St. Helena City Council
August 11, 2026

17 In addition to providing water services to properties within the city limits, the St. Helena Water Enterprise provides water to many properties outside of the city limits. More than 30 Outside Service Area Agreements (OSAAs), dating back to 1991, exist between the St. Helena Water Enterprise and a variety of residential and commercial entities. The OSAA’s outline several items: the user’s yearly allocation and type of water, their use restrictions for the water provided, the water rate charged, as well as the penalties for surpassing their allocation levels. OSAA water user allocations total over 302.06 acre-feet per year or approximately 98,602,495 gallons (1 ac-ft = 325,850.943 gal). Based on the OSAA’s, annual allocations equate to approximately 24% of St. Helena’s total annual water consumption. The full listing of the OSAA’s is available online at: Water Agreements | St Helena, CA
Although city staff actively monitors annual water consumption for compliance per the OSAAs, there is no monitoring
for prohibited usage (using treated water for irrigation as an example).

In addition, Civil Grand Jury members toured the Holmes tank, a legacy concrete water tank that requires significant overhead and expense to maintain. The Holmes tank supports only 6 households; all located at high elevation. The Civil Grand Jury noted that the additional costs are not being recovered from the 6 households serviced by the Holmes tank simply because the fee structure is not in place to do so. Instead, the additional fees are absorbed by all water customers.

18 Currently, St. Helena only has one base rate for water regardless of the type of user or the location of the user, while other cities in Napa County differentiate between residential users and commercial users, inside city limits users and outside city limits users, or the elevation of the user. Prior to 2016, St. Helena water rates
included additional surcharges to offset the costs of pumping water to OSAA users such as Meadowood Resort, a development outside of St. Helena’s city limits. Following the 2016 water rate study, elected officials at the time decided to eliminate the surcharge(s), leaving all ratepayers (inside and outside the city limits) to absorb the entirety of those additional costs. Other jurisdictions in Napa County, such as the City of Napa, include a water rate surcharge for pumping water to elevated properties.

Another important item affecting the financial health of St. Helena’s water services is Measure H, passed by the voters within the city limits of St. Helena on June 7, 2022. Measure H allowed up to $19,150,000 in bonds to be issued. The purpose of the bonds is to pay for the muchneeded Capital Improvements for St. Helena’s aging and/or failing water, stormwater and sewage systems. Repayment of the bonds equate to $14.82 per $100,000 of the assessed property value annually for every parcel within St. Helena’s city limits. Measure H bond repayment property tax does not apply to those properties located outside of St. Helena’s city limits. Therefore, customers represented by the OSAAs which are provided water, stormwater, or sewage services

19 directly benefit from Measure H without the financial responsibility for its repayment.

Additional information on Measure H can found at: Measure H | St Helena, CA
Additional information on Proposition 218 can be found at: Understanding Proposition 218
High Turnover, Retention and Recruitment Issues Across the Board The Civil Grand Jury discovered that between 2011-2026, the 5-member City Council experienced a high level of turnover. During that time, 19 different individuals have served on St. Helena’s City Council spanning the 8 election cycles. Refer to Table 1 in the Appendix for a complete list of the Council Persons. Many reasons contributed to the turnover, including ethics complaints made to the Fair Practices Commission (which were later dismissed), a mid-term resignation, a closely contested mayoral defeat, a near recall of a sitting mayor, and a shifted balance of power after the 2024 election. In fact, the most recent example saw a City Council member expelled due to lack of attendance in April 2026.

In a city of approximately 5,200 people, personal relationships, local business ties, and individual personalities matter enormously. Multiple council members have faced conflict-of-interest scrutiny tied to their personal and business interests. Ultimately, dysfunctional conflict has hindered if not totally impeded much-needed progress in St. Helena, especially for the St. Helena Water Enterprise.

20 City Council instability feeds city staff instability and vice versa. St. Helena has had 8 City Managers (3 of which have been interim) and 5 Public Works Directors during the same time frame. Refer to Table 2 in the Appendix for a complete list. Currently, approximately 60% of the Public Works employees have less than 5 years on the job, and 100% of the St.

Helena Water Enterprise employees have less than a 3-year tenure. At the time of this report's publication, the city is in the process of hiring another City Manager.

Based on interviews with staff members, there are significant challenges with recruiting and retaining employees as well. While the high cost of living in the Napa Valley and the high commuting costs from outside the area are concerning to employees, there is also a lot of competition with other nearby municipalities that pay a more competitive salary and provide better career opportunities. All of which are problematic for St. Helena’s financial bottom line.

High turnover and council dysfunction has contributed to the loss of institutional knowledge, the lack of long-term financial planning, and the lack of oversight, decision-making, and leadership required for the existing Capital Improvement Plan related to the St. Helena Water Enterprise.

The Civil Grand Jury recognizes that it is difficult to go from being a resident one day to a city’s decision and policy maker the next day after being elected as a council member. The entire city bears responsibility for its decisions; residents for electing the council members, council members for hiring management staff, and so on. There are shared accountability and oversight needs across the board, and everyone should acknowledge that St. Helena’s water issues have passed through many hands between

21 2011-2025; no one person, department, or entity is the sole culpable party. Dysfunctional conflict has prohibited much-needed progress.

Governance Challenges
One of the most important roles of the City Council and its advisory boards and committees is to ensure the long-term financial stability of the city and all its enterprises. To do this requires rigorous oversight and the active involvement of the city council.

The Civil Grand Jury’s investigation revealed that St. Helena’s City Council has failed to govern effectively for decades. Several examples of poor governance, poor decision-making, and poor oversight include the lack of long-term planning for and execution of water infrastructure maintenance, the lack of progress made on key water related Capital Improvement Projects, and using the same Capital Improvement Projects over and over in the 2011, 2016, and 2023 water rate studies without ensuring progress.

The City Council’s lack of governance and oversight has resulted in significantly higher costs to replace aging infrastructure. Additionally, The Blackberg Group found similar governance lapses in its recently released Efficiency and Business Transformation Study. More information about the study can be found on the City of St. Helena’s website at https://www.cityofsthelena.gov/972/Efficiency-and-BusinessTransformation-S.

In 2016, the City Council changed the water rate fee structures and cancelled water assessment and surcharges to OSAA customers and

22 customers in high elevation locations without having a plan in place to recoup the lost revenues.

Another theme the Civil Grand Jury uncovered during its investigation was the lack of project management expertise within St. Helena’s Public Works Department and City Manager’s Office. The lack of project management was evident to jurors when schedules and/or project plans for many key infrastructure jobs could not be found. Staff with no training or previous project management expertise were delegated responsibilities and oversight erroneously.

The Grand Jury also learned that other than required ethics and legal training (known as the Brown Act) there is no additional training offered to or required by City Council members or advisory board members.

In St. Helena, being a member of the City Council is considered a “parttime” job. The reality is that being a City Council member is a significant investment of time and energy, and the Civil Grand Jury believes that City Council members would be more effective and potentially feel more supported by their constituents if additional training was made available, such as League of California Cities Mayors and Council Members Academy.

Current State of the St. Helena Water Enterprise
Civil Grand Jury members conducted an extensive tour of all the St. Helena Water Enterprise facilities. Jurors found that significant investments have been made within the last few years at the Bell Canyon Treatment Plant to begin addressing the deferred maintenance. Monitors with automated alerts and notifications were installed. Filters and filter media were

23 replaced. A Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA for short) system was installed with new upgrades. Remote operations capabilities were installed to enable staff to respond more effectively and faster to changing water conditions. Improved water sampling and data gathering methods were implemented to help identify and address water taste, odor, and color issues more efficiently. Overall, there has been an improvement in the water treatment process as a whole at the Bell Canyon Treatment Plant. As a result of all the recent improvements, jurors verified that treated water is currently leaving the plant clean and clear, with no obvious signs of taste, odor, or color issues.

It is important to note that no recent improvements have been made to either the Stonebridge Wells or the Rutherford pump station.

Over the past two-plus years, city staff and consultants have worked closely with the recently established water and wastewater advisory committee and the City Council to develop a strategy and approach for addressing the decades of deferred maintenance. Collectively, they believe that the dominant source of the water taste, odor, and color issues currently rest with the decades of debris, silt, and sediment that has accumulated in the water distribution system, meaning the mains and pipes that transport water to customers. If water is leaving the treatment plant clean but arrives to the customer with problems; their analysis seems reasonable to the Civil Grand Jury.

Beyond proposed testing, city staff and consultants have no clear plan on how to attack the debris and sediment located throughout the distribution system. They are exploring options that range from finding a way to remove the sediment from the mains and pipes to replacing them

24 altogether. To date, city staff has made no assessment to understand the scope and severity of the infrastructure issues, thus there is no understanding of what money, time, and resources are needed to address the issues with the water distribution system long-term.

Furthermore, the Civil Grand Jury analyzed the fiscal years 2026 – 2030 Capital Improvement Plans that were provided. According to the analysis, over $51,000,000 of Capital Improvement Projects are identified as “water priorities” for fiscal years 2026-2030, although none of them are dedicated to addressing the aged water distribution system, and nearly 39% of the funding has not yet been identified to pay for the planned projects.

Supporting information is located in the appendix.

FINDINGS
F1: Despite the water rate increases of approximately 183% between 2011-2025, earmarked to address water quality and infrastructure issues, St. Helena’s water is still being delivered to customers with taste, odor, and color quality issues. After recent improvements and upgrades to the Bell Canyon Water Treatment Plant, water currently leaves it clear, clean, and healthy; therefore, city staff and consultants now blame decades of silt, debris, and sediment build-up in the water distribution system for the continued water quality troubles.

F2: The current Capital Improvement Plan approved and implemented by St. Helena’s City Council contains no projects dedicated specifically to the long-term rehabilitation of the aged water distribution system. To date, there is no plan in place to address the water distribution system problems.

No formal assessment has been done to determine the scope and the

25 severity of the issues in total. Without it, the repair costs and the timeline for repairs remain unknown.

F3: St. Helena lacks a thorough and effective system for analyzing citizen water complaints. The Grapevine app implemented in 2023 provides only a basic level of data gathering and analysis. Therefore, City Council and city management staff do not have sufficient information to make informed decisions about how money and resources should be prioritized or allocated to resolve water issues.

F4: The water rate studies between 2011-2025 each cited the same core justifications for the need to raise water rates: declining infrastructure, deferred maintenance, depleted reserves, and debt covenant noncompliance. Even though additional revenues were raised, they were not utilized effectively by St. Helena’s City Council. Therefore, most of the justifications for water rate increases have not been met.

F5: The St. Helena City Council changed the St. Helena Water Enterprise’s fee structure in 2016 to implement a single water rate regardless of the location or type of customer. Prior to 2016, water rates included surcharges to offset the cost of pumping water to customers in elevated areas or customers outside the city limits. Therefore, the St. Helena Water Enterprise currently passes the additional costs on to all water ratepayers rather than those benefiting outside the city limits.

F6: St. Helena has more than 30 Outside Service Area Agreements (OSAAs), representing approximately 24% of St. Helena’s total annual water consumption. The OSAA customers benefit from the Measure H

26 funded infrastructure improvements but bear no responsibility for the repayment of the bonds because they are not located within the city limits.

F7: St. Helena suffers from a lack of governance, poor oversight, ineffective management by the City Council and City Manager, and a lack of professional project management expertise. As a result, St. Helena’s Water Enterprise remains in a similar state of physical decline and financial distress today as it was in 2011.

RECOMMENDATIONS
R1: The Napa County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the St. Helena City Manager should conduct a comprehensive assessment of the water distribution system’s condition that includes the mains, the pipes, and the related infrastructure, and that the findings be reported to the St. Helena City Council by September 30, 2026.

R2: The Napa County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the St. Helena City Manager should develop a plan to address the failing water distribution system that includes the Capital Improvement Projects needed, the cost of said projects, the funding source(s) for said projects, and the timeline for completion of said projects; and that the plan be presented to the St.

Helena City Council by December 31, 2026.

R3: The Napa County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the St. Helena City Manager should expand the use of the Grapevine app (or equivalent) complaint system to collect more in depth information and provide the St.

Helena City Council and the Water and Wastewater Advisory Committee with quarterly data reports on water complaints to minimally include

27 complaint type, location, frequency, severity, and resolution status by September 30, 2026.

R4: The Napa County Civil Grand Jury recommends that St. Helena’s City Council should implement a water rate fee structure with differentiated rates based on the customer’s location (inside city limits vs. outside city limits) and the customer’s type (residential vs. commercial), as well as assessing surcharges for customers in elevated locations and surcharges for the Outside Service Area Agreement customers benefiting from Measure H by September 30, 2026.

R5: The Napa County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the St. Helena City Council require its members and St. Helena City Senior Management Staff attend governance training (in addition to Brown Act training) within the first quarter of their tenure after election by December 31, 2026.

Training opportunities such as Mayors and Council Members Academy. can be found at The League of California Cities.

28 REQUIRED RESPONSES
The following responses are required, pursuant to Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05:
• St. Helena City Council – all Findings and Recommendations within 90 days

INVITED RESPONSES
The following responses are invited from the following responsible parties:
• St. Helena City Manager – All Findings and Recommendations within 90 days
• St. Helena Public Works Director – Findings: F1, F2, F3; Recommendations R1, R2, R3 within 90 days
Reports issued by The Civil Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code Section 929 requires that reports of The Civil Grand Jury do not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to The Civil Grand Jury.

29 APPENDIX
Below is a summary of justifications cited for the water rate increases in the 2011, 2016, and 2023 water rate studies, followed by list of delivered Capital Improvement Projects funded from revenues raised by the water rate increases.
2011 WATER RATE STUDY
Justifications for water rate increases:
• City of Napa Water Purchases: Covering the increased costs of purchasing treated water to supplement local supplies (pp. 3, 5). • Debt Obligations: Meeting existing 1.2 times the debt service coverage requirements and supporting the issuance of $7,500,000 in new debt for capital projects (pp. 4, 15).
• Infrastructure Projects: Funding critical capital improvements, most notably the removal of the Upper Reservoir Dam (estimated at $3.1 million) (pp. 4, 14).
• Operating Reserves: Increasing the minimum operating reserve target from 15% to 25% to handle revenue volatility (pp. 11, 21). • New Staffing: Supporting new positions, including a Water Conservation Specialist and a shared Assistant Engineer (p. 14).

Capital Improvement Projects Delivered:
• W01 - Bale Slough
• W-02 - Tank 2 - PAX Mixer
• W-08 - Pratt Avenue Transmission Bridge
• W-12 - Community Drive

30 • W-13 - Howell Mountain Road
• W-28 - Rutherford
• W31 - Water Treatment Plant Upgrades
• W-37 - Corp Yard Improvements
• W-38 - Machinery & Equipment
• W-42 - Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) • W-57 - WTP Worker Housing
• W-62 - Water Valve Replacement
• W-67 - Charter Oak Water Main Replacement
• W-69 - Stonebridge Wells Upgrades
• W-83 - Tank 1A Design/Construction
• W-84 - Bell Canyon Intake Mid-Valve Repair
• W-88 - Surge Protection at LSWTP & SBW
• W-89 - Fixed Gas Chlorine Analyzer
• W-98 - Toilet Retrofit Program
• W-99 - Radio Repeater/Infrastructure
• W76-01 - Distribution Vehicle Replacement Program
• W76-02 - Treatment Vehicle Replacement Program
• W-102 - Well Filter Rehab
• W-103 - Stonebridge Well Roof
• W-104 - 412 Crystal Springs Road Roof

31 2016 WATER RATE STUDY
Justifications for water rate increases:

The additional revenue generated by these increases is intended to fund four primary areas:
• Operational Sufficiency: Meeting all annual operating and maintenance expenses without relying on the City's General Fund or other services (like parks and libraries). (pp. 7, 16)
• Capital Improvement Projects: Funding a $13.8 million five-year capital plan (part of a larger $20.8 million ten-year plan), including projects like the York Creek dam removal and Bell Canyon Reservoir improvements. (pp. 16, 41)
• The following projects represent the most significant investments planned for the water system (p. 41):
ο York Creek Dam Removal & Creek Restoration: This project is partially funded by $1.78 million in grants and $2.7 million in existing bonds (p. 16).
ο Bell Canyon Intake Tower Replacement: A critical infrastructure project estimated at $2.1 million, assumed to be financed by new debt (pp. 16, 43).
ο Upper Reservoir Dam Removal & Mitigation: Identified as a key project for the system (p. 12).
o Pump Station Upgrades: General upgrades to system pump stations, estimated at $212,514 and funded by new debt (pp. 16, 43).

32 o Tank Rehabilitation & Upgrades: Including the Meadowood Tank upgrades (partially grant-funded), Holmes Tank upgrades, and Tank 2 rehabilitation (p. 41).
o Operational Infrastructure: Replacing the Bell House valve and installing Bell Canyon Creek flow measurement devices (p. 41).
o Reservoir Improvements: General improvements and spill containment at Bell Canyon Reservoir and the Stonebridge Well (p. 12).
o Water Meter Replacement Program: A recurring program to replace approximately 5% of the system’s meters annually (roughly 125 meters per year) (p. 44).
o Debt Service & Compliance: Restoring the required 1.20x debt service coverage ratio and supporting the issuance of $2.7 million in new debt for pump station upgrades and the Bell Canyon intake tower replacement. (pp. 16, 42)
o Reserve Building: Establishing a healthy cash reserve (targeting 6 to 12 months of operating expenses) to fund emergencies and unanticipated capital needs. (pp. 16, 44) o Meter Replacement: Implementing a new routine program to replace roughly 5% of the system’s meters annually over a 20- year cycle. (pp. 13, 43)
Capital Improvement Projects Delivered:
• W18-119 - Bell Canyon Spillway Stability Assessment
• 301-W-26 - Upper York Creek Ecosystem Restoration
• 302-W-27 - Meadowood Tank Upgrades

33 • 308-W-93 - Sludge Handling Program
• 0315-W18-112 - Spill Containment at Bell Creek
• 0317-W18-114 - Spill Containment at SB Wells
• 0319-W18-116 - Update GIs Maps of Water System
• 0320-W18-117 - Water Master Plan Update
• 03005-W-110 - Rutherford Pump Upgrade
• 03002-W-106 - Pump Station Upgrades
• 03018-W18-115 - Remove Restrictions - Rutherford Pump Station • 03024-W20-01 - Bell Canyon Spillway Repairs
• 03025-W21-01 - Kearney and Andrea Water Main Replacement 2023 WATER RATE STUDY
Justifications for water rate increases:

The additional revenue is designated to fund several critical areas of the water utility's operations (p. 13):
• Major Capital Reinvestment: Funding a significantly expanded Capital Improvement Plan averaging $6.7 million per year—a massive jump from the historical average of $1 million annually (pp. 13, 28). The following projects account for the bulk of the $35.8 million in planned spending over the five-year rate period:
• Napa Intertie Pipeline & Pump Station: A critical project to ensure water reliability, involving the replacement of the intertie pipeline and the construction of a new pump station (approx. $10 million total). (pp. 42-43)

34 • Water Treatment Plant (WTP) Transmission Main: A major replacement of the main line carrying water from the treatment plant (approx. $9.1 million). (p. 43)
• Bell Canyon Intake Tower Replacement: Replacing the aging intake infrastructure at the reservoir (approx. $3.7 million). (pp. 42-43) • Spring Mountain Pressure Zone (Holmes Tank): Significant improvements and upgrades to the Holmes Tank to support the local pressure zone (approx. $3.6 million). (p. 43)
• Smart Water Meters: A system-wide transition to advanced metering infrastructure to improve billing accuracy and leak detection (approx. $2.2 million). (p. 43)
• Tank 2 Rehabilitation: Repairs and upgrades to the existing storage tank at the Lower Reservoir (approx. $1 million). (p. 43) • Operational Inflation: Offsetting rising costs for personnel (salaries/benefits), utilities, and supplies (pp. 13, 35). • Debt Service: Meeting the 1.20x coverage ratio required to issue approximately $33.5 million in new revenue bonds for large-scale infrastructure projects (pp. 16, 44).
• Reserve Replenishment: Restoring cash reserves that have been used to mitigate previous drought impacts and unexpected operating costs (pp. 15, 28).

Capital Improvement Projects Delivered
• Installing monitors with automated alerts and notifications at Bell Canyon Treatment Plant
• Replacing filters and filter media at Bell Canyon

35 • Installing remote operation capabilities at Bell Canyon to enable staff to respond better and faster to changing water conditions. • SCADA system installation and upgrades at Bell Canyon. • Improved water sampling and data gathering to help identify and address water taste, odor, and color issues more efficiently.

Fiscal Years 2026 - 2030 Capital Improvement Projects with funding sources (based on sources)

FUNDING SOURCES

PROJECT
#

PROJECT NAME BONDS OTHER UNIDENTIFIED TOTALS
W18-113 Water System SCADA
Improvements
$533,327 $533,327
W18-118 Replace Mains <6" in
diameter
$1,014,902 $1,014,902
W24-01 Water Distribution Fire
Flow Improvements
$156,000 $156,000
W24-02 Napa Intertie Pump
Station Replacement
$1,287,571 $9,309,649
$10,597,220
W24-04 Retrofit/Deploy
SMART water meters
$5,000 $5,000
W24-11 Bell Canyon Dam
DSOD
Analysis/Improvements
$2,867,684 $2,867,684
W24-12 Disinfection by
products Project
$770,713 $770,713
W25-01 Napa Intertie Pipeline
Replacement
$6,092,269 $6,092,269
W25-02 Water Treatment Plant
Transmission Main
Replacement
$7,400,084 $7,400,084
W26-01 Water Treatment Plant
Microgrid/SCADA
Upgrades
$867,000 $1,633,000 $2,500,000
W26-03 Water Treatment Plant
Modular Homes
$150,000 $150,000
W29-01 Water Treatment Plant
Rehabilitation
$8,400,000 $8,400,000

36 W29-02 PWRR-1 yr 6-10 Water
Main Annual
Replacement Program
Allowance
$485,967 $485,967
W85 Bell Canyon Valve
House Replacement
$937,955 $937,955
W86 Spring Mountain
Pressure Zone
Improvements (Holmes
Tank Upgrade)
$3,615,968 $3,615,968
W-101 Tank 2 Rehabilitation $534,775 $534,775
W-108 Lower Reservoir
Rehab
$50,000 $50,000
W-109 Bell Canyon Intake
Tower Replacement
$5,000,000 $5,000,000
$30,266,248 $1,017,000 $19,828,616 $51,111,864
Table 1. City Council, City Manager, Public Works Director Turnover Background (2010-2026)
Year City Manager Public Works Director
2010 Mary Neilan Unknown
2011 Mary Neilan → Gary Broad Unknown
2012 Gary Broad John Ferons
2013 Gary Broad John Ferons (resigned Oct.)
2014 Gary Broad → Jennifer
Phillips (Aug.)
Contract/interim (Jan.–Oct.) →
Steve Palmer (Oct.)
2015 Jennifer Phillips Steve Palmer

37 2016 Jennifer Phillips
Steve Palmer → Erica Ahmann
Smithies (Sept., as Asst. Dir.)
2017
Phillips → Larry Pennell,
interim (Jan.) → Mark
Prestwich (July)
Steve Palmer (left Mar.) → Erica
Ahmann Smithies, promoted (Apr.)
2018 Mark Prestwich Erica Ahmann Smithies
2019 Mark Prestwich Erica Ahmann Smithies
2020 Mark Prestwich Erica Ahmann Smithies
2021
Prestwich → Jim McCann,
interim (Apr.) Smithies (left Mar.) → Joe Leach
2022 Jim McCann, interim →
Anil Comelo (July)
Joe Leach
2023 Anil Comelo Joe Leach
2024 Anil Comelo Joe Leach
2025 Anil Comelo Joe Leach
2026
Anil Comelo (left Apr.) →
Jim McCann, acting
Joe Leach

38 Table 2. St. Helena City Council Turnover Analysis (2010–2026) # Member Role/Tenure How Departed
1 Del Britton Mayor, through ~2013 Died in office
2 Caterina
Sanchez Council, ~2008–2012 End of term
3 Sharon Crull Council, 2008–2016
Did not seek reelection
4 Ann Nevero
Appointed Mayor after
Britton's death; lost 2014
race
Lost to Galbraith
5 Greg Pitts Council, through at least
2014
Did not seek reelection
6 Mario Sculatti Council, ~2010–2014
Lost or didn't run in
2014
7 Peter White Council, ~2010–2014
Lost or didn't run in
2014
8 Alan Galbraith Mayor, 2014–2018
Conceded after
losing to Ellsworth
by 41 votes
9 Paul Dohring
Council 2014–2022, Mayor
2022–present Currently serving

39 10 Geoff Ellsworth
Council ~2016–2018,
Mayor 2018–2022
Did not seek reelection
11 Lester Hardy
Council, elected 2018;
served ~2 yrs Departed mid-term
12 Eric Hall
Council, elected 2018; lost
2022 mayoral race; served
to Jan 2023
End of term
13 Anna Chouteau
Council 2018–2022, reelected 2022; resigned to
join Rep. Mike
Thompson's staff
Resigned Dec 2024
14 Patrick Kenealy Council, ~2020–2024 Did not run in 2024 15 Billy Summers Council, elected 2022–
present
Removed from
office for lack of
attendance on April
27, 2026
16 Michelle Deasy
Council, elected Nov
2024–present Currently serving
17 Aaron Barak Council, elected Nov
2024–present Currently serving
18 Kate Spadarotto Appointed Jan 2025 to fill
Chouteau's seat Currently serving

40 19 Scott Diaz Appointed May 2026 to fill
Summers’ seat Currently serving

§ 933. Findings and Recommendations (Excerpt)
No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body, and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head and any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices...

As used in this section, “agency” includes a department. § 933.05. Responses to Findings (Excerpt)
(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following:
(1) The respondent agrees with the finding.
(2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor.
(b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions:
(1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation.
(3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report.
(4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor.
(c) However, if a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the board of supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the board of supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. …
(f) A grand jury shall provide to the affected agency a copy of the portion of the grand jury report relating to that person or entity two working days prior to its public release and after the approval of the presiding judge. No officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency shall disclose any contents of the report prior to the public release of the final report. (Emphasis added.)

1 FINAL COMMENT OF FORMER MAYOR ALAN GALBRAITH
ON THE
2015-2016 GRAND JURY'S FINAL ST. HELENA WATER REPORT
This Public Comment is divided into two sections. The first section addresses the failure of mandatory oversight of the Civil Grand Jury by the Napa County Superior Court.

The second section supplements the concluding remarks in my revised public comments initially filed for the City Council's meeting of July 28 and revised and refiled for the City Council's meeting of August 11.

Section 1: Failure of Judicial Oversight by the Napa County Superior Court I can speak authoritatively here. I was foreperson of the 2013-14 Napa County Civil Grand Jury. The Supervising Grand Jury Judge was the Honorable Mark Boessenecker, now retired. He followed appropriate process meticulously when approving the Final Reports of my Grand Jury before their release.

One word about the California Courts. It is among the best judicial systems in the United States. I know. I clerked for Justice Stanley Mosk on the California Supreme Court.

Justice Mosk, a former State Attorney General and Superior Court judge, was among the most respected judges in the history of California. (The Los Angeles County Superior Court Courthouse bears his name. His statute is a notable monument in front of the Library & Courts Building in Sacramento near the State Capitol Building). The Napa County Superior Court judges are outstanding members of the legal profession, able factual and legal analysts, and skilled evaluators of credibility. By happenstance, many of the Napa County judges had prior careers in private practice with the Napa law firm, Coombs & Dunlap. That was the family law firm of my now deceased wife Sarah (born Sarah Coombs Dunlap).

The Napa County Superior Court, like all California county courts, is a State, not County, institution. The Civil Grand Jury is an arm of the Court, not the County. The Presiding Judge of the Napa County Superior Court assigns one its judge members to supervise the Civil Grand Jury. He is the Supervising Grand Jury Judge. A County Counsel is assigned to the Grand Jury. He is on assignment to the Court from the County Attorney's Office for consultation on legal matters.

The way a civil grand jury is supposed to work is sketched out on the website of the Napa County Superior Court. It is supported by extensive instructional materials for new grand jurors that elaborate on "best practices." The Court website singles out one especially pertinent "best practice" --"Submit to Fact Checking and Editorial Review -- Most

2 go through multiple drafts and revisions." Italics in original. In short, get the facts right, and make sure they are right. Nothing flows properly into a final report if the facts are not correct. And getting the facts right can require a significant investigation followed by meaningful editorial review by the Grand Jury.

The Supervising Grand Jury Judge and assigned County Counsel are required to review Final Reports approved by formal Grand Jury vote before they become public. The exact words on the Court website are: "Approved reports are reviewed by assigned County Counsel and Judge before issuance." Italics in original. The dictionary meaning of the word "review" means "an act or process of carefully looking at or examining the quality, etc., of something or someone." Italics added. Webster's Online Dictionary ("Simple Definition").

Let me be pellucidly clear: a review is NOT a rubberstamp. The Grand Jury Supervising Judge is obligated by the word "review" to study final grand jury reports and make sure that they are appropriate for release. Civil Grand Jury targets count on careful judicial study to ensure no unfairness of treatment. The final reports are also reviewed by assigned County Counsel for potential legal problems.

The Supervising Grand Jury Judge makes the decision on whether to allow release of a final grand jury report. The responsibility for release is squarely on the Supervising Judge's shoulders.

The process in this case broke down, and it broke down completely. Grand Jury failures stand out upon study of its Final Report. I am not going to say that a reviewing judge would spot each bullet point below, but a reviewing judge, giving the final report careful study, would spot enough of the problems to withhold approval and not allow public release of the Grand Jury's Report ("GJR").
• The Grand Jury's Final Report is entitled Lapsed leadership: St. Helena's Problematic Pipes and Murky Waters. "Lapsed leadership" is a provocative accusation. It is designed to raise eyebrows and attract attention. A reviewing judge would find the title disturbing.
• Lapsed leadership over a continuous fifteen-year period (2011-2025) is stunning (GJR p. 2 ("Summary”) -- perhaps unprecedented in California. A red flag.
• The Grand Jury's recurrent theme is "overall lack of effective governance of and the failure of City Council leadership" in the period 2011-25. GJR, pp. 3, 3-4 ("City Governance Failures"), p. 7 (last sentence), pp. 21-22 ("Governance Challenges"), p. 28 (finding F7). Grand Jury final reports typically focus on current issues, such as the current condition of the Napa County Jail,

3 followed by findings and recommendations. A reviewing judge would question the capability of a grand jury to make a competence assessment over so many years. It would require review of volumes of documents (including consultant reports, staff reports, accounting documents, engineering plans and timelines, newspaper coverage and editorials, videos of Council meetings, review of Council minutes, newspaper stories, interviews of available Council members (going back to 2011), and senior City staff (also going back to 2011), in the case of potable water regulatory files, and so on. The Grand Jury does not provide a listing of the specific documents that it assembled. A reviewing judge, familiar with the demands of litigation discovery, would have serious doubts about the adequacy of the underpinnings for the Grand Jury's recurrent theme, culminating in formal Finding F7 (GJR, p. 26). (If it had engaged in a meaningful governance investigation, it would have learned that City Manager Jennifer Phillips in 2016 won a Career Excellence Award from Women Leading Government, an affiliate of the International City/County Management Association, the leading association dedicated to local government management. A grand jury could not credibly second-guess an ICMA Affiliate on management performance.)
• The chosen language in the Grand Jury Report raises concerns: "poor decision making, poor oversight, and poor governance by several terms of the City Council" (GJR, p. 3, repeated GJR, p. 26, finding F7)). Is it appropriate for a grand jury, an arm of the Court, to enmesh the Court in evaluating the past performance of an elected branch of government? A reviewing judge might think this unseemly.
• As he thought about the matter. a reviewing judge might ask himself: how could a city suffer such across-the-board leadership failures continuously over a fifteen-year period? GJR ,pp. 3 ("City Governance Failures"), 20-1), p. 26 (finding F7). Did no city leader take an interest in the Water Enterprise despite (according to the Grand Jury) serious water quality complaints going back to even before 2011?
• Next question: who were the mayors? Did they allow the city to ignore day after day their constituents' water quality complaints? Is there anything in the Grand Jury Report that suggests their reaction to the "poor decisionmaking, poor oversight, poor governance" trilogy"? Logical question: did the Grand Jury interview any of them?
• Next question: who were the city council members? Did the Grand Jury look at their resumes and accomplishments? There is no such indication in the

4 Grand Jury Report. (Council members during my mayorship included Sharon Crull, Paul Dohring, Mary Koberstein, Gregg Pitts, and Peter White, all with impressive resumes.)
• Did the Grand Jury (see GJR, p. 7 ("city leadership failures ... since at least 2011")) check the archives of the Napa Valley Register or the St. Helena Star for editorial or other confirmation of "poor decision making" and "poor oversight" and "poor governance" during the fifteen-year period? Did these excellent papers somehow miss this standard grist for any newspaper? • If the St. Helena Water System was continuously decaying (GJR, p. 2 ("Instead the water system as a whole has fallen further into decline")) with water quality problems going back "for more than a decade" (GJR, p. 8), how could the St. Helena water system not have been in serious trouble over the years with the Division of Drinking Water of the California State Water Resources Control Board, the agency with oversight of California water systems and with field offices in nearby Counties. (Note: the City of St.

Helena operates its drinking water system under DDW permit CA2890006; the regulatory oversight of drinking water is formidable, as a reviewing judge would intuitively understand even if unaware of the specific agency charged with oversight responsibility. Further note: DDW in water circles is known for effective oversight.)
• The Grand Jury investigation (GJR, p. 7) was not instigated by the Grand Jury itself but by a complaining resident of St. Helena. This is a brilliant red flag to judges. They know to be cautious when dealing with informants because they may be using the grand jury for their own purposes. Was this the case here? Was the complaining informant using the Grand Jury process for a political goal -- namely, to discredit St. Helena leadership for his own and possibly political purposes. A reviewing court would be on high alert for any manifestation of this problem during his review. (Stay tuned to the next eight bullet points.)
• The Grand Jury faults the residents of St. Helena over the fifteen-year period for their election City Council members. GJR, p. 20 (residents bear responsibility "for electing the council members." So, the Grand Jury, an arm of the Court, takes it upon itself to condemn the residents of St. Helena for their election choices. A reviewing judge would be repelled at the idea that an arm of the court was thrusting itself so directly into the politics of St.

Helena. The reddest of red flags.
• The Grand Jury (GJR, p. 19) states that "Multiple council members have faced conflict-ot-interest scrutiny tied to their personal and business interests?

5 How could that be? Is St. Helena a modern day Gommorah? Why has there not been repeated coverage of these juicy issues in the Napa Valley Register? This may be the tallest red flag yet. Is the Grand Jury succumbing to unsupported defamatory assertion from its complaining informant? A reviewing judge would be very concerned that the Grand Jury, an arm of the court, is out to stain the reputations of public officials in St. Helena. A very tall red flag.
• The Grand Jury (GJR, p. 19) highlights "the near recall of a sitting mayor." Near recalls are always a subject of substantial press attention at the local and often regional level (San Francisco Chronicle). And what does that have to do with "Murky Waters" anyway?
• Also, a recall effort by its nature is political; the process if completed ends up in an election. Isn't this pulling the Court into unseemly political matters, not appropriate for an arm of the Court?
• The Grand Jury (GJR, p. 19 & p. 38) recites a "closely contested mayoral defeat"? What is the relevance of a close mayoral election to "Murky Waters"? Is it possible that the mayor lost re-election by the narrowest of margins (59 votes) due to backlash from his leadership in leading the community to adopt a vast water rate increase in 2016? A reviewing judge might wonder.
• The Grand Jury (GJR, p. 19) recites: "In fact, the most recent example saw a City Council member expelled due to lack of attendance." Italics added. A council member expulsion in St. Helena would be big news not only in Napa County but would be picked up by the Santa Rosa Press Democrat, the San Francisco Chronicle, and possibly the Sacramento Bee. It is hard to see how a St. Helena Council member expulsion could evade the attention of a supervising judge engaged in a review of the Final Report. An extra brilliant red flag, especially as his departure under the State Government Code section 365513 was announced just last May -- and with no newspaper reporting of "expulsion."
• The Grand Jury (GJR, p. 19) recites "dysfunctional conflict." What was the manifestation at the City Council level? Did the Council members engage in unseemly name-calling when called upon to approve substantial rate increases in 2011, 2016, and 2023 totaling, according to the Grand Jury, 183%, an enormous increase? Were there outspoken dissenters on the Council, a possible sign of "dysfunction"? (City Councils typically approve rate increases at the end of the Proposition 218 process unanimously. The reason is simple: there is no fiduciary alternative.) It is improbable that a

6 Napa County Judge would not be aware, even if only generally, of such St.

Helena Council dysfunction over rate increases because St. Helena receives its fair share of attention in the Napa Valley Register -- including from St.

Helena's vociferus letter-writing community. A reviewing judge would search the Grand Jury Report for facts supporting Council "dysfunction" during the Proposition 218 process. He would find no documented examples in the Grand Jury report, just unsubstantiated assertions.
• The Grand Jury (GJR, p. 19) cites the mid-term resignation of a Council member, naming Lester Hardy (GJR, p. 39 ("departed mid-term"))? What is the relevance of that? Could it be that the resigning member was overwhelmed by the time he was putting into Council oversight? Mr. Hardy has a well-deserved reputation as historian of the Water Enterprise. How could he have not exercised effective oversight? Mr. Hardy is also wellknown in the County, including to the judiciary, having practiced law his entire life in Napa County. A red flag.
• A reviewing judge, reading the pages on differential and special rates, including the Measure H benefit for out-of-city water customers (GJR, pp. 2- 3), might ask how a Napa County Grand Jury could have treaded into these obscure weeds in the first place? Further, the Grand Jury recommends (GJR, p. 27) adopting differential and special rates with no discussion of countervailing concerns. Did the City of St. Helena simply ignore an easy revenue pickup for the Water Enterprise over the years? Unlikely. How did differential and special rates get into this issue in a report entitled "Murky Waters" in the first place? Was it being used (abused) by the informant? A big red flag.
• A supervising judge reviewing the Grand Jury Report might well ask the question: how did it come about that such large increases, totaling 183% (GJR pp. 2, 24 (formal finding)), could happen without public education and leadership. It makes no sense on the face of it. Massive rate increases require extensive public education and inevitably come at a significant political cost. Did St. Helena somehow adopt high rates with no political cost, with poor leadership?
• A supervising judge reviewing the Grand Jury Report would focus on the strange entry (GJR p. 36) "2010 Public Works Director Unknown" and "2011 Public Works Director Unknown." How could a city public works director be unknown? How could a grand jury "investigation" end up in the embarrassing position of not being able to identify a city public works director?

7 • This raises the immediate question: The Grand Jury Report (GJR, p. 36) identifies John Ferons as the St. Helena Public Works Director in 2012 and into 2013. Any investigator would think that Mr. Fersons knew the name(s) of his immediate predecessors. Next question: could Mr. Ferons be found today to be interviewed? (That too is not hard: he is the Public Works Director at Yountville.) Why was he not interviewed? (If asked, he could name without difficulty his 2011 and 2010 predecessors -- it was himself!) • The same goes for Erica Smithies, for a total of four years first Assistant and then Public Works Director (GJR, p. 37). Was she interviewed? (She too is not hard to locate; she is the Public Works Director at American Canyon.) • The Mayor of St. Helena, the Hon. Paul Dohring, now in his fourteenth year on the St. Helena City Council and his fourth year as Mayor, is well known in Napa County. As a Council member and as Mayor, he has served on numerous County-level Boards of Directors (e.g., Local Area Formation Commission, Napa Valley Transportation Authority, Flood Control & Water Conservation District.) He is a lawyer with substantial trial experience. How could it be that through all these years with his Board and legal expertise that he exercised "poor oversight" over the St. Helena Water Enterprise, an essential operation of municipal government? Another brilliant red flag. • Former Mayor Alan Galbraith (GJR p. 38 (close mayoral defeat), p. 19 (same)), though he left office ten years ago, is not unknown to the judges of the Napa County Superior Court: (1) he was Mayor of St. Helena for four years with significant press exposure; (2) he was the Foreperson of the 2013- 14 Civil Grand Jury, an appointee of the Grand Jury Supervising Judge; (2) In the 2020 election he publicly urged the election of Napa County Superior Court Judge Monica Langhorn. His January 2020 commentary in strong support of Judge Langhorn, with significant inconvenient detail about her opponent, appeared in both the Napa Valley Register and the St. Helena Star and did not escape the attention of the Superior Court judges; (3) His deceased wife, born Sarah Coombs Dunlap, was both a Coombs and a Dunlap. The Combs in the Napa law firm of Coombs & Dunlap was her great uncle Nathan Coombs, and the Dunlap was her uncle Frank Dunlap. Many judges of the Napa County Superior Court worked t Coombs & Dunlap before becoming judges. They were not unaware of Sarah's husband; (4) He also stepped forward for substantial public service at the County level following his mayorship, serving as public member and vice-chair of the Groundwater Sustainability Plan Advisory Committee ("GSPAC"). So, one way or another, a Napa County Superior Court Grand Jury Supervising Judge who reviewed

8 the Report, and upon seeing his name (GJR, p. 38), and knowing or finding out about his reputation for immersion in public issues, would question how Mayor Galbraith dropped the oversight ball over the Water Enterprise during his years of service as Mayor of St. Helena (2014-18)
• A reviewing judge, with background or even slight knowledge of ratemaking would question how a city, working with a rate consultant, could avoid a full review of needed and potential capital improvements for the Water Enterprise at the time of each rate study (2011, 2016, 2023) over the rate study period. This would include the pipeline distribution system, of course.

How could a grand jury recommendation urging a "comprehensive assessment of the water system's distribution system" (GJR, p. 26 (recommendation R1)) add to what must be periodically done in the ordinary course of business?
• A reviewing judge might question the Grand Jury's definition (GJR p. 9) of the water distribution system, confining it to "the mains, pipes, and underground infrastructure." A water distribution system includes all water system infrastructure downstream of a water treatment plant. This includes pumping stations and water storage tanks, as well as piping. These can be the source of significant water quality issues if not properly maintained. A reviewing judge, even with no background in water systems, might wonder why it was that the Grand Jury was excluding tanks and pumping stations.

Note: they show up as included in capital improvement programs in the rate studies and in the Grand Jury's listings of projects delivered. See GJR pp. 29-

33. Could it be that St. Helena was prioritizing some of these projects because they might present pressing water quality problems if left unaddressed? (Note: this was exactly the case with badly deteriorated Tank 1, a 1.5-million-gallon capacity tank in continuous service at Bell Canyon since 1979 ("Operational challenge to achieve chlorine contact-time"), and the reason for constructing Tank 1A about ($1.5 million next to it.) See GJR, p. 30 ("W-83 -Tank 1A Design/Construction on Grand Jury's delivered project listing following the 2011 water rate increase).
• The Grand Jury states (GJR p. 22) that it "also learned that other than required ethics and legal training there is no additional training offered or required by City Council members or advisory board members." A reviewing judge might ask how it come about that the Grand Jury "learned" this stated fact. Was it from the instigating complainant? What might have the Grand Jury learned if, for example, it had interviewed Planning Commissioner (2009-13) and Mayor (2014-18) Alan Galbraith? (Answer: he attended at city expense multiple

9 conferences with multiple breakout sessions sponsored by The League of California Cities during his time as Planning Commissioner and Mayor, in Sacramento (several), Monterey, Long Beach, and near the Ontario Airport (likely Pomona).)
Again, I am not suggesting that a reviewing judge studying the Grand Jury Report would see all foregoing bullet points, but he would see enough of them to ask County Counsel to take a close look. Believe me, Napa County Counsel, when asked to perform a task by a Napa County Superior Court Judge, is going to do his or her professional best -- and in Napa County "best" is very good -- in critiquing the Grand Jury Report.

County Counsel would no doubt spot bullet points above that the Supervising Judge had not immediately seen, but in addition, would also come up with more, listing them on his legal pad as he spotted them:
• County Council would immediately focus on the Grand Jury's statement (GJR p. 20) criticizing "council members for hiring management staff." It would be immediately apparent to County Council that the Grand Jury did not understand of the Council/Manager form of local government which precludes Council member involvement in the hiring of staff under the City Manager -- and the Grand Jury in consequence was in no position to comment on Council decision-making, oversight, or governance. Being diligent, County Counsel would continue his study, though recognizing this bullet point alone was a showstopper.
• County Counsel would take an interest in how the Grand Jury arrived at the 183% total rate increases. GJR, pp. 2 (lower middle page) & 24 (finding F1)).

County Counsel, eyeballing "Actual Rate Increases" in 2011, 2016, and 2023 (GJR, pp. 11, 13, 14 (shaded boxes)) would immediately realize that they do not add up close to 183%. He would admit to himself, after searching the Grand Jury Report, that he had "no idea" how the Grand Jury arrived at the183%, and the Report itself provided no explanation. Doing his own addition, he would find that "Actual Rate Increases" in the shaded boxes total 139.5%.
• Taking the next step, County Counsel would add up "Recommended Rate Increases," finding that they total 210%, and very close (186%) if FY2025/26, FY2026-22027, and FY 2027/2028 are subtracted from the total. County Counsel would wonder how it could be that the City of St. Helena was not proceeding apace with a strong capital improvement program for the Water Enterprise given that the increases in the Grand Jury's Recommended

10 columns closely match the 183% found by the Grand Jury to be the total increases. GJR, p. 24 (finding F1). He would appreciate that approval of very large initial increases by the City Council (58%, 63%, 28%) could only come about through strong governance at by a unified City Council. • County Counsel would recognize that the St. Helena City Council in 2011, 2016, and 2023 was indeed adopting the recommended increases despite the political heat. County Council would appreciate the good leadership that had to be involved.
• County Counsel, reading the Grand Jury Report with care, would be perplexed by the Grand Jury's apparent belief (GJR, p. 10) that the City Council prioritized bond covenant compliance over capital improvements.

How could a city not prioritize debt covenants? He would understand that the Council had no contractual or fiduciary choice but to come into compliance with financial bond covenants.
• County Counsel, studying the Grand Jury Report, would pause on the Grand Jury's statement GJR p. 23), without elaboration, that it is "important to note that no recent improvements have been made to . . . the Stonebridge Wells." This might perk the interest of County Counsel because he would know that the County through its Environmental Health Division is the permitting agency for all water wells in Napa County. In one to three phone calls he would learn that St. Helena's two production wells at its Stonebridge Well Complex were initially equipped for agricultural use, that the City of St.

Helena long ago converted them to municipal use thereby greatly increasing daily production (up to and over 500AF/yr, and, not surprisingly, they needed to be re-equipped to handle such heavy water volumes. Upon learning these facts, he would recognize the bullet point "W-69 Stonebridge Wells Upgrade" in the listing on page 30 of the Grand Jury Report. He would fault the Grand Jury for not clarifying its mention of these completed capital improvements, and no doubt attribute the omission as further confirmation (perhaps the "nail on the head") of the Grand Jury's failure to investigate. • County Counsel, reading the Grand Jury Report with care would notice delivered project "W-08 - Pratt Avenue Transmission Bridge" on page 29 of the Grand Jury Report. He would wonder: what bridge has been known to "transmit" and how could it be related to a water system? Could it be a transmission pipeline? If so, it would undermine the Grand Jury's statement on page 12 that "No Capital Improvement Projects were dedicated to the water distribution system" in the 2011 rate study. Being an investigator (most lawyers are at some level), he would obtain the 2011 Rate Study from the

11 Grand Jury (see GJR, p. 6 (Grand Jury possessed 2011 rate study), review Rate Study Exhibit II-2 (included in the body of the study) and see that a scheduled capital item was "Pratt Avenue Transmission Main." He would also notice that the same Exhibit II-2 shows annual water distribution expense averaging over $550,000 annually for "Water Distribution" starting July 2011, when the 2011 rate increases were scheduled in the Rate Study to first take effect. He would wonder what a grand jury could be thinking in writing up a report that conveyed that the City of St. Helena was not paying attention to its water distribution system when the contrary evidence was plain on the face of the rate study the Grand Jury acknowledges that it "analyzed." GJR, p. 9. • County Counsel would also notice (it cannot be missed) that Schedule II-2 shows that a rate increase of 58% would begin in July 2011. He would therefore know that the city in fact adopted the "Recommended Rate Increases" and not the "Actual Rate Increases" in the shaded boxes on pages 11, 13, and 14 of the Grand Jury Report.
• County Counsel, as a test of the quality of the Grand Jury's investigation (GJR p. 38 (Table 2), might check on 2016 election results that are compiled by the County Election Division and available on the County website with three clicks of a computer, finding that Mayor Galbraith did not lose by 44 votes and that Council Members Crull and Pitts did seek re-election and were defeated. Mystified, he would ask around and further find that Peter White's term did not end in 2014 because he "lost or didn't run" (GJR, p. 38) but to the contrary he ran, won, and served a second full term as the City's Vice-Mayor.

The foregoing election facts would be stunning further confirmation that the Grand Jury did no fact-checking but bought into the informant's documents without question.
• As he thought about it, County Counsel might wonder whether the Grand Jury sought to contact St. Helena Mayors and Council members (see GJ Report p. 38-39 listing them). Elementary fairness would seem to require that they be given an opportunity to defend themselves against charges of "poor decision making, poor oversight, and poor governance." GJR, p. 3. He would find no indication in the Grand Jury Report that it had done so. • County Counsel might even wonder if the Grand Jury had thought to ask its instigating informant to identify Council members who have been outspoken on water issues. The informant could not have failed to mention Mayor Galbraith given his very public involvement from 2010-2018, including many stories by him or about him on water issues in the St. Helena Star. (Indeed, it is 99 44/100% certain (the Ivory Soap purity standard) that the informant

12 could have provided the former Mayor's personal email address.) The Grand Jury could not have rationalized not to contact him because in the years since 2018 he has participated in the affairs of St. Helena through public comments and letters in the St. Helena Star.

Having studied the Grand Jury Report, and with his own shortcomings list in hand, the County Counsel would report back to the Grand Jury Supervising Judge. He would say:
"Your Honor, as you indicated, this Grand Jury Final Report is a shocking mess. Let us remember that the Civil Grand Jury is an arm of the Napa County Superior Court, as the Court says on its website. You would not want its reputation to be badly stained by the release of this report. You have no choice but not to release it." Section Two: Concluding Remarks, Including Suggested City Council Rebuke I presented my assessment of the Grand Jury Report in "Concluding Comments "in my revised public comments on the Grand Jury Report (published with the agenda for the City Council meeting of July 28, 2026 and republished with revision with the Council agenda for its meeting of August 11, 2026).

I have received gracious emails from those who worked with me on water matters for combatting the unfair stain to their reputations in the Grand Jury's Final Report. That is satisfaction enough.

I also especially want to call out Mayor Del Britton. Once he understood from me the vast needs of the Water Enterprise, he never wavered in his backing of the huge 58% rate increase in 2011. This is the essence of political leadership. I will never forget it. I did my best to follow his example upon becoming Mayor of St. Helena.

I am proud of what I was able to do for the Water Enterprise. I salute the city employees who always provided me what I needed in what to them must have seen as a never-ending search for the last detail. There was no failure of governance during my four years as Mayor. We had a unified Council on the needs of the Water Enterprise. The Grand Jury would have gotten an earful, with overwhelming substantiation, if it had reached out to me. It chose not to do so.

One contemporary note: a St. Helena Council member who served as a member of the Water and Sewer Infrastructure Subcommittee of the General Plan Update Steering Committee was Bonnie Schoch. She is today a candidate for Mayor of St. Helena. Grand Jury finding 7 includes her as among the "lapsed leaders" who failed at governance, failed at oversight, and failed at management (overlooking that Council members are not managers). Ms. Schoch was highly qualified to become a Council member with eight prior years on the St. Helena School Board. Her Council service included early years identified

13 in the Grand Jury Report. I can attest that she followed the work of the Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Subcommittee closely and fully supported its work. So, think about it: the Napa County Grand Jury, an arm of the Napa County Superior Court, with no foundation, has excoriated a dynamic community leader and now candidate for St. Helena Mayor. This egregious personal attack would not have happened if the Napa County Superior Court had reviewed the Grand Jury Report and exercised its authority not to release the Grand Jury Report. So, St. Helena City Council: this is no time to be shy. Stand up for your Council predecessors, for the City you love, and incidentally for Yourselves too.

The City Council should respond with a forceful rebuke of the Napa County Superior Court in its formal response to the Grand Jury Report.

One word for St. Helena resident Mr. Tom Belt. In a social media post shortly after the release of the Grand Jury Report he wrote: "For those in St. Helena who have not yet read the Civil Grand Jury's Report entitled 'Lapsed Leadership' the following are two parts of the summary that hit the nail on the head: City Government Failures: The Civil Grand Jury found that poor-decision making, poor oversight, and poor governance by several terms of the City Council . . . ." Italics added. Let me repeat: Mr. Belt wrote that the Report "hit the nail on the head." He showed his lack of understanding and concern for the stream of misstatements, omissions, and reputational stains in the Final Report -- including the Grand Jury’s incompetence at grade school addition. I want to be charitable toward Mr.

Belt, a former constituent: I wish him well so long as he withdraws completely and forever from public comment on the Water Enterprise of the City of St. Helena.

St. Helena received a big black stain from the Grand Jury Report. I can hear the comments from inside the city echoed around the County: "St. Helena dropped the ball there." But the black stain must be redirected. The black stain falls squarely on the Napa County Superior Court for rubberstamping the Grand Jury's Final Water Report and allowing its release with no "review" within its simple dictionary meaning.

Alan Galbraith
Mayor, City of St. Helena, 2014-18

14

1 FORMER MAYOR ALAN GALBRAITH'S REVISED COMMENTS ON
2025-2026 NAPA COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT ENTITLED "LAPSED LEADERSHIP: St. HELENA'S PROBLEMATIC PIPES AND MURKY WATERS"

PRELIMINARY NOTE
This public comment is a revision of my public comment filed with the City Council's agenda on July 28, 2026. It contains minor corrections and adds a few details that round out my involvement in city water matters. This is the "institutional knowledge" that I would have gladly provided to the Napa County Civil Grand Jury if it had given me a chance before sullying the reputations of those of us who put our hearts into rebuilding a water system managed by 2010 to capital depletion. I say without reservation that those of us who worked on the Water Enterprise, both city employees and fellow residents, made a singular contribution to the rebuilding of the St. Helena Water Enterprise.

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 affected 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 starting point for me was an editorial in the St. Helena Star, April 2, 2009, Community deserves full truth about water supply. The editorial stated: "The board believes that enough confusion over the city water situation exists to warrant a complete, factual and non-political evaluation." It concluded: "But before turning off the spigot, we deserve the full and unbiased truth about the city's water supply." (No mention was made of water a quality issue.)
In April 2009, I had lived in St. Helena about nine months, having retired from forty years of law practice. I said to myself, I have the right combination of credentials to take this on: skilled investigator ("Uncommon Hero of Watergate" from Common Cause for my investigative work), experienced writer (a family disease), highly educated in pipeline systems and operations, well-versed in rate matters, accustomed to new legal issues, and, of all the coincidences thanks to a patent case, having essentially a reservoir engineer's knowledge of open flow water measurement, right down to the monitoring equipment on the market. I knew I would have no difficulty in understanding the issues, whatever they were, involving Bell Canyon Reservoir and the water system generally. I set out to find a way that I could contribute my combination of skills to the service of St. Helena's Water Enterprise. I first focused on the draft water sections of the General Plan Update which was then inviting public comment. It was clear to me that the draft needed to be updated and rewritten essentially from scratch, which I would do.

2 Very soon, in June 2009, the City Council appointed me to the Planning Commission. 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 was a mouthful: 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 involved 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 pertinent documents from many other sources, listed in the report's bibliography. 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 single-space pages 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 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." Italics added. 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

3 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 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 thumb 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, cheese, and crackers. We sat down at a small 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 capital 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, and Subcommittee members `Vice Mayor Sklar, and Council Member Bonnie Schoch).

On July 8, 2010, the St. Helena Star ran an editorial, Report answers water questions. The editorial stated: "These answers [to supply questions] are based on a comprehensive document, the 'Baseline Report of the Water & Sewer Subcommittee,' the just released, six-month study by St. Helena's Infrastructure Subcommittee. The report was drafted by Alan Galbraith, and the subcommittee unanimously approved it. The council appointed the group in December, and its purpose is to investigate the city's water and sewer issues and recommend policies. The subcommittee is off to a good start and Galbraith did a herculean job digging out the facts from a large number of sources." Italics added. The editorial made no mention of water quality; there was nothing to report.

The Subcommittee presented its report with an extensive PowerPoint presentation to the City Council on July 13, 2010 (81 Slides). The report received widespread local attention. The city posted the Subcommittee Report on its website. The St. Helena Star ran a story on July 15, 2010, Strict new water policies considered. Again, no mention of a water quality issue.

I followed up with a letter (August 12, 2010) to the St. Helena Star. 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. I noted that Napa water had come into the system in quantity to offset 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 showed that the elevation level in spring 2010 was seventeen 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). The letter put a spotlight on the Napa contract and the supply weakness of the take-or-pay provision cutting off at 400AF.

Once again, there was no mention of water quality.

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

4 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 the dam in 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 potable water usage was a concern. "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 rate 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 October 15 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 Office 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 Upper York Creek Dam. The brochure stated that the City's share of the removal cost was four million dollars.

In February 2011 the City Manager asked me for my thoughts on differential 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 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

5 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 Water Purchase Contract. with which I was intimately familiar. The Reed Group made them, as reflected in an email from the City Manager 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 customers behind elevated water tanks ("lift charges") 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 policy mandates in the 1993 General Plan and in the 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 Staff 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 Staff stated "recent court decisions " as its reasons for recommending the change.

I do not recall whether the Council acted on the Staff 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

6 or outside the city. The city had gone along with my thinking as set forth in my email letter to the City Manager 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, seventeen years had passed, the supply and supply mix were quite different, and there was an urgent need for a new safe yield estimate. 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 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 my understanding of 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. In short, 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 with little difficulty due to my background in reservoir engineering.) 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 it to the City Council on March 22. We supported our work with 26 Slides. Mr. Sales put many of them together.

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

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

7 summertime operational restriction that significantly reduced the water system's 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 office in Napa 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 seemed 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 was not involved (nor should I have been) in the negotiations 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) Amendment No. 3 removed the summertime operational constraint that lowered systemwide safe yield, (2) increased the take-or-pay from 400AF to 600AF, and (3) while the initial price was the same as for outside residential customers, the price in subsequent years would escalate well under that rate. Napa Water Supply Agreement, Amendment No. 3 (effective 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).

I followed closely developments at the Water and Wastewater Enterprises during my four years as Mayor (2014-2018). I have continued to follow the progress of the Enterprises

8 from city published sources since that time, especially the end of the water year monthly Water Reports
About myself: I served on the St. Helena Planning Commission from 2009-13 and then as Mayor from 2014-18. I was the Foreperson of the 2013-014 Napa County Civil Grand Jury. I also served on two Napa County water committees as an appointee of the Board of Supervisors: The Groundwater Resources Advisory Committee (2011-13) and the Groundwater Sustainability Plan Advisory Committee (2019-2021), of which I was the ViceChair. 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 Law School), staff attorney, California Rural Legal Assistance (Santa Rosa Office (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 law practice firm. I accumulated expertise in regulatory law (including ratemaking), pipeline systems and operations (natural gas), and open channel flow measurement (wastewater systems, open channels, and reservoirs). I became 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 Foreperson, Napa County civil grand juries can 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, unsupported opinion, and extraneous matter (often wrong).

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 staff." The Grand Jurors in these words display their collective lack of understanding of the council/manager form of government.

A quick primer, from the International City/County Management Association ("ICMA"), the leading organization on local government "best practices":

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

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

This is basic stuff. A city 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 staff.

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 staff 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 staff 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 during other times.

Conclusion: a report purporting to pass judgment on Council and city staff leadership has NO credibility when it displays no 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 quality problem at my Allyn Avenue home in St. Helena.

No customer-driven water quality complaints were brought to the attention of the Infrastructure Subcommittee in 2010. Its June 24,2011 report is 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 coming directly to my attention 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. I perceived nothing unusual about that.

I do recall learning of one interesting water quality issue from the city, though I cannot place it in time. Water purchased from the City of Napa 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 comingled in Napa's system and is delivered through 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 affected water

10 treatment at the Rutherford Pump Station -- and customer taste. The issue was promptly addressed through better coordination between the two cities.

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 affects 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 for the Water Enterprise with a secondary impact being the effect on the timing of capital improvements.

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 offset 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 efficiency in water use, perhaps more of a factor on the commercial side than the residential side. A fourth reason is general water conservation.

11 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 quantitative impact 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
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 139.5% 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 on capital improvements 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. 11, 13 (boxed numbers), with its many derogatory comments on city governance, is based on the faulty premise that the City Council in 2011 and 2016 slashed in half (2011) and more than half (2016) recommended rates. Its house of cards collapses because this is wrong.

I would add that it is difficult 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

12 Council approved huge initial rate increases over vocal opposition. The Grand Jury did not live it -- and its allegation of "poor governance" is hurtful and wrong.

5. Differential Rates and Special Surcharges
a. Terminology
"Differential rates" are general rates that differ 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 differential 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.

The Meadowood surcharge was a separately stated rate on the city's water rate schedules.

The city discontinued the Meadowood 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) differential rate prior to the new rates in 2016.

The Grand Jury assumes (p. 18) that because the City of Napa can charge differential 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 differential 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 contemporaneous documentary substantiation.) The Saint Helena City Council, following the recommendation of an ad hoc resident committee, decided to forego all differential 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 differential pricing in 2016.

13 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 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 differential and lift rates.

I knew that an informed consideration of differential and elevated rates would require the city to accumulate supportive documentation as Napa had done in 2011, and that would require significant time and effort to accumulate. Having read the Napa 2011 rate consultant study, I knew that a rate study would take significant time at significant expense once the field data was in the hands of the rate consultant. I knew at that Council consideration of differential 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 differential rates under Proposition 218. Importantly, there is nothing in the Grand Jury Report that signifies that it understood the significance of developing law that matured in the Capistrano case in taking issue with past Council decisions not to impose differential and lift rates. d. Practical Considerations
I knew that not reviving differential rates would be controversial. The Council formed an ad hoc committee to evaluate the issue. The committee, led by city resident Jack Stuart, recommended against differential 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 different 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

14 Jury did not investigate these practical issues in castigating the city for discontinuing differential rates in 2011 and not reviving them in 2016, and not outside imposing zonebased lift rates (cost-of-service would vary by tank zone).

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 cost records.
e. Policy Considerations
There are also strong public policy arguments against imposing differential and lift rates.

As to lift rates: the higher storage tanks provide fire flow water. This is an important public benefit. It is added justification for 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 differential 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 differential 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

15 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, 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 (unmentioned in the Grand Jury Report).

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 city 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 effectively." These sweeping statements are belied by accomplishment. Three examples from my time as Mayor:
a. Comprehensive Flood Protection Project
The official 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 Office of Emergency Services; Office 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 interested me because of my background in California Indian legal issues. It was addressed with no Council controversy.

16 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.

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 then recent 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.; Traffic 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."

17 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 suffered 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.

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 for the Public Works Department and the city.

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 sufficient 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

18 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.

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. This is incorrect on two counts. First, Exhibit E-II of the 2011 Reed Report, under "Capiral Program Expenses, lists "Pratt Avenue Transmission Main," the 14" pipeline hung on the south side of the Pratt Street Bridge. The Grand Jury missed it. Second, the same exhibit under It appears that the Grand Jury does not deem pumping stations to be part of the distribution under "Operation & Maint. Expenses” averaging $525,000+ annually over the has an entry for "Water Distribution" over the sixyear study period. The Grand Jury confines distribution system to pipelines (not including pumping stations and tanks, which in my book are an integral part of a distribution system).

The Grand Jury did not ask itself: how can a city operate a water distribution system without significant dollars budgeted annually for the water pipelines? It takes your breath away.

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

19 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 official 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 differential, 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 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-decision-making, poor oversight by several terms of the City Council." It specifically so finds -- finding F7 on page 26.

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 did not fail 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.

Beyond that, the Grand Jury broadly condemns as incompetent Council members all those who served on the Council beginning in 2011, if not earlier. The includes in my time in city government (2009-18) Sharon Crull, Paul Dohring, Mary Koberstein, Greg Pitts, Bonnie Schoch, Ann Nevero, and Peter White. These are accomplished people with serious resumes. Bonnie Schoch is a 2026 candidate for

20 Mayor. She has no business doing so based on the Grand Jury's finding of Council incompetence going back to 2011. Finding F7, p. 26. (City Council "lack of governance, poor oversight, and ineffective management" 2011). The finding is repellant in every respect. The current City Council should loudly condemn it in its response to the Grand Jury Report..

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 Staff 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 staff 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 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

21 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, and the number of outside-the-city customers is small (my memory is around 17%) is a small percentage of total customers. 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 affects 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.

10. Pages 19-20: As to the turnover of Public Works Directors, Debby Hight 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-off: 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."

22 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.

12. Page 29: The Grand Jury states that a delivered project, included in the 2011capital improvement program was "Pratt Avenue Transmission Bridge." Here, the Grand Jury changed the description in Exhibit II-2 of The Reed Group's 2011 Rate Study's Final Report from "Pratt Avenue Transmission Main to "Pratt Avenue Transmission Bridge." There is no Pratt Avenue Transmission Bridge. The Pratt Avenue Transmission Main is the 14" welded steel line hung on the outside of the Pratt Avenue Bridge. If the Grand Jury had not made the change, then it could not have stated on page 12 that "No capital improvement Projects [in the 2011 rate study] were dedicated to the water distribution system." (Mr. Ferons worried that the Pratt Bridge Transmission Main was at significant risk from harm to the old bridge from flooding on the Napa River and earthquake. This transmission main is the sole pipeline bringing water into St. Helena from Bell Canyon Reservoir. Mr. Ferons noted its vulnerability in his January 2011 City Council slide presentation.)
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 Foreperson, 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.

Sad.

So let us be clear as to what happened. The Grand Jury relied on the assessment of a confidential informant 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 during my time as Mayor. 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 affiliate of the International/County Management Association ("IMCA"), the national leader in promoting "best practices" in local government.

23 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 staff reports, studies, budgets, and capital plans that the city generated in the ordinary course of business, along with staff 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 staff, talking with field staff 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 nongovernmental parties enter the fray with their demands, and so on. These things happen under the best of leadership. My wife 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 magically. 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 status 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" by 2010.

I provide these comments because:

24 (1) I want a public record on file in the annals of the City Council of my service to the Water Enterprise in a leadership role with factual 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 Clerk: August 6, 2026

Public Comment (City Council Next Step)
The professional staff's draft response to the Grand Jury Report is excellent. A city council would normally approve it and move on. The difficulty here is that the Napa County Grand Jury repeatedly disparages the City Council over 15 years. These disparagements can only be addressed by the City Council, not the professional staff. The issue then is how to address it. Here is my suggestion:

ADDITIONAL RESPONSE OF THE ST. HELENA CITY COUNCIL
The City Council of the City of St. Helena approves the Staff Response to the Grand Jury Report. The City Council of the City of St. Helena adds this additional Response to the Staff Response on its own behalf:

The City of St. Helena follows the City Council/City Manager form of government.

The City Council, acting as a body and not individually, oversees the affairs of the City of St.

Helena; it does not manage them. The City Council appoints the City Manager; the City Manager in turn oversees the management of all municipal operations, Including City staff.

The City Council rejects all allegations of poor or lack of decision-making, poor or lack of oversight, poor governance, dysfunctional conflict, multiple conflicts of interest of Council members, and all other disparagements In the Grand Jury Report. GJR, pp. 3, 19, 20, 26.

The City Council specifically rejects Grand Jury Finding F9. GJR, p. 9. Based on its institutional knowledge, the facts set forth in the Staff Report, and the facts stated in public comment, the City Council finds that that City Councils going back to the 2011 followed proper process, including in the approval of consultant-recommended rate increases in 2011, 2016, and 2023, thereby discharging their fiduciary duty to oversee the Water Enterprise.
* * * * * * * * * *
I strongly urge the City Council to direct Staff to include the foregoing additional response in the City's response to the Grand Jury Report.

Alan Galbraith
Mayor, City of St. Helena 2014-18

Outlook
Public comment re: 13.3 - 8/11/26 Draft Response to NCC Grand Jury Report From Michelle Covell <[email protected]>
Date Tue 8/11/2026 3:12 PM
To Public Comment <[email protected]>
Cc Paul Dohring <[email protected]>; Michelle Deasy <[email protected]>; Scott Diaz <[email protected]>; Kate Spadarotto <[email protected]>; Aaron Barak <[email protected]> Dear Mayor Dohring, Vice Mayor Deasy, and Councilmembers Diaz, Spadoratto, and Barak:

Public Comment Regarding the City’s Draft Response to the Grand Jury Report The opinions expressed herein are mine individually and are not intended to represent the official position of the City of St.

Helena or the St. Helena Planning Commission.

I read the Grand Jury report. I read the City’s draft response. And I read the public comments submitted thus far.

What’s troubling to me is that, for whatever reason, the conversation around water in this town continues to be clouded by political and reputational concerns.
“Reputational stains” seem to be more important than actually addressing the issue and finding a transparent way forward.

It’s clear that there are “groups”; the “We aren’t the problem” group, the “There’s an effing problem” group, the “I can’t drink my water” group, and the “I’m not getting brown water” group.

But that’s not what most of us are looking for.

We’re looking for real answers.

Not attempts to discredit the people asking questions.

One comment that really stood out to me was the suggestion that the Grand Jury report appeared to be a “rubberstamp.” Really?
Because if we are going to talk about rubberstamping, perhaps we should look a little closer to home. How about the zoning code rewrite? How about the ADU ordinance? How about the CIP budget review? If we’re talking about definitions, how about the one for Gaslighting? From the interwebs – what Gaslighting looks like in city government.

Gaslighting in city government is a systemic pattern of manipulation where local officials or municipal bodies distort facts, deny documented events, or reframe public concerns.

This behavior causes residents, community groups, or local staff to doubt their own memories, perceptions of reality, and judgment.

How It Appears in Local Government
Denying public record: Officials claim that community promises, prior votes, or documented statements never happened despite clear proof.

Minimizing citizen concerns: Leaders dismiss residents' complaints about local issues—like zoning changes, budgets, or infrastructure failures—as hysteria, overreactions, or misunderstandings.

Inverting accountability: Blaming the public or neighborhood advocates for questioning decisions, framing them as uncooperative or misinformed rather than addressing the core problem.

False transparency: Holding public meetings or feedback sessions that perform the illusion of community input while predetermined outcomes remain unchanged behind closed doors.

The Impact on the Community
Erosion of trust: Residents lose faith in local institutions, public meetings, and official municipal data.

Civic discouragement: Citizens feel disoriented or exhausted, leading them to stop participating in local governance.

Power imbalance: Officials solidify control by making the public dependent on the government's singular, official version of events.

It is pretty ironic to criticize the Grand Jury for supposedly rubberstamping something when residents have watched major City policies and decisions move through this City with very little meaningful scrutiny.

Instead of asking, “Is there something uncomfortable in this report that we need to take a hard look at?” we seem to be spending a lot of energy asking, “How do we defend ourselves from what this report says?” When I read the City's response, I see a lot of discussion about what the City has accomplished recently.

And yes, there has been progress.

But let’s talk about why there has been progress recently.

My understanding, based on speaking with people from the Water/Wastewater Committee, my observation over the years, and listening to the City's hired water expert at the Water Table, is that there was very little meaningful data being collected until relatively recently, when a process of actually collecting and understanding the data began.

If that isn't accurate, then show us the data. What was collected? When? What did the City know, and when did it know it? Residents spent approximately four years meeting, studying the water issues, trying to understand what was happening, and trying to get the City Council to recognize the seriousness of the problem on their own volunteer time.

Once the Water/Wastewater Committee was formally recognized and began doing this work, significant progress followed.

The city fought this group from forming for years, and now wants to take the credit of their progress in recent years? Wow.

Seriously.

Now the City gets to point to all of this “recent” progress as evidence that things are being handled.

Okay, I don’t know if the city recognizes that residents are paying attention. And we’re not dummies.

Please give us a timeline of the last 15 years, list the major progress bullet points and show when the W/WW committee was formed?
Is there perhaps a concentration of progress in the last couple of years after it was formed? We can acknowledge the situation is complex, and time has exacerbated its complexity.

With proper management, turnover should not be an excuse.

Looking at the last 10 or 15 years, what capital projects were prioritized? What was deferred? What data was collected? What wasn't? When did the City begin understanding the extent of the problem? Those are legitimate questions.

The problem we are trying to address isn't simply brown water.

The bigger problem is trust.

It is transparency.

It is whether residents can ask legitimate questions without being made to feel like they are the problem for asking them.

If mistakes were made, let's understand them.

If priorities were wrong, let's admit it.

If data wasn't collected, let's say that.

And if things are finally moving in the right direction, let's acknowledge that too.

All of those things can be true at the same time.

We need the facts. We need the data. We need transparency. We need accountability.

The Grand Jury report gives the City an opportunity to take an honest look at what happened and learn from it.

I hope we don't waste that opportunity by spending our energy defending ourselves from the report.

Because that is how we stay stuck.

And that's how we still have brown water.

There should be no more gaslighting.

That’s what I think the residents of St. Helena are asking for.

With all due respect, let’s talk about the Code of Conduct and Ethics, or even perhaps the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Screencapped from a public comment posted from a former mayor regarding a resident.

This in a public comment about a resident exercising his freedom of speech… I find this very troubling.

Anyone else find this troubling? Perhaps this is an item for the DA to review.

Seriously read those words there. Charitable? I’m starting to understand the recall.

This current behavior is abhorrent. Whatever happened in the past, happened. But this, right here, is unconstitutional.

The opinions expressed herein are mine individually and are not intended to represent the official position of the City of St.

Helena or the St. Helena Planning Commission.

Ps – If I’m reading that third comment submitted correctly, it sounds like you should just rubberstamp it, no need to fact check.

It’s ironic.

Sincerely,
MLC