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 25-3, passed June 24, 2025. and immediate action required by that emergency, and procure the necessary equipment, services, and supplies for those purposes, without adopting plans, specifications, working details, or giving notice for bids to provide contracts. The work may be done by day labor under the direction of the council, by contractor, or by a combination of the two.

B. The city manager may order any action under this section subject to the provisions of California Public Contract Code Section 22050. (Ord. 22-7 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 19-7 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 15-8 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 01-14; prior code § 2.92.100)

3.04.300 Prevailing wages required.

Public works contracts are subject to prevailing wage requirements as set forth in California Labor Code Section 1720 et seq., as may be amended from time to time. (Ord. 22-7 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 19-7 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 15-8 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 01-14; prior code § 2.92.110)

3.04.310 Pre-qualification of bidders.

Prospective bidders on a public works contract may be required to be pre-qualified in accordance with procedures adopted by city council resolution, subject to the provisions of California Public Contract Code Section 20101. (Ord. 22-7 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 19-7 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 15-8 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 01-14; prior code § 2.92.120)
Article 4. Professional Services

3.04.320 Award of professional service contracts based upon competence.

In contracting for those professional services as defined in Section 3.04.020, contracts should only be awarded to firms or persons who have demonstrated an adequate level of experience, competence, staffing and other professional qualifications necessary for more than a

Page 111 of 311 ends

St. Helena Municipal Code Chapter 3.04, Purchase of Supplies, Equipment and Services, and Procedures for Public Works Projects Page 26 of 27
The St. Helena Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 25-3, passed June 24, 2025. satisfactory performance of the services required. Once the department requesting the service has determined a firm has an adequate level of competence, the cost of the service may be considered. However, the lowest cost may not be the sole factor in deciding which firm or who shall be awarded the contract. It may be in the city’s best interest to award the contract to a higher priced professional services provider based on the scope of services available, unique skills, staffing levels, timing, prior experience, past working relationship and other factors required by the department or proposed by that professional services provider. The information needed for determining that level of competence, other qualifications and the procedure for selecting such services shall be determined by each city department responsible for recommending the professional service contract. (Ord. 22-7 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 19-7 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 15-8 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 01-14; prior code § 2.93.010)

3.04.330 Request for proposal/qualification.

The acquiring of professional services shall be procured through negotiated contract and may include requests for proposals/qualifications. Contracting for professional services is decentralized and shall be the responsibility of the department head requesting the service. (Ord. 22-7 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 19-7 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 15-8 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 01-14; prior code § 2.93.020)

3.04.340 Contracting authority.

The city manager shall approve professional service or consulting contracts up to and including sixtytwenty-five thousand dollars ($6025,000.00). The city council shall approve professional service or consulting contracts greater than sixtytwenty-five thousand dollars ($6025,000.00). (Ord. 22-7 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 19-7 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 15-8 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 01-14; prior code § 2.93.030) The St. Helena Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 25-3, passed June 24, 2025.

Page 112 of 311 ends

St. Helena Municipal Code Chapter 3.04, Purchase of Supplies, Equipment and Services, and Procedures for Public Works Projects Page 27 of 27
The St. Helena Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 25-3, passed June 24, 2025.

Disclaimer: The city clerk’s office has the official version of the St. Helena Municipal Code. Users should contact the city clerk’s office for ordinances passed subsequent to the ordinance cited above.

City Website: www.cityofsthelena.gov
Hosted by General Code.

Page 113 of 311 ends

83578.00000\44329599.2
ORDINANCE NO. _____________
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST. HELENA AMENDING SECTIONS 3.04.050.1, 3.04.100, 3.04.120, 3.04.130, 3.04.140, 3.04.150, 3.04.170,

3.04.175 AND 3.04.340 OF CHAPTER 3.04 OF TITLE 3 OF THE ST. HELENA MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING THE CITY MANAGER’S AUTHORITY TO

APPROVE CERTAIN SUPPLIES, EQUIPMENT, AND PUBLIC WORKS UP TO A

CERTAIN MONETARY VALUE
WHEREAS, the City of St. Helena’s (“City”) Purchasing Ordinance provides the City Manager to have the authority to purchase certain equipment, supplies, and public works up to a certain monetary value without needing to obtain the City Council’s approval; and
WHEREAS, state law and the California Constitution permits the City to adopt all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general law; and
WHEREAS, City has determined that an increase in the preset spending limits provided to the City Manager for the purchase of certain equipment, supplies, and public works will improve the efficiency of local governmental operations by providing the City Manager more flexibility in the procurement of certain equipment, supplies, and public works.

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

Section 1: The Recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated by reference into this Ordinance.

Section 2: Amendment.

Sections 3.04.050.1, 3.04.100, 3.04.120, 3.04.130, 3.04.140, 3.04.150, 3.04.170,

3.04.175 and 3.04.340 of Chapter 3.04 of Title 3 of the St. Helena Municipal Code are hereby amended to read as follows (new language is underlined, deletions are in strikeout):
“3.04.050.1 Authority to adopt implementing regulations and administrative policies.

Page 114 of 311 ends

83578.00000\44329599.2
Except as authorized in Sections 3.04.140 and 3.04.150, or in the case of emergencies as described in Sections 3.04.170 and 3.04.175, the purchase of supplies, general services, equipment and special equipment/supplies not included in a construction contract or bid specification for a public work, shall be made as follows:
(A) A purchase of five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) or less may be made by departmental purchase in accordance with Section 3.04.110. (B) A purchase greater than five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) to sixty thousand twenty-five thousand dollars ($60,000.0025,000.00) may be made by an informal bid procedure in accordance with Section 3.04.120.
(C) A purchase of more than sixty thousand twenty-five thousand dollars ($60,000.0025,000.00) shall be made by formal bid procedure in accordance with Section

3.04.130.”
“3.04.120 Informal bid procedure.

The purchase of supplies, equipment, special equipment/supplies and general services not included in a construction contract or bid specification for a public work with the estimated value greater than five thousand dollars ($5,000.00), but not exceeding sixty thousand twenty-five thousand dollars ($60,000.0025,000.00), shall be made by a purchase order as required by this chapter. Said purchases, subject to the department head’s discretion, based upon a small amount, or urgent need and timeliness, may be let without the formal bidding procedures described in Section 3.04.130. In such case, the following procedures shall be followed:

A. Solicitation of Bids. If it is determined that the request is of a sufficient size and time allows, the purchasing officer or designee, before issuing the purchase order to a specific contractor/vendor, shall: for purchases greater than five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) to sixty thousand twenty-five thousand dollars ($60,000.0025,000.00), obtain at least three written bids or price quotes. The purchasing officer or designee may negotiate to obtain the lowest possible contract amount from any vendor contacted who can provide supplies, general service, or equipment within the time constraints of the department’s request. The purchasing officer or designee may solicit or determine bids of prospective vendors by written request, telephone, or may base award recommendations upon current catalogs or advertisements. …”
“3.04.130 Formal bid procedure.

For supplies, equipment, special equipment/supplies and general services not included in a construction contract or bid specification for a public work with an estimated value in excess of sixty thousand twenty-five thousand dollars ($60.000.0025,000.00), purchases shall be made in accordance with the following formal written bid procedures:
…”

Page 115 of 311 ends

83578.00000\44329599.2
“3.04.140 Special equipment/supplies, sole source purchases, and bid exceptions.
…
(B) Sole Source Purchases. Commodities or services that can be obtained from only one vendor, or one distributor authorized to sell in this area, are exempt from the competitive bidding requirements in Section 3.04.100 and are deemed sole source purchases. Sole source purchases may include proprietary items sold direct from the manufacturer. All sole source purchases shall be supported by written documentation indicating the facts and nature supporting the determination of a sole source, signed by the appropriate department head and forwarded to the purchasing officer. Approval of any sole source acquisition shall be obtained from the city council for an award of a contract or purchase order greater than sixty thousand twenty-five thousand dollars ($60,000.0025,000.00).
…”
“3.04.150 Cooperative purchasing with other agencies.

The bidding requirements of Section 3.04.100 shall not apply to the purchasing of any equipment or supplies which the purchasing officer decides to obtain through a cooperative competitive bidding procedure prepared by and processed through another public, local, state, or federal governmental agency. If it is determined to be in the best interest of the city, the purchasing officer is authorized to “piggy-back” onto or join into an existing written purchase contract, which contract was obtained within the last twelve (12) months through a competitive bidding process prepared by and awarded by another public, local, state or federal government agency. However, the city council’s approval shall be required prior to and for the joining of a “piggy-back” purchase or cooperative purchase for a purchase greater than sixty thousand twenty-five thousand dollars ($60,000.0025,000.00).”
“3.04.170 Emergencies.

Bidding procedures may be dispensed with in the case of an emergency. The city council delegates to the city manager the authority to declare a public emergency and enter into contracts for any purchase in accordance with Section 3.04.175. The city manager’s authority is subject to confirmation by the city council at its next meeting for any purchase in excess of sixty thousand twenty-five thousand dollars ($60,000.0025,000.00).”
“3.04.175 Declared emergencies.
…
(D)(2) The finance director of administrative services will inform the city manager or their a designee and the city council of any individual purchase under this section with a contract amount greater than sixty thousand twenty-five thousand dollars

Page 116 of 311 ends

83578.00000\44329599.2
($60,000.0025,000.00), and also whenever the aggregate of purchases under this section is greater than two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000.00). …
(F)(1) Posting of Contract Awards. All contracts awarded that exceed sixty thousand twenty-five thousand dollars ($60,000.0025,000.00) shall be presented to the city council for ratification and thereafter shall be publicly posted within sixty (60) days of the award.
…
(F)(3) Notification Requirement for Emergency Services. For any purchase in excess of sixty thousand twenty-five thousand dollars ($60,000.0025,000.00), the city manager shall report all such purchases to the city council within thirty (30) days of the onset of the disaster.
…”
“3.04.340 Contracting authority.

The city manager shall approve professional service or consulting contracts up to and including sixty thousand twenty-five thousand dollars ($60,000.0025,000.00). The city council shall approve professional service or consulting contracts greater than sixty thousand twenty-five thousand dollars ($60,000.0025,000.00).” Section 3: This action is not subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). The approval of this Ordinance is not a “project” within the meaning of 14 CCR Section 15378 (“State CEQA Guidelines”) because it has no potential for resulting in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. The approval of this Ordinance is exempt from CEQA review because it will not have a significant effect on the environment under Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines.

Section 4: If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance, of the application thereof to any person or place, if for any reason held to be unconstitutional or invalid by the decision of a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance or its application to other persons or places.

Section 5: The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall cause the same to be published in accordance with Government Code section 36933. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days later.

THE FOREGOING ORDINANCE was introduced at a regular meeting of the St., Helena City Council on 9th day of December, 2025, and was adopted at a regular meeting of the St. Helena City Council on the 22nd day of July by the following vote:

Page 117 of 311 ends

83578.00000\44329599.2
Mayor Dohring: ____
Vice Mayor Deasy: ____
Council Member Diaz ____
Councilmember Barak: ____
Councilmember Spadarotto: ____
APPROVED:
_____________________________
Paul Jamison Dohring, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Andrew Bradley, City Clerk
CITY OF ST. HELENA

Page 118 of 311 ends

Agenda Report to the City Council
Agenda Section: CONSENT ITEMS
Department: Public Works Department
DATE: July 28, 2026
FROM: Ian Dale, Environmental Serv Tech
SUBJECT: June 2026 Review and Forecasting of City Water Supply Availability

RECOMMENDED
ACTION:

Receive and File.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

Monthly receive and file reports to City Council.

STATEMENT OF THE
PURPOSE:

To provide monthly updates of the amount of water produced at the Louis Stralla Water Treatment Plant, the Stonebridge Water Wells, and potable water delivered from the City of Napa.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: None.

CEQA DETERMINATION: Not a CEQA Project (CEQA Guidelines §15378) BACKGROUND:

The City of St. Helena publishes a monthly water report on the City website (https://www.cityofsthelena.gov/330/W). The report includes the amount of water produced at the Louis Stralla Water Treatment Plant, the Stonebridge Potable Water Wells, as well as potable water delivered from the City of Napa. In addition to presenting data on the amount of water delivered monthly, the report includes year-to-date information and prior year data.

Water elevation and capacity at the Bell Canyon Reservoir is included, as well as information on rainfall and monthly weather temperatures.

DISCUSSION:

City staff has developed a forecasting tool to facilitate its ability to optimize water use and track water availability. Included as an attachment is the Monthly Water Report for June 2026. The water produced for June 2026 is up by 9% when compared to June 2025, and is down by 19% compared to the average of June 2018-2020. The chart below summarizes the water produced per source:

Source Average June June
(2018-2020) 2025 2026

Page 119 of 311 ends

(Acre-Feet) (Acre-Feet) (Acre-Feet)
Bell Canyon 74 22.73 34.08
Stonebridge 41 27.92 36.77
Wells
Napa Water 51 65.01 54.68
Total : 166 115.66 125.53
• Percent change from June 2025: 9%
• Percent change from average of June 2018-2020: -19%
Bell Canyon Reservoir
The City is not in water emergency condition based upon Phase 1 Water Emergency measures being terminated by City Council through adoption of Resolution No. 2023-94 on July 25, 2023. Bell Canyon Reservoir has adequate water to support the City's needs through this calendar year. The storage in the Bell Canyon graph (Attachment 2) has been revised to include historic reservoir supply levels since July 2021. It also shows the water availability forecast through June 2027 based on the highest water usage during a non-drought year (FY 19/20) and 10 inches of rainfall (lowest recorded).

As of July 1, 2026, Bell Canyon Reservoir's elevation was at 419.07 feet, representing approximately 2,163.35 acre-feet (AF) and 90.8% capacity. Bell Canyon spillway level is 422 feet, representing 2,383.69 AF in water supply volume. Below is a chart comparing Bell Canyon Elevation levels, water supply availability in acre feet, and percent capacity of the reservoir on July 1 in 2024, 2025, and 2026:

Year 2024 2025 2026
Bell Canyon Elevation Level (ft) 420.18 419.62 419.07
Acre-Feet 2,245.73 2,204.00 2,163.35
Percent Capacity 94.2 92.5 90.8
As a follow-up to the May 24, 2022, City Council meeting, staff developed a graph (Attachment 3) highlighting the relationship between the reservoir elevation level and water supply availability in acre-feet. The graph shows the current status of the reservoir. Furthermore, the graph also displays the points where City Council decided to declare Phase I and Phase II Water Emergencies in 2020.

Continued Water Conservation
California experienced two consecutive dry years: 2020 and 2021. Due to the combination of warmer-than-average temperatures and minimal precipitation in the state, the Department of Water Resources (DWR) declared 2021 as the fourth-driest year on record statewide. The record-breaking dry period in January and February 2022, and the absence of significant rains in March 2022, required DWR to reduce anticipated deliveries from the State Water Project (SWP). However, the reduction at the time did not affect St. Helena as the City has multiple

Page 120 of 311 ends

robust water sources not affected by the executive order. Water availability from the Bell Canyon reservoir is based on the City's State Water Rights permit and not the SWP. The City has not received any curtailment order from DWR nor does the City anticipate receiving one.

It should be noted that on July 25, 2023, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2023- 94 to formally end the Phase I Water Emergency. The projected demand on the system versus the anticipated rainfall over the next year reflects an available supply in Bell Canyon of approximately 1,895 AF, significantly above the 1,481 AF standard for declaration of a Phase I Water Emergency. Staff will monitor statewide and local drought conditions, weather conditions, and provide updates on a monthly basis. The corresponding staff report provided a variety of data to reflect the disposition of the water supply at that time in relation to the Council-adopted Safe Yield Policy.

City of Napa Water Supply
Normal operations continue at Rutherford Pump Station and the City is taking delivery of the allotment purchased from the City of Napa. During the month of June 2026, Rutherford Pump Station produced an average of 0.59 MG/day of water, for a total of 54.68 acre-feet for the month.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

NA
GOAL:

Goal 3: Pursue Water Security & Sustainable Management of Water Resources ATTACHMENTS:

1. MWR June 1-30 2026

2. Attachment 2 - Bell Canyon Water Storage Forecast

3. Attachment 3 - Bell Canyon Reservoir Storage Phase I II

4. Attachment 4 - Bell Canyon Historical Elevation Levels

5. Attachment 5 - Bell Canyon Reservoir Historical Storage Elevations

Page 121 of 311 ends

CITY OF ST. HELENA

MONTHLY WATER REPORT
CC: CC __X__ PC__X__ FILE _____
RECEIVED: _____ BY: __

LOUIS STRALLA

WATER PLANT
TK #1 & #2
ADJUST

34.08 11.10 -0.14

27.2% -0.3%

40.89 MG MG
n/a MG MG
n/a MG MG

1.36 MG MG

37.96 MG 26.08 MG
% %
355.06 AF 32.3% 297.85 AF 25.7%
115.65 MG 97.02 MG
493.86 AF 44.9% 540.57 AF 46.6%
160.87 MG 176.08 MG
250.78 AF 22.8% 320.60 AF 27.7%

81.69 MG 104.43 MG
TOTAL WATER PRODUCED 1099.70 AF 100.0% 1159.02 AF 100.0%

DELIVERY (ALL)
966.43 AF 987.92 AF

0.22 0.07
419.07 FT. FT.
-0.55 FT. FT.
2163.35 AF AF

90.8 % %

0.10 IN IN

54.24 IN IN
DISCLAIMER: The data presented in this report is approximate and for informational purposes only.

Updates will be provided if any errors are identified.

AVERAGE 76.05 73.8

REMARKS
City of Napa Water Delivery: RPS producing an average of 0.59 MG/day during June 2026.

THIS MONTH, THIS YEAR THIS MONTH, LAST YR.

DEGREES IN FAHRENHEIT 50.3-101.8 49.8-97.8

TEMPERATURES
MONTHLY RISE OR DROP -1.25
CAPACITY AT END OF PERIOD 2204.00
PERCENT OF FULL CAPACITY 92.5
RAINFALL IN THIS PERIOD 0.00
TOTAL RAINFALL SEASON TO DATE 48.18
ELEVATION BELL CANYON RESERVOIR 419.62
STONEBRIDGE APARTMENTS MG/Jun. 1 -30 0.17 MG/Jun. 1-30

WATER ELEVATION, CAPACITY & RAINFALL

THIS FISCAL YEAR LAST FISCAL YEAR
NAPA VALLEY COLLEGE MG/Jun. 1 -30 NA MG/Jun. 1-30

STONEBRIDGE POTABLE WELLS

SBW IRRIGATION WATER
THIS MONTH THIS MONTH, LAST YR.

TOTAL WATER BILLED

THIS FISCAL YEAR LAST FISCAL YEAR

LOUIS STRALLA WATER PLANT

NAPA WATER
MINIMUM DAILY PRODUCED n/a
AVERAGE DAILY PRODUCED 1.25

WATER YEAR TOTALS

WATER BILLED

TOTAL BILLED THIS PERIOD

THIS YEAR LAST YEAR

WATER PRODUCED DELIVERY (AGGREGATE)
TOTAL PRODUCED THIS PERIOD 37.67
MAXIMUM DAILY PRODUCED n/a

0.29 17.81
PERCENT 29.4% 43.7%
-0.44

June 1-30, 2026

STONEBRIDGE

POTABLE
WELLS
SBW

IRRIGATION
WATER

NAPA WATER

THIS YEAR LAST YEAR
AMOUNT PRODUCED in AF 36.77 0.89 54.68
AMOUNT PRODUCED in MG 11.98

Page 122 of 311 ends

Page 123 of 311 ends

Page 124 of 311 ends

Page 125 of 311 ends

Page 126 of 311 ends

Agenda Report to the City Council
Agenda Section: CONSENT ITEMS
Department: Public Works Department
DATE: July 28, 2026
FROM: Mario Traverso, Project Manager
SUBJECT: Approval of the Oak Avenue Surface Restoration Project Plans and Bid Solicitation

RECOMMENDED
ACTION:

Approve the Resolution

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

Approval of Resolution 2025-032 on April 25, 2025 to increase funding for Summit Engineering to complete the project design.

STATEMENT OF THE
PURPOSE:

The Purpose of this action is to approve the scope and design of the R24-02 Oak Avenue Surface Restoration Project in
accordance with the municipal code in preparation for
advertisement for bidding.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. The project budget will be updated with the authorization to award a construction contract.

CEQA DETERMINATION: Categorical Exemption
BACKGROUND:

The restoration of Oak Avenue is a longstanding City and community priority. Much of the surface infrastructure in the corridor, including the curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps and roadway dates to the original installation. The existence of significant portions of aged and undersized utilities in the roadway has precluded the City from pursuing significant surface improvements. Over the last 25 years, sections of the utilities have been replaced, with the recent Oak Avenue Utilities Project replacing the remaining utilities which included the sewer mainline, sewer laterals, sewer manholes, water mainline, water services and storm drain pipeline. The plans for the Oak Avenue Surface Restoration Project are complete and included in this report as Attachment 2.

DISCUSSION:

The Oak Avenue Surface Restoration Project Plans were developed by Summit Engineering of Santa Rosa in coordination with City staff. Generally, the project will include the installation of new curb and gutter, new sidewalk, new curb ramps and new pavement.

Page 127 of 311 ends

Some important project components include the following:
• Trees: The project is proposing to remove four trees. The four trees to be removed are located at 1447 Oak Avenue. The property owner is in agreement with the removal.

The project will be replanting in this location, and additional locations where trees have already been removed, including in front of the Elementary School. We will be installing tree grates in locations where they can be accommodated, for example in front of Roma Gelato. For all other locations, the sidewalk will be formed to accommodate the existing tree footprint, which may result with an expanded tree well. • Intersection of Tainter and Oak: The most significant design feature in the plan is an extended curb line and sidewalk on the east side of Oak Avenue at the intersection of Tainter Street. This area is already a no-parking zone, and staff needed to facilitate better pedestrian alignment within the intersection. The extended curb and sidewalk allow for better crossing alignment while accounting for the existing trees and utility facilities.
• Sidewalk: The project will replace close to 90% of the sidewalk. In areas where there is an existing planter strip (i.e. on the west side from Adams to Madrona and the east side from Adams to Spring), the project includes expanding the width of the new sidewalk to six feet. This will allow for much better ease of use for pedestrians traveling in both directions and conforms better to the other portions where the sidewalk is wider. • Vine Trail: The forthcoming Napa Valley Vine Trail section from Yountville to St. Helena includes Oak Avenue as the through-town route from Mitchell Drive to Adams Street.

The design for this is still in the preliminary phase. The City anticipates future updates to Oak Avenue in coordination with the Vine Trail design proposals, which may include an alternative roadway striping plan or enhanced traffic-calming measures. Generally, the City does not anticipate the Vine Trail design configuration of Oak Avenue to differ significantly from its current layout as most of the design parameters are fixed (e.g. roadway width and parking availability).

Approximate Schedule:
• Plan Approval and Bid Solicitation: July 28, 2026
• Project Advertisement: July 30, 2026
• Bids Due: August 20, 2026
• Contract Award: September 8, 2026
• Construction: September / October to January 2027
The engineer's cost estimate for the project is $2,500,000 and will be funded by Measure U.

The project is exempt from CEQA according to Class 1 Categorical Exemption.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

None
GOAL:

Page 128 of 311 ends

Goal 2: Improve Infrastructure & Further Environmental Sustainability Goal 8: Implement Capital Improvement Plans (CIP) Projects Miscellaneous/Other ATTACHMENTS:

1. Attachment 1 - Plan Approval

2. Attachment 2 - Plans

Page 129 of 311 ends

CITY OF ST. HELENA
RESOLUTION NO. 2026 -
FINDING THE R24-02 OAK AVENUE SURFACE
RESTROATION PROJECT EXEMPT FROM CEQA;
APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE PROJECT PLANS;
AND AUTHORIZING THE BID REQUEST FOR THE R24-02
OAK AVENUE SURFACE RESTORATION PROJECT.

RECITALS
A. The City of St. Helena is responsible for maintenance of public streets within the City limits; and
B. The R24-02 the Oak Avenue Surface Restoration Project has been included in the City’s Capital Improvement Program; and
C. The R24-02 Oak Avenue Pavement Restoration Project includes maintenance of existing streets including pavement overlays, traffic striping, sidewalk replacement, curb and gutter replacement, and curb ramp upgrades, which does not expand or increase the existing street capacity; and
D. The Project Plans for R24-02 have been prepared by Summit Engineering of Santa Rosa, reviewed by the City Engineer, and presented for approval and authorization to bid.

RESOLUTION
The City Council of the City of St. Helena hereby resolves as follows:

1. The project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15301, Existing Facilities Class 1 which exempts the operation, repair, maintenance, and permitting of existing facilities involving negligible or no expansion of use including publicly owned utilities; and

2. The Project Plans will be available on the City of St. Helena’s website and for viewing at St. Helena Public Works, 1088 College Avenue, are hereby approved; and

3. The Public Works Director/City Engineer is authorized to solicit bids for the subject project.

Approved at a Regular Meeting of the St. Helena City Council on July 28, 2026, by the following vote:

Page 130 of 311 ends

Mayor Dohring: __________
Vice Mayor Deasy: __________
Council Member Barak: __________
Council Member Diaz: __________
Council Member Spadarotto: __________
APPROVED: ATTEST:
________________________ ________________________
Paul Jamison Dohring, Mayor Andrew Bradley, City Clerk

Page 131 of 311 ends

Page 132 of 311 ends

Page 133 of 311 ends

Page 134 of 311 ends

QUANTITY

Page 135 of 311 ends

Page 136 of 311 ends

Page 137 of 311 ends

Page 138 of 311 ends

Page 139 of 311 ends

Page 140 of 311 ends

Page 141 of 311 ends

Page 142 of 311 ends

Agenda Report to the City Council
Agenda Section: CONSENT ITEMS
Department: Public Works Department
DATE: July 28, 2026
FROM: Rebecca White, Administrative Assistant
SUBJECT: Authorize street closures, vendors and alcohol in public streets related to the Guelaguetza St. Helena 2026 Event

RECOMMENDED
ACTION:

Staff recommends City Council approve the attached resolution.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

None

STATEMENT OF THE
PURPOSE:

Authorize the temporary closure of Tainter Street for the Guelaguetza St. Helena 2026 event and allow the possession of open alcoholic beverages and the operation of mobile food vendors on the closed portion of the public street.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: None.

CEQA DETERMINATION: Not a CEQA Project (CEQA Guidelines §15378) BACKGROUND:

Ballet Folklorico "El Valle" de St. Helena is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit community organization that was founded in 2010 and is dedicated to preserving and promoting rich traditions of Mexican Folklore through dance. The organization hosted Guelaguetza St. Helena 2025 in July 2025 in honor of the organization's 15-year anniversary and is bringing the event back in 2026.

Guelaguetza St. Helena 2026 is a cultural festival honoring the traditions, music, dance, arts, and cuisine of Oaxaca, Mexico.

DISCUSSION:

Guelaguetza St. Helena 2026 is a free event open to the public. The event requires the temporary closure of Tainter Street, between Kearney Street and Oak Avenue, for the placement of food and alcohol vendors, as well as the safe passage of event attendees. The closure will take place from 6:00a.m. to 8:00p.m. on Sunday, August 23, 2026, with the event itself taking place from approximately 11:00a.m. to 7:00p.m. The event will feature live music, traditional dances, artisan vendors, authentic Oaxacan food, and education & informational booths.

Page 143 of 311 ends

The event organizers will be taking the lead on communicating and coordinating with all residences and businesses within a 1,000-foot radium of the road closure, per the conditions of the required road closure permit. Barricades equivalent to k-rail will be placed to prevent errant drivers through the closed portion of Tainter Street during the event.

Mobile food and alcohol vendors will operate on the closed portion of the street. The event organizers are responsible for coordinating with their vendors to secure the necessary ABC licensing for the sale of alcohol.

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

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

GOAL:

Goal 5: Enhance Quality of Life
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution

Page 144 of 311 ends

St. Helena City CouncilJuly 28, 2026

St. Helena City Council
July 28, 2026