Agenda packet — Yountville City Council, December 5, 2023 (part 2 of 2)

Town of Yountville
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
June 30, 2023
Other amounts reported as deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources related to pensions will be recognized as pension expense as follows:

Deferred
Outflows/
Fiscal Year Ending (Inflows) of
June 30:
2024
Resources
$ 381,311
2025 308,843
170,470
578,176
-
2026
2027
2028
Thereafter
Total
-
$ 1,438,800
Actuarial Assumptions
The total pension liabilities in the June 30, 2021 actuarial valuations were determined using the following actuarial assumptions:

Valuation Date
Measurement Date
Actuarial Cost Method
June 30, 2021
June 30, 2022
Entry-Age
Normal Cost
Method
Actuarial Assumptions:

Discount Rate
Inflation

6.90%

2.30%

2.80%
(1)

6.9% (2)
(3)
Payroll Growth
Projected Salary Increase
Investment Rate of Return
Mortality
(1) Varies by entry age and service
(2) Net of pension plan investment expenses, including inflation (3) Derived using CalPERS' membership data for all funds Discount Rate
The discount rate used to measure the total pension liability was 6.9 percent for the Plan. To determine whether the municipal bond rate should be used in the calculation of a discount rate for the Plan, CalPERS stress tested plans that would most likely result in a discount rate that would be different from the actuarially assumed discount rate. Based on the testing, none of the tested plans run out of assets.

Therefore, the current 6.9 percent discount rate is adequate and the use of the municipal bond rate calculation is not necessary. The long term expected discount rate of 6.9 percent will be applied to all plans in the Public Employees Retirement Fund (PERF). The stress test results are presented in a detailed report that can be obtained from the CalPERS website.

Page 80 ends

Town of Yountville
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
June 30, 2023
The long-term expected rate of return on pension plan investments was determined using a building block method in which best-estimate ranges of expected future real rates of return (expected returns, net of pension plan investment expense and inflation) are developed for each major asset class.

In determining the long-term expected rate of return, CalPERS took into account both short-term and long-term market return expectations as well as the expected pension fund cash flows. Using historical returns of all the funds’ asset classes, expected compound returns were calculated over the short-term (first 10 years) and the long-term (11-60 years) using a building-block approach. Using the expected nominal returns for both short-term and long-term, the present value of benefits was calculated for each fund. The expected rate of return was set by calculating the single equivalent expected return that arrived at the same present value of benefits for cash flows as the one calculated using both short-term and longterm returns. The expected rate of return was then set equivalent to the single equivalent rate calculated above and rounded down to the nearest one quarter of one percent.

The table below reflects the long-term expected real rate of return by asset class. The rate of return was calculated using the capital market assumptions applied to determine the discount rate and asset allocation. These rates of return are net of administrative expenses.

Assumed
Asset
Allocation
Long-Term
Expected Real
Asset Class (a) Return (1)(2)
Global Equity Cap Weighted
Global Equity NonCap Weighted
Private Equity

30.00% 4.54%

12.00%

13.00%

5.00%

10.00%

5.00%

15.00%
-5.00%
100.00%

3.84%

7.28%

0.27%

0.50%

1.56%

2.27%

2.48%

3.57%

3.21%
-0.59%
Treasury
Mortgage-backed Securities
Investment Grade Corporates
High Yield
Emerging Market Debt
Private Debt
Real Assets
Leverage
Total
(1) An expected inflation of 2.3% used for this period. (2) Figures are based on the 2021-22 Asset Liability Study.

Page 81 ends

Town of Yountville
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
June 30, 2023
Sensitivity of the Proportionate Share of the Net Pension Liability to Changes in the Discount Rate The following presents the Town’s proportionate share of the net pension liability for the Plans, calculated using the discount rate for the Plans, as well as what the Town’s proportionate share of the net pension liability would be if it were calculated using a discount rate that is 1-percentage point lower or 1- percentage point higher than the current rate:

Miscellaneous
1% Decrease 5.90%
Net Pension Liability $
$
$
8,062,747
Current 6.90%
Net Pension Liability 5,160,670
1% Increase 7.90%
Net Pension Liability 2,772,980
Pension Plan Fiduciary Net Position
Detailed information about each pension plan’s fiduciary net position is available in the separately issued CalPERS financial reports.

PARS Section 115 Trust
During fiscal year 2017-18, the Town established a Section 115 Trust Fund for Pension Costs with Public Agency Retirement Services (PARS). The amount in this trust is not included as part of the Town's net pension liability calculation.

NOTE 10 - OTHER POSTEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS PLAN
Plan Description
The Town of Yountville administers the Town’s retired employees health care plan, a single employer defined benefit health care plan. The plan provides medical benefits to eligible retired Town employees and their beneficiaries. The Town’s plan is affiliated with the State of California PERS (CalPERS) in so far as the Town’s health insurance premium payments are paid to the CalPERS. CalPERS through an aggregation of single-employer plans pools administrative functions in regard to purchases of commercial health care policies and coverage. Town regulations and resolutions assign authority to establish and amend plan provisions to the Town. A separate OPEB Trust has been established by the Town.

Employees Covered by Benefit Terms
At June 30, 2023 (the measurement date), the benefit terms covered the following employees:

Active employees
Inactive employees
Total employees
32 22
54 Contributions
The contribution requirements of Plan members and the Town are established and may be amended by the Town. The required contribution is based on projected pay-as-you-go financing requirements, with additional amounts to prefund benefits as determined annually by the Town

Page 82 ends

Town of Yountville
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
June 30, 2023
Council. For the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023, the Town contributed $341,478. Plan members receiving benefits contributed no amounts of the total premiums.

Actuarial Assumptions
The following summarized the actuarial assumptions for the OPEB plan included in this fiscal year:

Valuation Date: January 1, 2022
Measurement Date:

Actuarial Cost Method:

Amortization Period:

Asset Valuation Method:

June 30, 2023
Entry-Age Normal
Open 30 year period
Level percentage of payroll,
Actuarial Assumptions:

Discount Rate 5.72%
Inflation 2.50%
Salary Increases
Healthcare Trend Rate
Investment Rate of Return
Mortality

3.00%

5.6 to 3.9%

5.72%
CalPERS 2021 Experience Study
Rx PA Misc 2.7% @ 55
Rx PA Misc 2% @ 62
Retirement
Discount Rate
The discount rate used to measure the total OPEB liability was 5.72 percent. The projection of cash flows used to determine the discount rate assumed that Town contributions will be made at rates equal to the actuarially determined contribution rates. Based on those assumptions, the OPEB plan’s fiduciary net position was projected to be available to make all projected OPEB payments for current active and inactive employees and beneficiaries. Therefore, the long-term expected rate of return on OPEB plan investments was applied to all periods of projected benefit payments to determine the total OPEB liability.

Net OPEB Liability
The Town's net OPEB liability was measured as of June 30, 2023 (measurement date) and was determined by an actuarial valuation as of January 1, 2022 (valuation date) for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 (reporting date).

Page 83 ends

Town of Yountville
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
June 30, 2023
Changes in the Net OPEB Liability
The following summarizes the changes in the net OPEB liability during the year ended June 30, 2023:

Net OPEB
Total OPEB Plan Fiduciary
Liability Net Position
5,406,941
Liability
Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2023 (Asset)
Balance at June 30, 2022
Service cost
Interest in Total OPEB Liability
Employer contributions
Actual investment income
Benefit payments
Other
Net changes
Balance at June 30, 2023
$ $ 5,184,645
-
$ 222,296
273,145 273,145
318,482
(341,478)
(96,524)
-
(299,909)
(146,284)
76,012
318,482 -
-
-
341,478
96,524
(224,432)
299,909
513,479
5,698,124
(224,432)
-
367,195
$ 5,774,136
$
$ $
Covered Employee Payroll 4,226,240
136.63%

98.68%

6.46%
Total OPEB Liability as a % of Covered Employee Payroll Plan Fid. Net Position as a % of Total OPEB Liability
Service Cost as a % of Covered Employee Payroll
Net OPEB Liability as a % of Covered Employee Payroll 1.80% Deferred Inflows and Outflows of Resources
At June 30, 2023, the Town reported deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources related to OPEB from the following sources:

Deferred
Outflows of
Resources
-
Deferred
Inflows of
Resources
889,073
-
Difference between actual and expected experience
Difference between actual and expected earnings
Change in assumptions
$
$
$
$
247,550
- 154,811
Totals 247,550 1,043,884
Of the total amount reported as deferred outflows of resources related to OPEB, none were the result of Town contributions subsequent to the measurement date and before the end of the fiscal year. Other amounts reported as deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources related to OPEB will be recognized in OPEB expense as follows:

Year Ended June 30,
2024
2025
2026
$ (182,318)
(200,533)
(35,604)
2027
2028
Thereafter
Total
(184,384)
(151,173)
(42,322)
$ (796,334)
Rate of Return
The long-term expected rate of return on OPEB plan investments was determined using a buildingPage 84 Town of Yountville
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
June 30, 2023
block method in which expected future real rates of return (expected returns, net of OPEB plan investment expense and inflation) are developed for each major asset class. These ranges are combined to produce the long-term expected rate of return by weighting the expected future real rates of return by the target asset allocation percentage and by adding expected inflation. The target allocation and best estimates of arithmetic real rates of return for each major asset class are summarized in the table below.

Long-Term
Percentage of Expected Rate of
Asset Class
Fixed Income
Public Equity
Liquidity
Portfolio

35.00%
Return

3.3% - 6.1%

6.6% - 7.9%

2.4%

60.00%

5.00%
Total 100.00%
OPEB Expense
The following summarizes the OPEB expense by source during the year ended June 30, 2023:

Service cost
Interest in TOL
Other
Difference between actual and expected experience
Difference between actual and expected earnings
Change in assumptions
$ 273,145
318,482
(299,909)
(191,913)
39,272
(36,523)
OPEB Expense $ 102,554
The following summarizes changes in the net OPEB liability as reconciled to OPEB expense during the year ended June 30, 2023:

Net OPEB liability ending $ 76,012
(222,296)
(146,284)
135,795
(228,435)
341,478
Net OPEB liability beginning
Change in net OPEB liability
Changes in deferred outflows
Changes in deferred inflows
Employer contributions and implicit subsidy
OPEB Expense $ 102,554
Sensitivity to Changes in the Discount Rate
The net OPEB liability of the Town, as well as what the Town's net OPEB liability would be if it were calculated using a discount rate that is one percentage point lower or one percentage point higher, is as follows:

Discount Rate
(1% Decrease )
880,739

5.72% (1% Increase )
Net OPEB Liability (Asset) $ $ 76,012 $ (586,156)

Page 85 ends

Town of Yountville
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
June 30, 2023
Sensitivity to Changes in the Healthcare Cost Trend Rates The net OPEB liability of the Town, as well as what the Town's net OPEB liability would be if it were calculated using healthcare cost trend rates that are one percentage point lower or one percentage point higher than current healthcare cost trend rates, is as follows:

Trend Rate
(1% Decrease )
(673,055) $

5.6 to 3.9%
76,012 $
(1% Increase )
Net OPEB Liability (Asset) $ 1,007,232
NOTE 11 - COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
Joint Wastewater Treatment Plant
Under its agreement with the State of California, the Town is obligated to provide capacity in its treatment facility for a maximum daily flow capacity not to exceed one million gallons per day originating from the Veterans Home of California. The annual operations and maintenance budget of the Town’s wastewater enterprise is subject to approval by the State. The State is also required to approve any expansion of the treatment facility.

The State shall annually pay to the Town an amount equal to the State’s share of the capital recovery cost of the joint wastewater treatment facility. The Town is obligated to contribute an annual capital recovery amount equal to the States share of the capital recovery cost of the joint wastewater treatment facility. The State’s contributions and related investment earnings are restricted for use only upon those portions of the treatment facilities that benefit the State.

The Town’s obligations to maintain, operate, and provide for replacement of the treatment facility are continuous subject to a three-year advance notice termination clause.

Contractor Commitments
As of June 30, 2023, the Town had outstanding commitments to contractors totaling $1,131,747, with an original contract amount of $1,354,047.

Lawsuits
The Town is subject to certain matters of litigation that may arise in the normal course of conducting Town business. Town management believes, based upon consultation with legal counsel, that these cases, in the aggregate, are not expected to result in a material adverse financial impact on the Town.

Additionally, Town management believes that the Town's insurance programs are sufficient to cover any potential losses should an unfavorable outcome materialize.

Federal and State Grant Programs
The Town participates in Federal and State grant programs. These programs are audited by the Town's independent accountants if required by and in accordance with the provisions of the Uniform Guidance and applicable State requirements. For Federal programs, the Town did not reach the level of qualifying expenditures during the current fiscal year that would require a single audit. Expenditures which may be disallowed, if any, by the granting agencies, cannot be determined at this time. The Town expects such amounts, if any, to be immaterial.

Page 86 ends

Town of Yountville
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
June 30, 2023
NOTE 12 - JOINTLY FORMED ORGANIZATIONS
Jointly governed organizations are regional government or other multi-government arrangements that are jointly governed by representatives from each of the governments that create the organizations, but that are not joint ventures because the participants do not retain an ongoing financial interest or responsibility.

The Town is a participant in the following jointly governed organizations:

California Intergovernmental Risk Authority (CIRA)
The Town of Yountville is a member of California Intergovernmental Risk Authority. The Authority, under the terms of a Joint Powers Agreement with the Town of Yountville and several other cities and governmental agencies, provides insurance coverage for general liability, automobile liability, and workers compensation claims. Under the arrangement, the Authority purchases liability, automobile liability, and workers compensation insurance and charges participating cities and governmental agencies in amounts planned to match expenses of insurance premiums, estimated payments resulting from selfinsurance programs, and operating expenses. The Town’s obligations are limited to contributions to pay for related insurance premiums.

Napa Valley Housing Authority
The Town is a member of the Napa Valley Housing Authority created to provide subsidized public housing and related assistance. The Authority was created pursuant to a Joint Powers Agreement, and the Town’s obligations are limited to providing funds for a pro rata share of the Authority’s operating costs.

Upper Valley Waste Management Agency
The Town is a member of the Agency along with the City of Calistoga, City of St. Helena, and County of Napa. The Agency was formed to provide for economical regional waste management services including uniform rate reviews. Funding for operations is provided from a surcharge placed on landfill dumping fees.

Napa Valley Transportation Authority
The Town is a member of this Joint Powers Agency formed for the purpose of developing transportation planning throughout the County. The Town’s obligation is limited to serving on the Agency’s committees.

Transit Services Arrangement
The Town is party to an agreement with the City of Calistoga, City of Napa, County of Napa, and the Volunteer Center of Napa County (a private nonprofit organization) for the purpose of providing transit related services within the County. The Town’s funding requirement is met by assignment of its TDA transit fund allocation to the County of Napa.

Flood Protection Sales Tax Joint Powers Agreement
The Town is a member of the Joint Powers Agency for the purpose of establishing a plan for the use and equitable distribution of the 1/2% Flood Protection Sales Tax which was passed by voters in March 1998.

As a member the Town will receive allocations of the sales tax to be used for projects outlined in the agreement.

Page 87 ends

Page Intentionally Left Blank

Page 88 ends

Required Supplementary Information
(Unaudited)

Page 89 ends

This page is intentionally blank

Page 90 ends

Town of Yountville
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance Budget and Actual (GAAP Basis)
General Fund
For the Year Ended June 30, 2023
Variance with
Final Budget
Positive
Budgeted Amounts
Actual
Original Final Amounts (Negative)

REVENUES
Property taxes
Sales taxes
$ 2,167,000
1,640,000
7,500,000
133,000
215,250
8,000
150,000
30,600
356,000
354,500
299,600
12,853,950
$ 2,167,000
1,640,000
7,500,000
133,000
215,250
8,000
150,000
30,600
356,000
354,500
299,600
12,853,950
$ 2,657,168
1,628,440
8,750,591
175,975
225,141
60,023
257,362
449,117
378,789
487,620
346,265
15,416,491
$ 490,168
(11,560)
1,250,591
42,975
Transient occupancy tax
Other taxes
Licenses and permits
Fines and forfeitures
Intergovernmental
Interest
Rent and concessions
Charges for Services
Other Revenue
9,891
52,023
107,362
418,517
22,789
133,120
46,665
Total Revenues 2,562,541

EXPENDITURES
Current:

General Government
Public Safety
Public Works
Community Promotion
Parks and Recreation
Debt service
4,314,692
1,991,895
2,505,745
411,143
5,352,206
1,991,895
2,550,440
411,143
3,719,402
1,858,032
2,346,409
351,745
1,632,804
133,863
204,031
59,398
1,744,601 1,830,269 1,794,711 35,558
Principal retirement
Interest and fiscal charges
Total Expenditures
10,032
154
10,978,262
10,032
154
12,146,139
155,512
2,447
10,228,258
(145,480)
(2,293)
1,917,881
Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues over Expenditures 1,875,688 707,811 5,188,233 4,480,422

OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES)
Transfers in - - - -
Transfers out (2,197,600)
(2,197,600)
(3,741,268)
(3,741,268)
(3,732,933)
(3,732,933)
8,335
Total Other Financing Sources (Uses) 8,335
Net Change in Fund Balance (321,912) (3,033,457) 1,455,300 17,642,036
19,097,336
4,488,757
Fund Balance Beginning -
Fund Balance Ending
17,642,036
17,320,124
17,642,036
$ $ 14,608,579 $ $ 4,488,757

Page 91 ends

Town of Yountville
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance Budget and Actual (GAAP Basis)
Measure T Fund
For the Year Ended June 30, 2023
Variance with
Final Budget
Positive
Budgeted Amounts
Original Final
525,000 525,000
Actual
Amounts (Negative)

REVENUES
Intergovernmental
Interest
$ $ $ 687,914
5,255
$ 162,914
200 200 5,055
Total Revenues 525,200 525,200 693,169 167,969

EXPENDITURES
Capital outlay 525,000
525,000
525,000
525,000
354,279
354,279
170,721
Total Expenditures 170,721
Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues over Expenditures 200 200 338,890 338,690

OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES)
Transfers in
Transfers out
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Total Other Financing Sources (Uses) -
Net Change in Fund Balance 200
196,270
196,470
200
196,270
196,470
338,890
196,270
535,160
338,690
Fund Balance Beginning -
Fund Balance Ending $ $ $ $ 338,690

Page 92 ends

Town of Yountville
Schedule of Pension Contributions
June 30, 2023
(Last Ten Years)
Miscellaneous Plan
Plan Measurement Date
Fiscal Year Ended
2014
2015
2015
2016
2016
2017
2017
2018
2018
2019
2019
2020
2020
2021
2021
2022
2022
2023
Contractually Required Contributions
Contributions in Relation to Contractually
Required Contributions
$ 387,070 $ 428,289 $ 474,799 $ 524,489 $ 596,324 $ 691,306 $ 651,564 $ 673,383 $ 757,381 387,070
-
428,289
-
474,799
-
524,489
-
596,324
-
691,306
-
651,564
-
673,383
-
757,381
Contribution Deficiency (Excess) $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ -
Covered Payroll $ 2,116,105

18.29%
$ 2,310,300

18.54%
$ 2,531,110

18.76%
$ 2,791,647

18.79%
$ 3,083,079

19.34%
$ 3,374,258

20.49%
$ 3,336,879

19.53%
$ 3,308,529

20.35%
$ 3,885,388
Contributions as a % of Covered Payroll 19.49%

Page 93 ends

Town of Yountville
Schedule of Proportionate Share of Net Pension Liability June 30, 2023
(Last Ten Years)
Miscellaneous and Safety Plan
Plan Measurement Date
Fiscal Year Ended
2014
2015
2015
2016
2016
2017
2017
2018
2018
2019
2019
2020
2020
2021
2021
2022
2022
2023
Proportion of Net Pension
Liability (Safety and Misc) 0.03937%

0.09911%

0.04292% 0.04077%

0.10155%

0.04043%

0.10171%

0.03997%

0.10219%

0.04018%

0.10283%

0.04034%

0.10406%

0.04185%

0.11920%

0.04468%

0.11029%
Proportion of Net Pension
Liability (Misc Plan Only) 0.10739%
Proportionate Share of
Net Pension Liability $
$
2,449,513
2,023,677
$
$
2,946,171
2,116,105
$
$
3,527,582
2,310,300
$
$
4,009,560
2,531,110
$
$
3,851,205
2,791,647
$
$
4,117,728
3,083,079
$
$
4,389,375
3,374,258
$
$
2,263,347
3,336,879
$
$
5,160,670
Covered Payroll 3,308,529
Proportionate Share of NPL
as a % of Covered Payroll 121.04%

81.15%
139.23%

76.29%
152.69%

71.85%
158.41%

72.01%
137.95%

75.04%
133.56%

75.67%
130.08%

75.80%

67.83%

88.29%
155.98%

75.76%
Plan's Fiduciary Net Position
as a % of the TPL

Page 94 ends

Town of Yountville
Schedule of OPEB Contributions
June 30, 2023
(Last Ten Years)
Fiscal Year Ended 2018
359,315
(574,451)
(215,136)
2019
466,440
(1,102,044)
(635,604)
2020
480,409
(405,199)
75,210
2021
414,051
(46,833)
367,218
2022
425,804
(417,323)
8,481
2023
299,915
(341,478)
(41,563)
Actuarially determined contribution (ADC)
Less: actual contribution in relation to ADC
Contribution deficiency (excess)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Covered employee payroll
Contrib. as a % of covered employee payroll
$ 3,313,486

17.34%
$ 3,083,079

35.74%
$ 3,331,741

12.16%
$ 3,594,064

1.30%
$ 3,555,195

11.74%
$ 4,226,240

8.08%
Notes to Schedule:

Assumptions and Methods
Valuation Date:

Measurement Date:

Actuarial Cost Method:

Amortization Period:

Asset Valuation Method:

Actuarial Assumptions:

Discount Rate
January 1, 2022
June 30, 2022
Entry-Age Normal Cost
Open 30 year period
Level percentage of payroll

5.7%
Inflation 2.5%
Salary Increases 3.0%
Healthcare Trend Rate
Investment Rate of Return
Mortality

5.6 to 3.9%

5.72%
CalPERS 2021 Experience Study
Rx PA Misc 2.7% @ 55
Rx PA Misc 2% @ 62
Retirement
Other Notes
GASB 75 requires a schedule of contributions for the last ten fiscal years, or for as many years as are available if less than ten years are available. GASB 75 was adopted as of June 30, 2018.

There were no changes in benefit terms.

Actuarially determined contribution rates are calculated as of June 30, two years prior to the end of the fiscal year in which contributions are reported.

From FY2019 to FY2022, the discount rate increased from 5.65% to 5.72%, the inflation rate decreased from 2.75% to 2.5%, the salary increase rate decreased from 3.25% to 3%, and the rate of return increased from 5.65% to 5.72%.

Page 95 ends

Town of Yountville
Schedule of Changes in Net OPEB Liability
June 30, 2023
(Last Ten Years)
Fiscal Year Ended 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Total OPEB liability
Service cost $ 313,121 $ 323,297 $ 333,804 $ 335,358 $ 345,419 $ 273,145 Interest 274,234
-
299,254
-
326,187
(424,734)
(130,013)
(161,410)
(56,166)
343,104
-
373,791
(966,476)
(134,059)
(192,323)
(573,648)
5,980,589
5,406,941
318,482
Differences between expected and actual experience -
Changes of assumptions
Benefit payments
Net change in Total OPEB Liability
Total OPEB Liability - beginning
Total OPEB Liability - ending
- - - -
(158,101)
429,254
4,619,625
5,048,879
(151,304)
471,247
5,048,879
5,520,126
(161,833)
516,629
5,463,960
5,980,589
(224,432)
367,195
5,406,941
5,774,136
5,520,126
$ 5,463,960
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Plan fiduciary net position
Employer contributions
Net investment income
Benefit payments
Other
574,451
174,585
(158,101)
-
(11,973)
578,962
2,526,438
3,105,400
1,102,044
236,316
(151,304)
-
543,199
181,024
(161,410)
-
(23,169)
539,644
4,284,193
4,823,837
46,833
1,102,353
(161,833)
(138,000)
-
849,353
4,823,837
5,673,190
417,323
(713,545)
(192,323)
-
341,478
96,524
(224,432)
299,909
-
513,479
5,184,645
5,698,124
Administrative expense (8,263) -
Net change in plan fiduciary net position
Plan fiduciary net position - beginning
Plan fiduciary net position - ending
1,178,793
3,105,400
4,284,193
(488,545)
5,673,190
$ 5,184,645
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Net OPEB liability (asset) 1,943,479 1,235,933 640,123 307,399 222,296 76,012 Plan fiduciary net position as a percentage of the
total OPEB liability 61.51%
3,313,486

58.65%

77.61%
3,083,079

40.09%

88.28%
3,331,741

19.21%

94.86%
3,594,064

8.55%

95.89%
3,555,195

6.25%

98.68%
4,226,240

1.80%
Covered Employee Payroll $
Net OPEB liability as a percentage of covered employee payroll Total OPEB liability as a percentage of covered employee payroll 152.37% 179.05% 164.00% 166.40% 152.09% 136.63% Other Notes
GASB 75 requires a schedule of contributions for the last ten fiscal years, or for as many years as are available if less than ten years are available. GASB 75 was adopted as of June 30, 2018.

There were no changes in benefit terms.

Page 96 ends

Town of Yountville
Schedule of PARS OPEB Trust Investment Returns
June 30, 2023
(Last Ten Years)
Annual
Money-weighted
Rate of Return, Net
Fiscal Year of Investment Expenses
2017 9.38%
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023

7.16%

5.36%

5.61%

10.16%

5.29%

5.57%
Note: Schedule is intended to show information for 10 years. Additional years will be displayed as they become available.

Page 97 ends

Page Intentionally Left Blank

Page 98 ends

Supplementary Information

Page 99 ends

This page is intentionally blank

Page 100 ends

Town of Yountville
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance Budget and Actual (GAAP Basis)
Capital Projects Fund
For the Year Ended June 30, 2023
Variance with
Final Budget
Positive
Budgeted Amounts
Original Final
160,000 358,400
Actual
Amounts (Negative)

REVENUES
Intergovernmental
Interest
$ $ $ 14,010 $ (344,390)
1,500 1,500 28,367 26,867
Charges for Services
Other Revenue
Total Revenues
-
-
-
-
1 -
42,378
1 -
161,500 359,900 (317,522)

EXPENDITURES
Capital outlay 468,100
468,100
1,188,548
1,188,548
311,717
311,717
876,831
Total Expenditures 876,831
Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues over Expenditures (306,600) (828,648) (269,339) 559,309

OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES)
Transfers in
Transfers out
751,500
-
1,101,500
-
1,101,973
-
473
-
Total Other Financing Sources (Uses) 751,500 1,101,500 1,101,973 473 Net Change in Fund Balance 444,900
995,286
272,852
995,286
832,634
995,286
559,782
Fund Balance Beginning -
Fund Balance Ending $ 1,440,186 $ 1,268,138 $ 1,827,920 $ 559,782

Page 101 ends

Town of Yountville
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance Budget and Actual (GAAP Basis)
Debt Service Fund
For the Year Ended June 30, 2023
Variance with
Final Budget
Positive
Budgeted Amounts
Original Final
400
Actual
Amounts (Negative)

REVENUES
Interest $ $ 400
400
$ 15,119
15,119
$ 14,719
Total Revenues 400 14,719

EXPENDITURES
Debt service
Principal retirement
Interest and fiscal charges
Total Expenditures
624,000
272,924
896,924
624,000
272,924
896,924
624,000
272,474
896,474
-
450
450
Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues over Expenditures (896,524) (896,524) (881,355) 15,169

OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES)
Transfers in
Transfers out
852,991
-
1,152,991
-
1,152,990
-
(1)
-
Total Other Financing Sources (Uses) 852,991 1,152,991 1,152,990 (1) Net Change in Fund Balance (43,533)
65,499
21,966
256,467
65,499
271,635
65,499
15,168
Fund Balance Beginning -
Fund Balance Ending $ $ 321,966 $ 337,134 $ 15,168

Page 102 ends

NONMAJOR GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS
Special Revenue Funds
Gas Tax Fund accounts for funds received from the State of California to use for street and highway related projects.

Public Education and Government Television Fund is used to account for public education and government fees.

Public Art Program Fund is used to account for certain monies paid by commercial applicants applying for building permits restricted for the acquisition, installation, improvement, and maintenance of physical artwork to be displayed in the Town for public view.

Housing Grants Program Fund is used to account for grant funds received for the CalHome Program from the California Department of Housing and Community Development that is restricted for the Owner-Occupied Rehabilitation Program to fund necessary home improvement projects for low income eligible residents to bring their home up to current building code standards.

SB1 2017 Road Repair Act Fund is used to account for SB 1 2017 Road Repair Act monies. Disability Access Fee SB1167 Fund is used to account for Disability Access fees.

Measure T Equivalent Fund is used to account for 6.67% of other monies to be spent for class 1 bicycle improvements, per the Measure T Ordinance (Napa Countywide Road Maintenance Act).

Fire Services Fund accounts for financial activities relating to the Fire Emergency Services Impact Fee that are restricted to be used to offset additional costs of personnel, facilities, and equipment required to meet demand on fire and medical services generated by new development.

Disability Access Fee SB1167 Fund is used to account for Disability Access fees.

Utility Underground Impact Fee Fund was established to pay for the undergrounding of existing overhead utilities along primary streets. Proceeds of each fee collected are to be allocated to the fund that finances approved utility undergrounding projects.

Housing Opportunity Fund is used to account for monies restricted for the development of affordable housing units.

Measure S Fund is used to account for revenue received from voter approved Measure S which increased transient occupancy tax by 1%. This special tax is for funding programs related to workforce and affordable housing.

Upper Valley Disposal Service Franchise Fees Fund is used to account for franchise fees collected for waste disposal services.

Town of Yountville Community Foundation Fund is used to account for the activities of the Town of Yountville Community Foundation.

Tallent Lane Drainage Fund accounts for the activities of the Tallent Lane Benefit District that was established to provide safer and improved access to properties fronting Tallent Lane.

Mesa Court Drainage Fund accounts for activities of the Mesa Court Drainage Benefit District that was established to correct drainage problems within the area of Mesa Court.

Page 103 ends

NONMAJOR GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS
Capital Projects Funds
Measure A Maintenance Fund is used to account for Measure A maintenance capital projects.

Facility Repair and Replacement Fund is used to accumulate resources for repair and replacement capital projects.

Fleet, Tools, and Equipment Repair and Replacement Fund is used to accumulate resources for repair and replacement capital projects.

Page 104 ends

Town of Yountville
Combining Balance Sheet
Nonmajor Governmental Funds
June 30, 2023
Special Revenue Funds
Public
Education
and Gov't
Fund
Public
Art
Program
Fund
Housing
Grants
Program
Fund
SB1 2017
Road Repair
Act
Gas
Tax
Fund Fund
ASSETS
Cash and investments
Taxes receivable
Interest receivable
Due from other governments
Due from other funds
Loans receivable
$ 136,882 $ 45,654
3,811
$ 25,909 $ 137,782 $ 145,607
-
882
6,790
-
- - -
921
5,987
-
348
-
-
-
180
-
-
-
902
-
-
- - -
Total assets $
$
144,554 $
$
49,813 $
$
26,089 $
$
138,684 $
$
152,515

LIABILITIES, DEFERRED INFLOWS

AND FUND BALANCES
Liabilities:

Accounts payable
Other liabilities
Total liabilities
785
-
785
-
-
-
564
2,725
3,289
1,332
-
1,332
-
-
-
Deferred Inflows of Resources:

Unavailable revenues - - - - -
Fund Balances:

Restricted:

Streets 143,769 - - - 152,515
Housing
Cultural programs
Other
-
-
-
-
49,813
-
-
22,800
-
137,352 -
-
-
-
-
Assigned:

Capital projects
Unassigned
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Total fund balances
Total liabilities, deferred inflows of
143,769 49,813 22,800 137,352 152,515
resources and fund balances $ 144,554 $ 49,813 $ 26,089 $ 138,684 $ 152,515 Cont'd

Page 105 ends

Town of Yountville
Combining Balance Sheet
Nonmajor Governmental Funds
June 30, 2023
Special Revenue Funds
Disability Utility
Measure T
Equivalent
Fund
Fire
Services
Fund
Access Fee
SB 1186
Fund
Underground
Impact Fee
Fund
Housing
Opportunity
Fund
ASSETS
Cash and investments
Taxes receivable
Interest receivable
Due from other governments
Due from other funds
Loans receivable
$ 37,657 $ 32 $ 1,592
-
$ 112,836 $ 175,146
- -
-
-
-
-
- -
248
-
-
-
6 742
-
-
-
896
-
-
-
-
- 1,506,525
Total assets $ 1,682,567
$
37,905 $
$
32 $
$
1,598 $
$
113,578 $
$

LIABILITIES, DEFERRED INFLOWS

AND FUND BALANCES
Liabilities:

Accounts payable
Other liabilities
Total liabilities
-
-
-
-
-
-
145
-
145
-
-
-
-
-
-
Deferred Inflows of Resources:

Unavailable revenues - - - - 157,425
Fund Balances:

Restricted:

Streets
Housing
Cultural programs
Other
37,905 -
-
-
-
-
-
113,578 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,525,142
-
32 1,453 -
Assigned:

Capital projects
Unassigned
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Total fund balances
Total liabilities, deferred inflows of
37,905 32 1,453 113,578 1,525,142
resources and fund balances $ 37,905 $ 32 $ 1,598 $ 113,578 $ 1,682,567 Cont'd

Page 106 ends

Town of Yountville
Combining Balance Sheet
Nonmajor Governmental Funds
June 30, 2023
Special Revenue Funds
Upper Valley
Disposal
Service
Franchice Fees
Fund
Town of
Yountville
Community
Foundation
Fund
Tallent
Lane
Drainage
Fund
Mesa
Court
Drainage
Fund
Measure S
Fund
ASSETS
Cash and investments
Taxes receivable
Interest receivable
Due from other governments
Due from other funds
Loans receivable
$ 2,307,550 $ 100,167
24,378
$ 131,935 $ 18,212 $ 50,784
96,787
14,777
-
-
-
- -
610
-
-
-
120
-
-
-
334
-
-
-
-
1,215
-
-
337,606
Total assets $ 2,756,720
$
$
$
125,155 $
$
133,150 $
$
18,332 $
$
51,118

LIABILITIES, DEFERRED INFLOWS

AND FUND BALANCES
Liabilities:

Accounts payable
Other liabilities
Total liabilities
-
-
-
-
-
-
89 -
89 -
-
-
-
-
-
Deferred Inflows of Resources:

Unavailable revenues - - - - -
Fund Balances:

Restricted:

Streets - - - 18,332 51,118
Housing
Cultural programs
Other
2,756,720 -
-
-
133,061
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- 125,155
Assigned:

Capital projects
Unassigned
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Total fund balances
Total liabilities, deferred inflows of
2,756,720 125,155 133,061 18,332 51,118
resources and fund balances $ 2,756,720 $ 125,155 $ 133,150 $ 18,332 $ 51,118 Cont'd

Page 107 ends

Town of Yountville
Combining Balance Sheet
Nonmajor Governmental Funds
June 30, 2023
Capital Projects Funds
Fleet, Tools
and Equipment
Repair and
Replacement
Fund
Facility
Repair and
Replacement
Fund
Total
Nonmajor
Governmental
Funds
Measure A
Maintenance
Fund
ASSETS
Cash and investments
Taxes receivable
Interest receivable
Due from other governments
Due from other funds
Loans receivable
$ 480,548 $ 1,153,171 $ 1,229,660 $ 6,291,124
124,976
39,810
12,777
1,215
1,844,131
8,314,033
- - -
3,162 7,591
-
-
-
8,091
-
-
-
0 -
-
Total assets $
$
483,710 $
$
1,160,762 $
$
1,237,751 $
$

LIABILITIES, DEFERRED INFLOWS

AND FUND BALANCES
Liabilities:

Accounts payable
Other liabilities
Total liabilities
-
-
-
42,546
-
42,546
-
-
-
45,461
2,725
48,186
Deferred Inflows of Resources:

Unavailable revenues - - - 157,425
Fund Balances:

Restricted:

Streets
Housing
Cultural programs
Other
483,710 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,000,927
4,419,214
205,674
-
-
- 126,640
Assigned:

Capital projects
Unassigned
-
-
1,118,216
-
1,237,751
-
2,355,967
-
Total fund balances
Total liabilities, deferred inflows of
483,710 1,118,216 1,237,751 8,108,422
resources and fund balances $ 483,710 $ 1,160,762 $ 1,237,751 $ 8,314,033 Concluded

Page 108 ends

Town of Yountville
Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures
and Changes in Fund Balances
Nonmajor Governmental Funds
For the Year Ended June 30, 2023
Special Revenue Funds
Public
Education
and Gov't
Fund
Public
Art
Program
Fund
Housing
Grants
Program
Fund
SB1 2017
Road Repair
Act
Gas
Tax
Fund Fund

REVENUES
Other taxes $ -
-
$ 18,687 $ - $ -
-
$ -
Licenses and permits
Intergovernmental
Interest
Charges for Services
Other Revenue
Total Revenues
-
-
11,332 -
71,406
2,300
-
78,337
2,163
- 120,857
1,141 2,402
-
-
696
-
-
-
-
-
- -
80,500 19,828 12,028 123,259 73,706

EXPENDITURES
Current:

General Government
Housing
Public Works
Community Promotion
Capital outlay
-
-
-
-
25,810 -
-
- -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
35,041
29,499 -
-
-
-
5,804 -
Total Expenditures 5,804 25,810 29,499 35,041
Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues over Expenditures 74,696 (5,982) (17,471) 88,218 73,706

OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES)
Transfers in
Transfers out
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Total Other Financing Sources (Uses) -
Net Change in Fund Balances
Fund Balances Beginning
Fund Balances Ending
74,696
69,073
(5,982)
55,795
49,813
(17,471)
40,271
22,800
88,218
49,134
73,706
78,809
$ 143,769 $ $ $ 137,352 $ 152,515
Cont'd

Page 109 ends

Town of Yountville
Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures
and Changes in Fund Balances
Nonmajor Governmental Funds
For the Year Ended June 30, 2023
Special Revenue Funds
Disability Utility
Measure T
Equivalent
Fund
Fire
Services
Fund
Access Fee
SB 1186
Fund
Underground
Impact Fee
Fund
Housing
Opportunity
Fund

REVENUES
Other taxes $ -
-
-
$ -
-
-
$ -
-
-
$ -
-
-
$ -
-
-
Licenses and permits
Intergovernmental
Interest
Charges for Services
Other Revenue
Total Revenues
716
-
-
1 1
25 2,145
-
-
2,950
254
-
-
-
1,991
-
716 2,016 2,145 3,204

EXPENDITURES
Current:

General Government
Housing
Public Works
Community Promotion
Capital outlay
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
64,200
-
-
-
Total Expenditures 64,200
Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues over Expenditures 716 1 1 2,016 2,145 (60,996)

OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES)
Transfers in
Transfers out
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
-
-
64,200
-
64,200
(1,973)
Total Other Financing Sources (Uses) (1,973)
Net Change in Fund Balances
Fund Balances Beginning
Fund Balances Ending
716
37,189
37,905
43 1,410
1,453
2,145
111,433
113,578
3,204
31 32
1,521,938
$ $ $ $ $ 1,525,142
Cont'd

Page 110 ends

Town of Yountville
Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures
and Changes in Fund Balances
Nonmajor Governmental Funds
For the Year Ended June 30, 2023
Special Revenue Funds
Upper Valley
Disposal
Service
Franchice Fees
Fund
Town of
Yountville
Community
Foundation
Fund
Tallent
Lane
Drainage
Fund
Mesa
Court
Drainage
Fund
Measure S
Fund

REVENUES
Other taxes $ 729,216 $ 107,228 $ - $ - $ -
Licenses and permits
Intergovernmental
Interest
Charges for Services
Other Revenue
Total Revenues
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
42,767 1,236
-
-
347
-
-
965
-
-
-
- 9,508
771,983 108,464 9,508 347 965

EXPENDITURES
Current:

General Government
Housing
Public Works
Community Promotion
Capital outlay
-
-
-
-
-
-
3,571
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
8,846
-
Total Expenditures 3,571 8,846
Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues over Expenditures 771,983 104,893 662 347 965

OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES)
Transfers in
Transfers out
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,215
-
1,215
-
-
-
-
-
Total Other Financing Sources (Uses) -
Net Change in Fund Balances
Fund Balances Beginning
Fund Balances Ending
771,983
1,984,737
2,756,720
104,893
20,262
1,877
131,184
133,061
347
17,985
18,332
965
50,153
$ $ 125,155 $ $ $ 51,118
Cont'd

Page 111 ends

Town of Yountville
Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures
and Changes in Fund Balances
Nonmajor Governmental Funds
For the Year Ended June 30, 2023
Capital Projects Funds
Fleet, Tools
Facility
Repair and
Replacement
Fund
and Equipment
Repair and
Replacement
Fund
Total
Nonmajor
Governmental
Funds
Measure A
Maintenance
Fund

REVENUES
Other taxes $ -
-
-
$ -
-
-
$ -
-
-
$ 855,131
11,332
270,600
115,961
2,245
Licenses and permits
Intergovernmental
Interest
Charges for Services
Other Revenue
Total Revenues
9,133
-
-
23,597 23,377
-
-
-
- 9,508
9,133 23,597 23,377 1,264,777

EXPENDITURES
Current:

General Government
Housing
Public Works
Community Promotion
Capital outlay
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
29,381
99,241
29,499
8,846
310,203
477,170
304,399
Total Expenditures 304,399
Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues over Expenditures 9,133 (280,802) 23,377 787,607

OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES)
Transfers in
Transfers out
-
-
-
350,000
-
350,000
200,000
-
200,000
615,415
(1,973)
Total Other Financing Sources (Uses) 613,442
Net Change in Fund Balances
Fund Balances Beginning
Fund Balances Ending
9,133
474,577
483,710
69,198
1,049,018
1,118,216
223,377
1,014,374
1,237,751
1,401,049
6,707,373
$ $ $ $ 8,108,422
Concluded

Page 112 ends

Town of Yountville
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and
Changes in Fund Balances
Budget and Actual (GAAP Basis)
Nonmajor Governmental Funds
For the Year Ended June 30, 2023
Gas Tax Fund
Variance with
Final Budget
Positive
Budgeted Amounts
Actual
Original Final Amounts (Negative)

REVENUES
Other taxes $ -
-
$ -
-
$ -
-
$ -
Licenses and permits -
Intergovernmental
Interest
83,505 83,505 78,337
2,163
(5,168)
200 200 1,963
Rent and concessions
Charges for Services
Other Revenue
Total Revenues
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
83,705 83,705 80,500 (3,205)

EXPENDITURES
Current:

General Government
Housing
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Public Works - - - -
Community Promotion
Parks and Recreation
Capital outlay
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
85,000
85,000
98,828
98,828
5,804
5,804
93,024
Total Expenditures 93,024
Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues over Expenditures (1,295) (15,123) 74,696 89,819

OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES)
Transfers in
Transfers out
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Total Other Financing Sources (Uses) -
Net Change in Fund Balances
Fund Balances Beginning
Fund Balances Ending
(1,295)
69,073
67,778
(15,123)
69,073
53,950
74,696
69,073
89,819
-
$ $ $ 143,769 $ 89,819
Cont'd

Page 113 ends

Town of Yountville
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and
Changes in Fund Balances
Budget and Actual (GAAP Basis)
Nonmajor Governmental Funds
For the Year Ended June 30, 2023
Public Education and Gov't Fund
Variance with
Budgeted Amounts
Original Final
13,500
Final Budget
Positive
(Negative)
Actual
Amounts

REVENUES
Other taxes $ 13,500 $ $ 18,687 $ 5,187
Licenses and permits
Intergovernmental
Interest
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
300 300 1,141 841
Rent and concessions
Charges for Services
Other Revenue
Total Revenues
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
13,800 13,800 19,828 6,028

EXPENDITURES
Current:

General Government
Housing
5,000
-
28,500 25,810 2,690
- - -
Public Works - - - -
Community Promotion
Parks and Recreation
Capital outlay
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Total Expenditures 5,000 28,500 25,810 2,690
Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues over Expenditures 8,800 (14,700) (5,982) 8,718

OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES)
Transfers in
Transfers out
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Total Other Financing Sources (Uses) -
Net Change in Fund Balances
Fund Balances Beginning
Fund Balances Ending
8,800
55,795
64,595
(14,700)
55,795
41,095
(5,982)
55,795
49,813
8,718
-
$ $ $ $ 8,718
Cont'd

Page 114 ends

Town of Yountville
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and
Changes in Fund Balances
Budget and Actual (GAAP Basis)
Nonmajor Governmental Funds
For the Year Ended June 30, 2023
Public Art Program Fund
Variance with
Final Budget
Positive
Budgeted Amounts
Actual
Original
-
Final Amounts (Negative)

REVENUES
Other taxes $ $ - $ - $ -
Licenses and permits
Intergovernmental
Interest
5,000
-
300
5,000
-
300
11,332 6,332
-
396
-
696
Rent and concessions
Charges for Services
Other Revenue
Total Revenues
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
5,300 5,300 12,028 6,728

EXPENDITURES
Current:

General Government
Housing
Public Works
Community Promotion
Parks and Recreation
Capital outlay
- - -
-
-
-
18,000
-
2,700
-
-
18,000
-
2,700
-
-
(11,499)
-
2,700
-
29,499
-
-
-
Total Expenditures 20,700 20,700 29,499 (8,799)
Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues over Expenditures (15,400) (15,400) (17,471) (2,071)

OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES)
Transfers in
Transfers out
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Total Other Financing Sources (Uses) -
Net Change in Fund Balances
Fund Balances Beginning
Fund Balances Ending
(15,400)
40,271
24,871
(15,400)
40,271
24,871
(17,471)
40,271
22,800
(2,071)
-
$ $ $ $ (2,071)
Cont'd

Page 115 ends

Town of Yountville
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and
Changes in Fund Balances
Budget and Actual (GAAP Basis)
Nonmajor Governmental Funds
For the Year Ended June 30, 2023
Housing Grants Program Fund
Variance with
Final Budget
Positive
Budgeted Amounts
Actual
Original Final Amounts (Negative)

REVENUES
Other taxes $ -
-
$ -
-
$ -
-
$ -
Licenses and permits -
Intergovernmental
Interest
120,000 120,000 120,857
2,402
857
100 100 2,302
Rent and concessions
Charges for Services
Other Revenue
Total Revenues
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
120,100 120,100 123,259 3,159

EXPENDITURES
Current:

General Government
Housing
- - - -
120,000 120,000 35,041 84,959
Public Works - - - -
Community Promotion
Parks and Recreation
Capital outlay
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Total Expenditures 120,000 120,000 35,041 84,959
Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues over Expenditures 100 100 88,218 88,118

OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES)
Transfers in
Transfers out
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Total Other Financing Sources (Uses) -
Net Change in Fund Balances
Fund Balances Beginning
Fund Balances Ending
100
49,134
49,234
100
49,134
49,234
88,218
49,134
88,118
-
$ $ $ 137,352 $ 88,118
Cont'd

Page 116 ends

Town of Yountville
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and
Changes in Fund Balances
Budget and Actual (GAAP Basis)
Nonmajor Governmental Funds
For the Year Ended June 30, 2023
SB1 2017 Road Repair Act Fund
Variance with
Budgeted Amounts Final Budget
Actual Positive
Original Final Amounts (Negative)

REVENUES
Other taxes $ -
-
$ -
-
$ -
-
$ -
Licenses and permits -
Intergovernmental
Interest
64,949 64,949 71,406
2,300
6,457
200 200 2,100
Rent and concessions
Charges for Services
Other Revenue
Total Revenues
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
65,149 65,149 73,706 8,557

EXPENDITURES
Current:

General Government
Housing
Public Works
Community Promotion
Parks and Recreation
Capital outlay
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
66,000
66,000
75,460
75,460
75,460
Total Expenditures 75,460
Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues over Expenditures (851) (10,311) 73,706 84,017

OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES)
Transfers in
Transfers out
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Total Other Financing Sources (Uses) -
Net Change in Fund Balances
Fund Balances Beginning
Fund Balances Ending
(851)
78,809
77,958
(10,311)
78,809
68,498
73,706
78,809
84,017
-
$ $ $ 152,515 $ 84,017
Cont'd

Page 117 ends

Town of Yountville
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and
Changes in Fund Balances
Budget and Actual (GAAP Basis)
Nonmajor Governmental Funds
For the Year Ended June 30, 2023
Measure T Equivalent Fund
Variance with
Final Budget
Positive
Budgeted Amounts
Actual
Original Final Amounts (Negative)

REVENUES
Other taxes $ -
-
-
$ -
-
-
$ -
-
-
$ -
-
-
Licenses and permits
Intergovernmental
Interest 125 125 716 591
Rent and concessions
Charges for Services
Other Revenue
Total Revenues
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
125 125 716 591

EXPENDITURES
Current:

General Government
Housing
Public Works
Community Promotion
Parks and Recreation
Capital outlay
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Total Expenditures -
Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues over Expenditures 125 125 716 591

OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES)
Transfers in
Transfers out
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Total Other Financing Sources (Uses) -
Net Change in Fund Balances
Fund Balances Beginning
Fund Balances Ending
125
37,189
37,314
125 716
37,189
37,905
591
37,189 -
$ $ 37,314 $ $ 591
Cont'd

Page 118 ends

Town of Yountville
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and
Changes in Fund Balances
Budget and Actual (GAAP Basis)
Nonmajor Governmental Funds
For the Year Ended June 30, 2023
Fire Services Fund
Variance with
Final Budget
Positive
Budgeted Amounts
Actual
Original Final Amounts (Negative)

REVENUES
Other taxes $ -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$ -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$ -
-
-
$ -
-
-
Licenses and permits
Intergovernmental
Interest
Rent and concessions
Charges for Services
Other Revenue
Total Revenues
1 1
1 1
-
-
-
-
-
-

EXPENDITURES
Current:

Page 119 ends

Town of Yountville
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and
Changes in Fund Balances
Budget and Actual (GAAP Basis)
Nonmajor Governmental Funds
For the Year Ended June 30, 2023
Disability Access Fee SB 1186 Fund
Variance with
Budgeted Amounts
Original Final
Final Budget
Positive
(Negative)
Actual
Amounts

REVENUES
Other taxes $ -
-
-
-
$ -
-
-
-
-
$ -
-
-
25 -
1,991
-
2,016
$ -
-
-
25 -
491
-
516
Licenses and permits
Intergovernmental
Interest
Rent and concessions
Charges for Services
Other Revenue
Total Revenues
-
1,500
-
1,500
1,500
-
1,500

EXPENDITURES
Current:

OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES)
Transfers in - - - -
Transfers out (1,500)
(1,500)
(1,500)
(1,500)
(1,973)
(1,973)
(473)
Total Other Financing Sources (Uses) (473)
Net Change in Fund Balances
Fund Balances Beginning
Fund Balances Ending
- - 43
1,410
1,453
43 1,410 -
1,410
1,410
$ $ 1,410 $ $ 43
Cont'd

Page 120 ends

Town of Yountville
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and
Changes in Fund Balances
Budget and Actual (GAAP Basis)
Nonmajor Governmental Funds
For the Year Ended June 30, 2023
Utility Underground Impact Fee Fund
Variance with
Budgeted Amounts
Original Final
Final Budget
Positive
(Negative)
Actual
Amounts

REVENUES
Other taxes $ -
-
-
$ -
-
-
$ -
-
-
$ -
-
-
Licenses and permits
Intergovernmental
Interest 200 200 2,145 1,945
Rent and concessions
Charges for Services
Other Revenue
Total Revenues
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
200 200 2,145 1,945

EXPENDITURES
Current:

OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES)
Transfers in
Transfers out
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Total Other Financing Sources (Uses) -
Net Change in Fund Balances
Fund Balances Beginning
Fund Balances Ending
200
111,433
111,633
200 2,145
111,433
113,578
1,945
111,433 -
$ $ 111,633 $ $ 1,945
Cont'd

Page 121 ends

Town of Yountville
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and
Changes in Fund Balances
Budget and Actual (GAAP Basis)
Nonmajor Governmental Funds
For the Year Ended June 30, 2023
Housing Opportunity Fund
Variance with
Final Budget
Positive
Budgeted Amounts
Actual
Original Final Amounts (Negative)

REVENUES
Other taxes $ -
-
-
$ -
-
-
$ -
-
-
$ -
Licenses and permits -
Intergovernmental
Interest
Rent and concessions
Charges for Services
Other Revenue
Total Revenues
-
2,450
-
254
-
500
-
-
-
500
-
-
-
2,950
-
254
-
500 500 3,204 2,704

EXPENDITURES
Current:

General Government
Housing
- - - -
71,600 71,600 64,200 7,400
Public Works - - - -
Community Promotion
Parks and Recreation
Capital outlay
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Total Expenditures 71,600 71,600 64,200 7,400
Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues over Expenditures (71,100) (71,100) (60,996) 10,104

OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES)
Transfers in
Transfers out
71,600
-
71,600
-
64,200
-
(7,400)
-
Total Other Financing Sources (Uses) 71,600 71,600 64,200 (7,400) Net Change in Fund Balances
Fund Balances Beginning
Fund Balances Ending
500
1,521,938
1,522,438
500
1,521,938
1,522,438
3,204
1,521,938
1,525,142
2,704
-
$ $ $ $ 2,704
Cont'd

Page 122 ends

Town of Yountville
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and
Changes in Fund Balances
Budget and Actual (GAAP Basis)
Nonmajor Governmental Funds
For the Year Ended June 30, 2023
Measure S Fund
Variance with
Final Budget
Positive
Budgeted Amounts
Actual
Original
583,333
Final Amounts (Negative)

REVENUES
Other taxes $ $ 583,333 $ 729,216 $ 145,883
Licenses and permits
Intergovernmental
Interest
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2,500 2,500 42,767 40,267
Rent and concessions
Charges for Services
Other Revenue
Total Revenues
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
585,833 585,833 771,983 186,150

EXPENDITURES
Current:

General Government
Housing
Public Works
Community Promotion
Parks and Recreation
Capital outlay
- - -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
100,000 100,000 100,000
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Total Expenditures 100,000 100,000 100,000
Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues over Expenditures 485,833 485,833 771,983 286,150

OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES)
Transfers in
Transfers out
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Total Other Financing Sources (Uses) -
Net Change in Fund Balances
Fund Balances Beginning
Fund Balances Ending
485,833
1,984,737
2,470,570
485,833
1,984,737
2,470,570
771,983
1,984,737
2,756,720
286,150
-
$ $ $ $ 286,150
Cont'd

Page 123 ends

Town of Yountville
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and
Changes in Fund Balances
Budget and Actual (GAAP Basis)
Nonmajor Governmental Funds
For the Year Ended June 30, 2023
Upper Valley Disposal Service Franchise Fees Fund
Variance with
Budgeted Amounts
Original Final
26,400
Final Budget
Positive
(Negative)
Actual
Amounts

REVENUES
Other taxes 26,400 $ $ 107,228 $ 80,828
Licenses and permits
Intergovernmental
Interest
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,236 1,236
Rent and concessions
Charges for Services
Other Revenue
Total Revenues
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
26,400 26,400 108,464 82,064

EXPENDITURES
Current:

General Government
Housing
6,500
-
6,500
-
3,571
-
2,929
-
Public Works - - - -
Community Promotion
Parks and Recreation
Capital outlay
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Total Expenditures 6,500 6,500 3,571 2,929
Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues over Expenditures 19,900 19,900 104,893 84,993

OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES)
Transfers in
Transfers out
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Total Other Financing Sources (Uses) -
Net Change in Fund Balances
Fund Balances Beginning
Fund Balances Ending
19,900
20,262
40,162
19,900
20,262
40,162
104,893
20,262
84,993
-
$ $ $ 125,155 $ 84,993
Cont'd

Page 124 ends

Town of Yountville
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and
Changes in Fund Balances
Budget and Actual (GAAP Basis)
Nonmajor Governmental Funds
For the Year Ended June 30, 2023
Town of Yountville Community Foundation Fund
Variance with
Final Budget
Positive
(Negative)
Budgeted Amounts
Original Final
Actual
Amounts

REVENUES
Other taxes $ -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$ -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$ -
-
-
-
-
-
$ -
-
-
-
-
-
Licenses and permits
Intergovernmental
Interest
Rent and concessions
Charges for Services
Other Revenue
Total Revenues
9,508
9,508
9,508
9,508

EXPENDITURES
Current:

General Government
Housing
Public Works
Community Promotion
Parks and Recreation
Capital outlay
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
8,846
-
-
(8,846)
-
-
Total Expenditures 8,846 (8,846)
Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues over Expenditures - - 662 662

OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES)
Transfers in
Transfers out
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,215
-
1,215
1,215
-
Total Other Financing Sources (Uses) 1,215
Net Change in Fund Balances
Fund Balances Beginning
Fund Balances Ending
- - 1,877
131,184
133,061
1,877
131,184 -
131,184
131,184
$ $ 131,184 $ $ 1,877
Cont'd

Page 125 ends

Town of Yountville
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and
Changes in Fund Balances
Budget and Actual (GAAP Basis)
Nonmajor Governmental Funds
For the Year Ended June 30, 2023
Tallent Lane Drainage Fund
Variance with
Final Budget
Positive
Amounts
Original
Actual
Final Amounts (Negative)

REVENUES
Other taxes $ -
-
-
$ -
-
-
$ -
-
-
$ -
-
-
Licenses and permits
Intergovernmental
Interest 100 100 347 247
Rent and concessions
Charges for Services
Other Revenue
Total Revenues
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
100 100 347 247

EXPENDITURES
Current:

OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES)
Transfers in
Transfers out
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Total Other Financing Sources (Uses) -
Net Change in Fund Balances
Fund Balances Beginning
Fund Balances Ending
100
17,985
18,085
100 347
17,985
18,332
247
17,985 -
$ $ 18,085 $ $ 247
Cont'd

Page 126 ends

Town of Yountville
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and
Changes in Fund Balances
Budget and Actual (GAAP Basis)
Nonmajor Governmental Funds
For the Year Ended June 30, 2023
Mesa Court Drainage Fund
Variance with
Final Budget
Positive
Amounts
Original
Actual
Final Amounts (Negative)

REVENUES
Other taxes $ -
-
-
$ -
-
-
$ -
-
-
$ -
-
-
Licenses and permits
Intergovernmental
Interest 200 200 965 765
Rent and concessions
Charges for Services
Other Revenue
Total Revenues
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
200 200 965 765

EXPENDITURES
Current:

OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES)
Transfers in
Transfers out
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Total Other Financing Sources (Uses) -
Net Change in Fund Balances
Fund Balances Beginning
Fund Balances Ending
200
50,153
50,353
200 965
50,153
51,118
765
50,153 -
$ $ 50,353 $ $ 765
Cont'd

Page 127 ends

Town of Yountville
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and
Changes in Fund Balances
Budget and Actual (GAAP Basis)
Nonmajor Governmental Funds
For the Year Ended June 30, 2023
Measure A Maintenance Fund
Variance with
Final Budget
Positive
Amounts
Original
Actual
Final Amounts (Negative)

REVENUES
Other taxes $ -
-
-
$ -
-
-
$ -
-
-
$ -
-
-
Licenses and permits
Intergovernmental
Interest 2,000 2,000 9,133 7,133
Rent and concessions
Charges for Services
Other Revenue
Total Revenues
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2,000 2,000 9,133 7,133

EXPENDITURES
Current:

General Government
Housing
Public Works
Community Promotion
Parks and Recreation
Capital outlay
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
20,000 20,000 20,000
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Total Expenditures 20,000 20,000 20,000
Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues over Expenditures (18,000) (18,000) 9,133 27,133

OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES)
Transfers in
Transfers out
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Total Other Financing Sources (Uses) -
Net Change in Fund Balances
Fund Balances Beginning
Fund Balances Ending
(18,000)
474,577
456,577
(18,000)
474,577
456,577
9,133
474,577
483,710
27,133
-
$ $ $ $ 27,133
Cont'd

Page 128 ends

Town of Yountville
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and
Changes in Fund Balances
Budget and Actual (GAAP Basis)
Nonmajor Governmental Funds
For the Year Ended June 30, 2023
Facility Repair and Replacement Fund
Variance with
Final Budget
Positive
Amounts
Original
Actual
Final Amounts (Negative)

REVENUES
Other taxes $ -
-
-
$ -
-
-
$ -
-
-
$ -
-
-
Licenses and permits
Intergovernmental
Interest 3,000 3,000 23,597 20,597
Rent and concessions
Charges for Services
Other Revenue
Total Revenues
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
3,000 3,000 23,597 20,597

EXPENDITURES
Current:

General Government
Housing
Public Works
Community Promotion
Parks and Recreation
Capital outlay
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
295,000
295,000
372,100
372,100
304,399
304,399
67,701
Total Expenditures 67,701
Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues over Expenditures (292,000) (369,100) (280,802) 88,298

OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES)
Transfers in
Transfers out
350,000
-
350,000
350,000
-
350,000
350,000
-
350,000
-
-
Total Other Financing Sources (Uses) -
Net Change in Fund Balances
Fund Balances Beginning
Fund Balances Ending
58,000
1,049,018
1,107,018
(19,100)
1,049,018
1,029,918
69,198
1,049,018
1,118,216
88,298
-
$ $ $ $ 88,298
Cont'd

Page 129 ends

Town of Yountville
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and
Changes in Fund Balances
Budget and Actual (GAAP Basis)
Nonmajor Governmental Funds
For the Year Ended June 30, 2023
Fleet, Tools and Equipment Repair and Replacement Fund
Variance with
Amounts
Original
Final Budget
Positive
(Negative)
Actual
Final Amounts

REVENUES
Other taxes $ -
-
-
$ -
-
-
$ -
-
-
$ -
-
-
Licenses and permits
Intergovernmental
Interest 3,000 3,000 23,377 20,377
Rent and concessions
Charges for Services
Other Revenue
Total Revenues
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
3,000 3,000 23,377 20,377

EXPENDITURES
Current:

General Government
Housing
Public Works
Community Promotion
Parks and Recreation
Capital outlay
120,000 120,000 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
120,000
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Total Expenditures 120,000 120,000 120,000
Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues over Expenditures (117,000) (117,000) 23,377 140,377

OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES)
Transfers in
Transfers out
200,000
-
200,000
200,000
-
200,000
200,000
-
200,000
-
-
Total Other Financing Sources (Uses) -
Net Change in Fund Balances
Fund Balances Beginning
Fund Balances Ending
83,000
1,014,374
1,097,374
83,000
1,014,374
1,097,374
223,377
1,014,374
1,237,751
140,377
-
$ $ $ $ 140,377
Concluded

Page 130 ends

Town of Yountville
Comparative Statement of Net Position
Water Fund
June 30,
2023 2022
ASSETS
Current assets:

Cash and cash equivalents
Accounts receivable
Interest receivable
Total current assets
Noncurrent assets:

Capital assets:
$ 3,114,908
168,289
18,983
$ 2,013,808
153,646
2,656
3,302,180 2,170,110
Depreciable, net
Total capital assets, net
Total noncurrent assets
2,897,067
2,897,067
2,897,067
6,199,247
2,988,527
2,988,527
2,988,527
Total assets $ $ 5,158,637

DEFERRED OUTFLOWS OF RESOURCES
Pension adjustments
OPEB adjustments
$
$
177,335
17,577
194,912
$
$
78,423
27,218
Total deferred outflows of resources 105,641

LIABILITIES
Current liabilities:

Accounts payable $ 250,414
6,510
256,924
$ 360,716
6,153
366,869
Compensated absences, due within one year
Total current liabilities
Noncurrent liabilities:

Net OPEB liability
Net pension liability
Compensated absences, due in more than one year
Total noncurrent liabilities
Total liabilities
5,398
366,314
19,530
391,242
648,166
15,784
160,604
18,460
194,848
$ $ 561,717

DEFERRED INFLOWS OF RESOURCES
Pension adjustments $
$
21,433
74,115
95,548
$
$
148,833
OPEB adjustments 90,334
Total deferred inflows of resources 239,167

NET POSITION
Net investment in capital assets
Unrestricted
$
$
2,897,067
2,753,378
5,650,445
$
$
2,988,527
1,474,867
Total net position 4,463,394

Page 131 ends

Town of Yountville
Comparative Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Fund Net Position Water Fund
For the fiscal Year Ended June 30,
2023 2022

OPERATING REVENUES
Charges for services
Other
$ 1,758,290
2,304
$ 1,722,437
9,600
Total operating revenues 1,760,594 1,732,037

OPERATING EXPENSES
Personnel services
Utilities
532,444
13,915
420,107
10,783
Purchased water 670,536
160,655
39,323
731,020
158,927
32,604
Supplies and materials
Insurance and claims
Depreciation 91,460 69,851
Total operating expenses 1,508,333 1,423,292
Operating income (loss) 252,261 308,745

NONOPERATING REVENUES (EXPENSES)
Interest expense
Investment earnings
(9,949)
53,146
43,197
(11,000)
(12,333)
Total nonoperating revenues (expenses) (23,333)
Income (loss) before contributions and transfers 295,458 285,412 Capital contributions
Transfers in
- 11,599
5,375
16,974
891,593
Net contributions and transfers 891,593
Change in net position 1,187,051 302,386
Total net position - beginning
Total net position - ending
4,463,394
5,650,445
4,161,008
$ $ 4,463,394

Page 132 ends

Town of Yountville
Comparative Statement of Net Position
Wastewater Fund
June 30,
2023 2022
ASSETS
Current assets:

Cash and cash equivalents
Accounts receivable
Interest receivable
Total current assets
Noncurrent assets:

Capital assets:
$ 5,103,268
373,574
35,611
$ 5,221,344
327,996
8,099
5,512,453 5,557,439
Non-depreciable
Depreciable, net
Total capital assets, net
Total noncurrent assets
726,560
7,658,776
8,385,336
8,385,336
13,897,789
118,162
7,965,645
8,083,807
8,083,807
Total assets $ $ 13,641,246

DEFERRED OUTFLOWS OF RESOURCES
Pension adjustments
OPEB adjustments
$
$
431,498
42,826
474,324
$
$
190,487
66,319
Total deferred outflows of resources 256,806

LIABILITIES
Current liabilities:

Accounts payable
Interest payable
$ 141,643
7,104
$ 136,053
8,878
Compensated absences, due within one year
Loans payable, due within one year
Total current liabilities
8,322
153,307
310,376
13,192
160,168
318,291
Noncurrent liabilities:

Net OPEB liability
Net pension liability
Compensated absences, due in more than one year
Loans payable, due in more than one year
Total noncurrent liabilities
13,150
891,046
24,967
444,288
1,373,451
1,683,827
38,457
389,809
36,466
587,875
1,052,607
Total liabilities $ $ 1,370,898

DEFERRED INFLOWS OF RESOURCES
Pension adjustments $
$
52,080
180,592
232,672
$
$
362,506
220,112
582,618
OPEB adjustments
Total deferred inflows of resources

NET POSITION
Net investment in capital assets
Unrestricted
$
$
7,787,741
4,667,873
12,455,614
$
$
7,335,764
4,608,772
Total net position 11,944,536

Page 133 ends

Town of Yountville
Comparative Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Fund Net Position Wastewater Fund
For the fiscal Year Ended June 30,
2023 2022

OPERATING REVENUES
Charges for services $ 2,434,230
2,434,230
$ 2,294,801
Total operating revenues 2,294,801

OPERATING EXPENSES
Personnel services
Utilities
916,578
183,456
727,057
75,976
689,915
175,358
487,169
69,125
Supplies and materials
Insurance and claims
Depreciation 306,868
2,209,935
311,154
Total operating expenses 1,732,721
Operating income (loss) 224,295 562,080

NONOPERATING REVENUES(EXPENSES)
Interest expense (12,439)
80,116
67,677
(15,266)
(16,955)
(32,221)
Investment earnings
Total nonoperating revenues(expenses)
Income (loss) before contributions and transfers 291,972 529,858 Capital contributions
Transfers in
246,171
2,925
203,907
1,250
Transfers out (29,990)
219,106
(29,755)
Net contributions and transfers 175,402
Change in net position 511,078 705,260
Total net position - beginning
Total net position - ending
11,944,536
12,455,614
11,239,276
$ $ 11,944,536

Page 134 ends

Statistical Section

Page 135 ends

Page Intentionally Left Blank

Page 136 ends

STATISTICAL SECTION
This part of the Town’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report presents detailed information as a context for understanding what the information in the financial statement, note disclosure, and required supplementary information says about the Town’s overall financial health.

Contents:

Financial Trends Information
These schedules contain trend information to help the reader understand how the Town’s financial performance and well-being have changed over time.

Revenue Capacity Information
These schedules contain trend information to help the reader understand the Town’s most significant local revenue source, transient occupancy tax.

Debt Capacity Information
These schedules present information to help the reader assess the affordability of the Town’s current level of outstanding debt and the Town’s ability to issue additional debt in the future.

Demographic and Economic Information
These schedules offer demographic and economic indicators to help the reader understand the environment within which the Town’s financial activities take place.

Operating Information
These schedules contain service and infrastructure data to help the reader understand how the information in the Town’s financial report relates to the services the Town provides and activities it performs.

Page 137 ends

Page Intentionally Left Blank

Page 138 ends

Schedule 1
Town of Yountville
Net Position by Component (Accrual Basis of Accounting) Last Ten Fiscal Years
As of June 30 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Governmental Activities
Net Investment in Capital Assets
Restricted
$ 17,708,530
2,719,421
7,832,467
$ 19,291,210
3,121,984
6,212,977
$ 24,944,699
3,063,795
6,445,667
$ 25,585,149
3,118,617
8,658,576
$ 26,126,737
2,376,909
7,514,541
$ 26,832,668
4,691,546
9,263,317
$ 26,987,011
5,959,613
8,549,721
$ 27,566,520
6,652,233
9,074,780
$ 27,796,304
7,448,830
14,831,284
$ 27,653,028
9,967,058
Unrestricted 16,988,201
Total governmental activities $
$
28,260,418 $
$
28,626,171 $
$
34,454,161 $
$
37,362,342 $
$
36,018,187 $
$
40,787,531 $
$
41,496,345 $
$
43,293,533 $
$
50,076,418 $
$
54,608,287
Business-type Activities
Net Investment in Capital Assets
Restricted
Unrestricted
8,813,919
1,856,598
3,226,306
8,755,655
221,279
5,047,020
8,715,300
-
6,009,945
8,582,392
-
6,492,506
8,374,610
-
6,689,868
8,226,076
-
6,399,836
9,327,836
-
5,250,948
10,199,184
-
5,201,100
10,324,291
-
6,083,639
10,684,808
-
7,421,251
Total business-type activities $
$
13,896,823 $
$
14,023,954 $
$
14,725,245 $
$
15,074,898 $
$
15,064,478 $
$
14,625,912 $
$
14,578,784 $
$
15,400,284 $
$
16,407,930 $
$
18,106,059
Combined Totals
Net Investment in Capital Assets
Restricted
26,522,449
4,576,019
11,058,773
28,046,865
3,343,263
11,259,997
33,659,999
3,063,795
12,455,612
34,167,541
3,118,617
15,151,082
34,501,347
2,376,909
14,204,409
35,058,744
4,691,546
15,663,153
36,314,847
5,959,613
13,800,669
37,765,704
6,652,233
14,275,880
38,120,595
7,448,830
20,914,923
38,337,836
9,967,058
Unrestricted 24,409,452
Total combined net position $ 42,157,241 $ 42,650,125 $ 49,179,406 $ 52,437,240 $ 51,082,665 $ 55,413,443 56,075,129 $ 58,693,817 $ 66,484,348 $ 72,714,346

Page 139 ends

Schedule 2
Town of Yountville
Changes in Net Position (Accrual Basis of Accounting)
Last Ten Fiscal Years
For Fiscal Year Ended June 30 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Governmental Activities
Expenses
General Government
Public Safety
Parks and Recreation
Housing
Public Works
Community Promotion
Interest on Long-Term Debt
$ 4,454,622
1,295,845
1,653,330
31,790
1,437,007
438,066
$ 2,802,120
1,317,668
1,719,272
44,624
2,168,798
473,577
$ 2,467,485
1,374,885
1,856,394
49,812
2,426,255
460,866
$ 3,215,460
1,413,904
1,867,588
600,080
2,919,403
438,566
$ 5,351,625
1,497,823
2,060,032
328,504
2,730,071
429,909
$ 4,142,908
1,535,756
2,117,811
77,235
2,797,528
354,456
$ 3,242,226
1,626,661
2,203,024
87,931
3,275,960
406,620
$ 3,225,894
1,705,529
1,672,840
166,206
3,082,481
382,518
$ 3,519,400
451,858
1,643,587
2,904,024
360,919
$ 3,972,698
99,541
1,863,654
3,314,473
361,682
1,687,705
285,899
2,096,806
592,599 578,701 552,626 547,050 369,086 365,799 394,555 303,935 267,515 Total governmental activities expenses $
$
9,903,259 $
$
9,104,760 $
$
9,188,323 $ 11,002,051 $ 12,767,050 $
$
11,391,493 $
$
11,236,977 $ 10,539,403 $
$
10,853,392 $
$
11,976,369
Program Revenues
Charges for Services by Function:

General Government
Housing
Public Safety
Public Works
Community Promotion
Parks and Recreation
Interest on Long-Term Debt
Operating Grants and Contributions
Capital Grants and Contributions
605,724
78,063
14,469
235,520
-
515,128
-
682,471
378,168
454,644
26,966
5,631
221,836
-
461,667
-
980,662
161,647
500,090
499
12,012
182,512
882
$ 866,029
496,998
5,790
18,532
5,000
$ 1,155,605
186,635
4,856
30,801
32,635
476,059
-
1,309,761
-
521,593
-
$ 595,162
-
488,574
-
668,223
-
4,210 948 423 548 742
24,438
133,590
488,808
-
630,237
915,463
8,009
42,619
331,935
-
25,004
32,600
156,181
-
23,344
10,182
366,195
-
1,662,012
1,216,598
23,164
11,532
461,435
-
1,456,333
851,668
499,082
-
515,544
-
621,541
3,452,791
812,034
1,115,979
1,511,119
531,619
805,006
844,035
1,239,684
996,665
Total governmental program revenues
Subtotal net revenue (expense)
$
$
2,509,543 $
$
2,313,053 $
$
5,269,409 $
$
3,835,906 $
$
3,929,329 $
$
3,506,507 $
$
2,554,145 $ 3,045,719 $
$
3,767,453 $
$
3,473,097
(7,393,716) (6,791,707) (3,918,914) (7,166,145) (8,837,721) (7,884,986) (8,682,832) $ (7,493,684) (7,085,939) (8,503,272) General Revenues
Property Taxes
Sales Taxes
$ 1,086,164
1,260,279
6,262,880
-
162,970
163,211
1,748,811
-
$ 1,164,773
1,317,685
6,582,041
-
141,476
23,507
10,219
-
$ 1,282,355
1,431,153
6,808,527
-
147,519
60,697
16,653
-
$ 1,394,045
1,335,150
7,154,474
-
138,436
49,372
2,849
-
$ 1,675,804
1,269,655
6,337,525
-
116,130
67,913
465
$ 1,749,648
1,491,912
7,536,887
-
146,796
420,678
9,972
$ 2,047,539
1,448,291
5,358,618
-
132,955
364,369
14,018
-
$ 2,102,666
1,141,775
4,841,120
-
115,593
604,757
319,823
-
$ 2,294,483
1,717,674
9,696,334
-
163,712
(457,708)
93,664
$ 2,657,168
1,628,440
8,750,591
-
283,203
554,653
25,614
-
Transient Occupancy Taxes
Vehicle In-Lieu Taxes
Other Taxes
Interest and Investment Earnings
Other General Revenues
Special Item: Sale of Capital Assets
Transfers
- - 341,000
- - - - 29,343 26,485 25,854 27,138 23,130 (864,528)
Total general revenues and transfers $ 10,684,315 $
$
9,239,701
2,447,994
$
$
9,746,904 $ 10,074,326 $
$
9,496,835
659,114
$
$
$
11,382,378
3,497,392
$
$
$
9,391,644
708,812
$
$
9,152,872
1,659,188
$
$
13,872,289
6,786,350
$
$
13,035,141
Change in net position, government activities $ 4,531,869 $
3,290,599 5,827,990 2,908,181 $
Net position, beginning
Prior period adjustments
Net position, ending
#REF!
-
$ 26,178,177 $ 28,626,171 $ 34,454,161 $ 35,359,073
$
$ 28,626,171 $ 34,454,161 $ 37,362,342 $ 36,018,187
37,290,139
-
40,787,531
40,787,533 $ 41,634,345
-
41,496,345 $ 43,293,533
$
$
$
43,293,533
(3,465)
50,076,418
$
$
$
50,076,418
-
54,608,287
$ - $ - $ - $
$
$
$
$ - -
#REF!
Continued

Page 140 ends

Schedule 2
Town of Yountville
Changes in Net Position (Accrual Basis of Accounting)
Last Ten Fiscal Years
For Fiscal Year Ended June 30 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Business-Type Activities
Expenses
Water
Wastewater
$
$
898,516
1,268,709
$
$
985,238
1,320,491
$
$
1,120,451
1,546,670
$
$
1,612,688
1,637,806
$
$
1,367,470
1,821,073
$
$
2,367,096
2,002,780
$
$
1,913,614
2,331,411
$
$
1,646,622
1,827,626
$
$
1,434,292
1,747,987
$
$
1,518,282
2,222,374
Total business-type expenses 2,167,225 2,305,729 2,667,121 3,250,494 3,188,543 4,369,876 4,245,025 3,474,248 3,182,279 3,740,656 Program Revenues
Charges for Services
Water
Wastewater
Capital Grants and Contributions
$ 1,213,803
1,590,422
1,693,210
$ 1,303,497
1,686,528
107,943
$ 1,434,529
1,847,970
71,328
$ 1,350,259
1,876,094
354,497
$ 1,380,728
2,057,905
226,484
$ 1,383,741
2,298,025
131,450
$ 1,569,612
2,262,488
270,257
$ 1,719,700
2,363,870
228,468
$ 1,722,437
2,294,801
215,506
$ 1,758,290
2,434,230
246,171
Total business-type program revenues
Subtotal net revenue (expense)
$
$
4,497,435
2,330,210
$
$
3,097,968
792,239
$
$
3,353,827
686,706
$
$
3,580,850
330,356
$
$
3,665,117
476,574
$
$
3,813,216
(556,660)
$
$
4,102,357
(142,668)
$
$
4,312,038
837,790
$
$
4,232,744
1,050,465
$
$
4,438,691
698,035
Transfers In/(Out)
Interest and Investment Earnings
Other revenues
-
-
-
- -
14,585
-
-
19,297
-
(29,343)
53,086
-
(26,485)
144,579
-
(25,854)
120,944
450
(27,138)
10,187
661
(23,130)
(29,289)
9,600
864,528
133,262
2,304
5,196
-
Change in net position, business activities $ 2,330,210 $ 797,435 $ 701,291 $ 349,653 $ 500,317 $ (438,566) $ (47,128) $ 821,500 $ 1,007,646 $ 1,698,129 Net position, beginning
Net position, ending
#REF!
#REF!
$ 13,226,519 $ 14,023,954 $ 14,725,245 $ 14,564,161
$ 14,023,954 $ 14,725,245 $ 15,074,898 $ 15,064,478
$
$
15,064,478
14,625,912
$
$
14,625,912 $ 14,578,784
14,578,784 $ 15,400,284
$
$
15,400,284
16,407,930
$
$
16,407,930
18,106,059
Total Net Position
Net position, beginning
Net position, ending
#REF!
#REF!
$ 39,404,696 ( $ 42,650,125 $ 49,179,406 $ 49,923,234
$ 42,650,125 $ 49,179,406 $ 52,437,240 $ 51,082,665
$
$
52,354,617
55,413,443
$
$
55,413,445 $ 56,213,129
56,075,129 $ 58,693,817
$
$
58,690,352
66,484,348
$
$
66,484,348
72,714,346
Primary Government Totals
Total primary government expenses $ 12,070,484 $ 11,410,489 $ 11,855,444 $ 14,252,545 $ 15,955,593 $ $
15,761,369
7,319,723
(8,441,646)
11,500,472
3,058,826
$
$
15,482,002 $ 14,013,651 $
$
14,035,671
8,000,197
(6,035,474)
13,829,470
7,793,996
$
$
15,717,025
7,911,788
(7,805,237)
14,035,235
6,229,998
Total primary government program revenues
Subtotal primary government net revenue (expense)
Total primary government general revenues & transfers
Change in net position, primary government
7,006,978
(5,063,506)
10,684,315
5,620,809
5,411,021
(5,999,468)
9,244,897
3,245,429
8,623,236
(3,232,208)
9,761,489
6,529,281
7,416,756
(6,835,789)
10,093,623
3,257,834
7,594,446
(8,361,147)
9,520,578
1,159,431
6,656,502
(8,825,500)
9,487,184
661,684
7,357,757
(6,655,894)
9,136,582
$ $ $ $ $ $ 2,480,688
Concluded

Page 141 ends

Schedule 3
Town of Yountville
Fund Balances - All Governmental Funds
Last Ten Fiscal Years
For Fiscal Year Ended June 30 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 23,372
2023
75,142
General Fund
Nonspendable $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $
Restricted
Committed
Assigned
14,723
1,507,749
2,566,788
19,965
1,461,104
1,670,000
3,874,284
6,867
1,454,999
1,670,000
3,022,425
1,523,696
1,418,190
1,898,177
2,645,273
3,357,172
1,493,905
2,077,057
3,183,082
2,688,112
2,160,819
2,148,319
3,498,613
2,709,631
2,577,802
3,017,343
741,786
2,885,985
3,138,097
633,567
2,543,080
5,379,485
942,595
3,342,309
8,256,906
927,777
Unassigned 5,242,648 6,368,914 8,753,504 6,495,202
Total General Fund 4,109,225 7,012,255 7,671,120 9,318,812 9,442,156 10,517,382 11,579,579 13,026,563 17,642,036 19,097,336 All other governmental funds
Nonspendable
Restricted
513,737 - -
1,608,796
2,056,647
-
- -
883,004
2,255,116
745,336
-
- - - -
4,905,750
995,286
2,063,392
-
-
6,624,749
1,827,920
2,355,967
-
1,939,068 1,660,880 1,700,427
2,205,643
87,964
2,719,443
1,435,726
1,960,928
(25,942)
3,381,811
678,384
1,924,271
(26,221)
3,766,248
518,774
1,857,252
(25,675)
Committed 2,627,311 2,751,989
Assigned -
-
-
Unassigned - (3,118) (75,798)
Total all other governmental funds
Total governmental fund balances
5,080,116 4,412,869 3,662,325 3,918,236 3,883,456 6,090,155 5,958,245 6,116,599 7,964,428 10,808,636 $ 9,189,341 $ 11,425,124 $ 11,333,445 $ 13,237,048 $ 13,325,612 $ 16,607,537 $ 17,537,824 $ 19,143,162 $ 25,606,464 $ 29,905,972

Page 142 ends

Schedule 4
Town of Yountville
Revenues, Expenditures & Changes in Fund Balances and Debt Service Ratio - Governmental Funds (Thousands of Dollars)
Last Ten Fiscal Years
For Fiscal Year Ended June 30 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Revenues
Property Taxes
Sales Taxes
Transient Occupancy Taxes
Other Taxes
Licenses & permits
Fines & forfeits
Intergovernmental
Interest and rents
Charges for services
Miscellaneous
$ 1,086 $ 1,139 $ 1,145 $ 1,325 $ 1,652 $ 1,731 $ 2,048 $ 2,103 $ 2,294 $ 2,657 1,260
6,263
160
140
3 970
266
1,188
1,852
1,337
6,582
167
86 1,453
6,809
284
75 1,293
7,154
222
130
8 1,484
334
1,377
258
1,369
6,338
151
163
15 845
342
1,640
705
1,289
7,537
459
273
57 1,013
657
1,420
52 1,448
5,669
619
196
46 901
582
554
167
1,142
4,821
527
160
64 1,383
897
294
1,718
9,804
995
199
30 1,834
(119)
355
1,628
8,751
1,031
236
60 1,230
993
9 5
873
275
835
248
3,810
307
857
246
490
581 274 358
Total revenues 13,188 11,551 14,991 13,585 13,220 14,488 12,230 11,972 17,384 17,434 Expenditures
General Government
Public Safety
Public Works
Community Promotion
Housing
4,313
32 1,296
1,071
438
2,668
1,318
1,555
474
2,566
1,375
1,683
461
3,070
1,475
1,719
500
4,797
328
1,498
1,781
430
4,400
77 1,536
1,917
355
3,032
1,573
1,990
393
2,948
1,593
2,030
357
3,469
454
1,652
1,991
363
3,749
1,858
2,376
361
45 33 661 85 155 99
Parks and recreation
Debt Service:

Principal
Interest & other
Costs of issuance
Capital Outlay
Other
1,252 1,349 1,481 1,633 1,689 1,833 1,735 1,288 1,398 1,795 706
601
-
4,887
-
724
578
-
2,011
-
746
558
-
6,180
-
763
539
-
1,617
-
790
488
227
686
675
548
374
-
1,464
-
569
416
-
1,596
-
601
311
-
1,249
-
621
293
-
1,040
-
780
275
-
976
-
Total expenditures 14,596
(1,408)
10,722
829
15,083
(92)
11,977
1,608
13,389
(169)
12,504
1,984
11,389
841
10,532
1,440
11,281
6,103
12,269
5,165
Excess (deficiency) of revenues
over expenditures
Other financing sources (uses)
Sale of capital assets
Debt issuance
Payment to escrow agent
Transfers-in
Transfers-out
Sale of Parking Lot
Proceeds from borrowing
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
296
-
-
1,898
(1,898)
- -
-
-
- -
-
-
341
-
-
1,725
(1,702)
-
-
-
8,947
(8,719)
1,940
(1,911)
-
2,303
(2,240)
3,489
(3,463)
-
3,218
(3,218)
1,856
(1,856)
3,002
(3,002)
4,046
(4,019)
1,055
(1,028)
2,870
(3,735)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- - -
Total financing sources (uses)
Net Change in Fund Balance
- - - 296 257
88 27 89 27 364 (865)
$ (1,408) $ 829 $ (92) $ 1,904 $ $ 2,011 $ 930 $ 1,467 $ 6,467 $ 4,300 Total expenditures $ 14,596 $ 10,722 $ 15,083 $ 11,977 $ 13,389 $ 12,504 $ 11,389 $ 10,532 $ 11,281 $ 12,269 Capitalized capital outlay 3,992 1,853 5,934 948 561 1,108 1,371 1,066 894 512 Non-Capital Outlay expenditures
Debt Service expenditures
Debt Service as % of
8,090
1,307
8,869
1,302
9,149
1,304
11,029
1,302
12,828
1,278
11,396
922
10,018
985
9,466
912
10,387
914
11,757
1,055
non-capital expenses 16.16% 14.68% 14.25% 11.81% 9.96% 8.09% 9.83% 9.63% 8.80% 8.97%

Page 143 ends

Schedule 5
Town of Yountville
Transient Occupancy Tax Revenue Base Statistics
Last Ten Fiscal Years
Number of Transient Transient Transient
Fiscal
Year
Estimated
Population
Lodging Rooms Occupancy Tax Occupancy Tax Occupancy Tax Town-Wide Revenue Per Capita Per Room
2014 2,999 450 $ 6,262,880
6,582,041
6,808,527
7,154,474
6,337,514
7,536,887
5,668,824
4,807,007
9,804,456
8,750,591
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
2,088 $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
13,918
2015 2,999
2,987
2,935
2,874
2,916
2,685
2,642
2,829
2,778
451 $
452 $
452 $
451 $
452 $
455 $
455 $
455 $
453 $
2,195
2,279
2,438
2,205
2,585
2,111
1,819
3,466
3,150
14,594
15,063
15,828
14,052
16,675
12,459
10,565
21,548
19,317
2016 (1)
2017 (2)
2018 (3)
2019 (4)
2020 (5)
2021 (6)
2022 (7)
2023 (8)
Notes:
(1) Source: Muniservices LLC
(2) Source: Department of Finance Price Factor and Popluation Information as of January 1, 2017 (3) Source: Department of Finance Price Factor and Popluation Information as of January 1, 2018 (4) Source : Department of Finance letter, Price Factor and Population Information, dated May 2019 (5) Source : Department of Finance letter, Price Factor and Population Information, dated May 2020 (6) Source : Department of Finance letter, Price Factor and Population Information, dated May 2021 (7) Source : Department of Finance letter, Price Factor and Population Information, dated May 2022 (8) Source : Department of Finance letter, Price Factor and Population Information, dated May 2023

Page 144 ends

Schedule 6
Town of Yountville
Transient Occupancy Tax - Principal Payers & Other Statistical Data Last Ten Fiscal Years
Transient Occupancy Tax Revenue
Average
Daily
Room Rate
By Concentration of Hotel Size
Fiscal Hotels with
Year
Occupancy
Rate
Total
Revenue
Hotels with
50+ Rooms 1 - 49 Rooms
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023

78.8%

75.0%

76.0%

75.7%

63.4%

71.9%

25.2%

74.8%

55.7%

55.2%
$ 402.00
$ 442.00
$ 452.00
$ 477.00
$ 506.00
$ 532.00
$ 485.00
$ 734.00
$ 934.00
$ 784.35
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
6,262,880
6,582,041
6,808,527
7,154,474
6,337,514
7,536,887
5,668,824
4,807,007
9,804,456
8,750,591
11 11
11 11
11 11
11 11
11 11
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
5,686,138
5,975,233
6,198,631
6,516,184
5,738,747
6,851,259
5,151,989
4,281,642
8,815,493
7,859,084
5 5
5 5
5 5
5 5
5 5
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
576,742
606,808
609,896
638,290
598,767
685,628
516,835
525,365
988,963
891,507
6 6
6 6
6 6
6 6
6 6
Notes:

Source: Town Transient Occupancy Tax Data

Page 145 ends

Schedule 7
Town of Yountville
Principal Transient Occupancy Taxpayers - Top Ten
Last Ten Fiscal Years
(in alphabetical order)
Fiscal Years ended June 30
2023 2022
Bardessono Inn & Spa
Hotel Villagio at the Estate Yountville Hotel Villagio
2021 2020
Bardessono Inn & Spa
Hotel Yountville
Bardessono Inn & Spa Bardessono Inn & Spa
Hotel Yountville
Hotel Yountville Hotel Yountville Lavender Inn Lavender Inn Lavender Inn Lavender Inn Maison Fleurie Maison Fleurie Maison Fleurie Maison Fleurie Napa Valley Lodge
Napa Valley Railway Inn
North Block Hotel
Petit Logis
Villagio Inn & Spa
Vintage House
Napa Valley Lodge
Napa Valley Railway Inn
North Block Hotel
Petit Logis
Villagio Inn & Spa
Vintage House
Napa Valley Lodge
Napa Valley Railway Inn
North Block Hotel
Petit Logis
Napa Valley Lodge
Napa Valley Railway Inn
North Block Hotel
Petit Logis
Vintage House at the Estate Yountville Vintage House
2019 2018 2017
Bardessono Inn & Spa
Hotel Yountville
2016
Bardessono Inn & Spa
Hotel Yountville
Bardessono Inn & Spa
Hotel Yountville
Bardessono Inn & Spa
Hotel Yountville
Lavender Inn Lavender Inn Lavender Inn Lavender Inn
Maison Fleurie Maison Fleurie Maison Fleurie
Napa Valley Lodge
Napa Valley Railway Inn
North Block Hotel
Petit Logis
Maison Fleurie
Napa Valley Lodge
Napa Valley Railway Inn
North Block Hotel
Petit Logis
Napa Valley Lodge
Napa Valley Railway Inn
North Block Hotel
Petit Logis
Napa Valley Lodge
Napa Valley Railway Inn
North Block Hotel
Petit Logis
Villagio Inn & Spa
Vintage House
Villagio Inn & Spa
Vintage House
Villagio Inn & Spa
Vintage Inn
Villagio Inn & Spa
Vintage Inn
2015
Bardessono Inn & Spa
Hotel Yountville
2014
Bardessono Inn & Spa
Bordeaux House
Lavender Inn Hotel Yountville
Maison Fleurie
Napa Valley Lodge
Napa Valley Railway Inn
North Block Hotel
Petit Logis
Lavender Inn
Maison Fleurie
Napa Valley Lodge
Napa Valley Railway Inn
North Block Hotel
Villagio Inn & Spa
Vintage Inn
Villagio Inn & Spa
Vintage Inn

Page 146 ends

Schedule 8
Town of Yountville
Ratio of Outstanding Debt by Type
Per Capita & Per Capita Income Data
Last Ten Fiscal Years Governmental Debt
Other Debt:

California
Energy
Commission
Loan
Business-Type
Bonded Debt: Other Debt:

Lease
Purchase
Total
Outstanding
Debt
Total
Outstanding
Debt
Bonded Debt
as a %
of Personal
Income
Countywide Estimated
Yountville
Pacific Gas &
Electric
State
Revolving
Fund Loan
Bonded
Debt
Per Capita
Fiscal
Year
Estimated
Population
Per Capita
Income
Revenue Bonds
Personal Income & Capital Lease Governmental Energy Loan Business-Type 2014 (5)
2015 (7)
2016 (8)
2017 (9)
2018 (10)
2019 (11)
2020 (12)
2021 (13)
2022 (14)
2023 (15)
2,999
2,999
2,987
2,935
2,874
2,916
2,685
2,642
2,829
2,778
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
54,807
56,634
52,576
61,483
65,805
74,984
77,781
78,913
80,405
80,947
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
164,366,193
169,845,366
157,044,512
180,452,605
189,123,570
218,653,344
208,841,985
208,488,573
227,466,716
224,869,896
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
14,856,655
14,148,361
13,418,766
$
$
$
154,046
137,878
121,233
104,074
86,396
68,184
49,426
30,096
10,181
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
15,010,701
14,286,239
13,539,999
12,785,533
12,767,855
11,818,984
10,736,443
9,746,096
9,475,296
8,821,664
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
100,200
87,675
75,150
62,625
50,100
37,575
25,050
12,525
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
658,577
2,725,340
2,605,598
2,490,444
2,373,101
2,253,529
1,040,576
895,686
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
758,777
2,813,015
2,680,748
2,553,069
2,423,201
2,291,104
1,065,626
908,211
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
4,954 9.04%

8.33%

8.54%

7.03%

6.71%

5.37%

5.12%

4.66%

4.16%

3.92%
4,718
4,492
4,321
4,412
4,030
3,980
3,678
3,346
3,176
12,681,459 (6) $
12,681,459 (6) $
11,750,800 (6) $
10,687,017 (6) $
9,716,000 (6) $
9,465,115 (6) $
8,821,664 (6) $
748,044 748,044
- 597,596 597,596
Notes to Table:
(4) Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis for 2009 (most recent) (5) Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis for 2014 (most recent) (6) Includes 2017 & 2020 Lease Revenue Bonds
(7) Source: Employment Development Department Monthly Labor Force Data for Counties Report 400 C, June (8) Source: Muniservices LLC Demographic and Economic Statistics (9) Source: Department of Finance Price Factor and Popluation Information as of January 1, 2017 (10) Source: Department of Finance Price Factor and Population Information as of January 1, 2018 and Bureau of Economic Analysis (most recent data, 2016) (11) Source : Department of Finance letter, Price Factor and Population Information, dated May 2019 (12) Source : Department of Finance letter, Price Factor and Population Information, dated May 2020 (13) Source : Department of Finance letter, Price Factor and Population Information, dated May 2021 (14) Source : Department of Finance letter, Price Factor and Population Information, dated May 2022 (15) Source : Department of Finance letter, Price Factor and Population Information, dated May 2023

Page 147 ends

Schedule 9
Town of Yountville
Computation of Direct and Overlapping Bonded Debt
June 30, 2023
Percentage
Applicable
to Town
Amount
Applicable
Jurisdiction to Town
Overlapping tax and assessment debt:

Town of Yountville 100.0000% -
Napa Joint Community College District
Napa Valley Unified School District

1.936%

2.905%
$
$
1,335,952
13,320,873
Total overlapping tax and assessment debt
Direct and overlapping General Fund Debt:
$
$
$
14,656,825
Napa County Certificates of Participation
Napa County Board of Education General Fund Obligations Town of Yountville General Fund Obligations *

1.953%

1.953%
100.0000%
35,935
222,349
8,821,664
Total direct and overlapping general fund obligation debt 9,079,948 Subtotal direct debt -
Subtotal overlapping debt
Total combined debt
$
$
23,736,773
23,736,773
Ratio to 2022-23 assessed valuation
Town of Yountville total assessed valuation
Direct debt (Town)
$ 1,279,815,398

0.0000%

1.8547%

1.8547%
Overlapping debt
Combined total debt
Notes:

California Municipal Statistics, Inc. provided percentages applicable to Town which are applied to the total outstanding debt amount as reported by the County of Napa. Assessed valuation total is provided by the County of Napa. * Includes: Lease Revenue Bonds Series 2017 and 2020 Direct Financing Loan.

Page 148 ends

Schedule 10
Town of Yountville
Legal Debt Margin Information
Last Ten Fiscal Years
Debt Subject
to Limit
as % of
Debt Limit
Ratio Applied
as % of
Assessed Value
Legal
Debt Limit
Margin
Total Debt
Subject to
Limit
Fiscal
Year
Assessed
Valuation
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
$
$
$
$
$
$
566,095,263
610,851,007
640,795,068
715,618,300
863,668,130
974,263,880

3.75%

3.75%
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
21,228,572 $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
14,019,046 66.04%

59.08%

54.23%

46.65%

35.20%

29.71%

26.40%

24.25%

22.44%

17.69%
22,906,913
24,029,815
26,835,686
32,387,555
36,534,896
38,961,957
40,184,404
40,662,796
47,993,077
13,532,878
13,031,232
12,519,073
11,401,396
10,853,183
10,284,971
9,746,095
9,125,181
8,491,000
$ 1,038,985,513
$ 1,071,584,115
$ 1,084,341,227
$ 1,279,815,398
Legal Debt Limit Margin Calculation for 2022-23:

Assessed value $
$
$
$
1,279,815,398
47,993,077
8,491,000
Debt limit is 3.75% of assessed value
Less: Debt applicable to limitation
Legal debt margin 39,502,077
In accordance with state law the town may not incur general obligation bonded indebtedness in excess of 3.75% of total assessed valuation, with such debt being payable from the proceeds of taxes levied upon taxable properties in the town.

Page 149 ends

Schedule 11
Town of Yountville
Pledged Revenue Coverage
Last Ten Fiscal Years
Flood Wall Lease Purchase Agreement 2008 Lease Revenue Bonds Measure A
Sales Tax
Pledged
Fiscal Debt Service Transient
Principal Interest
Debt Service
Year
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Allocations Coverage Occupancy Tax Principal
200,000
Interest Coverage
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
256,077
259,977
259,951
259,768
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
230,216 $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
33,992 0.97

1.01 1.01

1.00 $ 670,050
666,980
667,550
669,099
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
468,849
459,724
450,298
441,499

1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00
238,294 18,183 $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
205,000
244,595 13,506 215,000
251,063 8,705 225,000
261,443 257,702 3,777 1.00 455,250 235,000 431,124 0.68 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2013 Lease Revenue Bonds 2017 Lease Revenue Bonds
Fiscal
Year
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Pledged
Revenue
361,113
Debt Service Pledged
Revenue
Debt Service
Principal
260,000
Interest Coverage

1.00 1.00

1.00 -
Principal Interest Coverage
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
101,113
95,913
90,613
85,213
79,813
74,213
68,513
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
-
-
-
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
-
-
-
-
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
360,913
360,613
355,213
359,813
359,213
358,513
-
265,000
270,000
270,000
280,000
285,000
290,000
-
-
183,000
542,394
544,769
541,519
542,644
543,019
182,954
297,394
284,769
271,519
257,644
243,019

1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00
245,000
260,000
270,000
285,000
300,000
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2020 Lease Revenue Bonds
Fiscal
Year
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Pledged
Revenue
Debt Service
Principal Interest Coverage
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
350,017
349,051
351,805
312,000
316,000
324,058
38,017
33,051
27,747

1.00 1.00

1.00 Notes: Details regarding the Town's outstanding debt can be found in the notes to the financial statements.

The lease purchase agreement is backed by a county-wide special flood tax imposed on retail sales and allocated by Napa County per agreement with the Town. The 2008 Lease Revenue Bonds are backed by a specific pledge of one-sixth (or 2% of the 12% tax collected) of the transient occupancy tax collected by the Town each fiscal year up to a maximum amount of the debt service on the bonds for each fiscal year.

These bonds were refunded in October 2017 by the 2017 Lease Revenue Bonds.

The 2013 Lease Revenue Bonds are backed by a pledge of General Fund revenue collected by the Town each fiscal year up to a maximum amount of the debt service on the bonds for each fiscal year.

The Town has pledged no specific revenues for repayment of the 2017 and 2020 Lease Revenue Bonds.

The Town has agreed to include the lease payments due to its Authority (and assigned by the Authority to the bond trustee) in its annual budgets and to make annual appropriations therefore.

Page 150 ends

Schedule 12
Town of Yountville
Lease Revenue Bonds - Continuing Disclosures
Last Ten Calendar Years
2013 Lease 2017 Lease 2020 Lease
2008 Lease Revenue Bonds
Debt Service Reserve Requirement
equals the lessor of the three following:

Revenue Bonds Revenue Bonds Revenue Bonds
Calendar Principal Balance
December 31
Maximum Annual
Debt Service
668,849
125% of Average Debt Service Reserve
Fund Balance
Principal Balance Principal Balance Principal Balance
Year
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Annual Debt Service 10% of Original Par December 31
3,900,000
December 31 December 31
$ 9,760,000 $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 833,188
833,188
838,749
839,998
$ 1,071,000 $ 672,902 $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
-
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
9,545,000
9,320,000
9,085,000
669,599
670,999
671,999
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
1,071,000
1,071,000
1,071,000
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
672,902
672,933
673,637
3,635,000
3,365,000
3,095,000
2,815,000
2,530,000
2,240,000
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
8,255,000
7,995,000
7,725,000
7,440,000
7,140,000
6,825,000
2,303,000
1,991,000
1,675,000
1,351,000
-
-

Page 151 ends

Schedule 13
Town of Yountville
Demographic & Economic Statistics
Last Ten Fiscal Years
Countywide
Per Capita
Income
Estimated
Yountville
Income
Assessed
Yountville
Valuation
Fiscal
Year
Estimated
Population
Unemployment
Rate
2014 2,999 $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
54,807 $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
164,366,193
169,845,366
157,044,512
180,452,605
189,123,570
218,653,344
208,841,985
208,488,573
227,466,716
224,869,896
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
566,095,263
610,851,007

4.80%

4.10%

4.60%

3.60%

3.10%

2.80%
2015 (5)
2016 (4)
2017 (6)
2018 (7)
2019 (8)
2020 (10)
2021 (13)
2022 (16)
2023 (19)
2,999
2,987
2,935
2,874
2,916
2,685
2,642
2,829
2,778
56,634
52,576 640,795,068
61,483 715,618,300
65,805 863,668,130
74,984 (9)
77,781 (11)
78,913 (13)
80,405 (16)
80,947 (19)
974,263,880
1,038,985,513
1,071,594,115 (14)
1,084,341,227 (17)
1,279,815,398 (20)

10.00% (12)

1.89% (15)

2.90% (18)

5.40% (21)
Notes to Table:
(4) Source: 2009-10 MuniServices LLC Demographic & Economic Statistics (5) Source: Employment Development Department Monthly Labor Force Data for Counties Report 400 C, June (6) Source: Department of Finance Price Factor and Population Information as of January 1, 2017 (7) Source: Department of Finance Price Factor and Population Information as of January 1, 2018 and Bureau of Economic Analysis (most recent data, 2016)
(8) Source : Department of Finance letter, Price Factor and Population Information, dated May 2019 (9) Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis website, https://www.bea.gov/system/files/2019-11/lapi1119.pdf (10) Source : Department of Finance letter, Price Factor and Population Information, dated May 2020 (11) Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis website (https://www.bea.gov/system/files/2019-11/lapi1119.pdf) growth factor in the DOF price factor and population information as of January 1st, 2020 (12) Source: Employment Development Department Monthly Labor Force Data for Cities and Census Designated Places, August 2020
(13) Source: Department of Finance letter, Price Factor and Population Information, dated May 2021 (14) Source: Napa County Assessor's Office - used in GANN Limit calculation (https://www.countyofnapa.org/256/Property-Tax) (15) Source: Employment Development Department Monthly Labor Force Data for Cities and Census Designated Places, August 2021 (https://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/data/monthly-data-release.html - Current Month Data > City and Places by County)
(16) Source: Department of Finance letter, Price Factor and Population Information, dated May 2022 (17) Source: Napa County Assessor's Office - used in GANN Limit calculation (https://www.countyofnapa.org/256/Property-Tax) (18) Source: Employment Development Department Monthly Labor Force Data for Cities and Census Designated Places, September 2022 (https://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/data/monthly-data-release.html - Current Month Data > City and Places by County > Unemployment Rate %)
(19) Source: Department of Finance letter, Price Factor and Population Information, dated May 2023 (20) Source: Napa County Assessor's Office - used in GANN Limit calculation (https://www.countyofnapa.org/256/Property-Tax > Certified Values by Tax Base > FY2022-23 Report > Amount under "Total" column and "Total" row) (21) Source: Employment Development Department Monthly Labor Force Data for Cities and Census Designated Places, September 2022 (https://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/data/monthly-data-release.html - Current Month Data > Cities and Places by County > Unemployment Rate %)

Page 152 ends

Schedule 14
Town of Yountville
Principal Employers
Last Ten Fiscal Years
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
Ended Number Rank Ended Number Rank
June 30 Employer Employees to Town June 30 Employer Employees to Town 2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Veterans Home of California 500 - 999
350 - 499
250 - 350
200 - 250
1 2
3 4
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Veterans Home of California 500 - 999
250 - 499
250 - 499
1 State of California State of California
Villagio Inn & Spa Operations
for Vintage, Villagio, and related support services
The Keller Group
Vintage Estate 2
3 for Vintage, Villagio, and related support services
Domaine Chandon Winery
for restaurant operations for winery and food service operations Domaine Chandon Winery
for winery and food service operations Veterans Home of California State of California
500 - 999
250 - 499
250 - 499
1 2
3 Veterans Home of California
State of California
500 - 999
350 - 499
250 - 350
200 - 250
1 2
3 4
Vintage Estate
for Vintage, Villagio, and related support services
Villagio Inn & Spa Operations Domaine Chandon Winery
for Vintage, Villagio, and related support services
The Keller Group
for winery and food service operations
for restaurant operations Veterans Home of California
State of California
500 - 999
250 - 499
250 - 499
1 2
3 Domaine Chandon Winery
for winery and food service operations Vintage Estate
for Vintage, Villagio, and related support services
Veterans Home of California Domaine Chandon Winery
State of California
500 - 999
250 - 350
250 - 299
200 - 250
1 2
3 4
for winery and food service operations
The Keller Group
for restaurant operations Veterans Home of California
State of California
500 - 999
250 - 499
250 - 499
1 2
3 Villagio Inn & Spa Operations (Vintage Estates)
for Vintage, Villagio, and related support services
Domaine Chandon Winery
Vintage Estate
for Vintage, Villagio, and related support services
for winery and food service operations Domaine Chandon Winery for winery and food service operations
Veterans Home of California
State of California
500 - 999
250 - 350
250 - 299
200 - 250
1 2
3 4
Veterans Home of California
State of California
500 - 999
250 - 499
250 - 499
1 2
3 The Keller Group
for restaurant operations Vintage Estate
Villagio Inn & Spa Operations (Vintage Estates)
for Vintage, Villagio, and related support services
Domaine Chandon Winery
for Vintage, Villagio, and related support services
Domaine Chandon Winery
for winery and food service operations
for winery and food service operations
Veterans Home of California
State of California
500 - 999
250 - 499
250 - 499
1 2
3 Vintage Estate
for Vintage, Villagio, and related support services
Domaine Chandon Winery
for winery and food service operations

Page 153 ends

Schedule 15
Town of Yountville
Full-Time Equivalent Town Government Employees by Function Last Ten Years
Function 2014

6.00 2015

7.00 2016

7.00 2017

7.00 2018

7.35 2019

5.08 2020

5.18 2021

5.08 2022

6.08 2023
Administration 6.25
Town management
Town municipal clerk
Finance
Planning & Building 2.00

7.00 1.73

9.73 1.73

9.73 2.50

8.50 3.00 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.81
Public Works 9.35 10.30 11.17 11.37 11.37 12.20
Engineering
Street maintenance
Park maintenance
Government buildings
Water operations
Wastewater
Collection and treatment

4.00 5.00

5.00 5.00

5.30 5.00

5.28 5.84

5.77 6.38

5.77 5.28

6.13 Parks & Recreation 5.61
Recreation programs
Pool & Aquatics
Community Center
Totals 24.00 27.46 27.46 28.00 30.00 30.00 32.00 31.00 32.00 34.00

Page 154 ends

Schedule 16
Town of Yountville
Operating Indicators
Last Ten Fiscal Years
Function 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Police
Felony crimes 29 25 87 6 4 33 52 13 15 22
Traffic violations/citations 686 826 651 243 271 277 142 228 216 184 Water system
Annual Consumption (AF)
Daily average consumption
in MGD
612.93

0.547
537.60

0.480
473.97

0.423
427.43

0.382
479.45

0.428
357.54

0.319
544.49

0.486
564.21

0.504
526.31

0.470
357.59

0.319
Wastewater system
Daily average treatment
in MGD
Maximum daily capacity of
treatment plant, in MGD

0.381

0.630

0.372

0.630

0.371

0.550

0.338

0.550

0.365

0.550

0.440

0.550

0.301

0.550

0.281

0.550

0.339

0.550

0.397

0.550
Streets
Expenditures for streets
in thousands of dollars $ 1,499 $ 569 $ 483 $ 712 $ 364 $ 735 $ 1,338 $ 1,113 $ 1,051 $ 733

Page 155 ends

Schedule 17
Town of Yountville
Capital Asset Statistics
Last Ten Fiscal Years
Function 2014

1.56 2015

1.56 2016

1.56 2017

1.56 2018

1.56 2019

1.56 2020

1.56 2021

1.56 2022

1.56 2023
Area in Square Miles 1.56
Fire protection (State/County)
Number of stations 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Number of personnel 16.8 16.8 16.8 16.8 16.8 16.8 16.8 11 12 11 Parks and recreation:

Community hall
Community center
Parks & open space areas
Park acreage
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
10 15
2 10
15 2
10 15
2 10
15 2
10 15
2 10
15 2
10 15
2 10
15 2
10 15
2 10
15 Tennis courts 2
Police protection (County)
Number of substations
Contract police officers
1 4
1 4
1 4
1 4
1 4
1 4
1 4
1 4
1 4
1 4
Public library (County)
Number of branches
Square footage
1 1,800
1 1,800
1 1,800
1 1,800
1 1,800
1 1,800
1 1,800
1 1 1
1,800 1,800 1,800
Number of items 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 Streets
Miles of streets 8.45 8.45 8.45 8.45 8.45 8.45 8.45 8.45 8.45 8.45 Water system
Service connections
Miles of water mains
800

8.9 815

8.9 814

8.9 813

8.9 822

8.9 827

8.9 832

8.9 833

8.9 834

8.9 Wastewater system
Number of treatment plants
Number of service connections
Miles of sanitary sewers
1 743

9.4 1
754

9.4 1
753

9.4 1
750

9.4 1
759

9.4 1
761

9.4 1
765

9.4 1
766

9.4

Page 156 ends

27+(5ꢀ,1'(3(1'(17ꢀ$8',725ꢁ6ꢀ5(32576

Page 157 ends

INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL

REPORTING AND ON COMPLIANCE AND OTHER MATTERS BASED ON AN AUDIT OF

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH

GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS
To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the Town Council
of the Town of Yountville
Yountville, California
We have audited, in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, the financial statements of the Town of Yountville (the “Town”) as of and for the year ended June 30, 2023, and the related notes to the financial statements, which collectively comprise the Town’s basic financial statements, and have issued our report thereon dated October 23, 2023.

Internal Control over Financial Reporting
In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements, we considered the Town’s internal control over financial reporting (internal control) as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances for the purpose of expressing our opinions on the financial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Town’s internal control. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the Town’s internal control.

A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the entity’s financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected on a timely basis. A significant deficiency is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control that is less severe than a material weakness, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance.

Our consideration of internal control over financial reporting was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph of this section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control over financial reporting that might be material weaknesses or significant deficiencies. Given these limitations, during our audit we did not identify any deficiencies in internal control over financial reporting that we consider to be material weaknesses. However, material weaknesses may exist that have not been identified.

Compliance and Other Matters
As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the Town’s financial statements are free of material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the financial statements. However, providing an opinion on compliance with those provisions was not an objective of our audit, and accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The 15105 Concord Circle. Ste. 130, Morgan Hill, CA 95037
Tel: 408-217-8749 • E-Fax: 408-872-4159

Page 158 ends

results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards.

Purpose of this Report
The purpose of this report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity’s internal control or on compliance. This report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering the entity’s internal control and compliance. Accordingly, this communication is not suitable for any other purpose.

Chavan & Associates, LLP
Certified Public Accountants
October 23, 2023
Morgan Hill, California
15105 Concord Circle. Ste. 130, Morgan Hill, CA 95037
Tel: 408-217-8749 • E-Fax: 408-872-4159

Page 159 ends

Town of Yountville
Staff Report
6550 Yount Street
Yountville, CA 94599
Agenda Item #: 9B
Yountville Town Council Staff Report
DATE: December 5, 2023
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: Celia King, Administrative Services Director
PREPARED BY: Celia King, Administrative Services Director

RECOMMENDATION
Presentation by Shayne Kavanagh of the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) regarding the Town of Yountville Risk-Based Analysis of General Fund Reserves.

DISCUSSION/BACKGROUND
The intent of the Risk-Based Reserve Analysis is to provide information that will assist the Town Council in future decisions about what level of reserves is appropriate for the Town.

Mr. Kavanagh and staff will answer questions of the report and presentation, and hope to gain feedback from the Town Council that will help craft any proposed revisions to current reserve policies.

The Risk-Based Analysis report is included as an attachment to this staff report.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Not Applicable

FISCAL IMPACT
Is there a Fiscal Impact? No
Is it Currently Budgeted? N/A
Where is it Budgeted? N/A
Is it Mandatory or Discretionary? Discretionary
Is there a Staff Resource Impact? Nominal

STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL
Is item Identified in Strategic Plan? Yes
If yes, Identify Strategic Goal and Objective. Responsible Fiscal Policy: The Town maintains its fiscal health through policies designed to maximize economic opportunities, manage expenses, and ensure prudent reserves.

Briefly Explain Relationship to Strategic Plan Goal and Objective. Reviewing reserve amounts and reserve policies to assist the Town Council in future decision making demonstrates responsible fiscal management.

Page 1 of 61 ends

A Risk-Based Analysis of General Fund Reserve
for the Town of Yountville, California
2023
Produced by:

The Government Finance Officers Association

Page 2 of 61 ends

Table of Contents
Section 1 - Summary of Findings................................................................................................................... 3 Earthquakes..............................................................................................................................................5 Wildfires....................................................................................................................................................6 Floods........................................................................................................................................................7 Recessions.................................................................................................................................................9 Cyberattacks ...........................................................................................................................................12 Pandemics...............................................................................................................................................13 Section 2 – Detailed Analysis of Earthquake Risk....................................................................................... 18 Section 3 – Detailed Analysis of Wildfire Risk ............................................................................................ 28 Section 4 – Detailed Analysis of Flood Risk................................................................................................. 41 Section 5- Detailed Analysis of Recession Risk ........................................................................................... 48 Section 6 – Detailed Analysis of TOT Interruption Risk .............................................................................. 52 Section 7 – Detailed Analysis of Cyberattack Risk...................................................................................... 56 Section 8 – Detailed Analysis of Pandemics / Infectious Disease Risk....................................................... 59

Page 3 of 61 ends

Section 1 - Summary of Findings
The Town of Yountville has engaged the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) to help the Town analyze its general fund reserve with the goal of shedding light on the appropriate size of the Town’s reserve. This section summarizes our findings and walks the reader through the five steps of the analysis. Here is an overview of the five steps:

1. Define “reserves”

2. Define the risks the Town is subject to

3. Determine exposure to risks

4. Put together the findings of risk analysis

5. Settle on a reserve target
Let’s now examine each step.

The first step is to agree on the definition of “reserves”. We’ll do this by clarifying our “mental model” for reserves. A mental model is a way of viewing the world and simplifying complexity. A traditional mental model for reserves has been the “savings account”. We suggest that this mental model is inadequate. A better mental model is an “insurance policy”. The purpose of a reserve is to provide a financial cushion against unplanned, unavoidable large expenditures, like might be caused by a natural catastrophe, recession, or other extreme event. After all, another name for a local government reserve is a “rainy day fund” and the most common metaphor for an insurance policy is an umbrella! So, if the reserve is best thought of as an insurance policy, the second step is to ask: what risks are we insuring against? In our personal lives, we answer this question by taking stock of the risks we need to insure against, like automobile accidents, a house fire, etc. For the Town of Yountville, we found that the following risks appear to have the greatest potential to create a big shock to the Town of Yountville’s finances:

Natural Catastrophes, as per Napa County Hazard Mitigation Plan.

The County plan lists the three types of catastrophes below as “extreme” or “high” risk for Yountville. We analyzed each of these separately.
• Earthquakes
• Wildfires
• Floods (we also address dam failure)
About the GFOA
GFOA is a non-profit association
of more than 21,000 state and
local government finance
professionals and elected
officials from across North
America. A key part of GFOA’s
mission is to promote best
practices in public finance,
including reserve policies.

Shocks versus Stresses
Local government budgets can come
under pressure both from “shocks” and
“stresses”. Shocks are a sudden,
unexpected sharp decline in revenues
and/or increase in costs. Recessions and
natural disasters are shocks. Stresses
are long-term drags on the Town
finances that are known problems, but
not easily resolved. Pensions or
unfunded infrastructure maintenance
are examples of these. Reserves are
good for protecting against shocks, but
not very useful for helping with stresses.

This is because shocks are temporary,
but stresses can last for many years.

Reserves are a non-renewable resource,
so are well suited for providing cushion
for a shock. The reserve can then be
replenished in subsequent years.

Stresses, conversely, would eventually
deplete a reserve. Therefore, the annual
budget is the right place for planning on
how to deal with the stresses.

Page 4 of 61 ends

The Hazard Plan also puts climate change and droughts in this category. We did not analyze these risks here. Climate change is part of this section’s conclusion, where we discuss its potential impact across multiple risks. Though drought is a risk for the Yountville community, the scope of this analysis is the Town’s general fund. A drought’s potential to cause a shock to the general fund seems remote (though one could certainly impact the Town’s water utility). For example, a review of FEMA assistance to local governments since 1999 did not find a single instance of drought being declared a FEMA emergency, where a local government was a recipient of assistance. This illustrates a drought’s limited potential to cause a shock to the Town’s general fund.

You can see all the risks considered by the County’s Hazard Plan in Exhibit 1.

Revenue Instability
• Recessions
• Interruptions to transient
occupancy tax (TOT) revenue.

This could be from recessions
or from an ill-timed or
unfortunately located natural
catastrophe, for example.

Other
• Cyberattack
• Pandemic
The third step is to think about the
amount of exposure you have to the
risks that you face. The amount of
exposure is critical to determining the
amount of insurance you should have. In our personal lives, we might think about the value of our house and make sure the policy is large enough to cover that cost. For a municipal government, the matter is more complex because not only are there assets that could be damaged by an extreme event, but there might also be increased service costs (e.g., search and rescue, building inspections) or lost revenue. To address this GFOA analyzed each of the risks from step two. We looked primarily at the historical experiences of local governments, mostly in California, to get a sense of what the losses could be.

You can read our detailed analysis of each risk in the subsequent sections of this report, but we will summarize the key points on the next pages.

Readers who would prefer an even more condensed summary can read this paragraph and then skip ahead several pages. We looked at historical data on what the Town and other municipalities have experienced in financial losses from the risks described above. We also looked at other factors that suggest that we should adjust expectations taken from historical experience. We can add up the losses to arrive at a range of possible losses. This range is a starting point for thinking about the Town’s reserve Exhibit 1 – Probability and Impact of Natural Catastrophe

Page 5 of 61 ends

target. The reader may skip ahead several pages to get to the fourth step where we summarize all the losses into one table and to the fifth step where we describe how to develop this range into a final reserve policy.

Earthquakes
Earthquakes are one of the two foremost natural catastrophe risks faced by Town (the other being wildfire – see Exhibit 1). There have been several earthquakes in the region in past decades and there will certainly be others in the future.

To provide insight into potential losses, GFOA examined the actual losses to local governments from earthquakes that occurred in California and Washington since 2000, which ranged in magnitude from 6.0 to 6.8.1 Earthquakes in this range are expected to result in large amounts of property damage and even some loss of life. Scaling the damage to a community the size of Yountville and adjusting for inflation, the average loss to the Town from such as quake could be expected to be around $12,699. 2 However, much
larger losses are possible. For example, our analysis found that in 10% of cases, losses could be over $380,000. In 5% of cases, the loss was greater than $565,000. Of course, we should note that Yountville was a FEMA assistance recipient for the 2014 earthquake. If we converted the Town’s 2014 experience to 2023, the losses would be just over $910,000, making Yountville one of the biggest losses from quakes of all the municipalities we examined.

This shows us that it would be very unwise to rely on “average” losses. In fact, insurance policy decisions never rely on average losses either and, instead, consider the potential for more extreme losses. When put on a graph, these losses create a “hockey stick” shape, as shown in Exhibit 2. This hockey stick shape is common to many types of low frequency, high consequence disasters like earthquakes, wildfires, and floods. As graphic shows, the “average” disaster is very different from what a reserve strategy needs to be concerned with.

Exhibit 2 – The Hockey Stick Shape of Potential Size of Earthquakes 1 The 6.8 was in Washington State in 2001. We used this because it was a larger magnitude quake that those in California for which data was available.
2 To represent the “average” we are using the median, which means 50% observations fall on one side of the median and 50% fall on the other. The median is often considered a better indicator of the “center” of a data set when data sets include extreme values, as in the case with financial losses from extreme events.

Page 6 of 61 ends

We must recognize that our historical analysis only considered quakes up to 6.8 magnitude. Larger quakes are certainly possible. For example, the infamous 1906 San Francisco earthquake is thought to have been around 8.0 magnitude. Fortunately, we have a basis for estimating the difference in potential damages between the recent quakes (which were between 6.0 and 6.8) and a potentially larger quake. GFOA procured earthquake loss estimates from Aon, a very large, global reinsurance company and purveyor of risk estimates. Aon’s estimates for a two-county area in the San Francisco Bay area shows that estimated losses from a quake above 6.8 is, on average, double, the losses of quakes between 6.0 and 6.8. Hence, doubling our $380,000 number from the previous paragraph would not be unreasonable to prepare for a highly destructive quake – this would give us $740,000. Doubling our 5% loss estimate of $565,000 get

1.13 million also would not be unreasonable. Doubling Yountville’s own experience of $910,000 would yield $1.8 million.

Readers interested in the details behind our earthquake analysis are invited to consult the “Earthquake Financial Risk Analysis” section of this report.

Finally, we should recognize that dam failure is considered an “unlikely” but potentially “catastrophic” risk by the County’s Hazard plan. This refers to the Rector Creek Dam. According to the Town’s website, earthquakes centered close to a dam are typically the most likely cause for failure. Otherwise, the dam is thought to be “in satisfactory condition with no existing or potential dam safety deficiencies”. 3 The
earthquake damage figures we provided here do not include potential damages from flooding if an earthquake causes a break in the dam. We will further address this concern in the section on flood risks and in the fifth step of this analysis, which we will discuss later.

Wildfires
Wildfires are the other “extreme” risk faced by Yountville, according to the County Hazard Plan (the other being earthquakes.) Wildfires are common in Napa County. According to the County, “[f]rom 2000-2020, there were 12 wildfires that burned over 1,000 acres in Napa County. 3 The website notes that this is true as of when that section of the site was written. According to a May 2022 story in the Napa Valley Register, “Rector Dam northeast of Yountville received a "satisfactory" rating — the best possible — on an Associated Press list of dam conditions”.

Page 7 of 61 ends

To gain insights into the potential losses from a severe wildfire, GFOA examined actual losses from wildfires severe enough to be declared eligible for FEMA assistance. Just like with earthquakes, we adjusted the damages for inflation and scaled them to Yountville’s population. Also, like earthquakes, wildfire damage tends to follow the “hockey stick” shape shown in Exhibit 2.

The average loss to Town government from a wildfire might be just over $15,500. Because relying on the average is a bad strategy for insurance, we should look at more extreme potential outcomes. Our analysis found that in 10% of cases, losses could be over $215,000. In 5% of cases, the loss was nearly $412,000.

Finally, we should address two additional sources of risk posed by Yountville being a smaller municipality.

First, and most basic, is that because it is small, Yountville is, by definition, geographically undiversified. A large municipality might have a much more widely dispersed population, which means a wildfire is less likely to impact large sections of the city. The second risk is that a greater portion of Yountville’s population will be closer to the fuel source for wildfires. By contrast, people who live in the middle of a big city will be much further from fuel sources than those who live near the border of the urban area and combustible wildland areas. People who live in the middle of Yountville aren’t that much further from fuel sources in wildland areas than anyone else in Yountville. In fact, when we examine the FEMA data, we see that municipalities under 10,000 population are susceptible to much higher per capita losses than the municipalities above this number. To be clear, this does not mean that smaller municipalities will always have higher losses per capita than bigger cities – just that smaller cities have a higher chance of experiencing larger losses per capita.4 This suggests that Yountville might wish to be especially cognizant of the possibility of larger losses.5
Readers interested in the details behind our wildfire analysis are invited to consult the “Wildfire Financial Risk Analysis” section of this report.

Floods
The floods are less worrisome for Yountville than earthquakes or wildfires, according to the Napa County Hazard Plan, but are still considered a “high” risk (see Exhibit 1). For example, the First Street Foundation provides hazard estimates for communities across the United States.6 They describe Yountville’s risk as “moderate”, with 50% of all properties at risk of flood damage over the next three decades. This is a lower risk than First Street assigns to Napa County, as a whole.

Like our previous two losses, GFOA examined actual losses from floods severe enough to be declared eligible for FEMA assistance. Just like the other two, we adjusted the damages for inflation and scaled them to Yountville’s population. Also, like the other two, flood damage tends to follow the “hockey stick” shape shown in Exhibit 2.
4 GFOA statistical test that showed only a 5% chance of observing this pattern by chance. In other words, it is highly unlikely this pattern is the result of just “dumb luck” in the data. 5 The largest losses to a small municipality were experienced by St. Helena, which was over $1.1 million when scaled to present day Yountville. That said, according the First Street Foundation, St. Helena is at “major” risk from wildfire, while Yountville is “moderate”. This implies that Yountville would be less likely to experience a similar loss to St.

Helena’s.
6 To get risk estimates for any community, visit: https://firststreet.org/risk-factor/

Page 8 of 61 ends

The average loss to Town government from a flood might be just under $10,000. Because relying on the average is unwise, we should look at more extreme potential outcomes. Our analysis found that in 10% of cases, losses could be over 105,000. In 5% of cases, the loss was greater than 153,000.

Similar to wildfires, we should consider the implication of Yountville’s small size as it pertains to flood risk.

An examination of our data shows that smaller municipalities (under 10,000 population) are susceptible to much higher per capita losses than the municipalities above this population. To be clear, this does not mean that smaller municipalities will always have higher losses per capita than bigger cities – just that smaller cities have a higher chance of experiencing larger losses per capita.7 This suggests that Yountville might wish to be especially cognizant of the possibility of larger losses.

Finally, we should consider two elements of Yountville’s local context.

First is that Yountville appears to be relatively less suspectable to floods, in general, than some other areas in Napa County. For example, the City of Napa is considered to have “major” flood risk, compared to Yountville’s “moderate” risk, according to First Street’s Risk Factor product. This means that if a flood does occur in the region, then Yountville may be less likely to experience large losses than some other municipalities in the region. This is important because we used historical floods as analogs for what the Town might experience in the future. We should account for the fact that the Town might be more analogous to the municipalities that experienced
moderate damage than to municipalities that
experienced major damage during those floods.

Second is that the floods we examined all were
the result of what we might call “natural”
occurrences (e.g., too much rain). Yountville is
also at risk of dam failure, where the most likely
cause of dam failure is thought to be an
earthquake. We might consider this an
“unnatural” flood since the dam is man-made.

Hence, we need to account for the fact that the
Town may face this unique risk of flooding,
compared to many of the other municipalities we
examined. Exhibit 3 shows the areas the Town
thought to be at risk of inundation, should the
dam break. We don’t have data to be able to
estimate the damages from a dam break, but it is
probably reasonable to assume that the damages
could be on par with some of the worst per capita
damages we found from “natural” floods. We saw that the top 5% worst damages were all upwards of 7 GFOA statistical test that showed only a 10% chance of observing this pattern by chance. In other words, it is unlikely this pattern is the result of just “dumb luck” in the data.

Exhibit 3 – Rector Creek Dam Inundation Areas

Page 9 of 61 ends

$150,000 (scaled to Yountville) and went as high as almost $300,000. Readers interested in the details behind our flood analysis are invited to consult the “Flood Financial Risk Analysis” section of this report.

Recessions
Like all local governments, the Town faces risk of revenue losses due to recession. The transient occupancy tax (TOT) is, by far, the most important revenue for the Town, which means we should be especially cognizant of the risk that recessions pose to TOT. To get a sense of the risk we looked at the experiences of other municipalities in the region because the Town’s tax base has changed dramatically since the last (2008) economic recession.8 We were able to obtain detailed data about the City of Napa’s experience in the 2001 and 2008 recessions. Napa’s data suggests that TOT is relatively resilient against recession, compared to some other revenues like building permits or even sales taxes. This might be because the Napa region is very attractive to tourists. The data we obtained from Sausalito and Windsor was not as detailed but supports this conclusion.

We also used Napa’s experience during the Great Recession to assess the risks to other revenues. We can sum up Napa’s losses in the important revenue categories as follows:
• Property taxes: 6% decline over 3 years.
• Sales taxes: 15% decline over 3 years.
• TOT: 5% decline over 2 years (the second year was flat, rather than decline). • Charges for service: 18% decline over 2 years.
• Licenses and permits: 50% decline over 2 years.
• Other taxes, business licenses: 11% decline over 2 years.

If we took these same declines and applied them to the Town’s 2023 actual revenues, we would get a decline of $1.3 million or about 9% of total general fund revenues. This would probably represent a conservative approach because we are using the Great Recession as the historical analogue, which is the worst recession since World War 2. That said, it might also be argued that because Napa is a larger city with a more diversified tax base, it might be less vulnerable to recessions than Yountville. Hence, using the experience of the Great Recession might be less conservative than it first appears. Thus, a $1.3 million to $1.5 million reserve might represent a conservative approach for the Town. A recession like the 2001 recession was mild by historical standards. A smaller reserve would be sufficient to cover that recession, with $1 million still representing a healthy amount.

TOT Interruption Risk
In the prior section, we discussed how recessions could impact the Town’s general fund revenues, including TOT. Economic recessions are not the only way TOT could be interrupted. To illustrate, COVID resulted in the largest decline in TOT the Town and other jurisdictions in the region have experienced in decades. Natural catastrophes could interrupt TOT. Consider the following three examples:
• A strong earthquake damages hotel buildings, making them unoccupiable for a period. • A wildfire causes a lot of smoke, dissuading tourists from visiting. 8 Though COVID, technically, induced a recession, it is not a good representation of a classic economic recession.

Page 10 of 61 ends

• A large flood (like from a dam failure) inundates hotel properties.

To provide insight into the potential risk, we looked at two sources of data. First was the historical patterns of TOT revenue, including those in other municipalities in the region. We looked at the following municipalities, in addition to the Town itself: Napa, Larkspur, Windsor, and Sausalito.9 Looking across these municipalities we see two consistent interruptions in the TOT trendline.

The first and most obvious interruption was COVID. The following table summarizes the trend in each municipality during Covid.

Municipality 2020 Decline 2021 Decline 2022
Yountville 25% 15% Beyond full recovery
Napa 26% 30% Beyond full recovery
Larkspur 32% 41% Partial recovery, full
recovery in 2023
Windsor 24% 6% Beyond full recovery
Sausalito* 20% 15% Has not recovered
*Sausalito’s TOT appears to have entered downward trajectory well before 2020, so we should be careful about interpreting the failure of Sausalito’s TOT to recover to pre-COVID levels.

A second interruption to TOT occurred in 2017. Though this interruption was much smaller than COVID, there does seem to be a consistent downward movement in the trendline around this time. It was not possible for us to know the cause of this dip for sure, but it was consistent across the municipalities. There was a large wildfire in the region around that time, so it seems reasonable to conclude that this fire dissuaded some tourists for a period of one year.

The table below summarizes the temporary declines in each municipality during this one-year period.

Municipality Year Over Year
Decline
Yountville 11%
Larkspur 3%
Windsor 9%
9 GFOA emailed several municipalities in the region to ask for historical TOT data. These four replied.

Page 11 of 61 ends

Napa did not experience a decline, but
revenue growth did slow down. Sausalito
entered a long-term decline right around this
time, so it is hard to say how much was due to
fires versus other factors.

Let’s now move on to the location of hotel properties in Yountville to see if they are at greater relative risk from natural catastrophes compared to other parts of Yountville.

First, we assume all properties are at the same risk of earthquake, meaning the magnitude of the earthquake will not be different in one part of Yountville versus another. That said, we have insufficient data on building construction to say if the hotels have building features that make them more resistant to earthquakes. Since many of the hotels are relatively new, they may have more modern building features.

There may also be soil differences across Town that make some areas more prone to liquification than others. Unfortunately, we do not have access to data on soil conditions under the hotels versus other parts of Yountville.

That means we will focus our attention on wildfires and floods, where there is useful data available. First, we entered each hotel’s address into First Street’s Risk Factor, which gives flood and fire risk by address.

We found that no hotels had greater relative risk than Yountville overall and may be slightly less at risk for flood.

The First Street data set is very unlikely to include the risk of inundation from dam failure, so we examined that separately. By examining relevant maps, we found that if a dam failure occurred, the event would mostly affect the southeastern portion of the Town. When comparing the location of the Town’s hotels to the Dam Inundation Map, some hotels may fall within the potential flooding zone. That said, we must remember that the County Hazard plan considers a dam failure to be “unlikely”.

In summary, the historical data shows that interruptions to TOT from events other than recessions are quite possible. In the case of COVID the losses were substantial (COVID is examined in more detail later).

The 2017 losses were much less but were noticeable. The good news is that hotel properties in Yountville do not appear to be at more relative risk than the rest of Yountville from floods or wildfires.

For a reserve strategy, a less conservative approach might prepare for something on the scale of 2017 (an 11% decline). A more conservative approach would prepare for something larger. However, we should also remember that pandemics are analyzed as a separate risk, so we also don’t want to “double count” this risk. Hence, a more conservative approach might prepare something larger, but also combine preparation for an interruption from fire, flood, or earthquake with preparation for other more extraordinary sources of interruption, like a pandemic. In this case, the amount might be equal to the pandemic amount we describe later in this report, but in combination with that amount, not in addition to that amount.

Page 12 of 61 ends

Cyberattacks
The Town currently has coverage under “Information Security & Privacy Insurance with Electronic Media Liability Coverage” along with a “Breach Response Endorsement”. GFOA is not an insurance analyst, and a comprehensive review of all policy details was outside the scope of our project, but we can offer some insights from our review of the policy, as it relates to the Town’s reserve strategy.

There are also deductible for the approximately 20 different types of coverages in the Town’s policy. A cyber-attack may trigger multiple types of coverages. It is unclear if the Town would have to cover each deductible for each coverage separately. If so, the Town could face substantial deductible costs from a large cyber-attack.

Cyberattacks can cause many types of losses. As mentioned above, the Town’s policy includes several types of coverages to address different losses. Nevertheless, cyber policies are rarely, if ever, comprehensive of every cost that could arise from every cyberattack scenario. Examples of risks not included in the Town’s policy include: acts of war, property damage, and the cost of upgrading computer systems beyond where they were before the attack, as might be necessary to provide better security in the future.

GFOA is not suggesting the Town should have insurance coverage for all risks that could arise from a cyberattack. Such a policy might be cost prohibitive or even completely unobtainable. The Town, though, should be cognizant of what risks the Town is not commercially insuring because those risks are then being, de facto, self-insured.

According to the Town’s IT Administrator, the Town stays up to date with nationally recognized cyber security recommendations. The Town also is diligent about running backups of internal servers, services, and files. First, this should help reduce the risk the Town faces from cyberattacks. Second, cybersecurity requirements do change as attackers evolve their methods. The Town should remain open to investing in additional cost-effective cyber controls to help mitigate future risks.

Because the costs of cyber risk are variable it is hard to estimate an amount to hold for a reserve with the available data. The Town’s current policy does cover many kinds of cyber risks. The Town’s “retained” risks appear to be:
• The deductible costs, especially if the Town is responsible for covering multiple deductibles. • Damages in excess of the sublimits under any of the individual coverages. • Uncovered risks, which should be remote relative to the risks that are covered.

GFOA has observed that $1 million is a common limit on cyber policies. Given that most risks are covered by the commercial insurance policy, a conservative approach might take $1 million as a starting point and reserve some fraction of that for retained risks, which will place at $250,000 for discussion purposes. A

Page 13 of 61 ends

less conservative approach would be to rely exclusively on the Town’s commercial insurance and its strong preventative posture and not hold additional reserves for cyber risk.

Pandemics
COVID-19 has made people more aware of the risks posed by pandemics. Though pandemics are rare, there are good reasons to remain cognizant of the risk. For example, easier travel means that infectious diseases could spread more easily in the future. Global climate change could create environments that are more hospitable to disease carrying organisms.

There are two types of financial losses the Town could incur from a pandemic: increased costs and decreased revenues. The Town’s experience from COVID suggested that the potential for increased expenditure was not unmanageable (less than $50,000). This is understandable given the Town does not have the same public health responsibilities as Napa County, for example. As for revenues, the potential losses are much larger. If we look at the Town’s $12.6 million in general fund revenue in 2019 and compare it to 2020 actual revenues of $10.5 million, we see that the Town has just over $2 million less in revenues in 2020 compared to 2019. Revenues continued to decline in 2021 – general fund revenues were $9.7 million. Comparing the 2019 revenues of $12.6 million to $9.7 million yields a gap of almost $3 million. If we add that to the $2 million decline from 2019 to 2020, we arrive at about a $5 million total gap between actual annual revenue and what we might have expected the General Fund to take in, during those two years, under a conservative estimate.10 Most of the general fund decline is attributable to TOT since that is the Town’s largest revenue.

We should also consider the potential for federal support. First, support is not guaranteed. During COVID, it did not appear that federal support for local governments was a forgone conclusion, so we shouldn’t assume federal support will be available in a future pandemic. Second, we shouldn’t assume such support, if it did materialize, would replace all or even most of the Town’s losses. The Town received just over $750,000 in federal funds during COVID, compared to a total loss to the Town of about $5 million. Thus, the Town should consider how its reserve could help buffer against a pandemic. The historical losses from COVID-19 would be reasonable analogue for a future pandemic. Finally, we should recognize that even if pandemics are more likely in the future than they were in the past, they are still quite rare. Therefore, a much less conservative, but still justifiable, approach to this risk could be to reserve something much less than the historical experience.

Let’s now end our review of the risks the Town faces and move to the fourth step, which is to put the findings of the risk analysis together. The table below summarizes the dollar amounts from each risk.

Summary of Low and High Prospective Losses from Risks Town Faces Natural
Catastrophe
Low Impact High Impact Notes
10 We believe this is a conservative estimate because revenues are higher today than in 2019, which suggests the Town’s revenues were on an upward trend in 2019, before being interrupted by COVID.

Page 14 of 61 ends

Earthquake $380,000 $1.8 million • Low impact represents 10% of loss cases being larger than this number, for a 6.0 to 6.8 quake.
• High impact represents Yountville’s prior actual loss scaled up to a quake above 6.8 magnitude.

Wildfire $215,000 $412,000 • Low impact represents 10% of loss cases being higher than this number.
• High impact represents 5% of loss cases being higher
than this number.
• Yountville’s small size suggests vulnerability to larger losses
Flood $105,000 $153,000/
$300,000
• Low impact represents 10% of loss cases being higher
than this number.
• Yountville’s small size suggests there may be
vulnerability to larger losses, but Yountville may also be relatively less vulnerable to floods than some of
the municipalities that were used as analogs.
• The possibility of dam failure suggests the need to be cognizant of the potential for catastrophic losses.
• High impact represents 5% of loss cases being higher
than this number and includes the maximum
observed loss as a point of reference.

Recession $1 million $1.5 million • The high amount shows an analogous loss to what the City of Napa suffered during the 2008 Great
Recession.
• The 2008 recession was the worst since World War 2.

The Town could prepare for a milder recession by
reserving our lower amount.

TOT
Interruption
$1 million See
pandemic
risk
• The low amount represents preparing for something
analogous to the 2017 experience.
• The high amount would combine this risk with the
pandemic numbers.

Cyberrisk $0 $250,000 • The Town has a $2 million insurance policy with sublimits for different types of coverages within the
policy
• Using reserves to invest in better cybersecurity
controls, as needed, could be worthwhile.

Page 15 of 61 ends

• The low amount represents relying on the Town’s
commercial insurance and strong preventative
posture.
• The high amount represents a fraction of common
limit for commercial insurance policies to cover the
Town’s retained risk.

Pandemic $2.3 million $5 million • High represents the complete COVID loss. • Low represents about a one year’s worth of COVID
impact.
• Federal assistance is not included because even if
received, it would likely not be immediate.
• Note that both numbers are based directly on
historical experience. A less conservative approach,
due to the rarity of pandemics, would be to reserve
less than either amount. Town officials’ appetite for
risk will be important for deciding how conservative,
or not, the Town will be.

See following text for totals…
We see the total is about $3.7 million (low) and $9.3 million (high). 11 This leads us to the fifth and final step, which is for Town Officials to settle on a reserve target. GFOA cannot tell the Town what the precise “correct” amount is because the Town officials’ risk appetite is key to making this determination. If Town officials are risk averse, they might prefer a higher amount. If they are not, they might prefer a lower amount. Regardless, GFOA believes there is much to recommend selecting a target range rather than a single number. There is a good chance that different Town officials have different appetites for risk. A range can accommodate those differences. Also, a range is more useful for monitoring reserve levels because if the reserve falls out of the range the course of action is clear – either replenish the reserves if they are too low or direct them to some other purpose if they are too high.

Conversely, a single number is more difficult to manage to. Reserves will rarely, if ever, equal the target exactly. Hence, it is not clear when action is required.

Before settling on a range, Town Officials can consider other factors that might influence their conclusion.

Perhaps the most obvious is the potential for assistance from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and/or the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (CalOES). While the financial support these agencies provide could be substantial, it is unlikely to be immediate. For example, a GFOA survey of local governments who were in federally declared disaster areas waited an average of 11 The low amount puts pandemics at $1 million and TOT interruption at $1 million. It puts the high of both these risks together at $3 million. The high total also uses the largest number in the flood row.

Page 16 of 61 ends

18 months to receive money from FEMA. This means that federal/state support should not be seen as a substitute for the Town’s reserves, but rather as way to replenish them in the case of an extreme event.

Next, we should recognize that it is unlikely that all the risks we considered will happen at once. This means that the Town probably doesn’t need reserves sufficient to cover 100% of possible losses all at the same time. This means the Town Officials could have some justification for accepting some risk when setting their preferred target. That said, we should recognize that the risks are not totally unrelated either.

For example, a wildfire might keep tourists away resulting in both direct losses from wildfire damage/response and losses in TOT revenue. A larger earthquake could trigger a dam failure and catastrophic flood. Or, though the risks may be less likely to happen simultaneously, they could happen within a close enough time period that the Town is unable to fully replenish its reserves from the first loss.

We should also recognize that our analysis is largely based on historical data. One of the most important limitations of this is that climate change may make some kinds of natural catastrophes more likely or more severe, with wildfires being the most salient example in Yountville. This may be a reason for a more risk averse reserve policy by Town Officials.

Another factor to consider is risks that are sometimes called “unknown unknowns.” These are risks that are totally unanticipated. For example, ten years ago no one was talking about cyberattacks as a risk that could seriously impact local government finances. The reality that some risks are unknown unknowns might call for Town officials to choose a more risk adverse range, to make some allowances for unknown unknowns.

The Town’s small size is also a consideration. We addressed this under the discussion of wildfires and floods specifically, but the same general idea applies to the Town’s risk profile, in general. A small municipality is less geographically diversified. This means a given catastrophe may be more likely to impact a larger part of the Town, the tax base is less diversified, etc. Less diversification increases vulnerability to risk.

The Town is highly dependent on transient occupancy tax (TOT). TOT makes up well over half of the general fund revenues. TOT risk is also linked to many of the other risks we have discussed. A recession would reduce people’s available income for travel. A natural catastrophe might discourage people from visiting the area or even damage a hotel. A pandemic could reduce, or even shut down completely, travel.

The Town can cut costs in response to a revenue loss or expenditure shock. For example, during recession local governments very rarely replace every lost dollar of revenue with reserves. The same applies to other extreme events. For example, if a natural catastrophe raises costs in some areas of the Town budget, the Town might be able to at least partially offset it with cuts to other spending. The Towns’ Finance Director suggests that cuts of 3.5% to 4.5% are reasonable for planning purposes.

The Town’s commercial insurance program can provide some coverage against some of the risks we discuss in this report. For example, property insurance might cover earthquake damage to Town Hall.

Insurance payouts would presumably happen faster than FEMA reimbursements, for example, so insurance might serve as a substitute for self-insurance by reserves, to some extent.

Page 17 of 61 ends

The final consideration is opportunity costs. Opportunities costs are the benefits the Town is giving up by keeping money in reserve and not using it for other purposes. For example, when GFOA works with large cities that have pressing social problems, officials often feel there are high opportunity costs – money could be used to enhance public safety, health, etc. Unfortunately, there is not yet a good way to measure opportunity costs in local governments, but Town officials should consider alternative uses and how compelling those uses are compared to preparing for risks like those described in this report. Also, the Town should consider some of the secondary benefits of reserves, such as interest income and bond rating increases (to the extent the Town is a potential borrower and would need a bond rating).

The table below summarizes the additional considerations we just described. Town officials should combine this information with the prospective losses from the risks the Town faces, as described earlier.

Town officials should then take some time to think about how their risk appetites might influence how much they think the Town should hold in their “insurance policy” or reserve. The decision can then be formalized in a financial policy that accomplishes the following:
• Distinguishes between the “insurance policy” function of reserves and other “savings accounts” that the Town might establish for other purposes. It is fine to have “savings accounts” to buy a capital asset, to pay for special project, etc. but this is a very different purpose than an insurance policy.
• Establishes a target range of reserves, not a single point. • Describes the target range as a percentage of the Town’s expenditures, rather than dollar amounts. This allows the target to evolve with the size of the Town’s budget. • Describes the purposes reserves can be used for. This goes back to the distinction we drew between shocks and stresses. Reserves should be used for non-recurring costs. • Describes the intention to replenish reserves if they drop below the target range and to direct reserves to other purposes if they get above the target range.

Summary of Additional Considerations
Issue Implication for Town
Officials’ Risk Aversion
Notes
FEMA/CalOES ←→ Does not reduce need to hold reserves, but helps replenish faster
Simultaneous
Occurrence of Risk
↓ Unlikely that all or most risks will happen at once.

Analysis Based on
Historical Data
↑ Historical data does not account for climate risk
Unknown Unknowns ↑ Risk analysis does not include risks we don’t and can’t know about
Small Town ↑ As a small municipality, the Town is less
geographically diversified, which could make the
Town more vulnerable to a large loss.

Page 18 of 61 ends

TOT Dependency ↑ The Town is highly dependent on TOT and TOT risk is linked to many of the other risks that the
Town is subject to.

Spending cuts ↓ The Town can reduce costs in response to a revenue loss or even in response to an
expenditure spike. Cuts of 3.5% to 4.5% appear
reasonable for planning purposes.

Commercial Insurance ↓ The Town’s commercial insurance might provide some coverage that substitutes for reserves
Opportunity Costs ? What are alternative uses of the funds and how do those benefits compare to insuring against the
risks described in this report?
The remaining sections in this report provide additional details behind our analysis of each risk faced by the Town. If the reader was satisfied with the description of each risk provided earlier, then the reader does not to need to read the following sections.

Section 2 – Detailed Analysis of Earthquake Risk
Napa County’s Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) highlights that earthquakes could have potentially “catastrophic” impacts, and that they are “likely” to occur (See Exhibit 1 below). “Catastrophic” events are classified as having the potential for a “high number of deaths [and/or] injuries… [with] more than 50% of property in [the] affected area damaged or destroyed.” Such an event could render a “[c]omplete shutdown of critical facilities for 30 days or more.” A “likely” event is defined as having a 10% - 100% chance of occurring annually, or one that is expected to occur “several times within your lifetime.”12 Exhibit 1 – Probability and Impact of Natural Disaster Events in Napa County 12 https://www.countyofnapa.org/DocumentCenter/View/20613/EOP-Napa-County_Dec-2020

Page 19 of 61 ends

Frequency of Earthquakes in Napa County
To consider potential financial risks from earthquakes, we started by examining the frequency of earthquakes in and near Napa County. Exhibit 2 shows a map of all 4.5+ magnitude earthquakes in the greater Bay Area over the last 50 years (12/31/72-12/31/22) 13. The starred circles identify earthquakes that have occurred in Napa County during that time.

Exhibit 2 – Mapped Earthquakes in and near Napa County, CA (12/31/72 – 12/31/22) 13 https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/map/?extent=37.66752,-123.35724&extent=38.63618,- 121.15997&range=search&timeZone=utc&search=%7B%22name%22:%22Search%20Results%22,%22params%22:%7B%22starttime%22:%2219 72-12-31%2000:00:00%22,%22endtime%22:%222022-12-
31%2023:59:59%22,%22maxlatitude%22:38.691,%22minlatitude%22:37.449,%22maxlongitude%22:-120.729,%22minlongitude%22:- 123.552,%22minmagnitude%22:4.5,%22orderby%22:%22time%22%7D%7D

Page 20 of 61 ends

Over that 50-year period (12/31/72-12/31/22), the area in Exhibit 1 had 9 earthquakes that registered a

4.5 on the Richter scale or above. Napa County was hit by two of these “large-scale”14 earthquakes, one in 2000 and the other in 2014. That equates to an average of 1 earthquake at a 4.5+ magnitude every 25 years in Napa County. Over the same 50-year span and in the same area depicted in Exhibit 1, there have been over 2,000 recorded earthquakes (2,073) that register between 2.5 and 4.4 magnitude (See Table 1 below)15.

Critically, USGS reports that earthquakes below 6 in magnitude are considered “moderate, light, or minor” and are associated only with minor damage. It isn’t until an earthquake breaks 6.0 on the Richter scale that it is considered a “strong” event by USGS, associated with loss of life and major property damage.16 Relatedly, despite the frequency of events depicted in Table 1 over the last 50 years, there have only been three earthquake events in California since 2000 that have received presidentially declared disaster status, resulting in FEMA funding. This reinforces that though earthquakes occur frequently around Napa County, “strong” earthquake events that result in major disaster are quite rare. 14 “caused damage, death, and injuries” https://www.countyofnapa.org/DocumentCenter/View/20613/EOP-Napa-County_Dec-2020. 15 https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/map/?extent=37.09681,-124.33777&extent=39.03625,- 119.94324&range=search&timeZone=utc&search=%7B%22name%22:%22Search%20Results%22,%22params%22:%7B%22starttime%22:%2219 72-12-31%2000:00:00%22,%22endtime%22:%222022-12-
31%2023:59:59%22,%22maxlatitude%22:38.691,%22minlatitude%22:37.449,%22maxlongitude%22:-120.729,%22minlongitude%22:- 123.552,%22minmagnitude%22:2.5,%22orderby%22:%22time%22%7D%7D 16 https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/graph-showing-earthquake-magnitudes-and-equivalent-energy-release

Page 21 of 61 ends

Table 1 – Earthquake Magnitudes and Frequencies In and Near Napa County (12/31/72) – 12/31/22) Magnitude Frequency of Event

2.5-4.4 2,073

4.5+ 9
Total Earthquake Events 2,082
It should be noted, according to the California Earthquake Authority, there is “a 51 percent chance that the San Francisco region specifically will experience one or more magnitude-7.0 or greater earthquakes [between 2014 and 2044.]” Further, “…there’s a 98% chance of one or more magnitude-6.0 or greater quakes hitting the Bay Area in that same timeframe” (See Exhibit 3 below) 17.

Exhibit 3 – Earthquake Risk to “Greater Bay Area” (2014-2044) Finally, while strong earthquakes are relatively rare, the potential for a catastrophic event must be acknowledged. The 1906 earthquake in San Francisco was one of the most devastating earthquakes in recorded history18. Such a severe earthquake could have devastating effects on the Town’s public health, infrastructure, and economy. Therefore, though infrequent, the possibility of an earthquake of these magnitudes should be accounted for.

Financial Impact on Town Government
17 https://www.earthquakeauthority.com/California-Earthquake-Risk/Faults-By-County 18 https://www.archives.gov/legislative/features/sf

Page 22 of 61 ends

The data below represents information obtained from the United States Geological Service (USGS), Napa County’s Emergency Operations Plan (EOP), the U.S. Census Bureau, the California Department of Finance and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). There is a focus in Tables 2 and 3 on earthquake events in Californian jurisdictions, including population at the time of the event, FEMA reimbursement, and total losses to a local governments after earthquakes occur. Table 4 includes similar information regarding a 6.8 magnitude earthquake event that occurred in Washington state in 2001.

This information establishes a quantitative method to explore potential losses to Town government from similar events. Understanding the amount of money obligated from FEMA to local governments for an earthquake allows local governments to get a sense of the potential cost of damages associated with similar events (factoring in an assumed 25% local “cost share” with FEMA reimbursement funds). In turn, this information will assist Yountville to consider the amount of reserves the Town should consider keeping on hand to address similar events.

The 2000 earthquake registered a 5.2 magnitude on the Richter scale and resulted in ~$30-$50 million dollars in damages for Napa County. Under the United States Geological Service’s (USGS) criteria, such an event would qualify as a “moderate earthquake” associated with “property damages”19 (See Exhibit 4 below). Notably, the epicenter of this earthquake was just over 3 miles away from the Town of Yountville.

There is no FEMA reimbursement data available to GFOA for this event. The 2014 earthquake registered as a 6.0, resulting in one death and 200 injuries. Associated damages to “[t]he southern Napa Valley and Vallejo areas” were to be between ~$362 million to ~$1 billion for this event.20 Napa County received ~$4.5M (~$5.7M in 2023 dollars) in reimbursement from FEMA, while the Town of Yountville received ~$493K (~$632K in 2023 dollars). Assuming a 25% local cost share, this brings the total allocation amount for damages regarding the 2014 earthquake to ~$7.1M for Napa County in 2023 dollars and ~$790K for the Town of Yountville in 2023 dollars. Under the United States Geological Service’s (USGS) criteria, the 2014 event would qualify as a “strong earthquake” associated with potential “damage in the billions of dollars and loss of life.” (See Exhibit 4 below).

Exhibit 4 – Earthquake Magnitudes and Associated Energy Equivalents21 19 https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/graph-showing-earthquake-magnitudes-and-equivalent-energy-release 20 https://www.countyofnapa.org/DocumentCenter/View/20613/EOP-Napa-County_Dec-2020 21 https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/graph-showing-earthquake-magnitudes-and-equivalent-energy-release

Page 23 of 61 ends

Several California jurisdictions also received FEMA reimbursement for the 6.0 magnitude 2014 earthquake (See Table 2).

Table 2 - 2014 6.0 Magnitude Earthquake in CA and Associated Reimbursements and Losses Jurisdiction Total
Population
(at time of
event)
FEMA Reimbursement (per
capita, expressed to the
nearest whole dollar, 2023
dollars)
Total Losses to Town/City
Gov’t (factoring in 25% local
share, expressed in
thousands, 2023 dollars)
Napa County 136,484 $42 $7,171K
Town of Yountville 3,000 $211 $790K
City of Calistoga 5,300 $1 $9K
City of American Canyon 20,300 $3 $82K
City of Benicia 27,800 $3 $119K
City of Napa 79,100 $157 $15,538K
City of Vallejo 119,705 $5 $687K

Page 24 of 61 ends

Notably, another 6.0 earthquake impacted other California jurisdictions in 2004. The event also spurred FEMA reimbursements (See Table 3 below).

Table 3 – 2004 6.0 Magnitude Earthquake in CA and Associated Reimbursements and Losses Jurisdiction Population
(at time of
event)
FEMA Reimbursement (per
capita, expressed to the
nearest whole dollar, 2023
dollars)
Total Losses to Town/City
Gov’t (factoring in 25% local
share, expressed in
Thousands, 2023 dollars)
City of Guadalupe 5,900 $145 $1,072K
City of Pismo Beach 8,500 $3 $37K
City of Morro Bay 10,400 $33 $430K
City of Arroyo Grande 16,400 $2 $35K
City of Atascadero 27,400 $1,218 $41,707K
City of San Luis Obispo 44,400 $0 $11K
City of Santa Maria 82,606 $1 $59K
Similarly, a 6.8 magnitude Earthquake impacted the State of Washington and several local jurisdictions in 2001. The event also spurred FEMA reimbursements (See Table 4 below).

Table 4 – 2001 6.8 Magnitude Earthquake in WA and Associated Reimbursements and Losses Jurisdiction (County) Population
(at time of
event)22
FEMA Reimbursement (per
capita, expressed to the nearest
whole dollar, using 2023 dollars)
Total Losses to Town/City
Gov’t (factoring in 25% local
share, expressed in Thousands,
2023 dollars)
City of Kalama 1,783 $12 $27K
City of Kelso 11,895 $1 $10K
City of Cosmopolis 1,595 $30 $61K
City of Ocean Shores 3,836 $3 $17K
City of Westport 2,137 $2 $5K
22 https://www2.census.gov/census_2000/datasets/demographic_profile/Washington/2kh53.pdf

Page 25 of 61 ends

City of Bellevue 109,569 $8 $1,000K
City of Bothell 30,150 $0 $1K
City of Raymond 2,975 $19 $72K
City of Sumner 8,504 $2 $16K
City of Anacortes 14,557 $1 $16K
City of Snohomish 8,494 $2 $26K
Town of Rainier 1,492 $18 $34K
Implications for Yountville
Exhibit 5 below represents potential total losses if Yountville was struck by the corresponding earthquake events in the dataset. To create the histogram below, we took the following steps. First, we found the total losses to each town/city government (factoring in 25% local share, in 2023 dollars) effected by one of the three earthquake events in this analysis (2014 – CA, 2004 – CA, 2001 – WA). Next, we divided each of those figures by the population of the effected jurisdiction at the time of the event.

That gave us total losses per capita to each town/city government (factoring in 25% local share, in 2023 dollars).

We then used California Department of Finance data to represent Yountville’s current population (2,933)
23 and multiplied that figure by each of the calculated per capita losses to each town/city government in the dataset. These calculations provided plausible total losses for future earthquakes of comparable magnitude and represent the data depicted in Exhibit 5.

Table 5 depicts the key statistics that are represented visually as histogram in Exhibit 5. The dataset included 25 data points, with a range of potential proportional total losses for Yountville calculated to be between $97 and $772,729. This dataset had a median proportional total loss of $12,699, while its 95 th percentile figure equated to $567,503, its 90th percentile figure equated to 381,386 and its 10th percentile figure equated to $2,246.
23 https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/

Page 26 of 61 ends

Exhibit 5 – Projected Range of Total Losses if Similar Events Struck Yountville, CA Table 5 – Summary Statistics for Projected Range of Total Losses if Similar Events Struck Yountville, CA In sum, the totality of data depicted in this analysis allows Yountville to better understand its exposure to potential losses from earthquake events. Further, the analysis provides a quantitative context for

Page 27 of 61 ends

expectations regarding the impact of an earthquake on the Town. Tables 2, 3 and 4 each highlight critical elements that may better inform Yountville’s reserve strategy when considering risks posed by earthquakes, including FEMA reimbursement per capita for earthquakes and total losses to local governments after such events (both in 2023 dollars). Exhibit 5 visually summarizes the potential total damage if any of these historic earthquake events were to strike the Town today. In conjunction with Table 5, the Town can use this information to get a snapshot of potential total losses for similar events moving forward and thus make more informed decisions as a local government.

Finally, we must recognize that the numbers in Exhibit 5 only address historically precedented earthquakes. It is certainly plausible that Yountville could experience a more powerful earthquake. Thus, these numbers should not be taken as absolutes, but rather used as inputs for considering Yountville’s reserve strategy.

In the final section of this report, GFOA will bring together all of the individual risk factors for a more comprehensive view of all the risks that influence Yountville’s reserve strategy.

Page 28 of 61 ends

Section 3 – Detailed Analysis of Wildfire Risk
Wildfires have the potential to harm property, livelihoods, and human health.24 Napa County’s Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) highlights that wildfires could have potentially “critical” impacts, and that they are “highly likely” to occur (See Exhibit 1 below). “Critical” events are classified as having the potential for “multiple deaths/injuries,” with ~25%-50% of property within the “disaster footprint…damaged or destroyed.” Such an event could render a “[c]omplete shutdown of critical facilities for more than one week.” A “highly likely” event is defined as having “100% annual probability[,]” or one that is “likely to occur every year in your lifetime.”25
Exhibit 1 – Probability and Impact of Natural Disaster Events in Napa County 24 https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-wildfires 25 https://www.countyofnapa.org/DocumentCenter/View/20613/EOP-Napa-County_Dec-2020

Page 29 of 61 ends

Frequency of Wildfires In and Near Napa County
To consider potential financial risks from wildfires, we started by examining the frequency of wildfires in and near Napa County. Exhibit 2 shows a map of all wildfires in the greater Bay Area over a 50-year period (1/1/70 - 12/31/19). Exhibit 3 shows a map of wildfires in Yountville’s local area over the same period.

The different colors in Exhibits 2 and 3 correspond to the decade in which the wildfire occurred (Yellow – 1970s; Orange – 1980s; Green – 1990s; Blue – 2000; Purple/Pink – 2010s). Exhibit 4 shows a map of all wildfires in the greater Bay Area over the year 2020 (most recently available data; not included in previous dataset). Exhibit 5 shows a map of wildfires in Yountville’s local area also over the year 2020.

Exhibit 226 – Mapped Wildfires in the greater Bay Area (1/1/70) – 12/31/19) 26 https://projects.capradio.org/california-fire-history/#9.17/38.4166/-122.5854

Page 30 of 61 ends

Exhibit 327- Mapped Wildfires in the local Yountville area (1/1/70) – 12/31/19) Exhibit 428- Mapped Wildfires in the greater Bay Area (1/1/20) – 12/31/20) 27 https://projects.capradio.org/california-fire-history/#11.17/38.4057/-122.3758 28 https://projects.capradio.org/california-fire-history/#8.17/38.085/-122.517

Page 31 of 61 ends

Exhibit 529- Mapped Wildfires in the local Yountville area (1/1/20) – 12/31/20) 29 https://projects.capradio.org/california-fire-history/#11.17/38.4057/-122.3758

Page 32 of 61 ends

Napa County’s EOP notes, “[f]rom 2000-2020, there were 12 wildfires that burned over 1,000 acres in Napa County.”
30 Extrapolating based on this information over 20 years, there is a 60% chance that a wildfire occurs in Napa County annually. Said differently, this equates to an average of more than one wildfire occurring every two years in Napa County (~1.2 wildfires on average biannually).

Wildfire Severity and Napa County’s Vulnerability
Wildfires are classified by three levels of severity (low, medium, and high). Severity is defined as “a function of intensity, or how hot the fire was, and its spread rate, or the speed at which it travels.”31 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service highlights that wildfires are “inevitable,” and depending on their severity, can provide benefits or harms to the lands they burn.32 Low severity wildfires have “limited effect on overstory trees (<30% mortality), understory vegetation, and soils.” Wildfires that remain at low intensities can actually benefit wildlife and forest health by naturally “cleaning” thick vegetation from the forest floor, resulting in enriched soil. Medium severity wildfires produce “variable, moderate effects on overstory trees, averaging 30-80% of the vegetation killed, and/or moderate soil exposure.” High severity wildfires result in “a high percent of overstory tree mortality (>80%) and/or extensive mineral soil exposure.”33 High-severity wildfires can devastate wildlife, ecosystems, resources, and nearby communities. Wildfires that reach this threshold are associated with loss of life, destroyed property, damaged water sources, and disrupted food chains, among other negative externalities.

According to California’s Office of the State Fire Marshall, Napa County has over 350,000 acres within the State Responsibility Area (SRA) that are considered wildfire hazard zones. Notably, ~265,000 of these acres are considered in “very high” fire hazard severity zones. The remaining land within SRA hazard zones are ~78,000 acres in “high” SRA fire hazard severity zones and ~17,500 acres are in “moderate” SRA fire hazard severity zones. Yountville hovers the border of an SRA to the west and a Local Responsibility Area (LRA) to the direct east.34 See Exhibit 6 below. An SRA area is a legal term defining the area where the State has financial responsibility for wildland fire protection and prevention. Incorporated cities and federal ownership are not included in SRAs. LRAs are incorporated cities, urban regions, agriculture lands, and portions of the desert where the local government is responsible for wildfire protection. This is typically provided by city fire departments, fire protection districts, counties, and by CAL FIRE under contract.35
30 https://www.countyofnapa.org/DocumentCenter/View/20613/EOP-Napa-County_Dec-2020 31 https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/edu/news/2016/8/22/back-to-school-burn-the-science-of-wildfires/ 32 https://www.fws.gov/story/2022-10/how-does-wildfire-impact-wildlife-and-forests 33 https://www.wfirescience.org/sites/default/files/publications/Fire%20Severity.pdf. 34 https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/h5sne0ia/fhsz_county_sra_11x17_2022_napa_2.pdf 35 https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/mfvb2mjf/2022-fhsz-faqs-july-2022.pdf

Page 33 of 61 ends

Exhibit 6Exhibit __ - State Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Napa Count - State Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Napa County y

Page 34 of 61 ends

Further, according to the First Street Foundation’s Risk Factor tool, the Town has a moderate risk of wildfire over the next 30 years. Their model shows there are over 800 at-risk properties over the next 30 years in the town, representing 99% of all properties in the Town. In other words, this model states that virtually every property in the Town could potentially be affected by a wildfire over the next three decades. These properties include 761 residential properties, 46 commercial properties, 3 critical infrastructure facilities and 8 social facilities. See Exhibit 7 below. Three key factors that contribute to an area’s vulnerability to wildfire events are vegetation and fuel sources, possible ignition sources, and topography and weather.36 See Exhibit 8 below.

Exhibit 7 - Yountville’s Wildfire Risk in First Street Risk Factor Model Exhibit 8 - Key Wildfire Vulnerability Factors
36 https://riskfactor.com/city/yountville/686930_fsid/fire

Page 35 of 61 ends

Typically, the late summer and early fall months (August, September, and October) present the greatest potential for wildfire events to occur. This is due to dry vegetation, lower humidity levels and the blowing of offshore wind during these months.37 However, while these months do remain the greatest threat, due to an increasingly warmer and drier environment, wildfire seasons are extending and becoming “more active.” According to the EPA, multiple studies have linked climate change factors (warmer springs, longer summer dry seasons, and drier soils and vegetation) to lengthened wildfire seasons, increased wildfire occurrence and larger burn perimeters.38 Continuous high-heat and drought “set the stage for extraordinary wildfire seasons” over the last three full calendar years for which data is available (2020- 2022). Each of those three years surpassed the average of 1.2 million acres burned nationally per year due to wildfire events. 39 The trend of increasing threat from wildfire is expected to continue.40 Financial Impact on Town Government
The data below represents information obtained from the United States Geological Service (USGS), Napa County’s Emergency Operations Plan (EOP), the U.S. Census Bureau, the California Department of Finance and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). There is a focus in Tables 2, 3, and 4 on wildfire events in Californian jurisdictions, which includes key information like population at the time of the event, FEMA reimbursement, and total losses to a local governments after wildfires occur.

This information establishes a quantitative method to explore potential losses to Town government from similar events. Understanding the amount of money obligated from FEMA to local governments for a wildfire allows local governments to get a sense of the potential cost of damages associated with similar events (factoring in an assumed 25% local “cost share” with FEMA reimbursement funds). In turn, this information will assist Yountville to consider the amount of reserves the Town should consider keeping on hand to address similar events.

The 2017 wildfire resulted in a total of ~$50M dollars in federal reimbursement being allocated across the 17 jurisdictions in the dataset. Napa County received ~$3.697M (~$4.576 in 2023 dollars) in reimbursement from FEMA. Assuming a 25% local cost share, this brings the total allocation amount for damages regarding the 2017 wildfire to ~$5.72 for Napa County in 2023 dollars. See Table 1 below. 37 https://www.countyofnapa.org/DocumentCenter/View/20613/EOP-Napa-County_Dec-2020 38 https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-wildfires 39 https://www.noaa.gov/noaa-wildfire/wildfire-climate-connection 40 https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-wildfires

Page 36 of 61 ends

Table 1 – 2017 Wildfire Event and Associated Reimbursements and Losses Jurisdiction Total
Population
(at time of
event)
FEMA Reimbursement (per
capita, expressed to the
nearest whole dollar, 2023
dollars)
Total Losses to Town/City
Gov’t (factoring in 25% local
share, expressed in
thousands, 2023 dollars)
CLEARLAKE 15,250 $6 119K
UKIAH 16,075 $1 22K
WILLITS 4,888 $24 148K
CALISTOGA 5,155 $74 474K
NAPA 76,915 $45 4,322K
NAPA (COUNTY) 136,752 $33 5,720K
SAINT HELENA 5,814 $23 164K
ORANGE 136,416 $4 613K
TUSTIN 75,540 $0 25K
FAIRFIELD 105,321 $1 81K
VALLEJO 115,942 $1 211K
HEALDSBURG 11,254 $3 46K
PETALUMA 57,941 $1 78K
ROHNERT PARK 40,971 $3 165K
SONOMA 10,648 $7 99K
SONOMA (COUNTY) 484,675 $62 37,722K
WINDSOR 26,801 $1 39K

Page 37 of 61 ends

The 2018 wildfires resulted in ~$78M dollars in federal reimbursement being allocated to the 15 jurisdictions in the dataset. See Table 2 below.

Table 2 – 2018 Wildfire Events and Associated Reimbursements and Losses Jurisdiction Population
(at time of
event)
FEMA Reimbursement (per
capita, expressed to the
nearest whole dollar, 2023
dollars)
Total Losses to Town/City
Gov’t (factoring in 25% local
share, expressed in Thousands,
2023 dollars)
CARPINTERIA 13,040 $15 237K
SANTA BARBARA 88,410 $28 3,094K
OJAI 7,461 $4 35K
OXNARD 197,899 $0 46K
SANTA PAULA 29,321 $57 2,088K
LAKEPORT 4,753 $46 274K
REDDING 89,861 $151 16,984K
CHICO 86,187 $1 161K
OROVILLE 15,546 $0 6K
AGOURA HILLS 20,330 $3 73K
CALABASAS 23,058 $1 25K
HIDDEN HILLS 1,856 $16 38K
MALIBU 12,645 $282 4,454K
THOUSAND OAKS 126,683 $9 1,478K
Similarly, wildfires in 2020 impacted several Californian jurisdictions. The event also spurred FEMA reimbursements (See Table 4 below). Napa County received ~$3.43M (~$4.021M in 2023 dollars) in

Page 38 of 61 ends

reimbursement from FEMA after being affected by one of the 2020 wildfires in California. Assuming a 25% local cost share, this brings the total allocation amount for damages regarding the 2020 wildfire to ~$5.027M for Napa County in 2023 dollars. See Table 2 below.

Table 3 – 2020 Wildfire Events and Associated Reimbursements and Losses Jurisdiction Population
(at time of
event)
FEMA Reimbursement (per
capita, expressed to the nearest
whole dollar, using 2023 dollars
w/ 2000 Census pop. data)
Total Losses to Town/City Gov’t
(factoring in 25% local share,
expressed in Thousands, 2023
dollars)
OROVILLE 20,104 $16 395K
MONTEREY 30,230 $0 10K
NAPA (COUNTY) 135,965 $30 5,027K
SAINT HELENA 5,436 $30 205K
DALY CITY 104,973 $1 112K
MORGAN HILL 45,481 $5 294K
SANTA CRUZ 62,968 $4 333K
FAIRFIELD 119,872 $4 559K
VACAVILLE 102,386 $3 421K
HEALDSBURG 11,349 $2 32K
WINDSOR 26,353 $1 29K
FRESNO 542,252 $0 140K
ARCADIA 56,664 $7 471K
MONROVIA 37,937 $59 2,787K
SIERRA MADRE 11,275 $12 172K
CALISTOGA 5,227 $50 324K
SAINT HELENA 5,436 $319 2,171K
MONTCLAIR 37,886 $1 42K
REDLANDS 73,170 $0 14K
YUCAIPA 54,552 $0 5K
Implications for Yountville
Exhibit 9 below represents potential total losses if Yountville was struck by one of the corresponding wildfire events in the dataset. To create the histogram below, we took the following steps. First, we found the total losses to each town/city government (factoring in 25% local share, in 2023 dollars) effected by one of the wildfire events in this analysis (2017, multiple in 2018 and multiple in 2020). Next, we divided each of those figures by the population of the effected jurisdiction at the time of the event.

That gave us total losses per capita to each town/city government (factoring in 25% local share, in 2023 dollars).

We then used California Department of Finance data to represent Yountville’s current population (2,933)19 and multiplied that figure by each of the calculated per capita losses to each town/city

Page 39 of 61 ends

government in the dataset. These calculations provided plausible total losses for future wildfires of comparable magnitude and represent the data depicted in Exhibit 9.

Table 4 depicts the key statistics that are represented visually as histogram in Exhibit 9. The dataset included 51 data points, with a range of potential proportional total losses for Yountville calculated to be between $297 and $1,171,255. This dataset had a median proportional total loss of $15,520, while its 95th percentile figure equated to $411,944, its 90th percentile figure equated to $215,448 and its 10th percentile figure equated to $981.

Exhibit 9 – Projected Range of Total Losses if Similar Events Struck Yountville, CA Table 4 – Summary Statistics for Projected Range of Total Losses if Similar Events Struck Yountville, CA

Page 40 of 61 ends

In sum, the totality of data depicted in this analysis allows Yountville to better understand its exposure to potential losses from wildfire events. Further, the analysis provides a quantitative context for expectations regarding the impact of a wildfire on the Town. Tables 1, 2 and 3 each highlight critical elements that may better inform Yountville’s reserve strategy when considering risks posed by wildfires, including FEMA reimbursement per capita for earthquakes and total losses to local governments after such events (both in 2023 dollars). Exhibit 9 visually summarizes the potential total damage if any of these historic wildfire events were to strike the Town today. In conjunction with Table 4, the Town can use this information to get a snapshot of potential total losses for similar events moving forward and thus make more informed decisions as a local government.

Page 41 of 61 ends

Section 4 – Detailed Analysis of Flood Risk
Napa County’s Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) highlights that floods have historically been the most common natural disaster to impact Napa County. The EOP states that floods could have potentially “limited” impacts, and that they are “likely” to occur (See Exhibit 1 below). “Limited impact” events are classified as having the potential for “minor injuries only,” with approximately “10% or less of property in [the] disaster footprint damaged or destroyed.” Such an event could render a “[c]omplete shutdown of critical facilities for more than one day.” A “likely” event is defined as having a 10% - 100% chance of occurring annually, or one that is expected to occur “several times within your lifetime.”41 Exhibit 1 – Probability and Impact of Natural Disaster Events in Napa County 41 https://www.countyofnapa.org/DocumentCenter/View/20613/EOP-Napa-County_Dec-2020

Page 42 of 61 ends

Risk of Floods in Yountville
According to the First Street Foundation’s Risk Factor tool, the Town has a moderate risk of flooding over the next 30 years. Their model shows there are over 185 properties with a ~26% chance risk of being severely affected by a flood event over the next 30 years in the town. Furthermore, in total, First Street finds that ~50% of all properties in Yountville are at risk of flood related damages over the next three decades. In other words, this model states that many properties in the Town could potentially be affected by a flood over the next couple generations. These properties include 398 residential properties, 12 commercial properties, and 2 social facilities.42 See Exhibit 2.

Exhibit 2 - Yountville’s Flood Risk in First Street Risk Factor Model According to Napa County’s EOP, “flood reduction, prevention, and mitigation are [already] a major challenge to Napa County residents and floodplain managers...” At the same time, the plan acknowledges that “many areas of Napa Valley are at risk of flooding, especially low-lying properties near the Napa River and its feeder streams.” The EOP also notes that traditionally, the river has been most prone to flooding between the months of November and April.43 Notably, the California Department of Water Resources reports that the state is currently experiencing a shift towards a hotter and drier climate. Due to these changes, there is a necessity to prepare for more extreme flooding events moving forward.44 The First Street Foundation further backs up this report, highlighting that a changing climate is associated with “higher seas, new weather patterns, and stronger storms.” More evaporation, warmer oceans and sea level rise can all contribute to increases in flooding.45 42 https://riskfactor.com/city/yountville/686930_fsid/flood 43 https://www.countyofnapa.org/DocumentCenter/View/20613/EOP-Napa-County_Dec-2020 44 https://water.ca.gov/News/News-Releases/2022/Dec-22/Changing-Climate-Shift-to-More-Extreme-WeatherIntensify-Risk-of-Flooding-in-California 45 https://riskfactor.com/city/yountville/686930_fsid/flood

Page 43 of 61 ends

Financial Impact on Town Government
The data below represents information obtained from the United States Geological Service (USGS), Napa County’s Emergency Operations Plan (EOP), the U.S. Census Bureau, the California Department of Finance and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). There is a focus in Tables 1, 2 and 3 on flood events in Californian jurisdictions, including population at the time of the event, FEMA reimbursement per capita (in 2023 dollars), and total losses to a local governments after floods occur.

This information establishes a quantitative method to explore potential losses to Town government from similar events. Understanding the amount of money obligated from FEMA to local governments for a flood allows local governments to get a sense of the potential cost of damages associated with similar events (factoring in an assumed 25% local “cost share” with FEMA reimbursement funds). In turn, this information will assist Yountville to consider the amount of reserves the Town should consider keeping on hand to address similar events.

Several California jurisdictions received FEMA reimbursement for a 2011 flood event. (See Table 1 below).

Table 1 – 2011 Flood Event in CA and Associated Reimbursements and Losses Jurisdiction Total
Population
(at time of
event)
FEMA Reimbursement (per
capita, expressed to the
nearest whole dollar, 2023
dollars)
Total Losses to Town/City Gov’t
(factoring in 25% local share,
expressed in thousands, 2023
dollars)
DELANO 53,041 $1.12 74K
MCFARLAND 12,707 $9.88 157K
DANA POINT 33,351 $4.60 192K
BEAUMONT 36,877 $7.20 332K
BARSTOW 22,639 $5.58 158K
GRAND TERRACE 12,040 $1.96 30K
LEMON GROVE 25,320 $0.34 11K
SANTEE 53,413 $6.56 438K
GROVER BEACH 13,156 $0.44 7K
PISMO BEACH (PISMO) 7,655 $38.44 368K
SAN LUIS OBISPO 45,119 $0.69 39K
GUADALUPE 7,080 $1.14 10K
SANTA MARIA 99,553 $0.53 65K
Another flood impacted other California jurisdictions in 2017. The event also spurred FEMA reimbursements among the jurisdictions in the dataset. This flood event resulted in ~$696K (in 2023 dollars) in FEMA reimbursement for Napa County. Assuming a 25% local cost share, this brings the total

Page 44 of 61 ends

amount for damages regarding the first 2017 flood to ~$869K for Napa County (in 2023 dollars). (See Table 2 below).

Table 2 – 2017 Flood Event #1 in CA and Associated Reimbursements and Losses Jurisdiction Population
(at time of
event)
FEMA Reimbursement
(per capita, expressed to
the nearest whole dollar,
2023 dollars)
Total Losses to Town/City Gov’t
(factoring in 25% local share,
expressed in Thousands, 2023
dollars)
DANVILLE 42,039 $1.41 74K
ARVIN 19,304 $4.41 107K
AGOURA HILLS 20,330 $2.35 60K
MONROVIA 36,590 $1.22 56K
MONTEBELLO 62,500 $ 1.34 104K
MAMMOTH LAKES 8,234 $1.06 11K
NAPA (COUNTY) 136,484 $5.10 869K
LAGUNA BEACH 22,723 $2.88 82K
INDIAN WELLS 4,958 $22.82 141K
WILDOMAR 32,176 $2.47 99K
DEL MAR 4,161 $2.21 11K
SANTEE 53,413 $4.69 313K
ARROYO GRANDE 17,252 $0.19 4K
ATASCADERO 28,310 $0.57 20K
SAN BRUNO 41,114 $3.31 170K
SCOTTS VALLEY 11,580 $4.28 62K
Similarly, a separate flood event impacted several jurisdictions in 2017. The event also spurred FEMA reimbursements. This second 2017 flood event resulted in ~$3.1M (in 2023 dollars) in FEMA reimbursement for Napa County. Assuming a 25% local cost share, this brings the total amount for damages regarding the 2017 flood to ~$3.8M for Napa County (in 2023 dollars). (See Table 3 below).

Page 45 of 61 ends

Table 3 – 2017 Flood Event #2 in CA and Associated Reimbursements and Losses Jurisdiction (County) Population
(at time of
event)
FEMA Reimbursement (per
capita, expressed to the nearest
whole dollar, using 2023 dollars
w/ 2000 Census pop. data)
Total Losses to Town/City Gov’t
(factoring in 25% local share,
expressed in Thousands, 2023
dollars)
IONE 7,918 $1.21 12K
SUTTER CREEK 2,501 $2.86 9K
OROVILLE 15,546 $22.42 436K
WILLIAMS 5,123 $28.87 185K
MORAGA 16,016 $1.54 31K
PLACERVILLE 10,389 $32.01 416K
LARKSPUR 11,926 $45.13 673K
NOVATO 51,904 $0.19 12K
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA 3,722 $3.34 16K
MONTEREY 27,810 $4.14 144K
NAPA 76,915 $1.56 150K
NAPA (COUNTY) 136,484 $22.39 3,819K
TRUCKEE 16,180 $5.83 118K
ARROYO GRANDE 17,252 $4.20 91K
ATASCADERO 28,310 $0.37 13K
BELMONT 25,835 $1.17 38K
GUADALUPE 7,080 $1.84 16K
SARATOGA 29,926 $2.72 102K
SCOTTS VALLEY 11,580 $0.29 4K
CLOVERDALE 8,618 $57.15 616K
RED BLUFF 14,076 $1.41 25K
MARYSVILLE 12,072 $77.40 1,168K

Page 46 of 61 ends

Implications for Yountville
Exhibit 3 below represents potential total losses if Yountville was struck by the corresponding flood events in the dataset. To create the histogram below, we took the following steps. First, we found the total losses to each town/city government (factoring in 25% local share, in 2023 dollars) effected by one of the three flood events in this analysis (2011 – CA, 2017 – CA [1], 2017 – CA[2]). Next, we divided each of those figures by the population of the effected jurisdiction at the time of the event. That gave us total losses per capita to each town/city government (factoring in 25% local share, in 2023 dollars).

We then used California Department of Finance data to represent Yountville’s current population (2,933)19 and multiplied that figure by each of the calculated per capita losses to each town/city government in the dataset. These calculations provided plausible total losses for future floods of comparable impact and represent the data depicted in Exhibit 3.

Table 4 depicts the key statistics that are represented visually as histogram in Exhibit 3. The dataset included 51 data points, with a range of potential proportional total losses for Yountville calculated to be between $691 and $283,771. This dataset had a median proportional total loss of $9,974, while its 95th percentile figure equated to $153,200, its 90th percentile figure equated to $105,838 and its 10th percentile figure equated to $1,630.

Exhibit 3 – Projected Range of Total Losses if Similar Events Struck Yountville,

Page 47 of 61 ends

Table 4 – Summary Statistics for Projected Range of Total Losses if Similar Events Struck Yountville, CA

In sum, the totality of data depicted in this analysis allows Yountville to better understand its exposure to potential losses from flooding events. Further, the analysis provides a quantitative context for expectations regarding the impact of a flood on the Town. Tables 1, 2 and 3 each highlight critical elements that may better inform Yountville’s reserve strategy when considering risks posed by floods, including FEMA reimbursement per capita for floods and total losses to local governments after such events (both in 2023 dollars). Exhibit 3 visually summarizes the potential range of total damages if any of these historic flooding events were to strike the Town today. In conjunction with Table 4, the Town can use this information to get a snapshot of potential total losses for similar events moving forward and thus make more informed decisions as a local government. Finally, we should note that earlier in this report we cited First Street’s characterization of Yountville’s flood risk as “moderate”. First Street describes Napa County’s risk, on the whole, as “major”. This implies that Yountville’s risks are relatively less than other areas in Napa County, should a flood occur. This should influence how we interpret the results in Table 4.

Page 48 of 61 ends

Section 5- Detailed Analysis of Recession Risk
Like all local governments, the Town faces risk of revenue losses due to recession. The first step to understanding the Town’s vulnerability is to understand the composition of its revenue portfolio. Exhibit 1 shows the relative share of major revenue source in the General Fund.

It is no surprise to Town officials that the transient occupancy tax (TOT) is, by far, the most important revenue. This is important because TOT also has the reputation of being more vulnerable to economic recessions than other major revenue sources. For example, properties typically don’t decline in value much during a recession. Certainly, they did during the 2008 Great Recession, but that was unusual (though not unique). People also generally tend to keep up on property tax payments. Sales taxes have a reputation of being volatile, but even during a recession people make some purchases. TOT, especially when driven primarily by tourism, in theory, has further to fall because the money spent by tourists is completely discretionary.

Exhibit 1 – Composition of Town General Fund Revenues
To get a better idea of how the risk of revenue losses might play out in Yountville, we examined historical data from Yountville, Napa, and other jurisdictions in the region. Yountville itself has changed quite a bit over the years. As we can see in Exhibit 2, total revenues have gone up almost 4-fold since 2008! This means that Yountville’s tax base is very different today than it was during the Great Recession, so the experience of the Great Recession may not be very informative of future risk.

Page 49 of 61 ends

Exhibit 2 – Town’s General Fund Revenues Since 2008
To get a better perspective, we looked at the experiences of other nearby jurisdictions. GFOA was able to obtain detailed information about the City of Napa’s experience.

We can start with TOT since that is the most important revenue for the Town. Exhibit 3 shows growth in the number of rooms across the entirety of Napa County and the City of Napa’s revenue per room (thus factoring out room growth). We see that the 2001 recession barely made a dent in the City’s TOT revenues. There was a more noticeable dip during the Great Recession, but the revenues then recovered to go on to new heights.

Exhibit 3 – Hotel Room Growth in Napa County and Relative City of Napa TOT Revenue per Hotel Room (1996 – 2013)
$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
$3,500
0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
# of Rooms TOT Revenue per Room

Page 50 of 61 ends

A look at Napa’s total TOT revenue tells a similar story. Exhibit 4 shows a very small decline in 2001 and a more noticeable decline in 2008, but not a catastrophic decline.

Exhibit 4 – Napa’s Annual TOT Revenue (FY 1996 – FY 2014) We also gathered TOT data from Windsor, Larkspur, and Sausalito. Unfortunately, the data was not nearly as detailed as we obtained for Napa, but we can say that Windsor and Sausalito do not appear to have suffered a big decline and TOT revenues increased rapidly after 2008-09.46 The conclusion we might draw from all of this is that tourism in the region appears not to suffer too much during recessions. While we should expect some decline, as the Napa experience shows, we might also expect a relatively quick recovery.

To gain a perspective on all the other general fund revenues, we can examine Napa’s experience. Exhibit 5 shows annual changes in all general fund revenue categories in the years around the Great Recession.

This gives us a clue as to how long and how deep a decline might be for all the important revenue sources. 46 The data we were able to get started in 2008-09 so we do not have a full picture of the Great Recession for Windsor and Sausalito. However, based on the Napa data, it appears the bulk of the decline for Napa happened after 2007/08.

Hence, it seems reasonable to conclude that Windsor and Sausalito did not suffer a catastrophic decline in TOT during the Great Recession because we observed revenue increases at the same time that Napa’s revenue was flat.

Larkspur’s data did not go far enough back to provide insight into what happened during the Great Recession. $0
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$8,000,000
$10,000,000
$12,000,000
$14,000,000
$16,000,000

Page 51 of 61 ends

Exhibit 5 - City of Napa, CA Annual Change in General Fund Operating Revenues (FY 2006 - FY 2014) FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014* Property Tax 14.1% 9.9% -0.5% -0.6% -5.6% 4.5% 0.7% 4.7% Sales Tax 13.6% -1.4% -1.6% -13.0% 5.5% 6.8% 9.6% 6.2%
Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) 24.5% 12.2% -5.5% 0.2% 19.6% 16.5% 17.4% 12.3% Other Taxes, Business Licenses -0.3% 3.6% -0.5% -10.3% 5.7% 3.8% 3.9% 5.1% Licenses & Permits 45.0% -13.0% -28.7% -30.8% 8.1% 36.0% -17.1% 12.5% Interest & Rents 125.6% 78.0% -31.8% -71.5% 20.2% -17.4% -54.1% 76.2% Intergovernmental -52.4% 81.1% -50.8% 34.9% 14.3% -38.0% -1.8% 28.4% Charges for Service 98.2% -2.2% -8.0% -4.7% -6.0% 8.2% 5.4% 0.2% Transfers/Other 11.4% 41.7% -2.3% -9.3% -2.9% 4.2% 0.5% 10.7% Total 18.3% 9.0% -5.0% -6.7% 1.9% 6.8% 5.4% 7.2%
* Unaudited figures
We can sum up Napa’s losses in the important revenue categories as follows:
• Property taxes: 6% decline over 3 years.
• Sales taxes: 15% decline over 3 years.
• TOT: 5% decline over 2 years (the second year was flat, rather than decline). • Charges for service: 18% decline over 2 years.
• Licenses and permits: 50% decline over 2 years.
• Other taxes, business licenses: 11% decline over 2 years.

If we took these same declines and applied them to the Town’s 2023 actual revenues, we would get a decline of $1.3 million or about 9% of total general fund revenues. This would probably represent a conservative approach because we are using the Great Recession as the historical analogue, which is the worst recession since World War 2. That said, it might also be argued that because Napa is a larger city with a more diversified tax base, it might be less vulnerable to recessions than Yountville. Hence, using the experience of the Great Recession might be less conservative than it first appears. Thus, a $1.3 million to $1.5 million reserve might represent a conservative approach for the Town. A recession like the 2001 dot.bomb recession was mild by historicalstandards. A smaller would be sufficient to cover that recession, with $1 million still representing a healthy amount.

Page 52 of 61 ends

Section 6 – Detailed Analysis of TOT Interruption Risk
The Town of Yountville’s General Fund relies primarily on transient occupancy tax (TOT). In the prior section, we discussed how recessions could impact the Town’s general fund revenues, including TOT.

Economic recessions are not the only way TOT could be interrupted. To illustrate, COVID resulted in the largest decline in TOT that the Town and other municipalities in the region have experienced in decades.

Natural catastrophes could interrupt TOT. Consider the following three scenarios:
• A strong earthquake damages hotel buildings, making them unoccupiable for a period. • A wildfire causes a lot of smoke, dissuading tourists from visiting. • A large flood (like from a dam failure) inundates hotel properties.

This section will consider risk of TOT interruptions from causes other than recessions or pandemics.

Between FY 2008 and FY 2023 the Town has received, on average, about ~$5.9 million per year from TOT.

During that period TOT revenues recorded a strong average growth rate of 14% percent. In FY 2023 the Town received about $8.75 million from TOT. In comparison, Town only received $3.38 million in TOT revenue in FY 2008. Between 2008 and 2023, total TOT revenue has increased 469%. TOT is clearly the critical revenue for the Town. The Town’s reserve strategy should consider the risks for interruption to this revenue, outside of recessions.

To provide some insight into the potential of this risk, we looked at two sources of data. First was the historical patterns of TOT revenue, including those in other municipalities in the region. Second, is the location of the hotel properties in Yountville to see if they have relatively greater exposure to natural catastrophes than the rest of Yountville.

Let’s start with historical patterns. We looked at the following municipalities, in addition to the Town itself: Napa, Larkspur, Windsor, and Sausalito.47 Looking across these municipalities we see two consistent interruptions to TOT.

The first was COVID. The table below summarizes the trend in each municipality during Covid.

Municipality 2020
Decline
2021 Decline 2022
Yountville 25% 15% Beyond full recovery
Napa 26% 30% Beyond full recovery
Larkspur 32% 41% Partial recovery, full recovery in 2023 Windsor 24% 6% Beyond full recovery
Sausalito* 20% 15% Has not recovered
*Sausalito’s TOT appears to have entered downward trajectory well before 2020, so we should be careful about interpreting the failure of Sausalito’s TOT to recover to pre-COVID levels. 47 GFOA emailed several municipalities in the region to ask for historical TOT data. These four replied.

Page 53 of 61 ends

The second interruption was in 2017. Though this interruption was much smaller than COVID, there does seem to be a consistent downward movement in the trendline around this time. It is impossible for us to know for sure the cause of this dip, but it was consistent across the municipalities. There was a large wildfire in the region around that time, so it seems reasonable to conclude that this fire dissuaded some tourists for a period of one year.

The table below summarizes the temporary declines in each municipality during this one-year period.

Municipality Year Over Year
Decline
Yountville 11%
Larkspur 3%
Windsor 9%
Napa did not experience a decline, but
revenue growth did slow down. Sausalito
entered a long-term decline right around this
time, so it is hard to say how much was due to
fires versus other factors.

Let’s now move on to the location of hotel properties in Yountville to see if they are at greater relative risk from natural catastrophes compared to other parts of Yountville.

There may also be soil differences across Yountville that make some areas more prone to liquification than others. Unfortunately, we do not have access to data on soil conditions under the hotels versus other parts of Yountville.

We found that no hotels had greater relative risk than Yountville overall. The risk was the same as Yountville overall for wildfire and risk was less for flood risk for all hotels except for two properties. These two properties had the same risk as Yountville overall. On balance, the hotels appear to be at no more relative risk from fires or floods than Yountville overall and may even be at somewhat less risk of flooding.

That said, there are areas of Yountville that are at less relative risk than Yountville overall for fire and

Page 54 of 61 ends

flood. So, we should not get the impression that hotels face no danger – just that the danger to the hotels is not especially high relative to Yountville overall.

The First Street data set is very unlikely to include the risk of inundation from dam failure, so we examined that separately. We found the locations and addresses of each hotel within the Town’s borders. All hotels are concentrated to the east of the St. Helena highway, with several hotels located along Washington Street and two on Yount Street. See Exhibit 1 for detail.

Exhibit 1 – Map of Yountville Hotels
Second, we compared the locations of the Town’s hotels to the “Dam Inundation Areas” map, Exhibits 2.

Exhibit 2 – Yountville Dam Inundation Areas Map

Page 55 of 61 ends

We see that if a dam failure occurred, the event would mostly affect the southeastern portion of the Town. When comparing the location of the Town’s hotels to the Dam Inundation Map, we see that some hotels may fall within the potential flooding zone. That said, we must remember that the County Hazard plan considers a dam failure to be “unlikely”.

In summary, the historical data shows that interruptions to TOT from events other than recessions are quite possible. In the case of COVID the losses were substantial. The 2017 losses were much less but were noticeable. The good news is that hotel properties in Yountville do not appear to be at more relative risk than the rest of Yountville from floods or wildfires.

Page 56 of 61 ends

Section 7 – Detailed Analysis of Cyberattack Risk
Local governments are at high risk for cyberattack, particularly ransomware attacks. In fact, studies have shown that local governments are one of the most popular ransomware targets for cybercriminals.48 The Town currently has coverage under “Information Security & Privacy Insurance with Electronic Media Liability Coverage” along with a “Breach Response Endorsement”. GFOA is not an insurance analyst and a comprehensive review of all policy details was outside the scope of our project, but we can offer the following observations from our review of the policy as it relates to the Town’s reserve strategy.

The insurance has a $2 million limit. There are also several sublimits for different kinds of coverages. For example, there is a $500,000 limit for “Business Interruption Loss Resulting from System Failure”. It is conceivable that a particularly bad attack could exceed one or more of these sublimits. Research suggests that the potential damages from and attack and size of the government are only weakly correlated. This means that small governments can be on the receiving end of large attacks. Losses over these sublimits might be covered using the Town’s reserves.

There is also a retention (deductible).49 The policy describes a sliding scale of retentions, depending on the insured’s size. The scale ranges from $50,000 to $250,000. Presumably, the Town would be on the lower end of this scale, however it is also very important to understand how retentions work in cyber policies. There are two basic approaches single retention and multiple retention. A cyber-attack could likely trigger multiple types of coverages within the policy. The Town’s policy appears to have around 20 different types of coverages. Each coverage has its own retention amount. Under single retention, the Town would pay the single highest retention across all the coverages triggered. Under multiple retention, each coverage’s retention would be handled separately. It is easy to imagine that if several coverages were triggered by an attack, the deductible amount the Town would be faced with could be multiple times larger under a multiple retention policy compared to a single retention policy. GFOA could not discern whether the policy is single or multiple retention from the documents provided. The Town may wish to inquire with their insurance provider on this point.

The policy provides coverage on a “claims made and reported basis”. According to the International Risk Management Institute (IRMI), a claims-made and reported policy is a type of policy in which a claim must be both made against the insured and reported to the insurer during the policy period for coverage to apply. Further, IRMI states: claims-made and reported policies are unfavorable from the insured's standpoint because it is sometimes difficult to report a claim to an insurer during a policy period if the claim is made late in that policy period. This is particularly important when it comes to cyber risk. For example, imagine malicious software infiltrated the Town’s network months ago but the Town finds out about it after the policy period is over. How would the policy cover that situation? Cyberattacks can cause many types of losses. As mentioned above, the Town’s policy includes several types of coverages to address different losses. Nevertheless, cyber policies are rarely, if ever, 48 The GFOA report “Cyber Risk Savvy” describes multiple such sources. It is available at gfoa.org. 49 Retentions and deductibles not quite synonyms, but they are close. Retentions can include any source of loss not commercially insured – it is the risk retained by the holder of the policy. In the part of the policy this paragraph refers to, “retentions” are being used in a way that most people understand insurance deductibles.

Page 57 of 61 ends

comprehensive of every cost that could arise from every cyberattack scenario. Here are some examples of uncovered losses from the Town’s policy:
• The policy excludes acts-of-war but this is a common exclusion in insurance policies.50 Many ransomware attacks are thought to be perpetrated by state or quasi-state actors. If interpreted as an “act of war” the Town may not have coverage. In a related point, the policy does have $45 million aggregate limit for all members of the insurance pool the Town is part of. This might be relevant, for example, if a cyberattack does widespread damage across all members of the pool. • The policy excludes property damage. For example, if a computer virus sabotages physical equipment besides computer hardware, the Town may not be covered. Many types of equipment, from vehicles to smart infrastructure, rely on computer systems. Sabotage of the computer system could result in physical damage to the asset.
• Betterment Coverage. This is coverage for expenses incurred to update, restore, or improve computer systems to a level beyond what existed before the attack. This might be important, for example, if the old system posed particular security vulnerabilities that could only be eliminated via a substantial upgrade in the system.

That said, GFOA is not suggesting the Town should have insurance coverage for all risks that could arise from a cyberattack. Such a policy might be cost prohibitive or even completely unobtainable. The Town, though, should be cognizant of what risks the Town is not commercially insuring because those risks are then being, de facto, self-insured.

Finally, municipal governments have found cyber policies to be increasingly expensive or hard to get at all in recent years. Insurance companies are becoming more rigorous in their underwriting practices and are increasingly requiring that policyholders have risk-mitigating practices in place, like multi-factor identification and more. This has two implications for the Town:
o The Town should continue to stay up to date with nationally recognized cybersecurity standards.
o The Town may need to be prepared to take on a higher retentions for cyber policies in the future.

Given the points above, the Town might consider the following recommendations that have implication for the Town’s reserves:
• According to the Town’s IT Administrator, the Town stays up to date with nationally recognized cyber security recommendations. The Town also is diligent about running backups of internal servers, services, and files. First, this should help reduce the risk the Town faces from cyberattacks. Second, cybersecurity requirements do change as attackers evolve their methods.

The Town should remain open to investing in additional cost-effective cyber controls to help mitigate future risks. This is because a dollar invested in prevention is usually going to be more effective than a dollar invested in remediation.
• Be prepared to retain more risk on a cyber insurance policy. If policies were to become substantially more expensive (or, worst case, unavailable), the Town could lower the cost by retaining more risk. This could be accounted for in Town’s reserve amount. As we stated above, it is conceivable that a cyberattack could cost the Town more than the sublimits outlined in the 50 Acts of war might be addressed in the original policy that the endorsement modifies.

Page 58 of 61 ends

policy. Therefore, “retention” of risk is not just the insurance deductible, but also includes the risk of a catastrophic attack that costs more than the policy limit or that causes damages that are not covered under the policy.

GFOA has observed that $1 million is a common limit on cyber policies. Given that most risks are covered, a conservative approach might take $1 million as a starting point and reserve some fraction of that for retained risks, which will place at $250,000 for discussion purposes. A less conservative approach would be to rely exclusively on the Town’s commercial insurance and its strong preventative posture and not hold additional reserves for cyber risk.

Page 59 of 61 ends

Section 8 – Detailed Analysis of Pandemics / Infectious Disease Risk COVID-19 has made people more aware of the risks posed by pandemics. First, let’s consider the historical frequency of pandemics that have had a substantial impact on the United States: the 1918 flu and the COVID-19 pandemic. This suggests pandemics might occur once every 100 years in the United States.51 However, one could argue that pandemics will be more likely in the future. For example, easier travel means that infectious diseases could spread more easily. Global climate change could create environments that are more hospitable to disease carrying organisms. This means that the Town should probably be more cognizant of pandemic risk than historical frequency might suggest.

There are two types of financial losses the Town could incur from a pandemic: increased costs and decreased revenues.

We used the Town’s actual experience from COVID-19 to provide insight into increased costs. The Town’s actual additional annual expenditures were less than $50,000. This is not much compared to the figures we are considering for other risks the Town is subject to. The Town does not have the same public health responsibilities as Napa County, for example, so it is understandable that costs may not be high.

As for revenues, the potential losses are much larger. If we look at the Town’s $12.6 million in general fund revenue in 2019 and compare it to 2020 actual revenues of $10.5 million, we see that the Town has just over $2 million less in revenues in 2020 compared to 2019. Revenues continued to decline in 2021 – general fund revenues were $9.7 million. Comparing the 2019 revenues of $12.6 million to $9.7 million yields a gap of almost $3 million. If we add that to the $2 million decline from 2019 to 2020, we arrive at about a $5 million total gap between actual annual revenue and what we might have expected the General Fund to take in, during those two years, under a conservative estimate.52 Most of the general fund decline is attributable to TOT since that is the Town’s largest revenue.

Pandemics are an extraordinary type of extreme event! Therefore, we must consider the potential for extraordinary support from state or federal government.

For expenditures, is reasonable to assume FEMA reimbursement for costs at the customary level of 75%.

In fact, the Town is still pursuing reimbursement for some of its COVID costs, which illustrates that federal assistance is not a substitute for reserves, but is a way to replenish them.

Coverage of lost revenue is not as clear cut. First, we must consider if there will be any revenue coverage at all. The experience of the COVID-19 pandemic suggested that Democratic officials were more favorably disposed towards such federal financial assistance for local governments than Republican officials. Since we have a two-party system we might there is an equal chance (50/50) one or the other will be in power and thus a 50/50 chance that federal officials will provide support. Assuming there is financial support, the next question is: how much will there be? The Town’s received $50,000 from CARES and just over 51 We did not think it was appropriate to account for disease outbreaks that did not impact the US as that would overstate the frequency of events that could impact Yountville. An example is the 2012 Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus.
52 We believe this is a conservative estimate because revenues are higher today than in 2019, which suggests the Town’s revenues were on an upward trend in 2019, before being interrupted by COVID.

Page 60 of 61 ends

$700,000 from ARPA. Though certainly this assistance was helpful, it does illustrate that such assistance can’t be expected to completely replace the Town’s losses.

In summary, pandemics can have a large impact on both revenue and expenditures for the Town. Further, it may behoove the Town to consider pandemics a more salient risk than pure historical experience would suggest. This is because of our more interconnected world and because of changes in the environment that might make pandemics more likely to occur and spread. Though intergovernmental support may be available and available in large amounts when a pandemic occurs, there is not a well-established precedent like there is for FEMA support of natural catastrophes like earthquakes, wildfires, floods, etc.

Financial support similar to that received for COVID-19 seems far from guaranteed, so the Town should consider how its reserve could help buffer against a pandemic. The historical losses from COVID-19 would be reasonable analogue for a future pandemic.

Page 61 of 61 ends

Town of Yountville
Staff Report
6550 Yount Street
Yountville, CA 94599
Agenda Item #: 10A
Yountville Town Council Staff Report
DATE: December 5, 2023
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: Kyle Johnson, Assistant Planner
PREPARED BY: Kyle Johnson, Assistant Planner

RECOMMENDATION
Consider Approving Amendment to the Town of Yountville’s Zoning Map, Repeal and Replace Sections

17.08.010 and 17.184.040 of Title 17 of the Yountville Municipal Code (YMC) to Incorporate the Updated Zoning Map by Reference and Clarify the Town Council’s Authority to Act on Proposed Zoning Map Amendments, and Find the Amendments Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.

DISCUSSION/BACKGROUND
At the Zoning & Design Review Board meeting held on November 14, 2023, the board received staff’s presentation and approved a motion to recommend the Town Council approve the proposed ordinance.

No public comment was received and the board engaged in minimal discussion clarifying the purpose and extent of the proposed changes.

The previous amendment for the Town of Yountville’s Zoning Map was approved in September of 2022 and included errors which are proposed to be amended in this update. No new zoning districts or zoning district changes are proposed, the only proposed changes are to bring the visual map into compliance with previously approved ordinances. These changes include the following:

1. Addition of the Sphere of Influence

2. Relocation of the Mixed Use Overlay to cover the parcels on the east side of Washington Street from Creek Street to Pedroni Street.

3. Correcting a portion of the property at 6462 Washington Street from Residential Scaled Commercial to Planned Development.

4. Adjust colors of zoning districts to resemble the previously approved Zoning Map more closely.

Proposed changes to YMC 17.08.010 Zoning Map are as follows:

Existing:

The Town Council hereby adopts the Zoning Map of the Town of Yountville which designates land use for all lands within the Town limits. The Zoning Map is hereby incorporated into this Zoning Ordinance by reference. A copy of the Zoning Ordinance and the Zoning Map, together with a record of all amendments, shall be kept on file with the Town Clerk and available at the Planning & Building Department. (Ord. 21-501 § 9) Proposed:

Proposed changes to YMC 17.184.040 (“Authority”) are as follows:

Existing:

The Zoning and Design Review Board shall recommend approval, conditional approval, or denial of applications for amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, Zoning Map, General Plan or General Plan Land Use Map. The Town Council shall have the authority to approve, conditionally approve or deny applications for Zoning Ordinance or General Plan amendments. (Ord. 21-501 § 9)
Proposed:

The proposed change to YMC 17.08.010 incorporates the updated Zoning Map by reference into the Municipal Code. The proposed changes to YMC 17.184.040 update the language to clarify the Town Council’s authority to approve Zoning Maps. The Town Council is already authorized to approve Zoning Maps, however, it is not clearly and explicitly stated. These amendments will make the Town Council’s authority clearer to avoid confusion for future amendments.

Findings
Staff believes the Town Council can make the following findings required by YMC Section 17.184.060 with respect to the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map amendments at issue based on the evidence contained in the record which is herein incorporated by reference:

A. The proposed amendment would further the goals, objectives, policies and programs and is consistent with the intent of the General Plan;
B. The proposed amendments are consistent with the General Plan because they reinforce preexisting land use designations and clarify the Town Council’s authority over Zoning Map Amendments.

C. The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the Town;
D. The proposed amendments would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the Town because no Land Use Designations are proposed to change and these considerations are not negatively impacted.

E. For amendments involving a zoning or land use map amendment, the site is physically suitable, including consideration of physical constraints, access, compatibility with surrounding land uses, and provision of utilities, for the requested or potential land uses.

F. The proposed changes do not include changing the land use designation for any site.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Exempt per California Environmental Act (CEQA) Guideline, Section 15061(b)(3) (no potential for causing a significant effect on the environment). CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) exempts projects from environmental review where it can be seen with certainty there is no possibility the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. It can be seen with certainty that the Zoning Map and Ordinance amendments will not have a significant effect on the environment because these amendments maintain the current land use designations and merely update the Map to illustrate preexisting zoning designations. The Zoning Ordinance amendments incorporate the Zoning Map by reference and clarifies the Town Council’s preexisting authority.

FISCAL IMPACT
Is there a Fiscal Impact? No
Is it Currently Budgeted? N/A
Where is it Budgeted? N/A
Is it Mandatory or Discretionary? Mandatory
Is there a Staff Resource Impact? No

STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL
Is item Identified in Strategic Plan? Yes
If yes, Identify Strategic Goal and Objective. Quality of Life: The Town enhances the livability of Yountville by providing well-maintained public facilities, parks, and trails, and quality programs and events.

Briefly Explain Relationship to Strategic Plan Goal and Objective. Quality of Life: The Town enhances the livability of Yountville by providing well-maintained public facilities, parks, and trails, and quality programs and events. Updating the Zoning Map and clarifying Town Council Authority in the Municipal Code provides a more accurate and digestible communication to parties reviewing the Zoning Map and Municipal Code including residents, developers, and other interested parties.

Town of Yountville
Ordinance Number 23-526

AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF YOUNTVILLE AMENDING THE TOWN’S ZONING MAP, TO REPEAL AND REPLACE SECTIONS

17.08.010 AND 17.184.040 OF TITLE 17 OF THE YOUNTVILLE MUNICIPAL CODE

TO INCORPORATE THE UPDATED ZONING MAP BY REFERENCE AND CLARIFY THE TOWN COUNCIL’S AUTHORITY TO ACT ON PROPOSED ZONING MAP

AMENDMENTS, AND TO FIND THE ZONING MAP AND ZONING ORDINANCE

AMENDMENTS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.

WHEREAS, Government Code section 65850 authorizes the Town Council to amend zoning ordinances and Government Code sections 65853 through 65857 provide procedures, therefore
WHEREAS, Yountville Municipal Code (YMC) Chapter 17.184 authorizes the Town Council to approve applications for Zoning Map and Zoning Ordinance amendments whenever the public necessity, convenience, or general welfare require such amendment and contains procedures therefore.

WHEREAS, YMC section 17.184.020 authorizes the Town’s Planning Officer to initiate Zoning Map and Zoning Ordinance amendments.

WHEREAS, the Town’s Planning Officer/Director initiated an amendment to the Zoning Map to correctly depict various Zoning Ordinance amendments previously approved by the Town Council, as depicted in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, as well as to repeal and replace YMC sections

17.080.010 and 17.184.040 to incorporate the updated Zoning Map by reference and clarify the Town Council’s authority to approve, conditionally approve, or deny applications for Zoning Map amendments.

WHEREAS, the proposed Zoning Map and Zoning Ordinance amendments will not result in any substantive changes to the zoning of any parcel, nor the authorized uses or regulations applicable to any parcel, but merely updates the Zoning Map to correctly depict prior amendments, ensures the Zoning Code is up to date, and clarifies the Town Council’s authority to act on proposed Zoning Map amendments.

WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code section 65854 and YMC section 17.184.050, the Town’s Zoning & Design Review Board (ZDRB) held a duly noticed public meeting on November 14th, 2023, to discuss and receive evidence regarding the proposed Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map amendments.

Ordinance Number 23-526
WHEREAS, the ZDRB found the proposed Zoning Map and Zoning Ordinance amendments would be consistent with the Town’s General Plan and further the public interest, health, safety, convenience, and welfare of the Town.

WHEREAS, the ZDRB recommended the Town Council approve the proposed Zoning Map and Zoning Ordinance amendments
WHEREAS, YMC sections 17.184.040 and 17.184.050 authorize the Town Council, upon receipt of the recommendation of the ZDRB, to approve or approve in modified form proposed Zoning Map and Zoning Ordinance amendments based on specified findings.

WHEREAS, the Town Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing on December 5th, 2023 to receive comments and input from the public on the proposed Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map amendments and considered the effect of the proposed amendments in accordance with Government Code section 65863.6.

Now therefore, the Town Council of the Town of Yountville does ordain as follows:

SECTION 1. RECITALS: The foregoing recitals are true and correct and incorporated into the findings herein.

SECTION 2. RECORD: The Record of Proceedings ("Record") upon which the Town Council bases its decision includes, but is not limited to: (1) the staff reports, Town files and records and other documents prepared for and/or submitted to the Town relating to the proposed Zoning Map and Zoning Ordinance amendments, (2) the evidence, facts, findings and other determinations set forth in this Ordinance, (3) the Town of Yountville General Plan and its certified final EIR and the Yountville Municipal Code, (4) all designs, plans, studies, data and correspondence submitted to the Town in connection with the proposed Zoning Map and Zoning Ordinance amendments, (5) all documentary and oral evidence received at public workshops, meetings, and hearings or submitted to the Town relating to the proposed Zoning Map and Zoning Ordinance amendments, and (6) all other matters of common knowledge to the Town Council including, but not limited to, Town, state, and federal laws, policies, rules, regulations, reports, records and projections related to development within the Town of Yountville and its surrounding areas.

SECTION 3. CEQA: This Ordinance is exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) (no potential for causing a significant effect on the environment). CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) exempts projects from environmental review where it can be seen with certainty there is no possibility the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. It can be seen with certainty that the Zoning Map and Ordinance amendments will not have a significant effect on the environment because these amendments maintain the current land use designations and merely update the Map to illustrate preexisting zoning designations. The Zoning Ordinance amendments incorporate the Zoning Map by reference and clarifies the Town Council’s preexisting authority.

Ordinance Number 23-526
SECTION 4. FINDINGS: The Town Council hereby makes the following findings as required by YMC Section 17.184.060 with respect to the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map amendments at issue based on the evidence contained in the Record which is herein incorporated by reference:

A. The proposed amendment would further the goals, objectives, policies and programs and is consistent with the intent of the General Plan; The proposed amendments are consistent with the General Plan because they reinforce previously approved land use designations and clarify the Town Council’s authority over Zoning Map Amendments.

B. The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the Town;
The proposed amendments would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the Town because no Land Use Designations are proposed to change and these considerations are not negatively impacted.

C. For amendments involving a zoning or land use map amendment, the site is physically suitable, including consideration of physical constraints, access, compatibility with surrounding land uses, and provision of utilities, for the requested or potential land uses.

The proposed changes do not include changing the land use designation for any site.

SECTION 5. ZONING CODE AMENDMENT: Section 17.080.010 (“Zoning Map”) of Chapter 17.08 of Title 17 of the Yountville Municipal Code is hereby repealed and replaced to read as follows:

SECTION 6. ZONING CODE AMENDMENT: Section 17.184.040 (“Authority”) of Chapter

17.184 of Title 17 of the Yountville Municipal Code is hereby repealed and replaced to read as follows:

The Zoning and Design Review Board shall recommend approval, conditional approval, or denial of applications for amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, Zoning Map, General Plan or General Plan Land Use Map. The Town Council shall Ordinance Number 23-526
have the authority to approve, conditionally approve or deny applications for Zoning Ordinance, Zoning Map, or General Plan amendments.

SECTION 7. USE OF ZONING MAP: Town Staff is authorized and directed to use the above Zoning Code Amendments for all purposes for which the Zoning Map may be used for Town purposes.

SECTION 8. ZONING MAP CONSISTENCY: The Zoning Map of the Town of Yountville is hereby adopted as depicted in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, based on the findings set forth above. Town Staff is authorized and directed to update the Zoning Map to be consistent with the adoption of this Ordinance.

SECTION 9. SEVERABILITY: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the final decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The Town Council declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, phrases or portions might be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 10. EFFECTIVE DATE: This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced within thirty (30) days from and after the date of its adoption by the Town Council at a second reading and shall be posted and published in accordance with the California Government Code.

SECTION 11. INCONSISTENT PROVISIONS: Any provision of the Yountville Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to the extent necessary to implement the provisions of this Ordinance.

SECTION 12. CERTIFICATION: The Town Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall give notice of its adoption as required by law. Within 15 days from the date of passage of this ordinance, the Town Clerk shall post a copy of the ordinance in accordance with California Government Code in at least three public places in the Town.

Ordinance Number 23-526
INTRODUCED by the Town Council at a regular meeting held on the 5th day of December 2023.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Town Council at a regular meeting held on the ___ day of __________ 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
__________________
Margie Mohler, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________
Eddy Gomez, Town Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________
Gary Bell, Town Attorney
Ordinance Number 23-526

EXHIBIT A
Fall 2023
Emergency Preparedness
Workshop Series Debrief
“Together we are better”
• Social Media:

Facebook, Instagram,
Nextdoor
• Video Reels with
partners & Council
• The Sun - weekly add
• Town Newsletter
• Website - Newsflash
& Spotlight
• Banner - Community
Center
• TOY Recreation Guide
Town of Yountville | Emergency Preparedness Workshop Series Debrief Partners Main presenters
COAD - September 12
Meet your Neighbor Workshop
Participants: ~ 22
Firewise – October 19
Structure Hardening and Defensible Space from fires
Participants: ~ 12
RedCross – October 24
General emergency preparedness
Particpants: ~ 23
Town of Yountville | Emergency Preparedness Workshop Series Debrief Partners =
Napa OES - all three events
Firefighters – October 19 & 24
Fire Extinguisher Trainings
Sheriff - Mike Milat, all three events
Town of Yountville | Emergency Preparedness Workshop Series Debrief Staff - After Actions
Survey
Created and
distributed a
Google survey
to those
registered and
attended
workshops.

Adding
registered
participants to
Towns
Emergency
Preparedness
email list.

Met with Partners
OES Emergency Operations Plan &
Other Planning Tools
Met with Brieanna from Napa OES, county is
currently working on a county wide
emergency plan and finalized early next year.

Breianna set up virtual training/review on
Zonehaven for Hilary and Bea.
https://protect.genasys.com
TownofYountville|EmergencyPreparednessWorkshopSeriesDebrief Staff and Council members met with
partners to debrief events, discuss
their experience, community
feedback, and survey results.

Next Steps Where do we go from here?
Planning future date
Ø CERT
Ø COAD
Ø FireWise
Ø RedCross
Ø CalFire
Ø Napa OES
Future workshop topics
• National Night out/Neighbor night out
⚬ 1st Tuesday in August
• CPR Training?
• More Community
training/coordination
Swag and Prizes
• Emergency Backpacks were a hit!
• Updated Swag
Town of Yountville | Emergency Preparedness Workshop Series Debrief Calendar with partners late
Winter or Spring of 2024
Together
we are
Better!

Yountville City CouncilDecember 5, 2023

Yountville City Council
December 5, 2023