Agenda packet, regular meeting — St. Helena City Council, August 25, 2026 (part 1 of 3)

City of St. Helena
City Council Regular Meeting
Tuesday, August 25, 2026 @ 6:00 PM
Vintage Hall Board Room - Second Floor
465 Main Street, St. Helena CA
PLEASE NOTE: Any person who wishes to speak regarding an item on the agenda or make a comment under the "Public Forum" portion of the agenda may do so, but please observe the time limit of four minutes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. CALL TO ORDER

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

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

4. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

5. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES

5.1. Regular City Council Minutes of August 11, 2026

Page 1 of 473 ends

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

Estimated start time: 6:05 p.m.

6.1. Public Comment

7. REPORTS BY STAFF AND CITY COUNCIL, FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS, AND AB 1234 REPORTS
Reports by staff and/or Council Members on items of general interest. Brief questions for clarification may be posed and answered, and Council Members may request that items be placed on a future agenda. Except under certain circumstances, the Brown Act prohibits any other discussion or action by the City Council.

8. PRESENTATIONS AND PUBLIC RECOGNITIONS

8.1. Recognizing Mandy Kellogg for her 17 Years of Service and Leadership to the City of St. Helena

9. STAFF BRIEFING AND PRESENTATIONS

10. CONSENT ITEMS
Members of the Council or the public (present at the meeting) may ask that any items be considered individually for purposes of considering alternative action, for extended discussion, or for public comment. Unless that is done, one motion may be used to adopt all recommended actions. (Roll Call Vote) Estimated start time: 6:30 p.m.

10.1. Consideration and Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Amendment No. 2 to St. Helena Contract FY2025-019 with West Yost & Associates, Inc for the Preparation of a Water Management Plan, Increasing the Contract Amount by $93,000 for a Total Contract Amount Not-To-Exceed $304,628 and increase the total project budget to $316,628 to include $12,000 for staff time.

CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA Project (CEQA Guidelines §15378) Prepared By: Joseph Leach, Director of Public Works
Recommendation: Authorize the contract increase, the budget amendment and approve the attached resolution.

Page 2 of 473 ends

10.2. Consideration and Proposed Approval of a Resolution Authorizing a Professional Services Agreement with GEI Consultants, Inc. for Construction Management Services related to the Bell Canyon Intake Tower and Valve House Rehabilitation Project, CIP No. W-109 and W-85.

CEQA Determination: Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) Prepared By: Bruce Zaeni, Project Manager, Joseph Leach, Director of Public Works
Recommendation: Staff recommend authorization

10.3. Consideration and Proposed Approval of a Resolution Establishing 2027 Tax Rate for General Obligation Bonds.

CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA Project (CEQA Guidelines §15378) Prepared By: Mandy Kellogg, Director of Administrative Services Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution.

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

10.5. Consideration and proposed approval of a resolution authoring 1) flying the Italian flag on the City's flag poles at City Hall and Old City Hall during the month of October 2026 for Italian Heritage Month; 2) temporary street parking closures on the west side of Railroad Avenue from the Fire Station to the end of Lyman Park and the parking lot between Lyman Park and the Fire Station during the Festa Italian event; 3) wine and beer vendors in Lyman Park during the Festa Italiana event; and 4) mobile food vendors to park and operate in the closed parking spaces on Railroad Avenue and the parking lot during the event.

CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA Project (CEQA Guidelines §15378) Prepared By: Rebecca White, Administrative Assistant
Recommendation: Approve the attached resolution.

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

CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA Project (CEQA Guidelines §15378) Prepared By: Andrew Bradley, Program Manager (City Clerk) Recommendation: Consideration of a Resolution to appoint an applicant to fill a vacancy on the Library Board of Trustees, which has terms expiring on June 30, 2028.

Page 3 of 473 ends

10.7. Fiscal Year 2026 Investment Report for the Quarter ended June 30, 2026.

CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA Project (CEQA Guidelines §15378) Prepared By: Mandy Kellogg, Director of Administrative Services Recommendation: Receive and file the 4th Quarter Investment Report for the period ending June 30, 2026.

10.8. Consideration and Adoption of a Position Requesting the Governor’s Veto and Authorization to Transmit a Veto Request Letter on Assembly Bill 1383 (AB 1383) Regarding Public Employees’ Retirement Benefits
CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA Project (CEQA Guidelines §15378) Prepared By: James McCann, Interim City Manager
Recommendation: Approve the draft letter requesting a Governor's veto on Assembly Bill 1383 (AB 1383) as presented or with suggested edits, and authorize the Mayor / City Council to execute and transmit the formal veto request letter to Governor Gavin Newsom, with copies to Senator Christopher Cabaldon, Assembly Member Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, other members of the California Assembly and California Senate as determined, and the League of California Cities.

10.9. Second Reading of an Ordinance Clarifying the Regulation of On-Site Storage CEQA Determination: Common Sense Exemption (§15061(b)(3)) Prepared By: Jackie Oneal, Senior Planner
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council:

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

2. Conduct the second reading, waive full reading, and adopt the ordinance amending Section 17.33.010, Table 17.17.020(A), and Table

17.18.020(A) of the St. Helena Municipal Code to clarify the regulation of On-Site Storage and distinguish storage that is incidental and subordinate to a lawfully established primary use from storage regulated as a separate use.

11. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Estimated start time: 6:40 p.m.

Page 4 of 473 ends

11.1. Introduction and First Reading of Three Ordinances Amending Section

17.22.030 of the Zoning Ordinance and Sections 13.04.075 and 13.20.075 of the Public Services sections of the St. Helena Municipal Code (SHMC) to Update Regulations for Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units and general Water and Sewer Utility Requirements for residential units in the City.

CEQA Determination: The proposed ADU ordinance is statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.17, while the related Title 13 utility amendments are not projects under CEQA pursuant to Guidelines Sections 15060(c)(2), 15060(c)(3), and 15378.

Prepared By: Jackie Oneal, Senior Planner, Mario Traverso, Project Manager Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council take three separate actions:

1. Find that the proposed amendment to Section 17.22.030 of the St.

Helena Municipal Code is statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.17; and either
a. Introduce and waive the first reading of the ordinance approving ZOA 26-001 as set forth in Attachment 1 and schedule the selected ordinance for second reading and adoption on September 8, 2026; OR
b. Introduce and waive the first reading of the ordinance approving ZOA 26-001 as set forth in Attachment 3 and schedule the selected ordinance for second reading and adoption on September 8, 2026.

2. Find that the proposed amendment to Section 13.04.075 of the St.

Helena Municipal Code is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15060(c)(3); and
Introduce and waive the first reading of an ordinance updating requirements applicable to private water service laterals as set forth in Attachment 6; and schedule the ordinance for second reading and adoption on September 8, 2026.

3. Find that the proposed amendment to Section 13.20.075 of the St.

Helena Municipal Code is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15060(c)(3); and
Introduce and waive the first reading of an ordinance updating requirements applicable to private sewer laterals as set forth in Attachment 8; and schedule the ordinance for second reading and adoption on September 8, 2026.

Page 5 of 473 ends

12. OLD BUSINESS

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

13.1. Approval of a Resolution 1. Appointing Susan Casey as Interim Director of Administrative Services pursuant to Government Code section 21221(h), effective August 31, 2026; and 2. Approving an Interim Employment Agreement with Susan Casey for service as Interim Director of Administrative Services.

CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA Project (CEQA Guidelines §15378) Prepared By: Mandy Kellogg, Director of Administrative Services Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution.

13.2. Adoption and Implementation Framework for the Interim Strategic Plan:

Building the Groundwork for Long-Term Organizational Transformation CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA Project (CEQA Guidelines §15378) Prepared By: James McCann, Interim City Manager
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council provide direction on and/or accept the Interim Strategic Plan and 6-Month Implementation Framework, authorize staff to initiate immediate quick-start operational and organizational adjustments, and direct staff to return to the City Council for future budget amendments, class specification/salary schedule updates, and consulting agreements as required.

13.3. Approval of Resolution Authorizing Recruitment for One Police Officer and Authorizing the City Manager to Recruit for Vacant Positions Based on Organizational Needs.

CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA Project (CEQA Guidelines §15378) Prepared By: Mandy Kellogg, Director of Administrative Services Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution.

14. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS

15. ADJOURNMENT
The next Regular City Council meeting is scheduled for September 9, 2026.

This agenda was posted at City Hall, 1088 College Avenue, and at Vintage Hall, 465 Main Street, St. Helena, California on August 20, 2026.

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

CHALLENGING DECISIONS OF CITY ENTITIES
The time limit within which to commence any lawsuit or legal challenge to any quasi-adjudicative decision made by the City of St. Helena is governed by Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil

Page 6 of 473 ends

Procedure, unless a shorter limitation period is specified by any other provision, including without limitation Government Code section 65009 applicable to many land use and zoning decisions, Government Code section 66499.37 applicable to the Subdivision Map Act, and Public Resources Code section 21167 applicable to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Under Section 1094.6, any lawsuit or legal challenge to any quasi-adjudicative decision made by the City must be filed no later than the 90th day following the date on which such decision becomes final. Any lawsuit or legal challenge, which is not filed within that 90-day period, will be barred. Government Code section 65009 and 66499.37, and Public Resources Code section 21167, impose shorter limitations periods and requirements, including timely service in addition to filing.

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

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

Page 7 of 473 ends

MINUTES
City of St. Helena
Regular City Council Meeting
Tuesday, August 11, 2026 @ 6:00 PM
Vintage Hall Board Room - Second Floor
465 Main Street, St. Helena CA
A complete video recording of this meeting, except for closed session, can be found at https://sthelenaca.portal.civicclerk.com/ or by calling the City Clerk at (707) 968-2742.

The City Council video is the official record of the Council meeting.

Present: Mayor Paul Dohring, Vice Mayor Michelle Deasy, City Council Member Kate Spadarotto, City Council Member Scott Diaz

Absent: City Council Member Aaron Barak

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

2. ROLL CALL

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

4. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
City Council Member Scott Diaz moved to adopt the agenda. The motion was seconded by Vice Mayor Michelle Deasy and on roll call carried by the following vote:

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

5. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES

5.1. Regular City Council Minutes of July 28, 2026
City Council Member Scott Diaz moved to approve the Regular City Council Meeting minutes of July 28, 2026. The motion was seconded by Vice Mayor Michelle Deasy and on roll call carried by the following vote:

Page 8 of 473 ends

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

6.1. Public Comment
Chris Warner addressed the Council.

Interim City Manager Jim McCann provided updates on the following items:
• Congratulations were extended to the Fire and Police Departments for organizing the Fire Preparation Town Hall meeting.
• Further discussion of the Blackberg study will take place at the next regular City Council meeting on August 25.
• There are still vacancies on several of Boards and Commissions. • Mandy Kellogg, Administrative Services Director, has submitted her resignation and will be departing the City after 17 years.

City Clerk Andrew Bradley provided an update on the upcoming elections. He noted that the nomination period for City Council candidates has closed; however, there is still time to pull nomination papers for the office of Mayor. The nomination period for Mayor will close on August 12, 2026, at 4:00 p.m.

Vice Mayor Deasy requested that an item regarding restricted funds be placed on a future City Council agenda. Mayor Dohring agreed, and the item will be

Page 9 of 473 ends

brought to a future meeting.

Council Member Spadarotto requested that an item regarding traffic calming on Spring Street be added to a future agenda. Council Member Diaz agreed with the request. The item will be brought to a future meeting.

8. PRESENTATIONS AND PUBLIC RECOGNITIONS

9. STAFF BRIEFING AND PRESENTATIONS

10.1. THIS ITEM WAS PULLED FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION BY VICE

MAYOR DEASY
Consideration and Proposed Approval of a Resolution Authorizing a Professional Services Agreement with GEI Consultants, Inc. for Construction Management Services related to the Bell Canyon Intake Tower and Valve House Rehabilitation Project, CIP No. W109.

CEQA Determination: Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) Prepared By: Bruce Zaeni, Project Manager
Recommendation: Staff recommend authorization
Interim City Manager McCann provided a brief overview of the item.

Mayor Dohring opened the public comment period. Public comments were received by Gary Oliviera from GEI Consultants.

Following further discussion, the City Council determined to continue the item to the next City Council meeting in August.

10.2. THIS ITEM WAS PULLED FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION BY VICE

MAYOR DEASY
Consideration and proposed adoption of a Resolution authorizing the Interim City Manager to Execute Amendment No. 3 to Professional Services Agreement STH Contract FY2024-093 with Mead & Hunt, Inc. for the Bell Canyon Reservoir Intake Tower and Valve House Project in the amount of $793,756 for Fixed Cone Valve procurement and Factory Acceptance Testing services, for a revised not-to-exceed contract total of $2,257,196.

Page 10 of 473 ends

CEQA Determination: Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) Prepared By: Bruce Zaeni, Project Manager
Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the attached Resolution.

Interim City Manager McCann provided an overview.

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

The Council engaged in additional questions and discussion.

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

AYES: Mayor Paul Dohring, Vice Mayor Michelle Deasy, City Council Member Kate Spadarotto, City Council Member Scott Diaz
NOES: None
ABSENT: City Council Member Aaron Barak
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None
Adopted Resolution 2026-080

10.3. Consideration and proposed adoption of a resolution (1) Approving temporary street closures; and (2) Authorizing possession of open alcoholic beverages on public streets and parking lots for the 2026 Harvest Festival
CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA Project (CEQA Guidelines §15378) Prepared By: Ashley Sylvester, Director of Community Services Department
Recommendation: Staff recommends City Council review and adopt the attached resolution.

Vice Mayor Michelle Deasy moved to approve items 10.3, 10.4, 10.8 and

10.9. The motion was seconded by City Council Member Kate Spadarotto and on roll call carried by the following vote:

Page 11 of 473 ends

10.4. Consideration and proposed approval of a resolution amending the City of St. Helena Conflict of Interest Code pursuant to the Political Reform Act of 1974.

CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA Project (CEQA Guidelines §15378) Prepared By: Andrew Bradley, Program Manager (City Clerk) Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council adopt a Resolution approving and adopting the amended Conflict of Interest Code pursuant to the Political Reform Act of 1974, and rescind the previous Conflict of Interest, Resolution 2025-91.

Vice Mayor Michelle Deasy moved to approve items 10.3, 10.4, 10.8 and

10.9. The motion was seconded by City Council Member Kate Spadarotto and on roll call carried by the following vote:

10.5. THIS ITEM WAS PULLED FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION BY VICE

MAYOR DEASY
Consideration and Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Amendment No. 2 to St. Helena Contract FY2025-019 with West Yost & Associates, Inc for the Preparation of a Water Management Plan, Increasing the Contract Amount by $99,924 for a Total Contract Amount Not-To-Exceed $311,552 and increase the total project budget to $323,552 to include $12,000 for staff time.

Interim City Manager McCann provided an overview of the item.

Mayor Dohring opened the public comment period. Public comment was made by Garry Rose.

Following further deliberation, the City Council continued this item to a future date.

Page 12 of 473 ends

10.6. THIS ITEM WAS PULLED FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION BY VICE

MAYOR DEASY
Proposed Approval of a Resolution:
(1) Approving the Memorandum of Understanding Between the City of St.

Helena and the Police Officers' Association (POA) for a One-year Contract Commencing on July 1, 2026 and expiring on June 30, 2027; and (2) Approving the Memorandum of Understanding Between the City of St.

Helena and the St. Helena Employees Association (SHEA) for a One-year Contract Commencing on July 1, 2026 and expiring on June 30, 2027; and (3) Approving Amendment #2 to the Memorandum of Understanding Between the City of St. Helena and the St. Helena Professional Firefighters Association (SHPFA) for a One-year Contract Commencing on July 1, 2026 and expiring on June 30, 2027; and
(4) Adopting and Approving the Publicly Available Pay Schedules in Accordance with the Requirement of California Code of Regulations, Title 2, Section 570.5, for members covered under the Police Officers' Association (POA), St. Helena Employees Association (SHEA), and St.

Helena Professional Firefighters Association (SHPFA).

CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA Project (CEQA Guidelines §15378) Prepared By: Mandy Kellogg, Director of Administrative Services Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution.

Following questions from Vice Mayor Deasy, Interim City Manager McCann and Administrative Services Director Mandy Kellogg provided additional information regarding the item.

Mayor Dohring opened the public comment period. No public comment was received.

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

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

Page 13 of 473 ends

Adopted Resolution 2026-086

10.7. THIS ITEM WAS PULLED FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION BY COUNCIL

MEMBER DIAZ
Proposed Approval of a Resolution:
(1) Approving an Amendment to the Unrepresented Compensation Program for a One-year period Commencing on July 1, 2026 and expiring on June 30, 2027; and
(2) Adopting and Approving the Publicly Available Pay Schedules in Accordance with the Requirement of California Code of Regulations, Title 2, Section 570.5, for classifications covered under the Unrepresented Compensation Program and certain Part-time classifications.

CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA Project (CEQA Guidelines §15378) Prepared By: Mandy Kellogg, Director of Administrative Services Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution.

Following questions from Council Member Diaz, Interim City Manager McCann provided a further explanation on the item.

Mayor Dohring opened the public comment period. No public comment was received.

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

10.8. Adopt the Napa Countywide Active Transportation Plan CEQA Determination: Exempt pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) §21080.20
Prepared By: Eric Janzen, Asst. PW Director
Recommendation: Staff recommends City Council approve the attached Resolution and adopt the Napa Countywide Active Transportation Plan.

Page 14 of 473 ends

Vice Mayor Michelle Deasy moved to approve items 10.3, 10.4, 10.8 and

10.9. The motion was seconded by City Council Member Kate Spadarotto and on roll call carried by the following vote:

10.9. Consideration and Proposed Adoption of a Resolution Accepting the Work and Directing the Filing of the Notice of Completion for CIP Project W24- 04 SMART Meter Deployment
CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA Project (CEQA Guidelines §15378) Prepared By: Rebecca White, Administrative Assistant
Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the attached Resolution Vice Mayor Michelle Deasy moved to approve items 10.3, 10.4, 10.8 and

10.9. The motion was seconded by City Council Member Kate Spadarotto and on roll call carried by the following vote:

11. PUBLIC HEARINGS

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

Staff recommends that the City Council:

Page 15 of 473 ends

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

2. Introduce and waive the first reading of an ordinance amending Section 17.33.010 (Definitions of Uses), Table 17.17.020(A) (Use Regulations—Commercial and Mixed-Use Zoning Districts), and Table 17.18.020(A) (Use Regulations—Business and Industrial Zoning Districts) of the St. Helena Municipal Code to clarify the regulation of on-site storage and distinguish storage that is incidental and subordinate to a lawfully established primary use from storage regulated as a separate use.

Community Development Director Leza Mikhail introduced the item.

Senior Planner Jackie Oneal provided a presentation on the item.

Mayor Dohring opened up the public comment period. No public comment was received.

The matter was then turned over to the City Council for deliberation, during which Council Members provided additional comments and asked questions.

Vice Mayor Michelle Deasy moved to approve the staff's recommendation.

The motion was seconded by City Council Member Scott Diaz and on roll call carried by the following vote:

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

12. OLD BUSINESS
None

13. NEW BUSINESS

13.1. Consideration of a Resolution Allowing a Current Member of the Active Transportation and Sustainability Committee (ATSC) to Continue Serving After Moving Outside City Limits.

CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA Project (CEQA Guidelines §15378) Prepared By: Andrew Bradley, Program Manager (City Clerk)

Page 16 of 473 ends

Recommendation: Approve Resolution to allow Emma Leggat to continue serving on the committee after relocating outside St. Helena city limits.

City Clerk Bradley reported on the item.

Mayor Dohring opened the public comment period. No public comment was received.

City Council Member Kate Spadarotto moved to approve the resolution.

The motion was seconded by City Council Member Scott Diaz and on roll call carried by the following vote:

13.2. Lewis Station Park, St Helena, Restoration, and Donation CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA Project (CEQA Guidelines §15378) Prepared By: Ashley Sylvester, Director of Community Services Department
Recommendation: Authorize acceptance of donations and pursuit of the renovations proposal.

Interim City Manager McCann introduced Director of Community Services, Ashley Sylvester who presented on the item.

Mayor Dohring opened the public comment period. Public comment was received by Tracy McBride, Kathy Carrick, Nancy Morrell.

The matter was then turned over to the Council for discussion, during which Council Members provided comments and asked questions. Staff will continue to bring opportunities for Council direction and decisions as the scope of the project progresses.

City Council Member Scott Diaz moved to authorize acceptance of donations and pursuit of the renovation proposal. The motion was seconded by City Council Member Kate Spadarotto and on roll call carried by the following vote:

AYES: Mayor Paul Dohring, Vice Mayor Michelle Deasy, City Council Member Kate Spadarotto, City Council Member Scott Diaz

Page 17 of 473 ends

NOES: None
ABSENT: City Council Member Aaron Barak
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None
Mayor Dohring called for a 10-minute recess at 7:47 p.m. The City Council reconvened at 8:08 p.m.

13.3. Receive Draft Response to the 2025–2026 Napa County Civil Grand Jury Report and Provide Direction to Staff
CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA Project (CEQA Guidelines §15378) Prepared By: Joseph Leach, Director of Public Works
Recommendation: Review the attached draft response to the 2025–2026 Napa County Civil Grand Jury Report dated June 24, 2026, provide comments and direction to staff, and direct staff to return with a final proposed response for City Council consideration and adoption on August 25, 2026.

Interim City Manager McCann provided a report on the item.

Mayor Dohring opened the public comment period. Public comment was received by Tamara Sorensen.

The matter was then turned over to the City Council for discussion, during which Council Members provided comments and asked questions. City Attorney Walsh outlined the Council’s options for responding to the report, including agreeing, partially agreeing, disagreeing, or partially disagreeing with the findings. If the Council disagreed or partially disagreed with any finding, the Council would be required to provide an explanation for its position.

The mayor will continue to refine the letter in consultation with with the City Manager and will sign the letter on behalf of the Council.

Vice Mayor Michelle Deasy moved to partially disagree with each finding on the Grand Jury report and to make revisions to the response letter to include additional factual supporting information and add an introductory letter addressing concerns regarding tone. The motion was seconded by City Council Member Scott Diaz and on roll call carried by the following vote:

AYES: Mayor Paul Dohring, Vice Mayor Michelle Deasy, City Council Member Scott Diaz
NOES: City Council Member Kate Spadarotto
ABSENT: City Council Member Aaron Barak

Page 18 of 473 ends

ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None

14. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
Vice Mayor Deasy made brief comments regarding the Climate Action Committee. Mayor Dohring provided comments regarding Napa Valley Transportation Authority (NVTA).

15. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Dohring adjourned the meeting at 8:31 p.m.

The next Regular City Council meeting is scheduled for August 25, 2026.

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

Page 19 of 473 ends

Alan Galbraith 1
Public Comment, St. Helena City Council Meeting (August 25, 2026) The City Council at its August 11 meeting approved the City's Responses to the 2025-2026 Napa County Grand Jury Report, Lapsed Leadership: St. Helena's Problematic Pipes and Murkey Waters, Final Report (June 24, 2026). A retrospective review of the problems in the Report, of public record with the Council, is now in order.

Two questions should be posed:
(1) What do the facts of public record before the Council establish and what conclusions do the clearly and convincingly support?
(2) What are the lessons to be learned?
(1) The facts of public record:

1. The Napa County Superior Court failed to discharge its obligation to review the Grand Jury Report before its release.

2. The Napa County Attorney's Office failed to discharge its obligation to review the Grand Jurt Report before its release.

3. The Grand Jury had no understanding of the Council/Manager form of government -- an understanding critical to assessing Council performance under that form of government.

4. The Grand Jury concocted facts to support its allegations of bad governance.

5. The Grand Jury Report did not stay on point ("murky waters"), but wandered far off topic, including social and political commentary -- which do not belong in grand jury reports.

6. The Grand Jury expressed conclusory opinions with no or essentially no factual basis.

7. The Grand Jury did not investigate information provided by its source(s) -- with much misinformation coming from its source(s).

8. The Grand Jury disregarded information presented in the rate studies that did not comport with its theme of continuous bad governance from 2011 through 2025.

9. More generally, the Grand Jury lacked the expertise to understand water rate studies, including extensive data-gathering that goes into them, the financial issues involved, the engineering and other time involved in completing a large capital program, and the professional judgments involved in designing and establishing rates.

Page 20 of 473 ends

10. The Grand Jury had no understanding of financial issues -- especially the necessity of meeting bond covenants.

11. The Grand Jury had no understanding of Proposition 218 or the governing case law governing its application.

12. The Grand Jury took a deep dive into history of the St. Helena Water Enterprise for which it had no competence, no research capability, and no adequate time, and therefore was in no position to assess governmental performance.

13. The Grand Jury has no understanding of the complexity of major projects and the management skills required to accomplish them.

14. The Grand Jury did not interview readily available persons with substantial historical knowledge (including myself).

15. The Grand Jury made wild accusations with no evidentiary support (e.g., Council members suffered from personal and business conflicts of interest, leading to dysfunctional governance, when conflicts have been few, and with no evidence cited by the Grand Jury of any conflict at any time involving the Water Enterprise (highly unlikely).

16. The Grand Jury defamed mayors and council members (over many years) -- an improper civil grand jury function

17. Drinking water is known to be the subject of regulation; the Grand Jury showed no understanding or even knowledge of the role played by Drinking Water Operation Certification Program under the jurisdiction of the State Department of Health prior to 2014, and then, following transfer, under State Water Resources Control Board -- and yet seeks to instruct on drinking water.

18. The Grand Jury admonished the voters of St. Helena for their Council selections -- way out-of-line for a grand jury.

19. The Grand Jury Report, being replete with misinformation, conclusory statements, multiple aspersions, and much irrelevant matter, placed great burdens on City Staff in fashioning responses.

20. Saint Helena City Staff is professional, respects the grand jury process, and performed great work in preparing responses, undeterred by the abusive Grand Jury Report.
(2) Lessons Learned:

A. The Napa County Superior Court, working with the Napa County Counsel, should develop a checklist of what will not pass muster under their review process. The checklist should be published on the Superior Court's website. It should begin with the statement that grand jury reports will be subject to scrutiny by the Supervising Grand

Page 21 of 473 ends

Jury Judge, working with County Counsel. The first eighteen points are a good starting point in developing a checklist.

B. The educational an instructional material for incoming grand jurors is very good. Very clearly, they are not sufficient. I suggest that the Court and County develop "case studies" drawing from what went wrong here. Each case study should be a hypothetical grand jury report, and incoming grand jurors should be challenged to find out what is wrong or not appropriate in them. The goal is to eliminate or at least minimize recurrence of the many problems with the Grand Jury St. Helena Water Report.

C. Grand jury reports should be required to contain a listing of all documents relevant to grand jury findings and recommendations. This can greatly facilitate the preparation of responses to grand jury findings and recommendations.

Final Thoughts:

As my letters to Presiding Judge Scott R.L. Young reveal, I tried to persuade the Napa County Superior Court to withdraw the Grand Jury Report before the St. Helena City Council finalized its formal Responses. I was not successful.

But I continue to call on the Court to accept in some form of responsibility for releasing a grand jury report that should not have been released. The Napa County Superior Court has inherent authority over all grand jury matters because grand juries are "an arm of the Court," as the Court notes on its website. California Courts are known not to publish decisions, depriving them precedential effect, and, if my memory is correct, have it within their power to decertify publication of improvidently published decisions. My continuing request is that the Napa County Superior Court shows its acceptance of responsibility by withdrawing or decertifying publication of the Grand Jury Report. This will send a clear message that the Court from now on will not authorize release of abusive grand jury reports.

Respectfully submitted,
Alan Galbraith
Mayor, St. Helena, 2014-18
Foreperson, Napa County Grand Jury, 2013-2014
Note: The two following public comments, which were previously filed but since updated, are refiled so that the facts supporting this retrospective comment are readily available to a reader of this public comment.

Page 22 of 473 ends

Page 23 of 473 ends

1 ALAN GALBRAITH PUBLIC COMMENT 2

FORMER MAYOR ALAN GALBRAITH'S FURTHER 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 further revision of my public comment initially filed with the City Council's agenda on July 28 and with revisions with its agenda on August 11, 2026.

The most important further revision relates to the Grand Jury's misstatements of the 2011 and 2016 water rate increases. They are wrong in every respect; they paint a City Council engaged in slashing rate-consultant initial rate increase recommendations in half or more and thereby depriving the Water Enterprise of the needed revenue to repair itself -- the essential foundation of its allegations of bad stewardship by St. Helena City Councils over the years, including my time as Mayor.

Let's be fair: the Grand Jury would be right if in fact what it shows in its shaded boxes in 201l and 2016 in fact happened. But it did not. The St. Helena City Council in 2011 and 2016 each time approved the consultant-recommended rate increases. Appendix A at the end of this paper is new; it reviews the rate facts in detail, with citations to unimpeachable business documents, and calls out the rate increase fictions in the Grand Jury Report.

As is no surprise to me (I specialized in complex civil cases), it can take significant time to unravel the facts long after the events especially when they appear convincingly stated, as they do in the Grand Jury Report. It is hard to come to terms with the realization that the 2011 and 2016 shaded rate table are fictions, designed to make St. Helena and its City Council look bad. I urge all readers to review Appendix A. The Grand Jury Report is built on a house of sand.

This revision also contains minor corrections and adds a few other 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 to capital depletion by 2010. 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.

Page 24 of 473 ends

2 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 (many years as outside counsel for the El Paso Natural Gas Company), well-versed in rate matters (EPNG again), accustomed to new legal issues, and, of all the coincidences, thanks to involvement in two major legal matters for a water meter manufacturer (Marsh-McBirney, Inc.), having essentially a reservoir engineer's knowledge of open flow water measurement, right down to the equipment on the market. I knew I was well-equipped to understand 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.

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,

Page 25 of 473 ends

3 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 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

Page 26 of 473 ends

4 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 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 very large initial 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

Page 27 of 473 ends

5 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 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." Italics added. It set forth the current and proposed water rates insidethe-city and out-side-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).

Page 28 of 473 ends

6 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. The Council accepted the Staff's recommendation. In consequence, the new rates starting June 1 imposed the same inside and outside rates (no differential rates), a separate Meadowood rate schedule, but no other lift charges either inside or outside the city. The city had gone along with my thinking as set forth in my email letter 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

Page 29 of 473 ends

7 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 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.

Page 30 of 473 ends

8 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 (a significant issue due to leaky water lines), 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 unaccountedfor 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 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).

Page 31 of 473 ends

9 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."

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.

The Grand Jury (p. 27) makes a formal finding that the St. Helena City Council engaged in "ineffective management." This follows statement (p. 20) holding council members responsible "for hiring management staff." The predicate and the finding are dead wrong. The City Council cannot be found responsible for "ineffective management" because it is not management.

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

Page 32 of 473 ends

10 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. During my mayorship (and perhaps before) I was familiar with the IMCA, read much of its literature, and had read with special care the ICMA's Code of Ethics for City Managers.

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. I want to drive home that there were no systematic water quality complaints before 2018. Such complaints, if they had happened, certainly would have been of deep concern to me.

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). The Final 2016 Water and Wastewater Rate Study (October 31, 2016) makes no mention of a water quality issue. 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 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.

Page 33 of 473 ends

11 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.

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
In this section I focus on the internal inconsistencies in the Grand Jury Report itself.

It is fair to say that a reviewer would immediately recognize that something was very wrong.

The Grand Jury numbers do not add up. It would require a look at the 2011 and 2016 rate reports to understand fully the scope of the Grand Jury's mischaracterizations and madeup numbers. Again, this is detailed in Appendix A.

Page 34 of 473 ends

12 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." Thus, the Grand Jury makes it appear that the 2011 and 2016 City Councils recklessly disregarded the consultant-recommended rate increases by greatly slashing them. This then supports the Grand Jury's narrative of bad Council decision-making culminating in Grand Jury finding F7 on page 26. Again, this is all Grand Jury fiction, as detailed in Appendix A.

The only way to reach the Grand Jury's183% increase is if the City Council in fact approved the recommended rate increases as stated in the Grand Jury Report. 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%. This in fact what happened -- and it tells a very different story.

And the story is a good one: the City Councils in 2011, 2016, and 2023 adopted the consultant recommended rate increases which in each case were built up on exhaustive analyses of the St. Helena Water Enterprise, just as one would expect in the rate reports prepared by expert rate consultant. The true story wipes out all allegations of bad decisionmaking, bad oversight, poor governance, dysfunction, and so on that are the meat of the Grand Jury Report.

Let me add one word about the consultant reports. There is no ambiguity in the rate reports for 2011 (The Reed Group), 2016 (Hansford Economic Consulting). and 2023 (Raftelis) about the rate increase numbers. The invented Grand Jury numbers (see Appendix A) are of course nowhere to found in them. It is hard on these facts to conceive of an innocent explanation for the Grand Jury's misconduct.

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.

Page 35 of 473 ends

13 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.
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.

Page 36 of 473 ends

14 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 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.

Page 37 of 473 ends

15 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.

I do recall that the Water Enterprise was collecting about $50,000 per year from the Meadowood surcharge and that the ad hoc Committee recommended against its continuation. This found expression in the Technical Memorandum supporting the Hanford Consulting Group's rate study: "Meadowood Area Surcharge: Currently about $50,000 per year is generated from surcharges applied in the Meadowood area, which is outside of the City limits. Per the September 13, 2016, Task Force meeting, Meadowood area surcharges are to be eliminated when the new rates go into effect February 8, 2017." City of St. Helena (2016) Water Rate Study Technical Memorandum, Final (October 31, 2016), p.14, by Hansford Economic Consulting.
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 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

Page 38 of 473 ends

16 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.
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

Page 39 of 473 ends

17 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."
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.

Page 40 of 473 ends

18 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 the Infrastructure 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 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

Page 41 of 473 ends

19 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
As already discussed under Grand Jury math, the Grand Jury numbers in the shaded box on page 13 of the Grand Jury Report are a fiction. There was no initial 63% recommended initial rate increase. Please see Appendix A for the facts.

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

The Grand Jury fails to capture the breadth of the capital improvement needs as stated in the 2016 Rate Report. It stated: "The City has identified a minimum of $15.4 million, net of grant funds and existing bonds, in capital improvements in today's dollars to be funded over the next 10 years. In future dollars this totals 17.7 million to be funded over the next ten years." Underlining in original. City of St. Helena (2016) Water and Wastewater Rate Study, Final, October 31, 2016, by Hansford Economic Consulting, p. 18 (second bullet point). So, as in the case of the 2011 rate study (as discussed in the Background Section), there was no expectation that identified capital improvements would be completed or even substantially completed in the five-year rate study period.

My memory is that the 2016 Council, including myself as Mayor, worried that the 2016 increases could be difficult for residential families with small incomes and that we adjusted the qualifications for General Fund assistance for payment of water bills. This was fair and right.

Page 42 of 473 ends

20 c. The 2023 Rate Study
Thia work was five years after my service to the City of St. Helena ended. I have reviewed it. The Grand Jury correctly records the recommended and actual rate increase on page 14 of the Grand Jury Report. They are the same, as one would expect.

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 emphatically deny any failure of oversight during my time as mayor (2014-18). 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 professionals with serious resumes. Bonnie Schoch is a 2026 candidate for Mayor.

Please note: Finding 7 is in the present tense: "St. Helena suffers from a lack of governance, poor oversight, [and] ineffective management by the City Council and City Manager, and a lack of professional project management expertise." Italics added. So, the Grand Jury makes a formal finding that all current Council members are unfit to hold public

Page 43 of 473 ends

21 office. Finding 7 is repellant in every respect. The current City Council should firmly 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. it is not possible to begin to make the case for charging outside-the-city customers for Measure H benefits on the Grand Jury record

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.

By contrast, 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).

Also, the Final Rate Study (October 31, 2016) of the Hanford Economic Consulting in Figure 18 on page 23 shows that St. Helena's combined utility rates (water and sewer) before the 2016 rate increases were below Petaluma, American Canyon, Santa Rosa, Calistoga, and Healdsburg, and after the new rates would still be below Santa Rosa, Calistoga, and Healdsburg.

As Hanford study was in the hands of the Grand Jury, it might have indicated the need for a meaningful analysis of comparative combined rates before asserting that St.

Helena's were "exorbitantly" higher. (It is obvious that the Grand Jury did not investigate but accepted the assertion of its instigating informer from St. Helena -- identified by me as Tom Belt to a 99 44/100% probabilty in a previous public comment on file with the City Council agenda of July 21, 2026)

Page 44 of 473 ends

22 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 St. Helena does not provide sewage services outside city limits. As to stormwater: I am skeptical that the city provides stormwater service outside the city unless under an arrangement with the county and therefore decline to accept the Grand Jury's assertion without substantiation. As to water service, there is some benefit, though most Measure H spending is on wastewater projects, 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. As to dysfunction, my memory is that the 2011 Council approved the rate increases unanimously, and as to the 2016 Council Resolution 2016- 1162 affirmatively shows that all five Council members voted in support of the 2016 rate

Page 45 of 473 ends

23 increases at the Council's special meeting of November 29, 2026. (Perhaps my imagination is limited, but I find it hard to imagine how a council member could have a conflict-of-interest with the Water Enterprise.)

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." 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

Page 46 of 473 ends

24 not the product of a meaningful investigation, much less one in accordance with training materials. A sure sign: The Grand Jury in Table 1 states 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, full of conclusory aspersions, with no evidentiary foundation.

Even worse, the Grand Jury misrepresented the rate increases in 2011 and, according to the business records, made up fictional numbers to support its allegations of bad governance. Appendix A. There may be an innocent explanation for the Grand Jury's misconduct, but I cannot see it. The consultant rate reports in the hands of the Grand Jury permit of no ambiguity or confusion as to the adopted rates.

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.

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,

Page 47 of 473 ends

25 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 of four years 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.

Without doubt, St. Helena has implemented substantial rate increases beginning in 2011, totaling between 181% and 194% per single family residential customer by my calculation. Exhibit A. Large rate increases do 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 prior to that time had been managed to "capital depletion."
I provide these comments because:
(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: [Date]

Page 48 of 473 ends

26 APPENDIX A
ST. HELENA ADOPTED WATER RATES IN 2011, 2016, and 2023
Adopted 2011 Water Rate Increases:

FY 2011/12 58.0%
FY 2012/13 3.0%
FY 2013/14 3.0%
FY 2014/15 3.0%
FY 2015/16 3.0%
Source: Staff Report, Agenda Item No. 15, St. Helena City Council Meeting, April 26, 2011, p. 1. The Staff Report, with attachments, is 54 pages. The last attachment (pp. 16-54) is the Final Report, Water and Wastewater Rate Study, by The Reed Group, Inc. (March 13, 2011).

Note: The Adopted Rate Increases are the same as the Grand Jury Report's "Recommended Rate Increases." See GJR, p. 11 (shaded chart). The Grand Jury’s "Actual Rate Increases" (29%, 3%, 2.5%, 2.6&, 2.6%) in the shaded chart on page 11 has no basis in fact.

Adopted 2016 Water Rate Increases (Single Family Home):

Starting Point 7 HCF Customer 17 HCF Customer
2/8/2017 39% 31%
11/8/2017 18% 17%
11/8/2018 14% 14%
11/8/2019 5% 1%
11/8/2020 1/2% 1/3%
Source: City of St. Helena (2016) Water and Wastewater Rate Study, Final, October 31, 2016, by Hansford Economic Consulting, p. 15 (Figures 8 & 9). The Rate Study presents the increases in dollars; I have converted them to rounded percentages. For those who wish to check my math (I welcome that!), the dollar increase numbers are: For the 7 HCF monthly customer, Figure 7 stated: "Current, $59, 2/8/2017, $82; 11/8/2017, $97; 11/8/2018, $111; 11/8/2019, $117; 11/8/2020, $122; 11/8/202, $128." For the 17 HCF

Page 49 of 473 ends

27 monthly customer, Figure 8 stated: "Current, $110; 2/8/2017, $144; 11/8/17, $169; 11/8/2018, $193; 11/8/2019. $200; 11/8/2020, $208; 11/8/2021, $215." Note: City of St. Helena Resolution No. 2016-162, approved by Alan Galbraith, Mayor, on November 29, 2016, recites that the City Council accepted the draft 2016 Rate Study on September 27, 2016, and formally approved it on November 20, 2016. The Grand Jury in the shaded box on page 11 presents its "Recommended Rate Increases and Actual Rate Increases by fiscal year, starting with FY 2016/17 and ending with FY 2020/21. There are no numbers resembling either the Grand Jury "Recommended Rate Increases (58%, 3%, 3%, 3%, 3% 3%) or the Grand Jury's "Actual Rate Increases" (25%, 3.7%,

3.7%, 3.7%, 3.7%) in Final Rate Study of Hansford Economic Consulting.

The same remains true if the recommended rate increases approved by the City Council on November 29, 2016, are converted from fixed date to fiscal year.

Adopted 2023 Water Rate Increases:

FY 2024 (9/1/2023) 28%
FY 2025 (7/1/24) 8%
FY 2026 (7/1/25) 8%
FY 2027 (7/1/26) 8%
FY 2028 (7/1/27) 8%
Source: City of St. Helena Water and Wastewater Cost of Service and Rate Study, Final Report (April 20, 2023) by Raftelis
Note: The Grand Jury presents the same rates as "recommended" and "actual in the shaded box on page 14 of the Grand Jury Report.

Discussion:

The City Council each time (2011, 2016, 2023) approved the general water rate increases recommended by the city's consultants in their final reports. These appear to be the water rate studies "analyzed" by the Grand Jury. GJR, p. 9.

Quick review:
(1) In 2011, the City Council adopted the "Recommended Rate Increases" in the Grand Jury Report, page 11. The 2011 "Actual Rate Increases" in the Grand Jury Report are a fiction of the Grand Jury. There is no evidentiary support for them.

Page 50 of 473 ends

28 (2) In 2016, the City Council formally adopted the consultant-recommended rate increases in Resolution No. 2016-162 (November 29, 2016). The 2016 "Recommended Rate Increases: and the 2016 "Actual Rate Increases" on page 13 of the Grand Jury Report are Grand Jury fictions. There is no evidentiary support for them. (3) In 2023, the Grand Jury on page 24 correctly states the recommended and actual increases, which were the same.

This then leaves us with addressing the Grand Jury's formal finding that St. Helena rate increases totaled "approximately 183% between 2011-2025." GJR, p. 24, finding F1.

The Grand Jury summarily states this number; it does not explain its calculation -- but it is close. The correct number, as established in this Appendix A by adding the actual rate increases in the 2011, 2016, and 2023 rates studies between 2011-2025 is 194% (for the 7HCF customer) or 181% for the 17 HCF customer. The Grand Jury's total of 183% was pretty much on target.

That the Grand Jury 183% was well within the ballpark cannot be allowed to obscure the basic problem with its presentation of the recommended and actual rate increase numbers. By slashing the "recommended rate increases" in 2011 and 2016, the Grand Jury make it appear that the St. Helena City Council intentionally declined to support the financial needs of its Water Enterprise, when the real rate increase numbers show exactly the opposite. The Councils in 2011, 2016, and 2023 fully supported consultant-driven recommendations, taking no small amount of political heat, to provide the Water Enterprise with the financial resources to rebuild itself. It is a good story of sound Councillevel decision-making -- and not the one told in the Grand Jury Report.

Page 51 of 473 ends

1 GALBRAITH PUBLIC COMMENT 3

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.

Page 52 of 473 ends

2 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 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.

Page 53 of 473 ends

3 • 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, 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, stated in conclusory words and 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

Page 54 of 473 ends

4 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 Grand Jury Report. (Council members during my mayorship included Sharon Crull, Paul Dohring, Mary Koberstein, Gregg Pitts, and Peter White, all with impressive resumes.)
• Then there is the troublesome wording of Grand Jury finding 7. GJR, p. 26. It is in the present tense: "St. Helena suffers from a lack of governance, poor oversight {and} ineffective management by the City Council and Coty Manager, and a lack of professional management expertise." The 2025-2026 Grand Jury in a report dated June 24, 2026 in plain English, for the world to see, establishes as a finding of act that Mayor Paul Dohring, Vice Mayor Michelle Deasy, Aaaron Barak, Kate Spadoratto, and Scott Diaz (with but just one month on the Council) are all found to be unfit to hold office. A reviewing judge would recognize the inappropriateness of such a finding by a civil grand jury, an arm of the Court -- and no doubt be stunned by the audaciousness of it.
• 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

Page 55 of 473 ends

5 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? 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" (59 votes)? What is the relevance of a close mayoral election to "Murky Waters"?
• 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

Page 56 of 473 ends

6 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. That was the case in 2016, during my mayorship. City Council Resolution 2016-162.) It is improbable that a 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 and conclusory 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

Page 57 of 473 ends

7 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? • 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. An investigator would start with a Google search, entering "John Ferons" or "John Ferons Napa." He would immediately learn that he was the Public Works Director in Yountville, holding that position since 2021. He would also find that his work phone number is helpfully provided. He would deduce that Mr. Ferons would likely know the name(s) of his immediate predecessors in St. Helena. Calling him up, he would identify himself and then ask, "Mr. Ferons, could you please provide my with the name or names of St. Helena's Public Works Director in 2010 and 2011." Mr. Ferons would not need to pause and think: "It was me."
• The same goes for Erica Ahmann 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. Her name pops right up on Google, with substantial biographical detail, including that she left St. Helena after four years as St. Helena's Public Works Director for Public Works Director of American Canyon, where she has been since leaving St. Helena.) • 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

Page 58 of 473 ends

8 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 at 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 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

Page 59 of 473 ends

9 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 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

Page 60 of 473 ends

10 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 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."

Page 61 of 473 ends

11 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 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

Page 62 of 473 ends

12 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 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).

Page 63 of 473 ends

13 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 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

Page 64 of 473 ends

14 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

Page 65 of 473 ends

1 Alan Galbraith Public Comment 4
August 14, 2026
Honorable Scott R.L. Young
Presiding Judge
Napa County Superior Court
825 Brown Street
Napa CA 94559
Dear Judge Young:

This follows up on my letter to the Court of July 31. I regret that the Court could not withdraw the Grand Jury Water Report before the St. Helena City Council undertook its initial discussion of the Grand Jury Report at its regular meeting of August 11.

Let me begin by expressing my appreciation for an email from Court Administration acknowledging receipt of my "complaint."
You might ask why I feel so strongly about the matter. I received an email from a City Council colleague that I thought put it very well: "Much of it is shocking, defamatory, and flat out wrong." As she wrote, a vocal group in St. Helena has "happily spread all of this information as far and wide as they are possibly able." The Grand Jury went out of its way to insert our names into its official report. The reputational damage is essentially impossible to undo. The civil grand Jury is an arm of the Court. Folks accept a civil grand jury's findings with little or no question.

I have considerable experience with "real" grand juries. This came not only from my law firm, Williams & Connolly LLP, a leading criminal defense firm with special expertise on grand jury issues, and from six weeks of daily service on a special homicide grand jury with responsibility for tens of homicide cases. The target of a "real," grand jury, if indicted, can clear his name. There is due process of law. The target of a civil grand jury has no such opportunity. The only modicum of due process protection is in the Court's review of civil grand jury reports before their release. I think the absence of proper process in this matter is integral to my effort to ensure that nothing like what happened here happens to another civic leader in Napa County.

There are additional serious ramifications from the Grand Jury's Water Report of which your Honor should be aware: (1) a grand jury report disparaging present and past council members discourages qualified candidate from seeking public office in St. Helena.

What person who values his or her integrity and standing in the community would want to hold office, only to become victim of a hindsight reputational assault by a Napa County

Page 66 of 473 ends

2 civil grand jury? Second, and immediately: the City Council has placed a local sales tax increase on the ballot for this November's election. The social media promotion of the Grand Jury Report badly damages its electoral prospects. Why give St. Helena more money, when the Napa County Grand Jury, an arm of the Court, has found that the City Council and City management are incapable of managing public resources? As the Court assesses my complaint, I would like it to focus on the documents enclosed with this letter.

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." The main updates in this document over the one included with my letter of July 31 are: (1) further documentation that water quality was not an issue before 2018 (the last year I can authoritatively address) and (2) it adds specific information related to the 2016 Water Rate Increase from the 2016 consultant rate report. As to the 2016 rate increase, the Grand Jury states that the initial recommended increase was 63%. This is a concocted number, as I detail in the revised comments, with specific citation of City Council Resolution No. 2016-162 signed by me.

2. "Final Comment of Former Mayor Alan Galbraith on the 2015-16 Grand Jury's Final St. Helena Water Report." I filed an earlier version of this document as public comment for the City Council's August 11 meeting. My goal was to provoke Council discussion. My main point remains: the Court failed in its "review" obligation. Section One was included in draft form, and labelled as such, in my letter to the Court of July 31.

Section Two is new to the Court (not included in the draft).

3. The 2011 Rate Increase Documents, Agenda Item # 10, April 26, 2011, consisting of the Staff Report, the Proposed Ordinance, the City of St. Helena Meting Public Notice, and Final Report, Water and Wastewater Rate Study, March 31, 2011, authored by The Reed Group, Inc. It is important that the Court have this document so that it can see for itself the misuse of it by the Grand Jury, as detailed in my review of the Grand Jury Report. The key exhibit in the Reed Report is Exhibit II-2 on pages 14-15 of The Reed Report (handwritten pages 31-32 in the agenda package). I have highlighted key lines. Also, I have highlighted the language on page 12 of The Reed Report (handwritten page 29) quoted out of context by the Grand Jury on page 10 of its Report. I have yellow-highlighted the text.

I am willing to provide other contemporaneous documents in my possession at the Court's request; these relate to the 2010-2011 period and the just acquired 2016 rate study.

I do not urge the Court to watch the video of the City Council meeting of August 11 as it seeks to grapple with the Grand Jury Report. Except for the Mayor, this is the first grand

Page 67 of 473 ends

3 jury report council members have undertaken to consider. They know that it is problematic but want to be respectful in deference to the Grand Jury. No city council should be put through what the St. Helena City Council is currently experiencing. It is hard to watch.

Finally, as my correspondence with the Court is being treated as a complaint, and in my experience a complaint ends with "relief requested," I request that the Court, invoking its inherent authority over grand jury matters, recall the Grand Jury Water Report, direct that the Grand Jury Water Report be deemed stricken from the permanent reports of the 2025- 2026 Napa County Grand Jury, and grant such other and further relief as the Court finds in the interest of justice.

I look forward to the resolution of my complaint.

Respectfully Submitted
Alan Galbraith
Mayor, City of St. Helena 2014-2018
[email protected]

Page 68 of 473 ends

Alan Galbraith Public Comment 5
August 16, 2026
Honorable Scott R.L. Young
Presiding Judge
Napa County Superior Court
825 Brown Street
Napa CA 94559
In the Matter of:

Napa County Grand Jury 2025-2016 Final Report (June 24, 2026) Lapsed Leadership: At. Helena's Problematic Pipes and Murky Waters Dear Judge Young:

I write one more time because I have come to the conclusion, as hard as it may be, that there is no innocent explanation for the actual rate increase numbers in the Grand Jury's shaded box for the 2011 rate increase and no innocent explanation for either the Grand Jury's recommended or actual rate increase numbers for the 2016 rate increase.

These numbers appear to be manufactured by the Grand Jury; they do not come from the 2011 and 2016 consultant rate reports that the Grand Jury's Report acknowledges were in the Grand Jury's possession.

I am providing my further revised analysis of the Grand Jury Report along with new Exhibit A. I have tabbed and highlighted my analysis so that you can readily grasp the factual basis for my conclusion of no innocent explanation. Exhibit A presents the facts in readily understandable format. In documentary substantiation, I am also enclosing the 2016 rate report along with the covering City Council Resolution No. 2016-162 adopting the rates in the Report. My letter of August 14 included the documents relevant to the 2011 rate increase. I have also included a copy of the Grand Jury Report with yellow highlighting so that your Honor can visually grasp the central materiality of the Grand Jury 2011 and 2016 rate misrepresentations to the Grand Jury's Report.

The St. Helena City Council will be taking up again the Council's proposed response to the Grand Jury Report at its next regular meeting on August 25. It should not be required to finalize responses to a Grand Jury Report, issued by an arm of the Court, when the Court in on notice of likely intentional material falsehood.

Page 69 of 473 ends

Please treat this letter as "Count II" ("Grand Jury Misconduct") of my complaint. It presents an independent and separate ground from the ground ("Review Failures") set forth in my letter to the Court of August 14.

I strongly urge that the Court withdraw the Grand Jury Report before the St. Helena City Council meeting of August 25 when the Council will be considering for a second time the City's responses to the Grand Jury Report.

Respectfully yours,
Alan Galbraith
Mayor, City of St. Helena (2014-16)
Foreperson, Napa County Civil Grand Jury (2013-2014)
[email protected]
* * * * * * * * * *
After Note: When I mailed this letter, I was under the misapprehension that the St. Helena City Council would be agendizing the Grand Jury Report at its next regular meeting. Upon being advised that the matter was concluded, I immediately so informed the Court be email to Court Administration

Page 70 of 473 ends

June 10, 2026

VIA EMAIL
Leza Mikhail, Director of Community Development
Community Development Department
City of St. Helena
1088 College Avenue
St. Helena, CA 94574
[email protected]
RE: PL25-034 (Spring Vineyard Townhomes) – Incomplete
Inconsistency Review; Missing General Plan Policy Analysis and Fire Code Compliance
Dear Director Mikhail:

On behalf of the Saint Helena Neighborhood Association (“SHNA”), we write to advise that the Inconsistency Letter issued May 8, 2026, for the Spring Vineyard Townhomes Project (“Project”) is incomplete and fails to address mandatory General Plan policies and Development Code requirements that render the project inconsistent with the City’s adopted planning documents and render it ineligible for ministerial “by-right” approval under SB 330.

I. Missing General Plan Policy Analysis: Farmland Conversion (LUS.G) The project site is mapped as Prime Farmland under the California Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. St. Helena General Plan Policy LUS.G explicitly requires:

Evaluate all discretionary land use applications, rezonings, and/or General Plan amendments, including those outside the Urban Limit Line, to determine their potential for impacts on Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland

Page 71 of 473 ends

Leza Mikhail
June 10, 2026

Page 2 ends

of Statewide Importance mapped by the State Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program and avoid converting these farmlands where feasible.

Where conversion of farmlands mapped by the state cannot be avoided, require long-term preservation of at least one acre of existing farmland of equal or higher quality for each acre of state-designated farmland that would be rezoned or redesignated to non-agricultural uses.

The Project proposes converting approximately 4.4 acres of mapped Prime Farmland from agricultural (vineyard) use to residential use. The Inconsistency Letter contains no analysis of whether conversion can be feasibly avoided, and makes no finding regarding farmland preservation requirements. This constitutes a significant inconsistency with a mandatory General Plan policy.

II. Missing Analysis of Codified Water Management Framework (SHMC §§ 13.10.010–13.10.030 and §§ 13.12.010–13.12.030)
St. Helena Municipal Code Chapter 13.10 (Water Management Plan), adopted in 2012, remains codified and technically in force. It establishes a mandatory water allocation framework requiring:

1. The City Council to adopt a Water Allocation Resolution defining available water resources, land use categories eligible for allocation, and the discrete quantity allocated to each category (SHMC § 13.10.020(A)).

2. For projects resulting in net increase in water use, the Director of Public Works must evaluate whether sufficient water allocation exists in the applicable land use category; if insufficient, the application cannot be processed (SHMC § 13.10.030(A)(1)–(5)).

The City apparently has never adopted the required Water Allocation Resolution; yet Chapter 13.10 has not been formally repealed, superseded, or clarified through subsequent ordinance or resolution.

The City has adopted SHMC Chapter 13.12 (Water Use Efficiency and New Development) and an associated Water Neutral Policy for Development, which operationalize water management through quantitative water analysis and retrofit

Page 72 of 473 ends

Leza Mikhail
June 10, 2026

Page 3 ends

requirements. The Water Neutral Policy requires project applicants to submit a quantitative water analysis comparing baseline water demand (150 gpd/bedroom for residential) to proposed demand, accounting for water-conserving fixtures, and to demonstrate water neutrality through on-site conservation measures and/or off-site retrofitting of existing homes.

The City’s practice apparently has been to enforce Chapter 13.12 and the Water Neutral Policy rather than Chapter 13.10. However, this practice has not been formalized through ordinance amendment, repeal, or City Council resolution clarifying the relationship between the two frameworks.

The inconsistency letter must address this ambiguity. A codified ordinance remains in force until formally repealed or superseded. The applicant and the City are both entitled to clarity regarding which water management standards apply to this project. The May 8, 2026 inconsistency letter should have, but failed to:
• Acknowledge the existence of Chapter 13.10 or its current status. • Explain whether Chapter 13.10 has been formally superseded by Chapter

13.12. • Address the applicability of either framework to Spring Vineyard • Require the applicant to submit a water demand analysis. • Require the applicant to demonstrate water neutrality through on-site conservation measures or off-site retrofitting.
• Identify retrofit requirements or address in-lieu fee provisions Until the City formally addresses the codified water management requirements and the operative water efficiency standards, the inconsistency review is incomplete.

III. Missing Health & Safety Standard: Fire Apparatus Access Roads (SHMC § 15.36.100(D))
The Inconsistency Letter omits any reference to St. Helena Municipal Code §

15.36.100(D), which currently1 provides:
1 As you are likely aware, on May 12, 2026, the City Council, in response to a qualified referendum petition, voluntarily rescinded the portion of Ordinance No. 2026-03 which

Page 73 of 473 ends

Leza Mikhail
June 10, 2026

Page 4 ends

D. Developments of one, two-family or multi family dwellings where the number of dwelling units exceeds thirty (30) shall be provided with two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads, and shall meet the requirements of Section D104.3.

The Spring Vineyard project proposes 78 dwelling units, far exceeding the 30-unit threshold. The project narrative contains no analysis of how the project will accommodate two separate fire apparatus access roads, nor does the Inconsistency Letter identify this as an inconsistency requiring resolution. Please note that the tworoad requirement is a public health and safety requirement and not a mere development standard that can be waived under the Density Bonus Law.

The absence of this requirement from the City’s consistency review suggests either a clerical oversight or an attempt to avoid addressing a material constraint on project feasibility. Either way, the omission renders the inconsistency review incomplete.

III. Effect on By-Right/Ministerial Eligibility
The developer has asserted in its application materials that the Project qualifies for “by-right approval through the City’s ministerial minor design review process, consistent with state housing law.” This assertion is premature and legally incorrect if the Project is inconsistent with mandatory General Plan policies and development code requirements.

Government Code § 65589.5(j)(2)(A)(i) requires that the City review housing development projects for consistency with “any applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision.” The statute does not permit the City to selectively omit policies from its consistency analysis. If the project purported to delete the long-standing provision of Section 15.36.100(D) and adopt in its place the 2025 California Fire Code which includes an exception to the two-access road requirement for projects where all units are equipped with approved sprinklers. As a result of the referendum petition and the rescission, that portion of Ordinance No. 2026-03 was never enacted. Therefore, Section 15.36.100(D), as first enacted in 2016 by Ordinance No. 16-15, and re-enacted verbatim in 2019 and 2022, remains the operative law of the City of St.

Helena and requires, without exception, two fire access roads for all residential developments of more than thirty units.

Page 74 of 473 ends

Leza Mikhail
June 10, 2026

Page 5 ends

is inconsistent with Policy LUS.G and/or SHMC § 15.36.100(D), it does not qualify for ministerial approval.

A housing project is entitled to streamlined/ministerial treatment only if it can be designed to comply with all applicable objective standards, or if specific waivers under the Density Bonus Law are properly granted. Here, Policy LUS.G (farmland preservation) is not a design standard subject to density bonus waivers, and SHMC §

15.36.100(D)is a life-safety requirement that likewise cannot be waived under the Density Bonus Law
IV. Request for Supplemental Inconsistency Letter
Pursuant to Government Code § 65589.5(j)(2)(A)(i), the City must notify applicants of “any project inconsistencies” with applicable policies within 30 days of determining the application complete. That deadline has passed, but the City’s initial letter was demonstrably incomplete.

SHNA requests that the City, within 10 business days, issue a supplemental Inconsistency Letter that:

1. Analyzes the project’s consistency with General Plan Policy LUS.G and identifies what farmland preservation measures, if any, the applicant proposes;

2. Explicitly identifies the project’s consistency or inconsistency with SHMC § 15.36.100(D) (two fire apparatus access roads for 30+ unit developments) and requires the applicant to demonstrate how the project will accommodate this mandatory requirement; and

3. Clarifies whether the project qualifies for ministerial/by-right approval or whether the inconsistencies identified above require discretionary General Plan amendment, variance, or other non-ministerial action.

Page 75 of 473 ends

Leza Mikhail
June 10, 2026

Page 6 ends

Thank you for your consideration of these concerns and request.

Yours very truly,

M. R. WOLFE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.

Mark R. Wolfe
On behalf of Saint Helena Neighborhood
Association
MRW:
cc: City Manager
City Clerk
City Attorney
City Council

Page 76 of 473 ends

May 29, 2026
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL & U.S. MAIL
St. Helena City Council
c/o City Clerk
City of St. Helena
1480 Main Street
St. Helena, CA 94574
[email protected]
Re: SHMC § 15.36.100(D) – Demand for Enforcement of Reinstated Fire Apparatus Access Roads Requirement
Dear Councilmembers:

This office represents Keep Saint Helena Fire Safe (“KSHFS”), the organization that led the successful referendum effort challenging the deletion of prior Section 15.36.100(D) from the St. Helena Municipal Code (“SHMC”). On May 12, 2026, the City Council voted in accordance with Elections Code section 9241 to rescind the deletion by reinstating that section into the Code. We write to address the City Attorney’s opinion, stated at the May 12 meeting and in the corresponding staff report, that the reinstated language “has no effect” because it references the 2022 California Fire Code rather than the 2025 California Fire Code. This interpretation is legally incorrect, and KSHFS accordingly demands that the City acknowledge the operative effect of the reinstated requirement and enforce it.

I. The City Attorney’s “No Effect” Opinion is legally incorrect.

The City Attorney’s conclusion that reinstated Section 15.36.100(D) has “no effect” because it refers to the 2022 California Fire Code is plainly incorrect. The referendum did not seek to amend an obsolete state code in the abstract. It challenged Ordinance No. 2026-03’s deletion of an existing St. Helena Municipal

Page 77 of 473 ends

St. Helena City Council
May 29, 2026

Page 2 ends

Code provision. The City’s repeal of the challenged portion of Ordinance No. 2026- 03 therefore restored that municipal code provision, and ordinary rules of statutory construction require the restored reference to be read as applying to the successor Fire Code provision unless a contrary intent appears.

A. Government Code Section 9604 Requires Obsolete Code
References to Be Read as References to Successor Provisions.

Government Code section 9604 states the controlling principle. When a statute’s provisions are carried into another law as restatements and continuations rather than as new enactments, “any reference made by any statute, charter or ordinance to such provisions shall, unless a contrary intent appears, be deemed a reference to the restatements and continuations” (Gov. Code § 9604). The rule applies equally to references made by a local ordinance. (City of Santa Cruz v. Superior Court (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 475, 483 (same rules of interpretation of statues apply to interpretation of ordinances).) Section 9604’s purpose, obviously, is to prevent technical recodifications, renumbering, or successor-code updates from nullifying existing law by accident.

Cases apply this rule pragmatically. In Valley Electric Co. of Sacramento v. Slagle (1956) 142 Cal.App.2d 81, 83-84, the court rejected an argument that a statutory reference failed because it cited a repealed Code of Civil Procedure section, holding that the reference applied to the successor provision where the former section had been reenacted as a continuation of existing law. In People v. Oliver (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 920, the court rejected a vagueness challenge to a statute that referred to a nonexistent former Penal Code section, because the successor statute was a restatement of the former provision and the inaccurate reference did not defeat the law’s operation. The Supreme Court itself later affirmed this analysis in People v. Clark (1990) 50 Cal.3d 583, 606 fn. 13, treating the obsolete Penal Code reference as applying to the successor arson provision. Likewise in People v. Richerson (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 1006, 1008-1009, the court held that a Penal Code reference to a repealed Civil Code section should be deemed a reference to the successor Commercial Code provision because the relevant substance had been carried forward and no contrary intent appeared.

Page 78 of 473 ends

St. Helena City Council
May 29, 2026

Page 3 ends

This rule governs the current situation. Section 15.36.100(D) referred to “Section D107.1” of the California Fire Code and imposed a local amendment requiring two separate approved fire apparatus access roads for qualifying residential developments. Ordinance No. 2026-03 did not repeal that requirement because the state abolished the subject matter. It repealed it because the City chose not to carry that local amendment forward when adopting the 2025 California Fire Code. The referendum challenged that legislative choice. Once the referendum qualified, the challenged deletion was suspended, and when the Council elected to repeal the challenged portion rather than place it on the ballot, the deleted municipal code language remained in effect.

B. The City Attorney’s Interpretation Defeats the Purpose of the Referendum and the Voters’ Understanding.

The City Attorney’s contrary position elevates a code-year reference over the substance of the law. The restored provision identifies the same subject, the same Fire Code section number, and the same access-road requirement. The City Attorney’s own impartial summary confirms that understanding: it told voters that if the referendum succeeded, “the previously codified language in Section 15.36.100(D) would remain in the St. Helena Municipal Code.” Having used that official description to qualify the referendum, the City cannot now recast the measure as legally meaningless.

It is well established that courts interpret voter-enacted measures under the same principles that govern statutory construction, with voter intent as the controlling factor. (Robert L. v. Superior Court (2003) 30 Cal.4th 894, 900-901; People v.

Park (2013) 56 Cal.4th 782, 796.) When the meaning or effect of a measure is disputed, courts may consider the materials presented to voters, including official analyses, summaries, and ballot arguments, to determine what the voters understood the measure to do. (Robert L., supra, 30 Cal.4th at pp. 900-901; Horwich v. Superior Court (1999) 21 Cal.4th 272, 276-277 (“[t]he intent prevails over the letter, and the letter will, if possible, be so read as to conform to the spirit of the act”).) Once voter intent is ascertained, the measure must be construed to conform to that intent; “the voters should get what they enacted, not more and not less.” (Park, supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 796.)

Page 79 of 473 ends

St. Helena City Council
May 29, 2026

Page 4 ends

Here, the City Attorney’s own impartial summary told voters that the referendum would “return this deleted language to Section 15.36.100 of the St.

Helena Municipal Code” and would restore the requirement that qualifying developments be provided with “two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads.” The electorate was not voting on a technical code-year citation. The substance of the referendum was the restoration of the local fire-safety requirement.

Reading reinstated Section 15.36.100(D) as having “no effect” because it references the 2022 Fire Code would defeat the very purpose described to voters and would reduce the qualified referendum to a nullity. Courts do not adopt interpretations that produce anomalous consequences inconsistent with voter intent, and the initiative and referendum powers must be liberally construed so they are not improperly annulled. (Horwich, supra, 21 Cal.4th at pp. 284-285; Rossi v. Brown (1995) 9 Cal.4th 688, 695-696.)
The City Attorney’s “no effect” theory would also undermine requirements of the Elections Code. Once a referendum qualifies, Elections Code section 9241 gives the Council only two choices: repeal the challenged ordinance in its entirety or submit it to the voters. The Council selected repeal. A repeal that leaves the referendum’s subject matter with “no effect” would not be a genuine repeal of the challenged deletion; it would be an administrative end-run around the referendum power. Courts construe the referendum power liberally to protect the electorate’s reserved legislative authority, not to permit a municipality to nullify a qualified referendum through a hyper-technical reading of a code citation.

C. The City’s Own Triennial Code Practice Confirms That the 2022 Reference Is a Drafting Artifact.

The City’s own treatment of Ordinance No. 2026-03 confirms this construction. In adopting the 2025 California Fire Code, the City Council carried forward numerous prior local amendments to Chapter 15.36 and updated their codeyear references from the 2022 California Fire Code to the 2025 California Fire Code.

The staff report expressly described this as updating Municipal Code section

15.36.100 for the “correct date of the new code.” The local amendment to Section D107.1 was different only because Ordinance No. 2026-03 deleted it rather than carrying it forward. As a result, the only version of that local amendment presented in the referendum materials was the prior codified language, which naturally referenced

Page 80 of 473 ends

St. Helena City Council
May 29, 2026

Page 5 ends

the 2022 Fire Code because that was the code cycle in effect when the local amendment was last codified.

That context defeats the City Attorney’s current “no effect” theory. The referendum did not concern a technical preference for the 2022 Fire Code over the 2025 Fire Code. It concerned whether the City would carry forward or delete the local amendment requiring two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads for qualifying residential developments. Once the referendum qualified and the Council elected to repeal the challenged deletion rather than submit it to the voters, the legal effect was to preserve that local amendment. The reference to the 2022 Fire Code should therefore be construed, under Government Code section 9604 and the authorities applying it, as a reference to the successor 2025 provision addressing the same subject. That is precisely how the City treated the other local amendments it chose to carry forward.

The same point applies to the obvious “Appendix B” typographical error. The City Attorney’s impartial summary itself acknowledged that Section D107.1 appears in Appendix D, not Appendix B. The City cannot acknowledge that the provision contains a correctable typographical error for purposes of explaining the referendum to voters, but then rely on similarly technical drafting artifacts to declare the restored provision meaningless. The proper course is to construe and administer Section

15.36.100(D) as the restored local amendment to the current California Fire Code provision corresponding to Section D107.1, and, if desired, to make non-substantive conforming codifier corrections changing “2022” to “2025” and “Appendix B” to “Appendix D.”
D. Section 15.36.100(D) Remains Operative and Must Be Enforced.

At most, then, the reference to the 2022 Fire Code is a drafting artifact of the triennial code cycle. It is no more fatal than the obsolete statutory references in Valley Electric, Oliver, Clark, or Richerson. The proper construction is that the now restored Section 15.36.100(D) continues as a local amendment to the successor California Fire Code provision addressing the same subject, namely Appendix D, Section D107.1, unless the City can identify a contrary legislative intent. There is none. The referendum’s purpose, the City Attorney’s impartial summary, and the Council’s

Page 81 of 473 ends

St. Helena City Council
May 29, 2026

Page 6 ends

repeal ordinance all point in the same direction: the challenged deletion was rescinded, and Section 15.36.100(D) remains operative.

Accordingly, the City should promptly confirm that Section 15.36.100(D) remains in the St. Helena Municipal Code and is enforceable as a local amendment to the currently applicable California Fire Code provision corresponding to Section D107.1. If the City believes conforming cleanup language is desirable, it may adopt a ministerial clarification replacing “California Fire Code 2022” with “California Fire Code 2025” and correcting “Appendix B” to “Appendix D,” but it may not treat the voter-qualified referendum and Council repeal as a nullity.

II. Demanded Council Action
For the above reasons, KSHFS respectfully demands that the City:

1. Acknowledge in writing that Section 15.36.100(D) is operative and enforceable as currently written;

2. Direct the Fire Chief and Planning Department to enforce the two-road requirement for all residential development projects with 30 or more dwelling units, including without limitation the Spring Vineyard development project currently undergoing planning review;

3. Immediately review all pending development applications for compliance with the reinstated requirement; and

4. Revoke or condition any approvals (including the Spring Grove subdivision approval) that do not comply with the two-road requirement.

We ask that the City confirm in writing its intent to enforce Section

15.36.100(D) within 30 days from receipt of this letter. If the City maintains the position that the reinstated language has no effect and refuses to enforce it, KSHFS will file a Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and/or Petition for Writ of Mandate in Superior Court, which will include a claim for attorney’s fees and costs under Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5.

Page 82 of 473 ends

St. Helena City Council
May 29, 2026

Page 7 ends

Thank you for your timely consideration.

Most sincerely,

M. R. WOLFE & ASSOCIATES, P.C
Mark R. Wolfe on behalf of
Saint Helena Neighborhood Association
MRW:
cc: City Attorney

Page 83 of 473 ends

8.25.26 City Council, General Public, Staff,
Vision matters. Context matters. The best way to craft a vision is deep thinking and conversation. The best tool for executing a vision is proper context. Why isn’t the council having discussions and crafting vision around the context of this place? You should be, it’s within your purview, it’s your job, and it needs to happen. That’s the whole thing. Thinking deeply and connecting dots to make this place better at every turn possible.

A lot of people talk about how this place often feels empty and without energy, it does sometimes. Vintage Hall during council meetings also feels empty and without energy and the two are intricately connected. Everything about this current council process, the feel, the vibe, is counterintuitive to creation. Council members sit behind the wall of the dais having made decisions long before the meetings start, it’s not a secret.

From a human behavior and productivity perspective one of the best things you could do is to get rid of the dais, and get rid of the lectern. Get a big table, sit across from one another, look each other in the eye when you speak, and when someone has a public comment give them a seat. Start connecting thoughts and people and engaging.

The committees we now have are one of the best things that’s happened in a very long time for this reason, sitting at a table having conversation. We need more of them.

We need an economic development committee.

We need a housing committee.

We need a zoning and built environment committee.

Then all the committees get in lock step through you, the council.

Your job is to do this. Connect dots, create vision, do the work, and make it happen through clean public process with clean information. That’s how you get better infrastructure, better cohesive built environment, and a better thriving place to live.

Page 84 of 473 ends

We’re 150 years old and we don’t have a city hall we own. Yet we live in one of the most desirable places in the world with plenty of people who visit. Let’s rally around all the great things and start doing everything else better. We can. It’s both……and.

Try starting tonight with something simple. Discuss the public comments received.

Despite knowing full well that in this context they are essentially useless, people keep trying because they care. Staff is not going to be offended, you’re not stepping on their toes by asking proper questions. We’re talking about money, and time, and work.

All serious things worth serious discussion and support. Stop pretending and start providing a genuine platform. That’s what it’s going to take to accelerate the needle toward progress.

I’m not running for council to complain about the past. I’m running for council because past experience tells me that making public comment about important things should be a valuable tool in a town this size, with so many incredibly smart and experienced people. Instead comments and residents are often treated as a nuisance, and tolerated while waiting to cast a predetermined vote. It is painfully obvious. Like having a conversation with someone knowing full well they are not listening and just thinking about what they want to say next.

We have a grand jury report that calls out failed leadership. We have an agenda item tonight from a hired consultant that’s discussing the need for utilizing recycled water.

Paradoxically we have a 2011 grand jury report response from the City saying utilizing recycled water is completely unfeasible despite the plan at the time to retrofit the waste water plant to produce it. Now we have a retrofitted waste water plant capable of producing recycled water and no plan on how to use it. Not to long ago we were paying a consultant to study how to raise the reservoir dam wall to hold more water, it’s all connected. Yes we need institutional knowledge but we also need individuals who are curious, and have a desire to connect the dots and discover how to do things better.

A simple safe item tonight would be the proposal for a community forest on the agenda of the last water committee meeting. Staff won’t put the separate item of recycled water together with this because they haven’t been asked, that’s your job. To come up with ideas through discussion and guide the progress of our town. Here’s an example, “I move to place on the next agenda a discussion around the possibility of using drip emitter distribution of our recycled water to expand the community forest and help replenish our aquifer” As a council member I would say no to the conservation easement but if the forest is expanded and becomes an integrated aspect of our wastewater management, we’re better utilizing our land, and that’s still more, and positive, and something productive.

Page 85 of 473 ends

Maybe it’s a an awful idea. Maybe it would be great, but the only way you’d find out would be by discussing it to see.

You have a great deal of opportunity, constantly. It’s your job as council to be connecting the dots, and you’re not, that’s a major contributing factor to all the problems of the past with so many things, as well as their recurrence. Decades old CIP projects and a zoning code that is the antithesis of progress and sets the town up for failure among them.

People are listening, they need to see there is potential for progress and optimism, and it has nothing to do with factions, social media clubs, nimbys or yimbys, conservative or liberal, or any other term made to put people in a box. It has everything to do with living in a community and acknowledging that thinking critically and acting on potentiality is how progress is made.

Sincerely,
Joshua Parke

Page 86 of 473 ends

CITY OF ST. HELENA

PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING AND HONORING THE DEDICATED SERVICE

OF THE DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES/TREASURER,

MANDY KELLOGG
WHEREAS, Mandy Kellogg’s career with the City began on February 17, 2009, when she joined the organization as a Senior Accounting Technician, embarking on a remarkable 17-year journey marked by continuous professional growth, leadership, and exemplary public service; and WHEREAS, through her strong work ethic and commitment to the City, she advanced through numerous key roles, serving as Management Analyst (2014), Senior Management Analyst (2015), Administrative Services Manager (2016), Finance Manager (2019), and ultimately assuming the role of Director of Administrative Services on June 7, 2021; and
WHEREAS, while serving in her executive role, she demonstrated a strong commitment to personal and professional excellence by earning a Master’s Degree in Public Administration from Sonoma State University between January 2020 and December 2023; and
WHEREAS, during her tenure, she left an indelible mark on the City’s financial integrity and strategic operations, playing a central role in delivering the City’s very first biennial budget, guiding critical water rate studies, guiding labor negotiations, and providing invaluable staff support and stewardship to the Finance Committee; and
WHEREAS, her leadership during the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic and the aftermath of the 2020 Glass Fire modernized the City’s infrastructure by transitioning operations to cloud-based systems, a critical foresight that ultimately enabled the City to navigate a 2025 cyber-attack with resilience, minimal disruption, and maximum continuity for residents; and WHEREAS, her departure at the end of August 2026 marks the conclusion of a distinguished chapter of dedicated public service, leaving behind a legacy of sound fiscal management, modernized operations, and dedication to the community;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Paul Dohring, Mayor of the City of St. Helena, along with the City Council, do hereby express our profound gratitude and deep appreciation to Mandy Kellogg for over 17 years of leadership, devotion, and invaluable service to the City of St. Helena, and extend our warmest wishes for continued success, health, and happiness in all her future endeavors.

DATED this 25 day of August, 2026.
_____________________________________
Paul J. Dohring
Mayor, City of St. Helena

Page 87 of 473 ends

Agenda Report to the City Council
Agenda Section: CONSENT ITEMS
Department: Public Works Department
DATE: August 25, 2026
FROM: Joseph Leach, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Consideration and Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Amendment No. 2 to St. Helena Contract FY2025-019 with West Yost & Associates, Inc for the Preparation of a Water
Management Plan, Increasing the Contract Amount by $93,000 for a Total Contract Amount Not-To-Exceed $316,628 and increasing the overall project budget by $12,000 to account for staff time.

RECOMMENDED
ACTION:

Authorize the contract increase, the budget amendment and approve the attached resolution.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

This item was previously heard at the August 11, 2026 City Council meeting.

STATEMENT OF THE
PURPOSE:

To increase the contract amount for contract FY2025-019 to allow for the completion of the Water Management Plan and increase the overall project budget.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: The financial impact is $32,055 using 2024 Water Revenue Bonds, increasing the total project budget from $284,573 to an amount not-to-exceed $316,628.

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

This item was originally heard at the August 11, 2026 City Council meeting. The agenda packet is attached.

DISCUSSION:

As discussed at the August 11, 2026 City Council meeting, the Council had concerns over the amount of the requested by West Yost, as directed by staff, to complete the Water Management Plan.

As noted in the original report and attachments, the largest single Task Item was Item 4, Project Management, Meetings and QA/QC of $69,986. Subsequently, staff coordinated with West Yost and determined that of that amount, $44,118 was allocated to meetings (i.e.

Page 88 of 473 ends

Groundwater Sustainability Agency, City Council, W/WW Advisory Comimittee and Project Progress Meetings). The balance of the Task Item ($25,868) was proposed to be expended on Project Management and processing comments from both W/WW AC members and from the public during the full draft public comment period.

Staff has proposed reducing the number of meeting hours and total proposed contract amendment amount from $99,924 to $93,000 with the noted changes below:

Should Council authorize the recommended amendment, the contract will be a Time & Materials, Not-To-Exceed amount of $304,628.

The resolution and Capital Improvement Plan Project Budget sheet have been updated to reflect the updated budget amount.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

NA
GOAL:

Goal 2: Improve Infrastructure & Further Environmental Sustainability Goal 5: Enhance Quality of Life
Goal 8: Implement Capital Improvement Plans (CIP) Projects Miscellaneous/Other

Page 89 of 473 ends

ATTACHMENTS:

1. 01 - Resolution - WY WMP_082526

2. 02 - W24-03_WMP_Project Sht_082526

3. 03 - West Yost WMP Work Plan and Billable Hours & Rates v1_082526

4. 10.05a - Staff Report - Water Management Plan_081126

5. 10.05b - Resolution - West Yost Water Management Plan_081126

6. 10.05c - West Yost WMP Work Plan and Billable Hours & Rates_081126

7. Public Comment - Joshua Parke

8. Public Comment - Michell Covell 3

Page 90 of 473 ends

CITY OF ST. HELENA
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-__
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO ST. HELENA
CONTRACT FY2025-019 WITH WEST YOST & ASSOCIATES, INC.

FOR THE PREPARATION OF A WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN,
INCREASING THE CONTRACT AMOUNT BY $93,000 FOR A TOTAL
CONTRACT AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $304,628 AND
INCREASING W25-03 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN PROJECT
BUDGET IN THE AMOUNT OF $32,055 FOR A TOTAL PROJECT
BUDGET OF $316,628

RECITALS
A. On October 8, 2024, City Council approved CIP Project W25-03 and approved St.

Helena Contract FY2025-019 with West Yost & Associates for the preparation of a Water Management Plan; and
B. Amendment No. 1 to St. Helena Contract FY2025-019 was executed on May 21, 2026, extending the term of the contract through December 31, 2026; and C. The Water Management Plan was placed on hiatus for 6 months while waiting on results of the groundwater analysis which delayed the project and has resulted in higher billing rates for work that has been pushed back to 2026; and D. Staff have tasked West Yost with additional scope of work, such as creating an online interactive public comment period for the Water Management Plan, as well as attending additional meetings with GSA, the Water & Wastewater Advisory Committee, and City Council; and
E. The higher billing rates for delayed work performed in 2026, together with the additional scope of work, have increased the total cost of the Water Management Plan beyond the amount originally budgeted; and
F. West Yost has provided a work plan with detailed billable hours and billable rates and requests an additional budget of $93,000 to complete W25-03 Water Management Plan, which will increase the project budget by $32,055 for a total project budget of $316,628.

Page 91 of 473 ends

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

1. Authorizes Amendment No. 2 to St. Helena Contract FY2025-019 with West Yost & Associates, Inc. in the amount of $93,000 for a total contract amount not-to-exceed $304,628.

2. Authorizes the City Manager to execute the contract amendment.

3. Budget Amendments are as follows:

Description Fund GL Account Amount
Increase to Project Budget
W25-03 Water
Management Plan -
Design
763 – Water
Revenue Bonds 763-50-30-31-10 20,055
Increase to Project Budget
W25-03 Water
Management Plan – CIP
Overheads
763 – Water
Revenue Bonds 763-50-30-31-80 12,000
TOTAL AMENDMENT 32,055

4. Total Project Funding is as follows:

Description Fund GL Account Amount
W25-03 Water
Management Plan -
Design
763 – Water
Revenue Bonds 763-50-30-31-10 304,628
W25-03 Water
Management Plan – CIP
Overheads
763 – Water
Revenue Bonds 763-50-30-31-80 12,000
TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET 316,628
Approved at a Regular Meeting of the St. Helena City Council on August 25, 2026, by the following vote:

Mayor Dohring:

Vice Mayor Deasy:

Council Member Diaz
Council Member Barak:

Council Member Spadarotto:

Page 92 of 473 ends

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

Page 93 of 473 ends

FY 26 thru FY 30
Capital Improvement Plan
St Helena, CA
Project # W25-03
Project Name Water Management Plan
Total Project
Cost
$316,628 Department Public Works
Category Water Priority High
Phase Active Status Study
Project Location Citywide Expenditure
Account
763-5030-
Strategic Driver Capability
Description
The Water Management Plan will serve as the City's strategic roadmap for the long-term management of its entire water portfolio, including groundwater, surface water, recycled water, and imported sources. Modeled after an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), this plan will guide decisions on supply reliability, conservation, capital investments, and regulatory compliance.

Notes
•FY25 - New project initiated. Budget includes $232,100 for development of the master plan and $52,473 for analysis of new well feasibility.

Plan to execute two PSAs for this work, with City Council authorization targeted for October 8, 2024. •FY26 - Project completion anticipated in FY26Q2.
•FY27 - Project budget increased by $32,055 via resolution on 8/25/26 for West Yost contract amendment No. 2 to total $304,628; added CIP Overhead budget of $12k to capture staff time.

Expenditures Prior FY 26 FY 27 FY 28 FY 29 FY 30 Future Total 3110 - Design 284,573 0 20,055 0 0 0 0 304,628
3180 - CIP Overheads 0 0 12,000 0 0 0 0 12,000
Total 284,573 0 32,055 0 0 0 0 316,628
Funding Sources Prior FY 26 FY 27 FY 28 FY 29 FY 30 Future Total 763-Water Capital
Improvement - Bond 274,573 0 32,055 0 0 0 0 306,628
764-Water Impact Fees 10,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,000
Total 284,573 0 32,055 0 0 0 0 316,628
Produced Using Plan-It CIP Software Page 94 of 473
2020 Research Park Drive
Suite 100
Davis CA 95618
530.756.5905 phone
530.756.5991 fax
westyost.com
June 26, 2026 Updated 08/18/26 SENT VIA: EMAIL
Joe Leach
Public Works Director
City of St. Helena
1088 College Avenue
St. Helena, CA 94574
SUBJECT: Request for Budget Amendment to the Water Management Plan Contract Dear Joe:

The purpose of this letter is to provide the City of St. Helena (City) with a request for a budget amendment for the remaining work for preparation of a Water Management Plan.

BACKGROUND
West Yost is currently under contract with the City to prepare a Water Management Plan (WMP) to document existing water supply demands and resources in the City and to determine a recommended strategy for supporting General Plan implementation moving forward for the City to implement the General Plan while providing an adequate and reliable water supply to the City’s residents and businesses.

The project kicked off in November 2024 and was originally scheduled to be completed within 12 months (by October 2025).

Because of a significant hiatus in the original WMP preparation schedule, between August 2025 and April 2026, caused by a delay in the receipt of the groundwater analysis, additional time and services are needed to complete the WMP. Also, the City has requested additional services that were not included in the original contract scope of services. These additional services will require additional budget.

AMENDMENT REQUEST BY TASK
West Yost requests additional budget for the following tasks:
• Task 1. Data Collection and Review (Task Completed in 2025. No Additional Work Anticipated for this Task)
• Task 2. Draft Water Management Plan
• Task 3. Final Water Management Plan
• Task 4. Project Management, Meetings, and Quality Assurance/Quality Control A detailed description of the additional scope and corresponding additional budget request is provided in the sections that follow.

Page 95 of 473 ends

Mr. Joe Leach
June 26, 2026

Page 2 ends

N-M-C-City of St Helena-LP-2024 Water Management Plan
Task 2. Draft Water Management Plan
While draft Chapters 1, 2, 3, and 4 were thought to be complete in 2025, due to delays in the overall project schedule, these chapters needed to be updated, reformatted, and re-reviewed in 2026 to support keeping the deliverables current and consistent with the latest available information. These efforts were necessary to maintain the quality, accuracy, and relevance of the final deliverables.

In addition, because portions of the Task 2 subtasks remain unbilled and will now be completed in 2026, West Yost’s current 2026 billing rates are now applicable rather than the 2024 and 2025 rates included in the original budget. As a result, additional budget is needed to complete the remaining authorized work under Task 2.

Task 3. Final Water Management Plan
While the overall scope of work and intended deliverables for Task 3 remain unchanged, the extended project schedule has shifted the timing of Task 3 work into 2026. Because this work will now be completed in a later billing period than originally anticipated, West Yost’s 2026 billing rates are applicable to the remaining effort. As a result, additional budget is needed to complete the originally authorized Task 3 work.

Task 4. Project Management, Meetings, and Quality Assurance/Quality Control New scope items have been added to this task since the original contract was signed, including an online interactive public comment period for the WMP and associated comment log. The extended project schedule has shifted a portion of the remaining Task 4 work to 2026. Because this work will now be completed in a later billing period than originally anticipated, West Yost’s 2026 billing rates are applicable to the remaining effort. Additionally, the extended project schedule has required schedule rework, continued check-in meetings to maintain momentum, response to evolving project needs, and additional coordination, requiring more hours than originally anticipated. Several meetings and presentations requested by the City are outside the original scope of services, including attendance at meetings with County staff, City leadership, Water/Wastewater Committee meetings, GSA staff meetings, GSA meetings, and City Council meetings occurring primarily in 2026.

The requested budget amendment allows for attendance at an additional 15 team check-in meetings, compared to the 12 meetings included in the original proposal. The amendment also provides budget for attendance at up to two meetings with GSA staff and/or the GSA, as well as attendance at up to six Water/Wastewater Committee meetings, and attendance at one City Council meeting.

PROJECT BUDGET
The project schedule has extended beyond the timeframe anticipated in the original estimate. The original budget assumed the work would be completed between 2024 and 2025; however, projected completion has shifted into 2026. During this period, standard billing rate adjustments have occurred, including changes associated with staff promotions and updated labor categories for project team members.

West Yost’s proposed level of effort and budget for each of the tasks described above is shown in Table 1.

West Yost will perform the scope of services described above on a time-and-expenses basis, at the billing rates set forth in West Yost’s 2026 Billing Rate Schedule. The requested budget amendment amount is $99,924, for a revised not-to-exceed total amended budget of $311,552. West Yost’s 2026 Billing Rate $93,000 $304,628

Page 96 of 473 ends

Mr. Joe Leach
June 26, 2026

Page 3 ends

N-M-C-City of St Helena-LP-2024 Water Management Plan
Schedule is provided in Attachment A. Any additional services not included in this scope of services will be performed only after receiving written authorization and a corresponding budget augmentation.

Table 1. Estimated Additional Project Hours and Budget
Task
2026 Level of
Effort, hours
2026
Estimated
Budget,
dollars
Notes of Explanation
Task 2. Draft Water Management Plan 96 28,596 Project timeline extension is causing rework.

Task 3. Final Water Management Plan 0 1,342
No additional hours added; the
additional budget accounts for the
increase to 2026 billing rates. 48
hours at blended 2024/2025 rates
was $12,252; 48 hours at 2026
rates is $13,594.

Task 4. Project Management, Meetings,
and Quality Assurance/Quality Control 223 69,986
Due to the project timeline
extension and additional scope
added, an additional 223 hours at
the 2026 billing rate are needed.

Total Additional Project Hours and Budget 319 $99,924
Table 2 shows the contracted original budget by task, and the estimated budget remaining as of June 22, 2026. As of June 22, 2026, there was about $24,648.50 remaining in the contract budget.

Table 2. West Yost Task Budget and Estimated Budget Remaining as of June 22, 2026 Task Task Description
Contracted
Budget,
dollars
Total Estimated(a)
Spent, dollars
Estimated Budget
Remaining,
dollars
1 Data Collection and Review 14,668.00 14,634.75 33.25
2 Draft Water Management Plan 136,830.00 119,844.25 16,985.75 3 Final Water Management Plan 12,252.00 0 12,252.00
4 Project Management, Meetings, and
Quality Assurance/Quality Control 47,878.00 52,500.50 -4,622.50 Total $211,628.00 $186,979.50 $24,648.50
(a) Total invoiced through May 8, 2026, plus estimated costs through June 22, 2026. $26,600
$1,400
$65,000
$93,000

Page 97 of 473 ends

Mr. Joe Leach
June 26, 2026

Page 4 ends

N-M-C-City of St Helena-LP-2024 Water Management Plan
Table 3 shows West Yost’s proposed budget amendment by task, along with the proposed revised budget and the budget remaining by task.

Table 3. Proposed West Yost Task Budget Amendments to Support Water Management Plan Completion
Task
Task
Description
Contracted
Budget,
dollars
Budget
Remaining (as
of June 22,
2026), dollars
Proposed
Budget
Amendment,
dollars
Proposed
Revised
Budget, dollars
Proposed
Revised Budget
Remaining,
dollars
1 Data Collection
and Review 14,668.00 33.25 0.00 14,668.00 33.25
2 Draft Water
Management
Plan
136,830.00 16,985.75 28,596.00 165,426.00 45,581.75
3 Final Water
Management
Plan
12,252.00 12,252.00 1,342.00 13,594.00 13,594.00
4 Project
Management,
Meetings, and
Quality
Assurance/Qua
lity Control
47,878.00 -4,622.50 69,986.00 117,864.00 65,363.50
Total $211,628.00 $24,648.50 $99,924.00 $311,552.00 $124,572.50

SCHEDULE
West Yost is currently working on the Water Management Plan under the remaining existing budget on a schedule closely coordinated with City staff. The progress on the completion of the Water Management Plan will continue following the execution of this amendment. In the event that the existing budget is exhausted prior to execution of this amendment, progress on the Water Management Plan and associated meetings will pause until additional budget is made available. Assuming there is no gap in contract funding, the Water Management Plan is on track for completion in November 2026, as shown in Attachment B, “Water Management Plan Completion” schedule.

Page 98 of 473 ends

Mr. Joe Leach
June 26, 2026

Page 5 ends

N-M-C-City of St Helena-LP-2024 Water Management Plan
Thank you for providing West Yost the opportunity to be of continued service to the City of St. Helena.

We look forward to completing the Water Management Plan with you. Please call if you have any questions or require additional information.

Sincerely,

WEST YOST
Monique Day, PE Elizabeth Drayer, PE
Project Manager Principal-in-Charge
RCE #69793 RCE #46872
Attachment A: West Yost’s 2026 Billing Rate Schedule
Attachment B: Water Management Plan Completion Schedule

Page 99 of 473 ends

West Yost’s 2026 Billing Rate Schedule
Attachment A

Page 100 of 473 ends

(Effective January 1, 2026, through December 31, 2026)*

POSITIONS

ENGINEERING
Principal/Vice President $392
Engineer/Scientist/Geologist Manager I / II $370 / $387 Principal Engineer/Scientist/Geologist I / II $333 / $355 Senior Engineer/Scientist/Geologist I / II $297 / $312
Associate Engineer/Scientist/Geologist I / II $246 / $265 Engineer/Scientist/Geologist I / II / III $191 / $221 / $231 Engineering Aide $117
Field Monitoring Services $145
Administrative I / II / III / IV $107 / $133 / $160 / $176

ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY
Engineering Tech Manager I / II $384 / $387
Principal Tech Specialist I / II $353 / $365
Senior Tech Specialist I / II $320 / $334
Senior GIS Analyst $292
GIS Analyst $277
Technical Specialist I / II / III / IV $206 / $231 / $261 / $291 Technical Analyst I / II $148 / $176
Technical Analyst Intern $119
Cross-Connection Control Specialist I / II / III / IV $154 / $167 / $188 / $208 CAD Manager $233
CAD Designer I / II $181 / $204

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
Senior Construction Manager $373
Construction Manager I / II / III / IV $222 / $237 / $251 / $318 Resident Inspector (Prevailing Wage Groups 4 / 3 / 2 / 1) $200 / $222 / $247 / $256 Apprentice Inspector $181
CM Administrative I / II $96 / $130
Field Services $256
2026 Billing Rate Schedule

LABOR CHARGES (DOLLARS PER HOUR)
■ Hourly rates include charges for technology and communication, such as general and CAD computer software, telephone calls, routine in-house copies/prints, postage, miscellaneous supplies, and other incidental project expenses. ■ Outside services, such as vendor reproductions, prints, and shipping; major West Yost reproduction efforts; as well as engineering supplies, etc., will be billed at the actual cost plus 15%. ■ The Federal Mileage Rate will be used for mileage charges and will be based on the Federal Mileage Rate applicable to when the mileage costs were incurred. Travel other than mileage will be billed at cost. ■ Subconsultants will be billed at actual cost plus 10%. ■ Expert witness services, research, technical review, analysis, preparation, and meetings will be billed at 150% of standard hourly rates. Expert witness testimony and depositions will be billed at 200% of standard hourly rates. ■ A finance charge of 1.5% per month (an annual rate of 18%) on the unpaid balance will be added to invoice amounts if not paid within 45 days from the date of the invoice. * This schedule is updated annually Page 1 of 2

Page 101 of 473 ends

(Effective January 1, 2026, through December 31, 2026)* Equipment Charges

EQUIPMENT
2" Purge Pump & Control Box $300 / day
Aquacalc / Pygmy or AA Flow Meter $28 / day
Emergency SCADA System $35 / day
Field Vehicles (Groundwater) $200 / day
Gas Detector $80 / day
Generator $60 / day
Hydrant Pressure Gauge $10 / day
Hydrant Pressure Recorder, Impulse (Transient) $55 / day Hydrant Pressure Recorder, Standard $40 / day
Low Flow Pump Back Pack $135 / day
Low Flow Pump Controller $200 / day
Powers Water Level Meter $32 / day
Precision Water Level Meter 300ft $30 / day
Precision Water Level Meter 500ft $40 / day
Precision Water Level Meter 700ft $45 / day
QED Sample Pro Bladder Pump $65 / day
Skydio 2+ Drone (2 hour minimum) $100 / hour
Storage Tank $20 / day
Sump Pump $24 / day
Transducer Communications Cable $10 / day
Transducer Components (per installation) $23 / day
Trimble GPS – Geo 7x $220 / day
Tube Length Counter $22 / day
Turbidity Meter $30 / day
Turbidity Meter (2100Q Portable) $35 / day
Vehicle (Construction Management) $18.75 / hour
Water Flow Probe Meter $20 / day
Water Quality Meter $50 / day
Water Quality Multimeter $185 / day
Well Sounder $30 / day

BILLING RATES
2026 Billing Rate Schedule
* This schedule is updated annually Page 2 of 2

Page 102 of 473 ends

N-M-C-City of St Helena-LP-2024 Water Management Plan
Water Management Plan Completion Schedule
Attachment B

Page 103 of 473 ends

ID Task
Mode
Task Name Duration Start Finish Predecessors
1 West Yost Contract
Amendment
30 days Wed
6/17/26
Tue 7/28/26
2 West Yost to Submit
Amendment Proposal
10 days Wed
6/17/26
Tue 6/30/26
3 City Staff to Prepare
Staff
Report/Resolution
7 days Wed 7/1/26 Thu 7/9/26 2
4 City Council Approval
of Contract
Amendment
0 days Tue 7/28/26 Tue 7/28/26 3FS+13 days
5 Meetings 108 days Tue 6/16/26 Thu 11/12/26
6 City/WY Team
Check-in Meetings
91 days Tue 6/16/26 Tue
10/20/26
17 Water/Wastewater
Committee Meetings
91 days Thu 7/9/26 Thu
11/12/26
23 Chapters 2 and 4 27 days Wed 6/17/26Thu 7/23/26
24 City Staff Reviews
Chapter
7 days Wed
6/17/26
Thu 6/25/26
25 West Yost Updates
Chapter and Submits
to Committee
5 days Fri 6/26/26 Thu 7/2/26 24
26 West Yost and City
Staff Receive and
Respond to
Committee Comments
15 days Fri 7/3/26 Thu 7/23/26 25
27 Chapter 5 27 days Wed 6/17/26Thu 7/23/26
28 West Yost Submits
Draft to City Staff
0 days Wed
6/17/26
Wed
6/17/26
29 City Staff Reviews
Chapter
7 days Wed
6/17/26
Thu 6/25/26 28
30 West Yost Updates
Chapter and Submits
to Committee
5 days Fri 6/26/26 Thu 7/2/26 29
31 West Yost and City
Staff Receive and
Respond to
Committee Comments
15 days Fri 7/3/26 Thu 7/23/26 30
32 Chapter 6 47 days Wed 6/17/26Thu 8/20/26
33 West Yost Submits
Draft to City Staff
12 days Wed
6/17/26
Thu 7/2/26
34 City Staff Reviews
Chapter
10 days Fri 7/3/26 Thu 7/16/26 33
35 West Yost Updates
Chapter and Submits
to Committee
10 days Fri 7/17/26 Thu 7/30/26 34
36 West Yost and City
Staff Receive and
Respond to
Committee Comments
15 days Fri 7/31/26 Thu 8/20/26 35
7/28
6/17
9 14 19 24 29 4 9 14 19 24 29 3 8 13 18 23 28 2 7 12 17 22 27 2 7 12 17 22 27 1 6 11 16 21 26 1 June 2026 July 2026 August 2026 September 2026 October 2026 November 2026 December 2026 St. Helena Water Management Plan Completion Schedule

Page 1 ends

Page 104 of 473 ends

ID Task
Mode
Task Name Duration Start Finish Predecessors
37 Chapter 7 72 days Wed 6/17/26Thu 9/24/26
38 West Yost Submits
Draft to City Staff
40 days Wed
6/17/26
Tue 8/11/26
39 City Staff Reviews
Chapter
10 days Wed
8/12/26
Tue 8/25/26 38
40 West Yost Updates
Chapter and Submits
to Committee
7 days Wed
8/26/26
Thu 9/3/26 39
41 West Yost and City
Staff Receive and
Respond to
Committee Comments
15 days Fri 9/4/26 Thu 9/24/26 40
42 Chapter 8 47 days Wed 7/22/26Thu 9/24/26
43 West Yost Submits
Draft to City Staff
15 days Wed
7/22/26
Tue 8/11/26 38FS-15 days
44 City Staff Reviews
Chapter
10 days Wed
8/12/26
Tue 8/25/26 43
45 West Yost Updates
Chapter and Submits
to Committee
7 days Wed
8/26/26
Thu 9/3/26 44
46 West Yost and City
Staff Receive and
Respond to
Committee Comments
15 days Fri 9/4/26 Thu 9/24/26 45
47 Chapter 9 20 days Fri 9/4/26 Thu 10/1/26
48 West Yost Submits
Draft to City Staff
10 days Fri 9/4/26 Thu 9/17/26 40
49 City Staff Reviews
Chapter
5 days Fri 9/18/26 Thu 9/24/26 48
50 West Yost Updates
Chapter
5 days Fri 9/25/26 Thu 10/1/26 49
51 Draft WMP 45 days Fri 9/4/26 Thu 11/5/26
52 West Yost Submits
Draft WMP
20 days Fri 9/4/26 Thu 10/1/26 50FF
53 Public Review Period 20 days Fri 10/2/26 Thu 10/29/2652 54 West Yost and City
Staff Review
Comments and Submit
Comment Log to
Committee
5 days Fri 10/30/26 Thu 11/5/26 53
55 Final WMP 11 days Fri 11/13/26 Fri 11/27/26
56 West Yost Finalizes
WMP
10 days Fri 11/13/26 Thu
11/26/26
54,22
57 City Posts Final WMP
to Website
1 day Fri 11/27/26 Fri 11/27/26 56
9 14 19 24 29 4 9 14 19 24 29 3 8 13 18 23 28 2 7 12 17 22 27 2 7 12 17 22 27 1 6 11 16 21 26 1 June 2026 July 2026 August 2026 September 2026 October 2026 November 2026 December 2026 St. Helena Water Management Plan Completion Schedule

Page 2 ends

Page 105 of 473 ends

Agenda Report to the City Council
Agenda Section: CONSENT ITEMS
Department: Public Works Department
DATE: August 11, 2026
FROM: Joseph Leach, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Consideration and Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Amendment No. 2 to St. Helena Contract FY2025-019 with West Yost & Associates, Inc for the Preparation of a Water
Management Plan, Increasing the Contract Amount by $99,924 for a Total Contract Amount Not-To-Exceed $311,552 and increasing the overall project budget by $12,000 to account for staff time.

RECOMMENDED
ACTION:

Authorize the contract increase, the budget amendment and approve the attached resolution.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

City Council previously authorized the creation of CIP project W25-03 and the St. Helena Contract FY2025-019 with West Yost & Associates for the preparation of a Water Management Plan on October 8, 2024, Resolution 2024-140.

STATEMENT OF THE
PURPOSE:

To increase the contract amount for contract FY2025-019 to allow for the completion of the Water Management Plan and increase the overall project budget.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: The financial impact is $38,979 using 2024 Water Revenue Bonds, increasing the total project budget from $284,573 to an amount not-to-exceed $323,552.

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

Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Project W25-03 was established to develop a comprehensive Water Management Plan that evaluates potential water supply sources and management strategies to meet the City's long-term water demands in the face of anticipated population growth and declining water availability.

On October 8, 2024, the City Council authorized the creation of CIP Project W25-03 and approved a professional services agreement with West Yost & Associates to prepare the Water Management Plan. Amendment No. 1 to St. Helena Contract FY 2025-019 was executed on May 21, 2026, extending the term of the contract to December 31, 2026.

Page 106 of 473 ends

West Yost & Associates is currently developing the Water Management Plan. Draft chapters are being reviewed and vetted by City staff and the Water and Wastewater Advisory Committee to ensure technical accuracy and alignment with the City's long-term water resource objectives.

DISCUSSION:

The development of the Water Management Plan experienced a "pause in production" between August 2025 and April 2026. This delay was caused by key staff vacancies and delayed staff review of the groundwater analysis. As a result, draft Chapters 1 through 4, which were originally scheduled to be completed in 2025, required updates and additional review in 2026 to incorporate the groundwater analysis findings. This delay shifted a substantial portion of the remaining work into 2026, resulting in higher consultant billing rates than those anticipated when the contract was originally created.

In addition to the increased costs associated with the project delay, the City expanded the scope of work to include an online interactive public comment period of the Water Management Plan. The requested budget amendment also provides funding for additional coordination meetings with staff, Napa County Groundwater Sustainability Agency, the Water & Wastewater Advisory Committee, and City Council that were not previously anticipated/budgeted.

West Yost has provided a revised work plan detailing the remaining tasks, estimated billable hours, and applicable billing rates, which is attached to this report. The requested budget amendment of $99,924 will provide sufficient funding to complete the remaining work.

Assuming there is no interruption in contract funding, West Yost anticipates completing the Water Management Plan by November 2026.

Additionally, in an effort to appropriate and "recover" project costs, staff is increasing the project budget to incorporate the accounting of staff time for project engagement (i.e. CIP Overheads = $12,000).

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

NA
GOAL:

Goal 2: Improve Infrastructure & Further Environmental Sustainability Goal 5: Enhance Quality of Life
Goal 8: Implement Capital Improvement Plans (CIP) Projects Miscellaneous/Other ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution - West Yost Water Management Plan

2. West Yost WMP Work Plan and Billable Hours & Rates

Page 107 of 473 ends

CITY OF ST. HELENA
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-__
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO ST. HELENA
CONTRACT FY2025-019 WITH WEST YOST & ASSOCIATES, INC.

FOR THE PREPARATION OF A WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN,
INCREASING THE CONTRACT AMOUNT BY $99,924 FOR A TOTAL
CONTRACT AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $311,552 AND
INCREASING W25-03 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN PROJECT
BUDGET IN THE AMOUNT OF $38,979 FOR A TOTAL PROJECT
BUDGET OF $323,552.

RECITALS
A. On October 8, 2024, City Council approved CIP Project W25-03 and approved St.

Helena Contract FY2025-019 with West Yost & Associates for the preparation of a Water Management Plan; and
B. Amendment No. 1 to St. Helena Contract FY2025-019 was executed on May 21, 2026, extending the term of the contract through December 31, 2026; and C. The Water Management Plan was placed on hiatus for 6 months while waiting on results of the groundwater analysis which delayed the project and has resulted in higher billing rates for work that has been pushed back to 2026; and D. Staff have tasked West Yost with additional scope of work, such as creating an online interactive public comment period for the Water Management Plan, as well as attending additional meetings with GSA, the Water & Wastewater Advisory Committee, and City Council; and
E. The higher billing rates for delayed work performed in 2026, together with the additional scope of work, have increased the total cost of the Water Management Plan beyond the amount originally budgeted; and
F. West Yost has provided a work plan with detailed billable hours and billable rates and requests an additional budget of $99,924 to complete W25-03 Water Management Plan, which will increase the project budget by $38,979 for a total project budget of $323,552.

Page 108 of 473 ends

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

1. Authorizes Amendment No. 2 to St. Helena Contract FY2025-019 with West Yost & Associates, Inc. in the amount of $99,924 for a total contract amount not-to-exceed $311,552.

2. Authorizes the City Manager to execute the contract amendment.

3. Budget Amendments are as follows:

Description Fund GL Account Amount
Increase to Project Budget
W25-03 Water
Management Plan -
Design
763 – Water
Revenue Bonds 763-50-30-31-10 26,979
Increase to Project Budget
W25-03 Water
Management Plan – CIP
Overheads
763 – Water
Revenue Bonds 763-50-30-31-80 12,000
TOTAL AMENDMENT 38,979

4. Total Project Funding is as follows:

Description Fund GL Account Amount
W25-03 Water
Management Plan -
Design
763 – Water
Revenue Bonds 763-50-30-31-10 311,552
W25-03 Water
Management Plan – CIP
Overheads
763 – Water
Revenue Bonds 763-50-30-31-80 12,000
TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET 323,552
Approved at a Regular Meeting of the St. Helena City Council on August 11, 2026, by the following vote:

Mayor Dohring:

Vice Mayor Deasy:

Council Member Diaz
Council Member Barak:

Council Member Spadarotto:

Page 109 of 473 ends

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

Page 110 of 473 ends

2020 Research Park Drive
Suite 100
Davis CA 95618
530.756.5905 phone
530.756.5991 fax
westyost.com
June 26, 2026 SENT VIA: EMAIL
Joe Leach
Public Works Director
City of St. Helena
1088 College Avenue
St. Helena, CA 94574
SUBJECT: Request for Budget Amendment to the Water Management Plan Contract Dear Joe:

The purpose of this letter is to provide the City of St. Helena (City) with a request for a budget amendment for the remaining work for preparation of a Water Management Plan.

The project kicked off in November 2024 and was originally scheduled to be completed within 12 months (by October 2025).

Page 111 of 473 ends

Mr. Joe Leach
June 26, 2026

Page 2 ends

West Yost’s proposed level of effort and budget for each of the tasks described above is shown in Table 1.

Page 112 of 473 ends

Mr. Joe Leach
June 26, 2026

Page 3 ends

Page 113 of 473 ends

Mr. Joe Leach
June 26, 2026

Page 4 ends

N-M-C-City of St Helena-LP-2024 Water Management Plan
Table 3 shows West Yost’s proposed budget amendment by task, along with the proposed revised budget and the budget remaining by task.

Page 114 of 473 ends

Mr. Joe Leach
June 26, 2026

Page 5 ends

N-M-C-City of St Helena-LP-2024 Water Management Plan
Thank you for providing West Yost the opportunity to be of continued service to the City of St. Helena.

We look forward to completing the Water Management Plan with you. Please call if you have any questions or require additional information.

Sincerely,

Page 115 of 473 ends

West Yost’s 2026 Billing Rate Schedule
Attachment A

Page 116 of 473 ends

(Effective January 1, 2026, through December 31, 2026)*

POSITIONS

Page 117 of 473 ends

(Effective January 1, 2026, through December 31, 2026)* Equipment Charges

BILLING RATES
2026 Billing Rate Schedule
* This schedule is updated annually Page 2 of 2

Page 118 of 473 ends

N-M-C-City of St Helena-LP-2024 Water Management Plan
Water Management Plan Completion Schedule
Attachment B

Page 119 of 473 ends

Page 1 ends

Page 120 of 473 ends

Page 2 ends

Page 121 of 473 ends

8.25.26 City Council, General Public, Staff,
Saint Helena has for some time had an existing codified water management plan (attached below). It is chapter 13.10 of our municipal code and is succinct and clean.

This information has been posted as public comment in the past with no response.

When enquiries to the City have been made regarding it’s lack of use the response has been that the City uses it’s Water Neutrality Policy instead of this plan.

Our Water Neutrality policy has been deemed insufficient by this council and it has been requested that it be redrafted by this council because it is insufficient and confusing. Many are waiting for a new version, however why is a deficient WNP being utilized instead of our codified Water Management Plan? As a council member an appropriate question to ask would be “why are we not utilizing our existing Water Management Plan?”. Another appropriate question to ask would be “Why are we spending several hundred thousand dollars to create information for a new water management plan when we’ve never used the one we have?”. Regarding our current WNP being used in place of our codified Water Management Plan one of it’s primary functions is in lieu fees, what is the current accounting of the in lieu fee account and what have the funds been used for historically?
The irony of this new work toward a new water management plan is difficult to ignore.

In the past the City’s response to a grand jury report in 2011 regarding the use of recycled water was:

Grand Jury Recommendation 11:
"St. Helena accelerate its planning process and implementation of distribution and use recycled water."
City Response:

Pursuant to 933.05(b)(4) the recommendation will not be implemented because it is not reasonable. While the City recognizes recycled water should be put to beneficial use, the economic feasibility of implementing a recycled water product is daunting for a system with so few users. The City has researched and proposed a Recycled Water Project which involved an upgrade and expansion of

Page 122 of 473 ends

the existing wastewater treatment facilities to provide up to 1,200 acre-feet of recycled water meeting tertiary, unrestricted reuse standards according to Title 22 to be utilized to offset the current use of potable water for irrigation of school grounds, parks, and other City properties, groundwater currently used by vineyards for irrigation, and to enhance drought and fire protection. However the demand for recycled water is likely to be highest during the driest months when flows into the sewage treatment plant are at their lowest. This means that recycled water could not be a meaningful factor in augmenting supply for nonpotable use without the addition of substantial storage capacity. It would be necessary to provide recycled water storage, pumping and distribution facilities, which includes, at minimum, a 400 acre-feet of storage. The City does not own land at a location suitable for such storage capacity, and the cost of purchasing land and constructing more storage is fiscally challenging to so few rate payers and the City is not currently capable to produce funds for such a significant capital cost.

With all of the known issues with our current system shouldn’t all staff time and energies be dedicated to the issues at hand? The situation has been emergent for years and we are not doing enough. The recent City newsletter asks for all citizens to file damage claims for anything possibly related to the bus impact with the water hydrant on Main Street including soiled laundry. This reads as exceptionally tone deaf when for years we have been told that everything is fine and there is no harm in the discoloration. When PG&E broke into the the plant a few weeks ago and shut the power off causing a surge in water did the city file an insurance claim then as well? This is not snark, it is a genuine question and deserves a serious genuine response as the request for claims in the instance of the bus impact implies that citizens deserve compensation from discolored water and interrupted service. In addition to the the bus impact there was also an interruption which caused complete water loss from a cut line in Hudson, and there have been surges caused by the city previously and the response has been a request for calm.

We need accurate information and consistency in communication. This seems a very reasonable request given the long term duration of the issues.

Page 123 of 473 ends

St Helena’s currently codified Water Management Plan in full text:

Chapter 13.10

WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

13.10.010 Purpose.

The city of St. Helena recognizes that its sources of water are limited, and therefore that it must conserve and manage water resources to achieve adopted land use planning objectives. The city’s water resources are currently (and for the foreseeable future) derived from three sources: the city of Napa under its long-term water supply contract with the city of St. Helena; Bell Canyon Reservoir; and groundwater from cityowned and operated wells. It is the purpose and intent of this chapter to establish a water management program that:

A. Provides a process for dedication of the city’s limited water resources in new development; and
B. Establishes a process for determining the broad land use categories to be served through allocations of water resources during periods when the city is not by resolution of the city council declared to be in any water shortage emergency phase pursuant to Article 2 of Chapter 13.04. (Ord. 12-10 § 1)

13.10.020 Allocation of water resources.

A. Allocation. Following a public hearing, the city council shall establish an allocation of water resources when the city is not in a declared water shortage emergency pursuant to Section 13.04.220 by adopting an allocation resolution. The resolution shall define:

1. The quantity of water in acre-feet available to the city for allocation during the July 1st through June 30th water year;

2. A list of defined land use or project categories for which water will be made available;

Page 124 of 473 ends

3. A discrete quantity of water, expressed in acre-feet, to be allocated to each defined land use category; and

4. A discrete quantity of water to be held in unallocated reserves.

B. Unallocated Reserves. Water held in unallocated reserves shall not be used for any purpose or land use change until transferred to a defined allocation category. Such transfers shall be made through adoption of a new allocation resolution in conformity with subsection A of this section.

C. Term of the Allocation Resolution. In the absence of a declared water shortage emergency, the allocation resolution shall remain in effect until replaced by a subsequent resolution pursuant to subsection A of this section. (Ord. 12-10 § 1)

13.10.030 Effects of allocation.

The purpose and effect of establishing categories of water supplies are to limit access to water to those categories that are consistent with the general plan. No change in land use shall be allowed through any permit or license that could result in a net increase in water use unless such change has been approved in accordance with all applicable provisions of the water management plan.

A. Acceptance of Applications. The director of public works or his or her designee shall monitor the water allocations established by resolution of the city council. Each proposed change in land use or project for which an application is submitted shall be evaluated to determine whether its approval could result in a net increase in water use.

For projects that will result in a net increase in water use, the following procedure shall be used by the director of public works or his or her designee:

1. The project shall first be classified into one or more land use categories based on the type of project (for example, a mixed-use project would be classified into both the commercial and multifamily residential categories).

2. An estimate shall then be made of the net increase in water use that would result from the project within each land use category.

3. If the project would require water from a land use category for which no allocation has been made, the application shall be returned to the applicant and shall not be processed.

Page 125 of 473 ends

4. If the project would require more water from a land use category than currently remains in that category, after considering the original allocation minus all existing precommitments and dedications, the application shall be returned to the applicant and shall not be processed or shall be denied.

5. If the project requires water and there is sufficient supply remaining in the allocation for each category affected by the project to meet fully the anticipated demand, the application may be accepted for processing after meeting all requirements for a complete application established by the city.

6. Upon acceptance of an application as complete by the planning director, a precommitment of water resources shall be temporarily assigned by the director of public works or his or her designee to the project during the processing of the application. The director of public works or his or her designee shall keep a single record of the remaining balance of water within each allocation category and a running total of all temporary precommitments and dedications to ensure that applications are not accepted for processing for which water would be unavailable upon approval. For projects that are denied or abandoned, the precommitment shall be terminated and the water shall be administratively restored to its original allocation category.

B. Approval of Applications. Once an application for a project requiring water resources has received final approval, the director of public works or his or her designee shall permanently reduce the remaining balance within each water allocation category affected by the project. This action shall terminate the temporary precommitment of water resources and create a permanent dedication of water resources to the project, subject to all applicable time limits established in the permit or by municipal code.

C. Abandonment of Dedicated Water Resources. Upon making a determination that time limits applicable to a project have expired without implementation, all water previously dedicated to a project, but not used, shall be considered abandoned. All water abandoned or not used by such unimplemented projects shall be returned to the allocation category from which it originated and shall become available for use by subsequent projects. For projects that are implemented and water demand was overestimated, any remaining, unused water shall be credited back to the city’s unallocated reserve.

D. Treatment of Approved and Completed Projects. Once a project has been approved and completed and commences to use city water, it is no longer counted against that allocation category. That project’s water usage then becomes part of overall city water

Page 126 of 473 ends

usage, and the amount of water usage for the project will be reflected as part of the future years’ supply/usage balance, as defined in Section 13.04.010, for determining future water availability. Because the water usage portion of that calculation uses a fiveyear rolling average to smooth out yearly variability, a new project’s water usage will not be fully realized in the supply/usage calculation for five years. This could result in the inadvertent assumption that there is more surplus water than is actually available in the first few years after the project is completed.

To account for the foregoing, the following procedure will be enacted. If the new project has an expected usage in excess of two acre-feet of city water per year, an amount equal to the expected water usage for the project will be subtracted from any surplus water for a period of two years from the date when the project begins using city water. No adjustment will be made if the city’s water supply/usage balance is in deficit.

Further allocations of surplus water to usage categories will be made after subtraction of all projects approved or completed within the past water year. (Ord. 12-10 § 1)

Page 127 of 473 ends

Outlook
Public comment for 10.1 8/25/26
From Michelle Covell <[email protected]>
Date Tue 8/25/2026 3:05 PM
To Andrew Bradley <[email protected]>
Dear City Council,
On the topic of water… please review what our DRAFT hazard mitigation plan says we are doing.

Our mitigation measures only discusses MWELO as a strategy for water savings.

It does not speak of the Water Neutrality Policy, nor any sort of water management plan.

It looks all great in the report when you read how we’re mitigating hazards, but as I read through, it’s like the Budget vs Actuals, this doc says we’re doing great things to protect the town.

Yet, when you read it thoroughly and critically, and see the actual output, I do not believe we are doing the due diligence the people of this town rely leaders and experts to do.

Please read these excerpts.

Page 128 of 473 ends

Page 129 of 473 ends

Michelle Liu Covell
Architect, Partner, Director of Operations, LEED AP
707.968.9280
1407 Main St. Suite 102 Saint Helena, CA 94574
www.covellarchitects.com

Page 130 of 473 ends

Page 131 of 473 ends

Agenda Report to the City Council
Agenda Section: CONSENT ITEMS
Department: Public Works Department
DATE: August 25, 2026
FROM: Bruce Zaeni, Project Manager, Joseph Leach, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Consideration and Proposed Approval of a Resolution Authorizing a Professional Services Agreement with GEI Consultants, Inc. for Construction Management Services related to the Bell Canyon Intake Tower and Valve House Rehabilitation Project, CIP No. W109 and W-85.

RECOMMENDED
ACTION:

Staff recommend authorization

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

This item was heard at the August 11, 2026 City Council meeting and is included as an attachment.

At the same August 11, 2026 meeting, the Council adopted a resolution authorizing an agreement amendment with Mead & Hunt to procure two Fixed Cone Valves (i.e. one 24-inch valve and one 10-inch valve) on behalf of the City.

On June 9, 2026, the City Council adopted Resolution 2026-055 authorizing the issuance of the project for bidding purposes.

STATEMENT OF THE
PURPOSE:

Authorize execution of a Professional Agreement with GEI Consultants, Inc. for Construction Management Services related to the Bell Canyon Intake Tower and Valve House Rehabilitation Project, CIP No. W-109 and W-85.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: Funding for this proposed agreement is available within the FY2026-27 Capital Improvement Program for Project CIP No. W109 and W-85 and funded by Water Bonds.

CEQA DETERMINATION: Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) BACKGROUND:

The extensive background of this project was noted at the August 11, 2026 City Council Meeting, Items 10.1 and 10.2 (attached).

Page 132 of 473 ends

DISCUSSION:

As noted at the August 11, 2026 City Council meeting, the recommended action is critical to the development, procurement and delivery of the Bell Canyon Intake Tower Project (CIP No.

W-109) and the Bell Canyon Valve House Rehabilitation Project (CIP No. W-85).

At the meeting, the item was pulled from the Consent Agenda and subsequent discussion ensued related to the overall budget for the project. The City Council did not question the validity of the need for construction management services nor the qualifications of GEI to provide the necessary expertise.

Attached to this report are the FY26-30 Capital Improvement Plan project sheets that reflect the expenditures and funding sources and last updated in March 2026 in preparation for Council's adoption of the FY27-31 CIP. These sheets do not reflect the most recent Engineer's Estimates for the 90% Plans & Specifications for the Intake Tower Project and Valve House Rehabilitation Project are $7.1M (dated 04/27/26) and $3.0M (dated 03/27/26), excluding contingencies, respectively. The current construction budgets (excluding contingencies) are $4.0M and $0.39M, respectively.

The significant project increases can be attributed to cost escalation from the original project inception in 2017 (and updated with escalation factors in the 2023 Water & Wastewater Rate Study), the complete reconstruction of the valve house structure (based upon the Water Treatment Plant Condition Assessment project and Mead & Hunt's structural engineer validating structural safety concerns), and engagement with the State's Division of Safety of Dams through plan/specification review.

One of GEI's initial tasks under the proposed scope is to provide a thorough constructibility and value engineering analysis of the plans and specifications in an effort to produce the most cost-effective project practicable. It is anticipated that once GEI, Mead & Hunt and the City perform a value engineering and constructibility review of the plans and specifications, Council action will be required to update the budget appropriation for both projects in advance of issuance of bids. This may coincide with the FY27-31 CIP adoption, scheduled for a Council meeting in October 2026.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

CEQA to Be Completed Prior to Project Approval
GOAL:

Goal 2: Improve Infrastructure & Further Environmental Sustainability Goal 3: Pursue Water Security & Sustainable Management of Water Resources Goal 8: Implement Capital Improvement Plans (CIP) Projects Miscellaneous/Other ATTACHMENTS:

1. 01 - Resolution - Award PSA for CM services_082526

2. 02 - W-85_W-109 project_details_081826

3. 10.01a - Staff Report - Bell Canyon Intake Tower_081126

4. 10.01b - Resolution - Award PSA for CM services_081126

Page 133 of 473 ends

5. 10.01c - Professional Services Agreement_GEI_CM_Services_081126

6. 10.02a - Resolution - Mead & Hunt Amendment_No3a_081126

7. 10.02b - W-85_W-109 Project Sheets_051425_081126

Page 134 of 473 ends

CITY OF ST. HELENA
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH GEI
CONSULTANTS, INC. FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT

SERVICES RELATED TO BELL CANYON INTAKE TOWER

PROJECT AND VALVE HOUSE REHABILITATION PROJECT, CIP
NO. W-109 AND W-85, RESPECTIVELY, FOR AN AMOUNT NOT-TOEXCEED $1,246,298

RECITALS
A. The City requires upgrade to its Bell Canyon Reservoir water infrastructure since the existing outlet system no longer has an adequate factor of safety; and B. This project supports the City’s ongoing efforts to modernize its water infrastructure, and improve operational safety; and
C. This construction project includes a very complex scope of work that will require the expertise of various technical disciplines including civil, structural, hydraulic, mechanical, and electrical engineering, as well as working with the California Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD) for compliance and providing construction management and inspection.; and
D. GEI Consultants, Inc., has extensive background in providing water agencies and municipalities with construction management and inspection services for reservoirs and dams and underwater construction monitoring and have the experienced staff to oversee the construction process; and E. The funding for this phase of the project is available to cover the consultant fees and expenses and city’s staffing support.

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

1. Authorizes the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement with GEI Consultants, Inc. for Construction Management Services related to the Bell Canyon Intake Tower Project and Valve House Rehabilitation Project, CIP No. W-109 and W-85, respectively, for an amount not-to-exceed $1,246,298.

2. Funding for this proposed agreement is available within the FY2026-27 Capital Improvement Program for Project CIP No. W-109 and W-85 and primarily funded by Water Bonds.

Page 135 of 473 ends

Approved at a Regular Meeting of the St. Helena City Council on August 25, 2026, by the following vote:

Mayor Dohring:

Vice Mayor Deasy:

Council Member Barak:

Council Member Spadarotto:

Council Member Diaz:

APPROVED: ATTEST:

Paul Jamison Dohring, Mayor Andrew Bradley, City Clerk

Page 136 of 473 ends

FY 26 thru FY 30
Capital Improvement Plan
St Helena, CA
Project # W-85
Project Name Bell Canyon Valve House Replacement
Total Project
Cost
$1,535,826 Department Public Works
Category Water Priority High
Phase Active Status Preliminary Design
Project Location APN 021-420-019 Expenditure
Account
763-5030-
Strategic Driver Compliance
Description
The Bell House Valve Replacement Project is a critical safety and infrastructure upgrade mandated by the California Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD). The project involves the replacement of the existing valve at the Bell Canyon Reservoir to ensure the City can safely and effectively control water releases during an emergency. Key elements of the project include: replacing the aging valve system to ensure reliable operation during DSOD-mandated drawdowns, preventing the uncontrolled draining of Bell Canyon Reservoir, which could occur if the existing valved failed to close, and supporting emergency preparedness and compliance with DSOD safety standards.

Notes
Project to be bid concurrently with the Intake Tower Improvements project CIP No. W-109.

Originally estimated for construction in FY22; later identified as a high-priority project per Public Works update on May 17, 2022. $49,029.88 in prior recorded labor (pre-FY13) is tracked in Springbrook and excluded from the current budget. •FY24 -Project included in the GO Bond allocation ($620,000 total across multiple water projects):
- W-85 Bell House Valve Replacement - $470,000 (Tranche 2, FY27) - W18-120 Bell Canyon Phreatic Surface Monitoring - $100,000 (Tranche 1, FY24) - W-108 Lower Reservoir Rehab - $50,000 (Tranche 2, FY27) •FY25 - Project advanced to FY26 (from FY27) to address regulatory urgency. - Funding increases and PSA executed per Resolution 2024-089 adopted June 11, 2024. •FY26 - anticipate completion of design FY26Q2. Moved funding from FY27 to FY26. -Project delays due to environmental studies, permitting and DSOD coordination; anticipate design completion FY27Q1 •FY27 - Anticipate bidding/award FY27Q2, valve procurement FY27Q2; construction commencement FY28Q2-Q3 Expenditures Prior FY 26 FY 27 FY 28 FY 29 FY 30 Future Total 1234 - Placeholder 0 0 320,000 177,964 0 0 0 497,964
3110 - Design 99,907 487,955 0 0 0 0 0 587,862
3160 - Construction Contract 0 390,000 0 0 0 0 0 390,000 3170 - Contingency 0 30,000 0 0 0 0 0 30,000
3150 - Construction
Management 0 30,000 0 0 0 0 0 30,000
Total 99,907 937,955 320,000 177,964 0 0 0 1,535,826
Funding Sources Prior FY 26 FY 27 FY 28 FY 29 FY 30 Future Total 421-Go Bonds 0 932,252 320,000 177,964 0 0 0 1,430,216
763-Water Capital
Improvement - Bond 99,907 5,703 0 0 0 0 0 105,610
Total 99,907 937,955 320,000 177,964 0 0 0 1,535,826
Produced Using Plan-It CIP Software Page 137 of 473
FY 26 thru FY 30
Capital Improvement Plan
St Helena, CA
Project # W-109
Project Name Bell Canyon Intake Tower Replacement
Total Project
Cost
$6,535,431 Department Public Works
Category Water Priority High
Phase Active Status Preliminary Design
Project Location Bell Canyon Reservoir (APN 021-420- 019) Expenditure Account
763-5030-
Strategic Driver Compliance
Description
The Bell Canyon Intake Tower Replacement Program is a critical infrastructure initiative to address compliance requirements issued by the California Department of Water Resources Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD). The existing intake tower at Bell Canyon Reservoir is noncompliant and poses a risk of enforcement action, including permit suspension or revocation. Key components of the project include:
-Design and construction of a new intake tower. -Environmental review and permitting. -Construction management and contingency planning to support delivery of a complex, regulatory-driven capital improvement. Failure to complete the project would jeopardize the City's permitted use of Bell Canyon Reservoir.

Notes
PW has designated this project as high priority due to the significant regulatory risk. Debt financing is anticipated, and the project was included in the Utility Rate Study for long-term funding planning. •FY24 - Project added to CIP and delivery timeline established in the proposed Rate Study. •FY25 - Resolution 2024-089 (Adopted June 11, 2024) - Added funding to the project scope. Authorized execution of the Professional Services Agreement (PSA) for design. Increased the total project budget from $3.3 million to $6.0 million (pre-06/30/2024 expenses excluded).
-Project is being coordinated with W-85 (Bell House Valve Replacement) for shared construction planning. •FY26 - Design completion anticipated in FY26 Q2.
-Project delays due to environmental studies, permitting and DSOD coordination; anticipate design completion FY27Q1 •FY27 - anticipate bidding/award FY27Q2, valve procurement FY27Q2; construction commencement FY28Q2-Q3 Expenditures Prior FY 26 FY 27 FY 28 FY 29 FY 30 Future Total 3160 - Construction Contract 0 0 100,000 3,900,000 0 0 0 4,000,000 3150 - Construction
Management 0 0 0 509,145 0 0 0 509,145
3170 - Contingency 18,289 0 0 490,855 0 0 0 509,144
3110 - Design 1,317,142 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,317,142
3120 - Environmental/
Planning 200,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 200,000
Total 1,535,431 0 100,000 4,900,000 0 0 0 6,535,431
Funding Sources Prior FY 26 FY 27 FY 28 FY 29 FY 30 Future Total 763-Water Capital
Improvement - Bond 1,245,263 0 100,000 4,900,000 0 0 0 6,245,263 561-Water Rate Revenues 289,519 0 0 0 0 0 0 289,519
764-Water Impact Fees 649 0 0 0 0 0 0 649
Total 1,535,431 0 100,000 4,900,000 0 0 0 6,535,431
Produced Using Plan-It CIP Software Page 138 of 473
Agenda Report to the City Council
Agenda Section: CONSENT ITEMS
Department: Public Works Department
DATE: August 11, 2026
FROM: Bruce Zaeni, Project Manager
SUBJECT: Consideration and Proposed Approval of a Resolution Authorizing a Professional Services Agreement with GEI Consultants, Inc. for Construction Management Services related to the Bell Canyon Intake Tower and Valve House Rehabilitation Project, CIP No.

W109.

RECOMMENDED
ACTION:

Staff recommend authorization

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION: 6/27/17 - Reso 2017-090 authorizing Professional Services Agreement (PSA) with GEI for CIP No. W-109.
8/14/18 - Reso 2018-107 authorizing Amendment 1 to the PSA with GEI to add CIP No. W-85 to the project.
6/13/23 - CIP Project No. W-109 and W-85 are included in the adopted 5-Year Capital Improvement Program (FY2023-24 to FY 2027-28).
6/11/24 - Reso 2024-089 authorizing PSA with Mead & Hunt to provide engineering design needed to complete Bell Canyon Reservoir Intake Tower and Valve House Replacement. Reso 2026-55 approving the project plans and specifications for capital improvement project CIP No. W-109 and authorizing staff to advertise for bids. .
6/09/26 - By the city council minute action, authorized issuance of a Request for Proposals for Construction Management Services related to the Bell Canyon Intake Tower and Valve House Rehabilitation Project.

STATEMENT OF THE
PURPOSE:

Authorize execution of a Professional Agreement with GEI Consultants, Inc. for Construction Management Services related to the Bell Canyon Intake Tower and Valve House Rehabilitation

Page 139 of 473 ends

Project, CIP No. W109.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: Funding for this proposed agreement is available within the FY2026-27 Capital Improvement Program for Project CIP No.

W109 and funded by the water bond.

CEQA DETERMINATION: Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) BACKGROUND:

Bell Canyon Reservoir is a man-made water supply reservoir serving the City of St. Helena.

The reservoir, which was constructed during 1958 and 1959, has a storage capacity of approximately 2,500 acre-feet and serves as one of the City's main sources of potable water.

The reservoir is impounded by a 500-foot long, 95-foot-high embankment dam with a crest width of 20 feet and a crest elevation of 430 feet. A spillway with a crest elevation of 422 feet is located approximately one-quarter mile west of the embankment dam and discharges into the west fork of Bell Creek.

The freestanding intake tower is located at the upstream toe of the embankment to service two parallel outlet pipes in a common concrete encasement. One pipe is a 42-inch-diameter low-level outlet sluice pipe that passes through the base of the dam to a valve house, where it discharges into Bell Creek. The other pipe is a 24-inch-diameter water supply intake for the nearby Louis Stralla Water Treatment Plant (LSWTP); this pipe also passes through the base of the dam parallel to the 42-inch outlet. The 24-inch pipeline bifurcates at the downstream valve control house to provide minimum bypass flows into Bell Creek.

The intake tower has been in service for over 65 years and has reached the end of its service life. The intake tower as originally designed and constructed does not meet current seismic requirements. The City was directed on February 1, 2016, by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), the California Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD) to evaluate the adequacy of the outlet tower for static and seismic loads by October 1, 2016. As a result of further review during 2016, the City stated in their January 17, 2017, Request for Proposals that the tower had deteriorated and did not meet current seismic standards.

Constructed along with the Bell Canyon Dam intake tower, the main outlets through the dam have also been in service for over 65 years and the downstream outlet system now requires an updated analysis and modifications due to corrosion and pitting of the downstream outlet piping. Based on past assessments, the existing outlet system no longer has an adequate factor of safety. In addition, the emergency reservoir discharge cone valve (Rotovalve) and foundation require replacement due to vibration issues during discharge. The Rotovalve is not recommended for high flow releases during emergency releases and does not dissipate the hydraulic energy required. The preparation of construction documents has been advanced to a 90% design by Mead and Hunt and is being reviewed by the DSOD. The consultants will finalize plans after receiving comments and will prepare the construction bid set for a potential public bid in mid to late summer.

Page 140 of 473 ends

DISCUSSION:

This construction project includes a very complex scope of work that will require the expertise of various technical disciplines including civil, structural, hydraulic, mechanical, and electrical engineering, as well as working with DSOD for compliance, and providing construction management and inspection. The city does not have the specialized resources and personnel in-house to take on these services during the construction phase of the project and therefore, the staff requested and received approval to engage a professional construction management firm to conduct the day-to-day operational needs of this critical and complex project. Under the proposed scope of work, the consultants will be asked to provide Constructibility Review and Analysis, Construction Cost Estimate Review, Construction Schedule Review, Construction Management, Construction Inspection and other related services to serve the project.

After approval by the city council minute action on June 9, 2026, city staff issued a Request for Proposals on June 10, 2026, which was posted on the city website and emailed to firms that had shown interest in the project and received two proposals by the submittal date of July 6th, 2026. Both proposals were reviewed and evaluated by city staff and both firms were interviewed. Based on their proposal and the subsequent interview, the staff selected GEI Consultants, Inc. for the project and contract negotiation.

GEI Consultants, Inc., has an extensive background in providing water agencies and municipalities with construction and inspection services for reservoirs and dams. They have an experienced team of professionals who have successfully completed similar types of projects.

City staff negotiated a professional services agreement with total compensation not to exceed $1,246,298.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

CEQA to Be Completed Prior to Project Approval
GOAL:

1. Resolution - Award PSA for CM services

2. Professional Services Agreement_GEI_CM_Services

Page 141 of 473 ends

St. Helena City CouncilAugust 25, 2026

St. Helena City Council
August 25, 2026