Napa News from Bill Dodd

Dear Neighbor,

How time flies!  It seems as if the last quarterly newsletter was just last week.  In this quarter's Summer update I am going to spend some time on the State Budget and its impacts on Napa County, the stimulus money we received from the federal government for our Flood Control project and our land use issue of the quarter, Lake Luciana.

I hope you enjoy and please feel free to contact me with any questions or comments on these issues or any others that are of concern to you.
Sincerely,

State Budget Impacts Napa County

I am sure you are all following the goings on in Sacramento concerning the State's fiscal situation and its potential impacts, and perhaps how it will affect Napa County programs specifically.   

The State Finance Department is now projecting that the State's budget deficit will be in the area of $26.3 billion. This represents almost 30% of the State's General Fund budget, and it looks like the Governor and Legislature may need to make as much as $20 billion in expenditure reductions to balance the budget.  The State is also facing a significant cash flow problem.  The State has already begun issuing IOUs and, according to the Legislative Analyst, the State may not be able to pay many of its bills (including funds owed to counties) for "much of the 2009-10 fiscal year."  Given the magnitude of the problem the State is facing, the Governor and others are proposing a number of severe budget-balancing actions, including major expenditure reductions and shifting of resources from local governments.  Some of those actions include: 

Invoking the emergency provisions of Proposition 1A (2004) and "borrowing" 8% of county, city and special district property tax revenues.  If a flat 8% is applied to each local governments' property taxes, it would cost our General Fund approximately $5 million, the Library Fund roughly $400,000 and the Fire Fund $500,000. Proposition 1A requires the State to pay local governments back for any borrowed property taxes within three years, but there is some skepticism about whether they will, in fact, be able to do this. 

Eliminating 75% of the gas tax funding to local governments.  This could reduce our Road Fund revenue by approximately $2 million annually - roughly half of the amount the Road Fund spends on operations and maintenance in a year.  Or, alternatively, take all local government gas tax money.   It has also been suggested that the State "borrow" a portion of the Proposition 42 money that comes to counties for transportation projects (Napa County receives about $1.5 million annually from this source).  

Releasing approximately 19,000 illegal immigrants from State prisons to the federal government for deportation, eliminating "wobbler" provisions (where an offense can be charged as either a misdemeanor or a felony) and releasing from prison non-violent, non-serious, non-sex offenders one year early. All of these actions would have the effect of increasing the number of offenders counties will need to deal with in our criminal justice and corrections systems.

Eliminating the CalWORKS and Healthy Families programs entirely or reducing funding for these and other health and human services programs.  If these programs are eliminated the Counties will be able to reduce staff and expenditures; however, individuals previously receiving assistance through these programs could become a burden on counties' General Assistance and indigent healthcare programs, which are primarily General Fund supported.

Eliminating funding Law Enforcement that will impact Napa County's ability to keep all the Sheriff's programs intact. 

Given the County's fiscal situation and the potential impacts of these State actions, including the fact that the state's poor cash position will force them to delay payments to us for programs we administrate for them, the County has already begun taking certain actions to mitigate the potential impact of the State’s fiscal difficulties. 
The County has implemented four short term Fiscal Contingency Action Plans approved by the Board of Supervisors and taken actions, with a goal of conserving as much cash as possible. In that regard, we have: 

• Put a temporary hold on filling all vacant positions (including extra-help and agency-temp positions), except where there is an accepted offer.  We intend to re-review all approved recruitments and determine whether the recruitments should proceed.  
• Put a temporary hold on all capital projects - including road projects - unless bids have been awarded and a notice to proceed has been given.  We intend to fairly quickly review all projects and determine whether they can be delayed or deferred. 
• Temporarily halted all office-remodels, subject to review as to necessity of proceeding at this time. 
• Reviewed all contracts with departments to determine which contracts can be deferred or delayed.

Metropolitan Transportation Commission Report

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is a 19 member commission made up of elected and appointed officials from the nine Bay Area Counties.  Our principal charge is to serve as the Bay Area's regional planning organization, setting transportation policy and budget for roads, streets, highways and the seven bay area toll bridges.  Although each County has its own Congestion Management Agency, MTC also sets policy and budget for all transit services in the bay area including BART, SF Muni, VTA and AC Transit.

At our March Commission meeting, I completed my two year term as Chairman of MTC and the Bay Area Toll Authority.  It was an incredible experience to be the first person from Napa County to Chair MTC.  I still remain on the Commission, representing Napa County and this year I am Chairman of the Joint Policy Committee which was formed by the State Legislature and is made up of five representatives each from MTC, ABAG, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and the Bay Conservation Development Commission.

For additional information on the Metropolitan Transportation Commission visit their website at www.mtc.ca.gov.

Napa County Flood Control Project gets $99 million in Stimulus Funds

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 will mean a lot for the Napa County Flood Control Project, as it was recently awarded over $99 million of stimulus funds.  The $398 million project had finished some major portions of the project including 3 bridges, flood terracing, creating over 600 acres of tidal wetlands and the signature project that you can see from the Hatt Building to First Street on the Napa River.

Each time the Napa River Floods it causes hundreds of millions of dollars affecting over 2,700 homes and 350 businesses.  The citizens of Napa County voted for a countywide half cent sales tax in 1998 to pay the local share (about half the cost) and the State and Federal governments ultimately will pay the balance.  Our Congressman Mike Thompson was instrumental in making sure stimulus funds were available to the Army Corps of Engineers and ultimately the Corps and the Department of Interior set the criteria under which our project rose to the top.

I have traveled to Washington D.C. many times to lobby for federal funds over the past eight years.  To get $99 million in stimulus funds was way above my wildest imagination.  A lot of our work in the past was instrumental in getting these funds as this project competed very favorably, some others who have traveled to our nation's capital including those making multiple trips, former Mayor Ed Henderson, Mayor Jill Techel and former project Director Heather Stanton.
The people who own homes and businesses that are impacted by Napa Creek have a lot to be happy for as this money will help move that project along as well as the Rail project and the design of the Oxbow bypass.  This funding moved our project's timeline up by five years!

Land Use Issues

Many people in the County are rightfully concerned about development of all kinds throughout Napa County. While my jurisdiction for land use, only covers the unincorporated areas of the County, I think it is time that we ask more questions together with the cities. Some of the questions I think we should be answering include:

What is the right amount of houses and where should they go?  Should the cities of Napa and American Canyon provide all the housing (which seems to be the direction) or could proportional amounts of housing be built up valley, in St. Helena, Calistoga and Angwin? 

Should large new vineyard projects continue to be processed and are the Environmental Impact Statements (EIR's) adequate to really determine the impacts on our groundwater?

How many hotels rooms should we build locally?  While some suggest the capacity is unlimited, how much congestion are we willing absorb in our quest to attract more revenue?

Some of these questions and others will be addressed in each of my newsletters entitled, Land Use Issue of the Quarter.

Napa County Land Use Issue of the Quarter 

Lake Luciana appeal denied by the Board of Supervisors
On a 3-2 vote the Napa County Board of Supervisors recently denied an appeal from the Planning Commission in its 3-2 vote against Lake Luciana, a golf course development proposed in Pope Valley.

The Planning Commission turned down the development early this year, citing concerns about this sensitive Agricultural land deep in the heart of the Ag Preserve.  Oops, this development is nowhere near the Ag Preserve!  The land is zoned Agricultural Watershed (AWOS) and according to the unbiased Napa County Planning Staff and the County Counsel, the plan was consistent with the General Plan and indeed we could make the findings that were needed to allow outdoor recreation in the AWOS zoning area.

While I support the preservation of Agriculture in Napa County, I also believe that lands that don't or can't grow quality fruit should be allowed another use as described in our General Plan.  This golf course was no ordinary golf course, it was designed by world renowned designer Tom Doak.  It had all the environmental enhancements and would have been a Championship caliber course that would have brought many positive attributes to the Pope Valley area and more than likely some distinction to the grapes sold in the area as well.

At a time where our economy is in the tank, people are worried about jobs and the County is about to make cuts to its budget, I believe we have a duty to balance the potential benefits from projects like Lake Luciana with the often tired mantra that if we pass this, it will be the end of Ag as we know it in Napa County!

Fortunately, I had Supervisor Luce's support and we made a strong case for this project that was supported by the majority of constituents living in Pope Valley. In the end, even after a proposal to have a golf only property (eliminating three swimming pools, a lake recreation area and a small restaurant), the Board majority sill voted to deny this project.

It has been reported in the Napa Valley Register that the developer will sue Napa County over the decision rendered by the Board. It is my hope that the Board will reconsider its decision and save taxpayers dollars from being wasted.