Law Enforcement Services (2012)

LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION OF NAPA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW: COUNTYWIDE LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES Agencies Evaluated: City of American Canyon City of Calistoga City of Napa City of St. Helena Town of Yountville County of Napa Final Report June 2012 Prepared By: L ocal Agency Formation Commission of Napa County S ubdivision of the State of California 1 030 Seminary Street, Suite B N apa, California 94559 w ww.napa.lafco.ca.gov Commissioners Staff Lewis Chilton, Chair, City Member Keene Simonds, Executive Officer Brad Wagenknecht, Vice Chair, County Member Jacqueline M. Gong, Counsel Joan Bennett, Commissioner, City Member Brendon Freeman, Staff Analyst Bill Dodd, Commissioner, County Member Kathy Mabry, Commission Secretary Brian J. Kelly, Commissioner, Public Member J uliana Inman, Alternate Commissioner, City Member M ark Luce, Alternate Commissioner, County Member Gregory Rodeno, Alternate Commissioner, Public Member Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County This page has been left intentionally blank for photocopying 2 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County TABLE OF CONTENTS Part Title Page I. INTRODUCTION 1.0 Local Agency Formation Commissions.......................................... 5 1.1 LAFCO of Napa County........................................................... 7 2.0 Municipal Service Review Program............................................... 7 II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.0 Overview............................................................................................ 9 2.0 General Conclusions………………………………………………. 9 3.0 Determinations.................................................................................. 12 3.1 Growth and Population Projections........................................... 12 3.2 Location and Characteristics of Disadvantaged Communities.. 14 3.3 Adequacy of Present and Planned Capacities………………... 14 3.4 Financial Ability of Agencies to Provide Services................... 18 3.5 The Status and Opportunities for Shared Facilities.................. 21 3.6 Accountability for Community Service Needs......................... 22 3.7 Relationship with Regional Growth Goals and Policies........... 23 III. AGENCY PROFILES 1.0 City of American Canyon................................................................ 25 1.1 Planning Policies....................................................................... 25 1.2 Finances..................................................................................... 27 1.3 Law Enforcement Services........................................................ 28 2.0 City of Calistoga............................................................................... 31 2.1 Planning Policies....................................................................... 31 2.2 Finances..................................................................................... 33 2.3 Law Enforcement Services........................................................ 34 3.0 City of Napa...................................................................................... 37 3.1 Planning Policies....................................................................... 37 3.2 Finances..................................................................................... 39 3.3 Law Enforcement Services........................................................ 40 4.0 City of St. Helena.............................................................................. 43 4.1 Planning Policies....................................................................... 43 4.2 Finances..................................................................................... 45 4.3 Law Enforcement Services........................................................ 46 5.0 Town of Yountville........................................................................... 49 5.1 Planning Policies...................................................................... 49 5.2 Finances..................................................................................... 51 5.3 Law Enforcement Services........................................................ 52 6.0 County of Napa................................................................................. 55 6.1 Planning Policies...................................................................... 55 6.2 Finances..................................................................................... 57 6.3 Law Enforcement Services........................................................ 58 3 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County IV. PERTINENT DEMOGRAPHIC CONDITIONS 1.0 Growth Factors................................................................................. 65 1.1 Population.................................................................................. 65 1.2 Density....................................................................................... 67 1.3 Development............................................................................. 68 1.4 Visitor........................................................................................ 70 2.0 Socioeconomic Factors..................................................................... 72 2.1 Employment Rates.................................................................... 72 2.2 Household Income Levels......................................................... 73 V. LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICE MEASUREMENTS 1.0 Capacities.......................................................................................... 75 1.1 Financial Resources................................................................... 75 1.2 Staffing Levels.......................................................................... 80 1.3 Equipment and Facilities........................................................... 82 2.0 Demands............................................................................................ 86 2.1 Service Calls.............................................................................. 86 2.2 Reported Crimes........................................................................ 87 2.3 Types of Reported Crimes......................................................... 89 3.0 Performance...................................................................................... 91 3.1 Clearance Rates......................................................................... 91 3.2 Public Complaint Filings........................................................... 95 VI. SOURCES 1.0 General................................................................................................... 99 2.0 City of American Canyon.................................................................... 100 3.0 City of Calistoga.................................................................................... 101 4.0 City of Napa........................................................................................... 102 5.0 City of St. Helena.................................................................................. 103 6.0 Town of Yountville............................................................................... 104 7.0 County of Napa..................................................................................... 105 VII. MISCELLANEOUS 1.0 Report Definitions................................................................................ 106 2.0 Listing of Report Maps....................................................................... 110 3.0 Listing of Report Tables...................................................................... 111 VIII. APPENDICES LAFCO of Napa County Policy on Municipal Service Reviews............................ A Visitors to Napa County: Day and Overnight Projections………………………. B Comments on Draft Report……………………………………………………….. C 4 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County I. INTRODUCTION 1.0 Local Agency Formation Commissions Authority and Duties Local Agency Formation Commissions (LAFCOs) were established in 1963 as political subdivisions of the State of California and are responsible for administering a section of Government Code now known as the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (“CKH”).1 LAFCOs are located in all 58 counties in California and are delegated regulatory authority to coordinate the logical formation and development of local governmental agencies and their municipal services. Towards this end, LAFCOs are commonly referred to as the Legislature’s “watchdog” for local governance issues. Specific regulatory authority of LAFCOs includes approving or disapproving jurisdictional changes involving the establishment, expansion, and reorganization of cities and special districts.2 LAFCOs are also provided broad discretion to condition jurisdictional changes as long as they do not directly regulate land use, property development, or subdivision requirements. LAFCOs generally exercise their regulatory authority in response to applications submitted by local agencies, landowners, or registered voters. Recent amendments to CKH, however, now empower and encourage LAFCOs to initiate on their own jurisdictional changes to form, merge, and dissolve special districts consistent with current and future community needs.3 The following table provides a complete list of LAFCOs’ regulatory authority as of January 1, 2012. LAFCOs’ Regulatory Authority Table I/A • City Incorporations and Disincorporations • City and Special District Annexations • Special District Formations and Dissolutions • City and Special District Detachments • City and Special District Consolidations • Merge/Establish Subsidiary Special Districts • City and Special District Service Extensions • Special District Service Activations or Divestitures 1 Reference California Government Code Section 56000 et seq. 2 CKH defines “city” to mean any incorporated chartered or general law city. This includes any city the name of which includes the word “town”. CKH defines “special district” to mean any agency of the State formed pursuant to general law or special act for the local performance of governmental or proprietary functions within limited boundaries. All special districts in California are subject to LAFCO with the following exceptions: school districts; community college districts; assessment districts; improvement districts; community facilities districts; and air pollution control districts. 3 All jurisdictional changes approved by LAFCO are subject to conducting authority proceedings, which may include elections, unless specifically waived under CKH. 5 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County LAFCOs inform their regulatory authority through a series of planning activities, namely preparing municipal service reviews and sphere of influence updates. Markedly, the latter planning activity is predicated on determining spheres of influence for all cities and special districts for purposes of demarking the territory LAFCOs believe represent the appropriate and future jurisdictional boundaries and service areas of the affected agencies. All jurisdictional changes, such as annexations and detachments, must be consistent with the spheres of influence of the affected agencies with limited exceptions.4 Moreover, underlying LAFCOs regulatory and planning responsibilities is fulfilling specific objectives outlined by the California Legislature under Government Code (G.C.) Section 56301, which states: “Among the purposes of the commission are discouraging urban sprawl, preserving open-space and prime agricultural lands, efficiently providing governmental services, and encouraging the orderly formation and development of local agencies based upon local conditions and circumstances.” Composition LAFCOs are generally governed by an eight- member board comprising three county LAFCOs are generally governed by an eight- supervisors, three city councilmembers, and member board comprising three county two representatives of the general public.5 supervisors, three city councilmembers, and two Members are divided between “regulars” and representatives of the general public. LAFCOs have sole authority in administering its “alternates” and must exercise their legislative responsibilities and its decisions are independent judgment on behalf of the not subject to an outside appeal process. interests of residents, landowners, and the public as a whole. LAFCO members are subject to standard disclosure requirements for California public officials and must file annual statements of economic interests. Importantly, LAFCOs have sole authority in administering its legislative responsibilities and its decisions are not subject to an outside appeal process. All LAFCOs are independent of local government with the majority employing their own staff; an increasingly smaller portion of LAFCOs choose to contract with their local county government for staff support services. All LAFCOs, nevertheless, must appoint their own Executive Officers to manage agency activities and provide written recommendations on all regulatory and planning actions before the members. Funding CKH prescribes that local agencies fund LAFCOs’ annual operating costs. Counties are generally responsible for one-half of LAFCO’s annual operating costs with the remainder proportionally allocated among cities based on a calculation of tax revenues and population.6 LAFCOs are also authorized to collect fees to offset local agency contributions. 4 Exceptions in which a jurisdictional change does not require consistency with the affected agency’s jurisdictional boundary include the annexation of correctional facilities or annexation of land owned and used by the affected agency for municipal purposes. Common examples of the latter include municipal water and wastewater facilities. 5 Several LAFCOs also have two members from independent special districts within their county. 6 The funding formula for LAFCOs with special district representation provides that all three appointing authorities (county, cities, and special districts) are responsible for one-third of LAFCOs’ annual operating costs. 6 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County 1.1 LAFCO of Napa County LAFCO of Napa County (“Commission”) was first established in 1963 as a department within the County of Napa. Consistent with pre CKH provisions, the County was entirely responsible for funding the Commission’s annual operating costs over the first three decades. Further, the duties of the Executive Officer were first performed by the County Administrator and later the County Planning Director. CKH’s enactment in 2001 changed the Commission’s funding to assign one-half of its operating costs to the County with the other one-half assigned to the Cities of American Canyon, Calistoga, Napa, St. Helena, and the Town of Yountville. CKH’s enactment also facilitated a number of organizational changes highlighted by the Commission entering into a staff support services agreement with the County; an agreement allowing the Commission, among other things, to appoint its own Executive Officer. The Commission’s current member roster is provided below. Napa LAFCO’s Commission Roster Table I/B Appointing Agency Regular Members Alternative Members County of Napa: Supervisors Bill Dodd Mark Luce Brad Wagenknecht City Selection Committee: Mayors Joan Bennett Juliana Inman Lewis Chilton Commissioners: City and County Brian J. Kelly Gregory Rodeno Staffing for the Commission currently consists of 2.5 full-time equivalent employees. This includes a full-time Executive Officer and Analyst along with a part-time Secretary.7 Legal services are provided by the County Counsel’s Office. All other staffing related services, such as accounting, human resources, information technology, are provided by the County as needed. The Commission’s adopted budget for 2011-2012 totals $0.428 million with an audited fund balance of $0.169 million as of July 1, 2011. 2.0 Municipal Service Review Program The Commission is required under CKH to prepare municipal service reviews in conjunction with establishing and updating each local agency’s sphere of influence (“sphere”).8 The Commission may also prepare municipal service reviews irrespective of establishing or updating spheres for purposes of informing potential future regulatory actions (emphasis). CKH specifies at minimum that conjunctive municipal service reviews and sphere of influence updates shall be prepared every five years as needed. 7 The Commission contracts with the County for staff support services. The Executive Officer and all support personnel are County employees. The Commission, however, appoints and removes the Executive Officer on its own discretion. 8 LAFCO establishes, amends, and updates spheres to designate the territory it believes represents the appropriate and probable future service area and jurisdictional boundary of the affected agency. All jurisdictional changes, such as annexations and detachments, must be consistent with the spheres of the affected local agencies with limited exceptions. CKH requires LAFCO to review and update spheres every five years, as needed, beginning January 1, 2008. 7 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County The legislative intent of the municipal service review is to proactively inform the Commission with regard to the availability and sufficiency of governmental services A municipal service review is a provided within its respective jurisdiction. This includes, comprehensive evaluation of the notably, considering whether organizational changes availability and adequacy of one or would improve service efficiency and performance. more services within a defined area or of the range and level of services Municipal service reviews vary in scope and can focus on provided by one or more agencies. particular agency, service, or geographic region as defined by the Commission. Municipal service reviews may also lead the Commission to take other actions under its authority, such as forming, consolidating, or dissolving one or more local agencies. It may also lead to recommendations for one or more agencies to consider and/or initiate organizational changes. Municipal service reviews culminate with the Commission making determinations on a number of service and governance-related factors. This includes, most notably, infrastructure needs or deficiencies, growth and population trends, and financial standing. A listing of all required municipal service review determinations as of January 1, 2012 are outlined under G.C. Section 56430 and are summarized below. Municipal Service Review Determinations Table I/C 1. Growth and population projections for the affected area. 2. Location and characteristics of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities within or contiguous to affected spheres of influence.9 3. Present and planned capacity of public facilities, adequacy of public services, and infrastructure needs or deficiencies. 4. Financial ability of agencies to provide services. 5. Status and opportunities for shared facilities. 6. Accountability for community service needs, including structure and operational efficiencies. 7. Any matter related to effective or efficient service delivery as required by LAFCO policy. It is the current practice of the Commission to adopt a study schedule to calendar the preparation of municipal service reviews in Napa County over a five to eight year period. The study schedule is amended as needed to address changes in priorities or other timing considerations and generally – although not always – corresponds with anticipated sphere of influence updates. Commission policy necessitates all municipal service reviews be considered at public hearings along with adopting their corresponding determinations.10 9 This determination was added to the municipal service review process by Senate Bill 244 effective January 1, 2012. The definition of “disadvantaged unincorporated community” is defined under G.C. Section 56330.5 to mean inhabited territory that constitutes all or a portion of an area with an annual median household income that is less than 80 percent of the statewide annual median household income. 10 Only the determinations addressing the mandatory factors outlined under G.C. Section 56340 are adopted by the Commission; the accompanying report is “received and filed.” 8 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.0 Overview This report represents the Commission’s scheduled municipal service review on local law enforcement services provided in Napa County. The municipal service review’s principal objective is to develop and expand the Commission’s knowledge and understanding of the current and planned provision of local law enforcement services relative to present and projected needs throughout the county. This includes, in particular, evaluating the availability and adequacy of law enforcement services provided – directly or indirectly – by the six principal local service providers operating in Napa County subject to Commission oversight. These agencies include: (a) City of American Canyon; (b) City of Calistoga; (c) City of Napa; (d) City of St. Helena; (e) Town of Yountville; and (f) County of Napa, hereinafter referred to as the “affected local agencies.” The report has been prepared in a manner consistent with the Commission’s Policy on Municipal Service Reviews and constructed to focus on three specific areas. The first focus area (Section III) provides a summary review of all six affected agencies in terms of their formation and development, relevant population and growth trends, law enforcement capacities and demands, and financial standing. The second focus area (Section IV) considers pertinent demographic conditions influencing law enforcement services from growth to socioeconomic factors. The third and final focus area (Section V) examines key service characteristics underlying local law enforcement services. This includes evaluating capacities, demands, and performance with particular emphasis in using quantitative measures to help ensure objectivity (emphasis added). 2.0 General Conclusions With the preceding focuses noted, this report substantiates law enforcement services provided by the six affected local agencies in Napa County are effectively managed and largely responsive to meeting current community needs; community needs that distinctly vary throughout the region. Restated another way, there are no red flags identified in this report warranting immediate action by the Commission or affected agencies. The report also notes that overall crime levels in Napa County are trending downward with the most serious offenses – violent – having declined by nearly one-fifth over the last five reported years. The report does identify, nevertheless, three central and cascading issues underlying local law enforcement services going forward that are directly relevant to the Commission’s prescribed duties in facilitating orderly and sustainable municipal growth and development. Arguably the most pressing issue noted in the report for Commission consideration is acknowledging the funding of law enforcement services in Napa County is an expensive endeavor largely dependent on an increasingly scarce source of general tax revenues. This includes noting there is an escalating funding demand for law enforcement services that for some of the affected local agencies suggests there may be an approaching “tipping point” in which current service levels will no longer be sustainable given agency-wide considerations. 9 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County The report notes, and to the core issue of depending on scarce resources, four of the six affected local agencies – American Canyon, Napa, St. Helena, and Yountville – have all experienced significant to moderate increases in their respective percentages of general fund monies being dedicated to support law enforcement services. Two of these agencies – American Canyon and Yountville – contract with the County Sheriff for law enforcement services and the increasing demand on their general fund monies appears primarily due to discretionary decisions to increase staffing levels within the last few years. The decisions to increase staffing coupled with the County pursuing more cost-recovery for administrative overhead help explain why American Canyon and Yountville both experienced more than 50% cost increases in law enforcement expenses over the last five years. Conversely, the increasing demand on general fund monies for the other two agencies – Napa and St. Helena – appears more caustic given it largely represents systematic cost increases in maintaining baseline law enforcement services from one year to the next; the latter agency being in the more precarious position of the two due to its jurisdictional diseconomies of scale. Additionally, and irrespective of the preceding comments, the report notes Calistoga’s financial position appears to be the most tenuous of the six affected local agencies despite management having taken concerted measures to significantly curb agency-wide expenses. Most notably, Calistoga is the only affected local agency to have actually decreased its law enforcement expenses and the corresponding demand on the City’s general fund by one- third over the last five years. Law enforcement expenses, though, still account for a sizable portion – one quarter – of Calistoga’s general fund and the City as of its last audited financial year finished with three cautious signs: a negative operating margin of nearly one fifth; limited liquidity; and high debt; all of which suggests uncertainty regarding the City meeting short and long-term financial obligations without further changes to its financial structure. A second central issue noted in the report highlights the role of growth trends in influencing local law enforcement services in Napa County. This relationship reveals itself in reviewing crime totals over the last five reported years for each of the six affected agencies, which generally matches resident population amounts; a dynamic demonstrating there is a direct and consistent correlation between growth and crime. For example, American Canyon experienced relatively matching changes in both population (32%) and crime (40%). Further, the one outlier in which local growth and crime levels deviate involves Calistoga and by all accounts shows a direct connection between higher densities and higher crimes; a point illustrated by comparing Calistoga and St. Helena. Specifically, Calistoga and St. Helena have relatively similar resident population amounts, but have averaged dramatically different annual crime totals at 30.8 and 18.2 for every 1,000 residents. This exceedingly high number of average annual crimes in Calistoga compared to St. Helena is most attributed to the former’s resident per square mile density, which is nearly double that of the latter. The third central issue noted in the report draws attention to the geographic distinctions in local law enforcement services relative to cost, demand, and other pertinent considerations. These distinctions are particularly evident between the two north county cities – Calistoga and St. Helena – and the two south county cities – American Canyon and Napa; distinctions that appear fueled in part, but not exclusively, by economies of scale (emphasis added). These distinctions include noting the north county cities averaged between 60% and 100% more in sworn staffing, expenditures, and service calls measured on a per capita basis. Average 10 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County clearance rates overall within the south county cities are also noticeably higher than the north county cities. Finally, with respect to recommendations, the report identifies several issues underlying local law enforcement services warranting further review. These recommendations fall short of prescribing specific actions, but are intended to generate additional discussion and analysis among the affected local agencies. More specifically, the recommendations address specific issues deemed pertinent in supporting accountable and resilient law enforcement services into the future and relative to the Commission’s interests. The recommendations are outlined in detail in the succeeding section with several summarized below. • Five of the six affected local agencies – American Canyon, Calistoga, Napa, St. Helena, and County Sheriff – currently follow their own procurement process for motor law enforcement vehicles with corresponding policies to purchase replacements for the majority every five years or less. The agencies, as a potential cost savings measure, should consider pooling their respective resources in establishing a joint procurement process for purchasing motor vehicles. • The planning and delivery of local law enforcement services are generally guided by qualitative goals outlined in the six affected agencies’ general plans. Measuring the achievement of these goals would be strengthened by each affected local agency establishing quantitative standards to help track performance and inform decision- making as it relates to current and future resource needs. • Calistoga and St. Helena’s geographic and socioeconomic similarities suggest there may be viable opportunities to share and/or combine resources in delivering law enforcement services within their respective jurisdictions. This includes back- officing dispatch and animal control services. • It would also seem appropriate for Calistoga and St. Helena, given the costs and related challenges associated with sustaining relatively small stand-alone departments, to consider the merits of structural alternatives in providing law enforcement services. This includes – based on a cursory review – the two affected local agencies exploring the feasibilities of forming a joint-powers authority with one another and/or one or both agencies contracting with County Sheriff. • The County should carefully measure its administrative pass-through costs tied to providing contracted law enforcement to American Canyon and Yountville to help ensure these arrangements maintain value to the agencies going forward in providing sufficient cost-certainty. • The County should consider the merits of establishing a county service area comprising all unincorporated lands with law enforcement powers; an arrangement that would allow for the creation of benefit zones and foster more direct relationships between providing elevated services and recovering elevated costs within specific unincorporated communities. 11 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County 3.0. Determinative Statements As mentioned, as part of the municipal service review process, the Commission must prepare written determinations addressing the service factors enumerated under G.C. Section 56430. The service factors range in scope from considering infrastructure needs and deficiencies to relationships with growth management policies. The determinations serve as independent statements or conclusions and are based on information collected, analyzed, and presented in this report’s subsequent sections. The underlying intent of the determinations is to provide a succinct detailing of all pertinent issues relating to local law enforcement services as it relates to the Commission’s role and responsibilities. 3.1 Growth and Population Projections for the Affected Area Regional Statements a) The six affected local law enforcement agencies currently serve an estimated countywide resident population of 137,639. This population estimate represents close to an eight percent overall increase – 0.8% annually – over the last 10 years. b) Napa County’s estimated resident growth rate over the last 10 years is the highest among all nine counties comprising the San Francisco Bay Area region. c) Napa County is predominately city-centered with slightly more than 80% of the current resident population residing in one of the five incorporated cities. Nearly nine-tenths of all city residents, furthermore, reside in one of the two south county cities, American Canyon and Napa. d) The ongoing effects of the national economic downturn that began earnestly in 2008 underlies a projection that Napa County’s overall resident growth rate will modestly decrease over the next five years to an annual average of 0.5%. This projection would result in a resident population of 142,143 by 2016; a net increase of 4,504. e) The majority of new growth in Napa County over the last 10 years has involved city greenfield development; typically characterized as perimeter development. This trend, resulting in the annual average conversion of 220 acres of land from non- urban to urban use during this period, creates additional pressures on local law enforcement in terms of expanding their coverage areas. f) Visitors are an integral component in supporting Napa County’s economy as evident by sales and transient-occupancy tax revenues and create additional and fluid demands on all six local law enforcement agencies. g) Napa County experiences a projected 10% increase in its daytime population during peak tourist periods; an amount equaling 15,753. h) Napa County experiences a projected 7% increase in its overnight population during peak tourist periods; an amount equaling 9,217. 12 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County i) Visitor growth in Napa County as measured by guestrooms has increased over the last five years by nearly 25%; an amount that is more than four times greater than the growth rate in countywide population during the period. j) Overall unemployment in Napa County has significantly increased from 3.9% to 8.5% over the last five years; an increase of 118%. Individual Agency Statements a) American Canyon has experienced the largest percentage increase in estimated resident growth among the six local jurisdictions over the last 10 years rising significantly by 75% from 11,261 to 19,693. This growth rate, markedly, is the fourth highest increase among all 101 cities in the San Francisco Bay Area. b) Napa has experienced the second largest percentage increase in estimated resident growth among the six local jurisdictions over the last 10 years rising modestly by 5% from 74,054 to 77,464. c) Calistoga, St. Helena, Yountville, and the unincorporated area have each experienced slight to moderate decreases in their respective estimated resident populations over the last 10 years from a combined 42,603 to 40,482; a total decrease of 5%. This decrease appears principally attributed to a decade-long influx of converting single- family residents into bed and breakfast establishments paired with a rise in secondary homes in the respective communities. d) It is reasonable to assume growth rates for each of the six local jurisdictions over the next five years will parallel their respective growth rates between 2008 and 2010. This presumes the economic downturn that began in earnest in 2008 will continue into the near-term. It also presumes the percentage change in growth in the most recent calendar year, 2011, is largely an anomaly and tied to recalibrating estimates based on the most recent census release. e) Based on the referenced growth rate presumptions, it is reasonable to assume American Canyon, Calistoga, Napa, and St. Helena will each experience slight to moderate increases in resident population through 2016 with respective totals projected at 20,925, 5,330, 80,768, and 6,024. No change in Yountville’s resident population is projected. A slight decrease in the unincorporated resident population is projected and would result in a total of 26,327. f) There are three distinct density patterns in Napa County. Napa and American Canyon are the densest local jurisdictions with 4,256 and 3,581 residents, respectively, for every square mile. Yountville, Calistoga, and St. Helena follow with density ranges approximately half of these amounts at respectively 1,998, 1,995, and 1,147 residents for every square mile. The unincorporated area is by far the least dense local jurisdiction with only 35 residents for every square mile. 13 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County g) Over four-fifths of all new housing development in Napa County over the last five years has been shared by American Canyon (43%) and Napa (37%). h) Yountville and Calistoga have the highest percentage of guestrooms relative to their resident populations among the six affected local jurisdictions. If guestrooms are fully occupied, Yountville and Calistoga’s overnight resident populations would increase by 35.3% and 23.6%, respectively. i) Unemployment rates for all five cities in Napa County have more than doubled over the last five years with increases ranging from a low of 114% to a high of 123%. 3.2 The Location and Characteristics of Any Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities within or Contiguous to Spheres of Influence Regional/Individual Agency Statements a) Information regarding the location of any local disadvantaged unincorporated communities as defined under LAFCO law is not currently available. Future municipal service reviews conducted by the Commission will address the location and characteristics of these areas as needed. 3.3 Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities, Adequacy of Public Services, and Infrastructure Needs or Deficiencies, Including Infrastructure Needs or Deficiencies Related to Sewers, Municipal and Industrial Water, and Structural Fire Protection in Any Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities Within or Contiguous to Spheres of Influence Regional Statements a) The six affected local agencies collectively employ 272 law enforcement personnel divided between 191 sworn officers and 81 support staff. This current total produces a composite breakdown in which 70% of all local law enforcement personnel are sworn officers. b) Staffing levels overall for the six affected local agencies have remained relatively constant over the last five years; composite changes have been limited to increasing sworn officers by seven and decreasing the support staff by four. c) The relative number of sworn officers employed by the six affected local agencies produces a ratio of 1.39 for every 1,000 residents in Napa County; an amount that falls within the bottom third among San Francisco Bay Area counties. d) The per capita range of sworn officers employed by the six affected local agencies has been largely constant over the last five years ranging from a low of 1.37 to a high of 1.44 for every 1,000 residents. 14 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County e) Napa County’s geographic setting as a suburban area underscores the importance of motor vehicles as the central equipment resource for all six affected local agencies; a statement evident given none of six affected local agencies regularly deploy sworn officers to bike or foot patrols. f) Measuring motor vehicle capacity relative to minimum law enforcement needs of having at least one vehicle for every two sworn officers is a reasonable tool in assessing resource adequacy for each agency. This measurement is particularly relevant to cities given their predominant focus on patrol. Towards this end, all five cities in Napa County adequately meet their respective calculated minimum standards for motor vehicle capacity for law enforcement services. g) Annual service calls among the six affected local agencies have modestly increased over the last five reported years by nearly one percent from 121,463 to 122,449; an increase that effectively matches increases in countywide resident population. h) Over the last five reported years, the countywide average of annual service calls translates to nearly nine out of 10 residents each generating one service call for law enforcement services. i) Annual crime totals overall in Napa County have declined by nine percent over the last five reported years from 4,645 to 4,241 with only one agency – American Canyon – having experienced an increase during this period. j) Composite annual crimes in Napa County represent a bell curve over the last five reported years with peak totals recorded in 2007-2008; a period corresponding with the beginning of the economic downturn. k) Property crimes on average represented approximately 70% of all incidents among the six affected local agencies over the last five reported years. The remaining portion of incidents during this period are simple assault at 20% and violent at 10%. l) With respect to countywide trends, and consistent with overall volume declines, violent and simple assault crimes have experienced the largest percentage decreases over the last five reported years at 18.7% and 18.4%, respectively. Property crimes have experienced a modest decrease during this period of 4.4%. m) Homicide totals among the six affected local agencies’ jurisdictions have remained relatively moderate over the last five reported years averaging approximately one murder for every 25,000 residents. This ratio lies within the midrange of the other eight counties in the San Francisco Bay Area during this period. n) Countywide clearance rates among the six affected local agencies have significantly fluctuated over the last five reported years from a low of 30.2% and a high of 37.6%. 15 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County o) The six affected local agencies have collectively cleared 7,918 of the 23,413 total crimes occurring in Napa County over the last five reported years. This produces an average countywide clearance rate of 33.8%. p) The five year trend in countywide clearance rates reflects an inverse bell curve over the last five reported years; a trend opposite of changes in reported crimes during the period and suggests local law enforcement capacities had become temporarily overtaxed by a “stress test” attributed to the economic downturn. q) Countywide clearance rates show two distinct and opposite patterns in crime solving over the last five reported years: violent and simple assault crimes have been cleared on average 72.6% while property offenses have been cleared on average only 16.5%. Individual Agency Statements a) County Sheriff has averaged the highest relative sworn staffing levels among the six affected local agencies over the last five years with 2.6 officers for every 1,000 unincorporated residents. This ratio is expectedly high compared to the other five affected local agencies given the expanded duties of County Sheriff. b) There are two distinct patterns among the five cities as it relates to sworn staffing levels and divided between the north and south county regions. The two north county cities – Calistoga and St. Helena – have averaged 2.0 sworn officers for every 1,000 residents during the last five years. The three south county cities – American Canyon, Yountville, and Napa – follow with an average number of sworn officers for every 1,000 residents at 1.3, 1.1, and 0.9, respectively. c) All five cities in Napa County have operated with relatively fewer sworn officers than the current composite average for law enforcement agencies in the western United States of 1.84 sworn officers for every 1,000 residents. d) County Corrections – and despite an overall decrease in annual bookings – has continued to experience gradual increases in its daily population over the last five years averaging 252 daily inmates; an amount nearing the jail’s current rated daily inmate capacity of 264. This discrepancy between the decrease in annual bookings and an increase in daily average population reflects inmates are in holding for longer periods than in previous years; a trend that is expected to increase with the recent passage of Assembly Bill 109 and its provisions to redistribute convicted prisoners to their respective booking jurisdictions as of October 1, 2011. e) County has been in the planning stages for the development of a new jail facility beginning in earnest in 2008 with a tentative strategy to achieve a rated daily inmate capacity of 526; an amount that would represent a twofold increase over current conditions. It would appear appropriate for the County to revisit these development plans in terms of setting inmate capacity given Assembly Bill 109. 16 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County f) The two north county cities – St. Helena and Calistoga – have both averaged exceedingly high annual service calls over the last five reported years relative to their populations at 1,764 and 1,364, respectively, for every 1,000 residents. The remaining four affected local agencies – County Sheriff, American Canyon, Napa, and Yountville – have averaged less than one call per resident during the period with respective ratios totaling 927, 870, 779, and 685 for every 1,000 residents. g) American Canyon, County Sheriff, Yountville, and St. Helena all experienced moderate to minimal increases in service calls over the last five reported years at 7.8%, 5.8%, 3.3%, and 2.5%, respectively. Napa and Calistoga, conversely, experienced decreases in service calls during this period at -2.3% and -5.8%. h) American Canyon is the only affected local agency to have experienced an increase in reported crimes over the last five reported years. American Canyon’s increase totals 40% with peak levels occurring in the last two years. This increase in crime appears – qualitatively – principally attributed to the “Wal-Mart effect” given it corresponds with the retail chain’s opening in the City and business model as a discount store. i) St. Helena has an anomalously high ratio of 94 service calls for every one reported crime over the last five reported years. This amount more than doubles the next highest total – Yountville at 44 calls for every one reported crime – and appears attributed to “community casualness” in contacting police on a variety of issues. j) St. Helena – and in contrast to its high service calls - has averaged the lowest proportional crime totals of the six affected local agencies over the last five reported years by tallying 18.7 reported crimes for every 1,000 residents. Napa has averaged, conversely, the highest proportional crime totals by tallying 40.6 reported crimes for every 1,000 residents during this period. k) Crime totals over the last five years within each of the six affected local agencies’ jurisdictions generally match resident population amounts; a dynamic demonstrating there is a direct correlation between growth and crime. A notable outlier involves Calistoga given it along with St. Helena have two of the three smallest resident populations. Nevertheless, Calistoga finished with the second highest average crime totals by tallying 30.8 for every 1,000 residents. l) The relatively high number of crimes in Calistoga compared to St. Helena appears attributed to the former’s resident per square mile density, which is nearly double that of the latter; a dynamic demonstrating there is a direct correlation between higher densities and higher crime totals. m) Individual trends in crime types among the six affected local agencies generally reveal moderate to significant decreases in all three categories – violent, simple assault, and property – over the last five reported years. A notable outlier relative to individual crime type trends involves American Canyon, which experienced sizable increases in both violent and property offenses; the former increasing by over four-fifths. 17 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County n) Average clearance rates for all crimes over the last five reported years shows two distinct patterns among the six affected local agencies. Five of the affected agencies – American Canyon, Calistoga, Napa, Yountville, and County Sheriff – have relatively close average clearance rates ranging from a high of 36.4% to a low 30.5%. The remaining affected agency – St. Helena – has the lowest average clearance rate of 22.4%; an amount over one-fourth lower than the next lowest clearance rate. o) American Canyon, Calistoga, Napa, and St. Helena all have improved their respective clearance rates for all crimes over the last five reported years. Markedly, the two north county cities – Calistoga and St. Helena – enjoyed the largest percentage improvement in their overall clearance rates with both rising nearly 20%. p) Yountville and the County Sheriff are the only two of the six affected local agencies to have experienced a decrease in their clearance rates for all crimes over the last five reported years at -57.4% and -22.9%, respectively. 3.4 Financial Ability of Agencies to Provide Services Regional Statements a) Nearly all funding for law enforcement services provided by the six affected local agencies is generated from discretionary general tax revenues collected by the respective governing bodies, commonly referred to as “general fund” monies. b) General fund monies collected by the six affected local agencies have increased by an average of 3.1% annually rising from an estimated total of $274.3 to $316.7 million over the last five years. Significant increases in property tax revenues combined with moderate increases in transient-occupancy tax revenues underlie the overall increase despite sizeable decreases in sales tax revenues during this period. c) Law enforcement expenses among the six affected local agencies have increased by a composite average of 2.9% over the last five years from $45.89 to $52.60 million; an amount slightly above the consumer price index for the region. An increase in personnel cost underlies the increase in expenses with the largest single year change occurring in 2008-2009 as the agencies began funding other post-employment benefit costs as required under federal law. d) Law enforcement expenses relative to growth and measured on a per capita basis among the six affected local agencies have modestly increased by 1.8% annually over the last five years from $341 to $372; an amount slightly below the consumer price index for the region. e) Reserves for the majority of the six affected local agencies have precipitously declined over the audited fiscal year period of 2005-2006 to 2009-2010 and largely due to absorbing ongoing operating deficits. The combined general fund reserves of all six agencies have decreased 17% from $109.8 to $90.8 million during this period. 18 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County f) The overall declining trend in general fund reserves for the majority of the six affected local agencies has had a particularly negative effect on the portion set aside for unreserved, undesignated or emergency purposes; the portion of reserves that can be most easily accessed to absorb, among other things, overruns in law enforcement costs. These portions of the agencies’ general reserves has experienced a composite decrease of 40% from approximately $61.9 to $37.2 million. Individual Agency Statements a) Four of the six affected local agencies – American Canyon, Calistoga, Yountville, and the County – all experienced moderate to significant increases in their respective general fund revenues over the last five years. b) Calistoga experienced the largest percentage increase in general fund revenues over the last five years with its composite total rising significantly by 40.8% and highlighted by over a one-third rise in transient-occupancy tax proceeds. c) Yountville, County, and American Canyon all experienced sizeable composite increases in their general fund revenues over the last five years; all near one-fifth. d) Napa and St. Helena are the only two of the six affected local agencies to have experienced decreases – albeit relatively minor – in their composite general fund revenues over the last five years at -5.5% and -2.1%, respectively; both of which are attributed to sizeable declines in sale tax proceeds. e) Four of the six affected local agencies – American Canyon, Napa, St. Helena, and Yountville – all experienced negative ratios over the last five years in terms of percentage changes in law enforcement expenses exceeding general fund revenues. f) American Canyon and Yountville experienced the largest negative ratios over the last five years in terms of percentage changes as their law enforcement expenses exceeded their general fund revenues both by three to one. g) Calistoga and County Sheriff were the only two of the six affected agencies to experience positive ratios over the last five years in terms of percentage changes in their general fund revenues exceeding their law enforcement costs. h) American Canyon and Yountville both experienced significant increases in their law enforcement expenses over the last five years at 64.9% and 58.5%, respectively. i) County Sheriff, Napa, and St. Helena also experienced moderate to minor increases in their law enforcement expenses over the last five years at 15.4%, 7.0%, and 3.5%; the latter two both falling below the consumer price index for the region. j) Four of the six affected local agencies – American Canyon, Napa, St. Helena, and Yountville – experienced sizable to modest increases in the percentage of their general funds being dedicated to law enforcement services over the last five years. 19 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County k) Calistoga and County Sheriff were the only two of the six affected local agencies to experience modest to sizable decreases in the percentage of their general funds being dedicated to law enforcement services over the last five year. l) County Sheriff has averaged the highest per capita expense for law enforcement services over the last five years at $453 among the six affected agencies. This amount, however, is artificially inflated given there is no practical method of adjusting to account for the cost recovery associated with its service contracts with American Canyon and Yountville. m) Among the five cities there is a sizeable cost difference as measured by per capita law enforcement expenses between the two north county – Calistoga and St. Helena – and three south county – American Canyon, Napa, and Yountville – cities with the latter group incurring a cost savings of nearly two-fifths relative to the former group. n) Five of the six affected local agencies – American Canyon, Napa, St. Helena, Yountville, and County Sheriff – experienced increases in their per capita law enforcement expenses over the last five years. o) Yountville and American Canyon experienced the largest percentage change in its per capita law enforcement costs by rising 73% and 33%, respectively, over the last five years. County Sheriff, Napa, and St. Helena also experienced moderate increases in their per capita law enforcement expenses ranging between 5% and 11%. p) Calistoga was the only one of the six affected local agencies to experience an actual decline in its per capita law enforcement expenses over the last five years with a total cost-savings of 5%. q) Four of the six affected local agencies – Calistoga, Napa, St. Helena, and County – experienced significant to moderate percentage decreases in their general fund reserves over the audited fiscal year period of 2005-2006 to 2009-2010. The three cities experienced the largest percentage decrease in their general fund reserves with Calistoga at -47%, St. Helena at -44%, and Napa at -33%. r) Yountville and American Canyon were the only two of the six affected local agencies to experience percentage increases in their general fund reserves over the audited fiscal year period of 2005-2006 to 2009-2010; the respective changes totaling 154% and 24%. s) American Canyon and Yountville’s costs to contract for law enforcement services with the County have each increased by over one-half over the last five years; increases attributed to both agency decisions to add sworn personnel and administrative pass-throughs involving baseline changes in County Sheriff expenses. 20 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County t) Five of the six affected local agencies – American Canyon, Napa, St. Helena, Yountville, and the County – all finished their last audited fiscal year in relatively sound financial standing as measured by their liquidity and capital. All five of these agencies appear appropriately positioned in meeting their short and long term financial obligations. u) Calistoga finished its last audited fiscal year in relatively unsound financial standing as measured by their operating margin, liquidity, and capital; all of which suggest the City’s ability to meet short and long term financial obligations is uncertain in the absence of substantive changes to its financial structure. 3.5 Status and Opportunities for Shared Facilities Regional Statements a) All six affected local agencies appear to have established supportive relationships with each other with respect to delivering law enforcement services within their respective jurisdictions. This includes, among other items, the senior sworn officers for each of the six affected local agencies meeting on a regular basis to discuss service trends and activities as well as explore collaborative opportunities to address existing and emerging countywide law enforcement issues. b) All six affected local agencies contribute – directly or indirectly – to funding and/or staffing the Napa Special Investigations Bureau; a specialized investigative unit tasked with tracking and eliminating illicit narcotic trade countywide. This cooperative arrangement, notably, has increased the amount of narcotics confiscated by more than 50% over the last several years. The arrangement represents an effective pooling of regional resources and has produced a level of expertise in curbing drug trade that would otherwise be unavailable to the affected local agencies. c) Five of the six affected local agencies – American Canyon, Calistoga, Napa, St. Helena, and County Sheriff – have their own competitive procurement processes with respect to purchasing motor vehicles for law enforcement services. It would seem reasonable and more efficient for these five affected local agencies to consider pooling their respective resources and establish a joint procurement process given their combined buying power would presumably produce cost-savings. Individual Agency Statements a) County Sheriff has established an effective animal control program now under contract by American Canyon, Napa, and Yountville; a program that has increased capturing strays by nearly 50% over the last several years and primarily in response to significant new demands tied to the economic downturn. This contracting arrangement provides streamlined animal control services for the south county region and helps to ensure the public receives services in a timely and consistent manner among all four affected jurisdictions. 21 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County b) Calistoga and St. Helena both provide their own animal control services within their respective jurisdictions. Given their geographic locations, it would seem appropriate for the two agencies to consider merging their animal control services and/or contracting with the County Sheriff as a cost-savings and streamlining measure. c) Law enforcement dispatch services for four of the six affected local agencies – American Canyon, Napa, Yountville, and County Sheriff – are provided by Napa. This shared arrangement provides for streamlined and timely emergency response throughout the south and central regions while avoiding duplicative costs among the participating agencies. d) Calistoga and St. Helena should consider the merits of establishing a joint dispatch system for law enforcement for their respective jurisdictions. This type of joint arrangement, as evident in other parts of the county, would enhance communication and delivery of emergency response services for a relatively confined area that shares similar social and economic communities of interest. 3.6 Accountability for Community Service Needs, Including Governmental Structure and Operational Efficiencies Regional Statements a) All six affected local agencies are managed by committed and responsive public servants dedicated to providing timely law enforcement services irrespective of personal welfare within their respective jurisdictions. b) All six affected local agencies appear to guide law enforcement activities based on established qualitative goals outlined under their respective general plans. It would be appropriate for the affected local agencies to also establish quantitative standards in informing their decision-making as it relates to law enforcement. These supplements would help markedly improve the public’s understanding of how each affected local agency defines and measures success. c) There have been a relatively low number of public complaint filings against all six affected local agencies over the last five years. The relatively low number – which has been equivalent to only one out of 12,500 countywide residents registering annual complaints – indicates local law enforcement officials are performing their duties in an accountable manner preserving individual rights. Individual Agency Statements a) County appears to have established effective contract models in insourcing law enforcement services to American Canyon and Yountville. These models provide the contracting agencies the ability to deliver a full range of law enforcement services to their respective constituents in a tailored manner to meet community needs and preferences with enhanced near term cost certainty. 22 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County b) It appears there has been a sizable and continued cost increase to American Canyon and Yountville in contracting for law enforcement services from the County tied to administrative pass-throughs. Markedly, to maintain value going forward, the County should continue to carefully measure administrative cost pass-throughs to help ensure these types of arrangements provide adequate cost certainty in the long term to the contracting agencies. c) There are distinct demands for law enforcement services within the unincorporated area served by County Sheriff. This distinction is particularly evident in the Lake Berryessa region, which historically has generated more service calls on a proportional basis than other unincorporated areas. It would seem appropriate, accordingly, for the County to consider establishing a county service area comprising all unincorporated lands authorized with law enforcement powers to serve as a mechanism to create zones in which higher service levels are more directly funded by the benefiting community. d) It would seem appropriate for Calistoga and St. Helena, given the costs and related challenges associated with sustaining relatively small stand-alone departments, to consider structural alternatives in providing law enforcement services. This includes – based on a cursory review of potential alternatives – the two affected local agencies exploring the feasibilities of forming a joint-powers authority with one another and/or one or both agencies contracting with County Sheriff. 3.7 Any Other Matter Related to Effective or Efficient Service Delivery, as Required by Commission Policy Regional/Individual Agency Statements a) All six affected local agencies largely share consistent land use policies and goals focusing on city-centered growth and protection of agricultural and open space resources in the unincorporated areas. The collective commitment to city-centered growth helps to calibrate local law enforcement services in a manner responsive to the single largest community need: suburban policing. 23 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County This page has been left intentionally blank for photocopying 24 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County III. AGENCY PROFILES 1.0 City of American Canyon American Canyon was incorporated in 1992 as a general law municipality. It is approximately 5.5 square miles in size and provides a full range of municipal services directly or through agreements with outside contractors with the notable exception of fire protection, which is the responsibility of a subsidiary agency of the City, the American Canyon Fire Protection District (ACFPD). No other special districts overlap American Canyon with the exception of four countywide districts that provide mosquito abatement, flood control, park and recreation, and resource conservation services. American Canyon currently has 70.3 fulltime equivalent employees. American Canyon is the second largest municipality in Napa County as measured by permanent residents with a current population of 19,693 as estimated by the California Department of Finance. American Canyon has experienced the largest rise in population among all five municipalities over the last 10 years with an overall increase of nearly 75%, or 7.5% annually; an amount that is nearly two-thirds greater than the 4.6% annual growth rate of the remaining region during the same period. American Canyon’s population density is 3,580 residents for every square mile; the second highest figure among all five municipalities. Resident Population in American Canyon Table III/A; Source: California Department of Finance 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Trend 11,261 12,334 13,117 14,197 14,879 15,911 16,241 16,521 16,836 19,693 +74.9% 1.1 Planning Policies Map One The American Canyon General Plan was adopted in 1994 and codifies land use objectives and policies for the City through 2010; a scheduled update remains pending. The General Plan includes a vision statement for American Canyon to evolve into a “compact urban community surrounded by a well- defined network of farmlands, hillsides, and riverine habitats.” The General Plan outlines four broad development goals: (a) serve as a bedroom community for the greater region; (b) create a sufficient commercial base for residents; (c) become a subregion employment center; and (d) emerge as a destination for visitors to the Napa Valley. In 2008, American Canyon officially termed the City as the “Gateway to the Napa Valley.” 25 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County The American Canyon General Plan includes an urban limit line (ULL) that was recently amended and directs the City’s future growth through 2030. All lands in the ULL are assigned land use designations that orient American Canyon’s development to emphasize predominately residential uses in the southwest and southeast while commercial and industrial uses are generally planned in the central and northwest. Residential density allowances range from one to 20 housing units per acre. There are currently 6,018 housing units in American Residential Uses in American Canyon Canyon. These units are divided in order of volume Table III/B; Source: DOF between single-family at 80%, mobile home at 14%, Single-Family 80% and multi-family at six percent. Housing units overall Mobile Home 14% Multi-Family 6% have increased by nearly one-fifth over the last five years with the 537 unit additions primarily attributed to Standard Pacific’s development of the Vintage Ranch subdivision. Further, American Canyon has experienced a sizable increase in unoccupied residences, which are presumably attributed to foreclosures. Housing Units in American Canyon Table III/C; Source: California Department of Finance Type 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Trend Total 5,481 5,591 5,635 5,708 6,018 +9.8% -Single-Family 4,357 4,467 4,511 4,582 n/a +5.2% -Multi-Family 345 345 345 345 n/a +0.0% -Mobile 779 779 779 781 n/a +0.2% Vacant (%) 1.97 1.97 1.97 1.96 5.43 +175.6% Map Two American Canyon’s sphere of influence was last updated by the Commission in 2010 and is generally coterminous with the City limits with the notable exception of the inclusion of a 76.7 acre unincorporated area located off of Watson Lane. Additionally, American Canyon’s water and sewer services extend beyond its sphere to serve unincorporated industrial lands surrounding the Napa County Airport. These “extraterritorial service areas” were inherited by American Canyon at the time of its 1992 incorporation as successor agency to the American Canyon County Water District. The Commission formally established the boundaries of American Canyon’s extraterritorial service areas in October 2007. The extraterritorial water and sewer boundaries include all unincorporated lands lying north of American Canyon to Jameson Canyon and Fagan Creek, respectively, which are designated under the County General Plan for urban use. 26 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County 1.2 Finances American Canyon’s current General Fund operating On a regional level, American expenses are budgeted at $15.6 million; an amount Canyon collects more than double the representing a per capita expenditure of $794. The amount of property taxes than any largest discretionary operating expenses are dedicated to other municipality in Napa County as measured on a per acreage basis. the City’s contract with the County of Napa Sheriff ($4.9 million) and legal services ($0.3 million). General Fund operating revenues are budgeted at $15.7 million with close to one-half ($7.7 million) expected to be drawn from property tax proceeds. Notably, on a regional level, American Canyon collects more than double the amount of property taxes than any other municipality in Napa County as measured on a per acreage basis.11 Sales tax revenues are projected to represent the second largest discretionary revenue source for American Canyon accounting for one-eighth ($2.0 million) of the total budgeted amount.12 Nonetheless, as reflected in the following table, American Canyon has incurred an operating deficit as of late due to the national economic downturn highlighted by declining general tax revenues. American Canyon’s General Fund Revenues and Expenses Table III/D; Source: City of American Canyon 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Actual Actual Estimated Estimated Budgeted Budgeted Revenues Expenses Revenues Expenses Revenues Expenses $11.755 $14.784 $11.573 $14.571 $15.700 $15.600 Dollars in Millions /Amounts as of July 1st American Canyon’s most recently completed audit is for the 2009-2010 fiscal year. A review of the audited financial statements reflect the City experienced a moderate negative change in its agency wide equity decreasing by 0.7% or $2.6 million between 2008-2009 and 2009- 2010 from $353.6 to $351.1 million. The financial statements also note the unrestricted portion of the overall fund balance decreased in value over the preceding 12-month period by 6.7% or $2.2 million to $30.4 million. Nevertheless, in terms of assessing ratios, the financial statements assert American Canyon finished the last audited fiscal year with a high amount of liquidity given its total current assets equal nearly nine times its current liabilities. American Canyon also finished the last audited fiscal year holding a low amount of long- term obligations relative to its net assets as measured by its debt-to-equity of 6.9%, reflecting an ability to assume additional debt as needed. The operating margin, though, finished negative at -25.7% due to excess expenses over revenues. Financial Measurements for American Canyon Based on Last Audit (2009-2010) Table III/E; Source: Napa LAFCO Current Ratio Debt-to-Net Assets Operating Margin (Liquidity) (Capital) (Profitability) 8.9 to One 6.9% -25.7% 11 The State Controller’s most recently published Cities Annual Report notes American Canyon’s per acreage property tax collection was $2,169. This amount surpassed the per acreage property tax collections for Napa at $1,243, St. Helena at $762, Calistoga at $715, Yountville at $560, and County of Napa at $105. 12 Sales tax revenues have more than doubled since 2000 as result of expansive new commercial development and highlighted by a Wal-Mart Supercenter, which has over 500 employees and is the largest employer in the City limits. 27 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County American Canyon’s 2009-2010 audited financial statements identify the City’s General Fund year-end balance for all unreserved/undesignated and emergency/contingency accounts totaling $3.0 million. This year-end among equals nearly three months of general operating expenses for the fiscal year.13 The year-end among available to be allocated freely by the City Council also increased over the preceding five audited fiscal years by over 150%. American Canyon’s Audited General Fund Balances Table III/F; Source: City of American Canyon Category 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Trend Reserved 1.376 2.913 2.077 2.990 4.287 +211.6% Unreserved/Designated 5.569 3.795 4.020 4.040 2.762 -50.4% Unreserved/Undesignated 1.174 1.255 4.880 4.297 3.024 +157.6% Total $8.119 $7.963 $10.977 $11.327 $10.074 +24.1% Dollars in Millions /Amounts as of July 1st 1.3 Law Enforcement Services Available Resources American Canyon directly provides law enforcement services through a long-standing contract relationship with the County of Napa. This relationship was established at the time of American Canyon’s incorporation in 1992 and is highlighted by a staffing agreement in which County Sheriff provides sworn officers to staff the City’s own Police Department (“ACPD”). This staffing agreement provides the mechanism for ACPD to provide continual patrol, investigation, and traffic control services throughout American Canyon. All assigned County Sheriff utilize ACPD marked vehicles and uniforms. Other contracts with the County provide ACPD with dispatch byway of the City of Napa as well as animal control. American Canyon currently contracts with County ACPD Self Contract Sheriff to provide 23 fulltime sworn officers. This Dispatch Patrol includes one lieutenant or captain who is mutually Investigations selected by the Sheriff’s Office and City Council to Parking Enforcement serve as ACPD’s Police Chief and oversee three Animal Control Specialized: divisions: 1) administration; 2) patrol; and 3) - Search and Rescue investigations. The other sworn personnel assigned - Special Weapons / Tactics - Bomb Squad to ACPD include four sergeants and 18 deputies. - Canine Deployment Patrol is the largest division and is set up to include - Short-Term Holding - Long-Term Holding four units during the day and four units during the - Gang Unit night shifts. One officer is assigned to each unit with all vehicles equipped with radio.14 All sworn personnel generally work three 12-hour shifts one week followed by three 12-hour and one eight-hour shift the next week totaling 80 hours every two weeks.15 Long-term holding is provided by the County of Napa’s 13 American Canyon’s General Fund operating expenses in 2009-2010 totaled $14.6 million. 14 ACPD reports all vehicles are replaced every four years or 80,000 miles. 15 This personnel arrangement with the County of Napa was established at the time of American Canyon’s incorporation. 28 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County Department of Corrections. ACPD also supplements its contract sworn staff from County Sheriff with 2.5 support staff and are responsible for vehicle abatement, non-injury accident reports, miscellaneous non-felony crime reports, and general administrative duties. ACPD’s approved operating expenses in 2011-2012 total $5.33 million. This amount is entirely funded through American Canyon’s General Fund and accounts for 34% of the City’s budgeted operating expenses. ACPD’s overall per capita cost is $271. ACPD’s Facilities, Equipment, and Resources Table III/G; Source: ACPD Facilities Location Size Built 1) Administration / 911 Donaldson Way East, 1,800 square feet 2006 Operations Building American Canyon, CA 94503 Marked/Unmarked Vehicles Motorcycles Bicycles Watercrafts Helicopters 14 2 2 0 0 2010-11 2011-12 Sworn Staff Canines Support Staff Actual Exp. Adopted Exp. 23 1 2.5 $5.26 Million $5.33 Million 1.2 / 0.05 / 0.1 / $267,100 / $270,655 / 1,000 Residents 1,000 Residents 1,000 Residents 1,000 Residents 1,000 Residents Demand on Resources ACPD reports it has experienced an approximate ACPD Snapshot: FY2006 to FY2010 eight percent increase in total annual service calls Table III/H; Source: Napa LAFCO between 2005-2006 and 2009-2010. This produces a Change in Service Calls +7.8% relatively moderate five-year average of 870 calls for - Avg. Calls / 1,000 residents 870 Change in Total Crimes +37.4% every 1,000 residents compared to the other local law - Avg. Crimes / 1,000 residents 35 enforcement agencies.16 Actual reported crimes have Avg. Clearance Rate 36.4% also increased – albeit at a higher rate relative to Calls to Crimes Ratio 31 service calls – by 38% during the same period with the five-year average resulting in 35 reported crimes for every 1,000 residents. The relationship between service calls and reported crimes results in a five-year average of one reported crime for every 31 service calls in American Canyon. A summary of service demands on ACPD between 2005-2006 and 2009-2010 follows. • Trends in Reported Crimes Approximately 92% of reported crimes in American Canyon between 2005-2006 and 2009-2010 are classified as non-violent and involve either property or simple assault offenses. Property offenses account for over four-fifths of the total of non-violent crimes with the largest portion associated with larceny/theft followed by burglaries.17 Non-violent crimes overall have increased in the period by 34%. 16 Per 1,000 resident estimates are based on American Canyon’s projected population of 19,693 as of January 1, 2011. 17 Larceny/theft offenses in American Canyon between 2005 and 2009 accounted for 52% of all non-violent crimes. Burglaries during this period accounted for 21% of all non-violent crimes. 29 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County • Trends in Violent Crimes Violent crimes continue to represent a relatively small portion of the overall offense totals (eight percent) despite significantly increasing in American Canyon by 84% between 2005-2006 and 2009-2010. Aggravated assault offenses constitute 57% of all violent crimes during this period. Murder rates in American Canyon have been low with three total homicides during the period; all of which occurred in 2007-2008. • Trends in Clearance Rates Clearance rates overall have fluctuated between 2005-2006 and 2009-2010 from a low of 27% to a high of 43% in terms of reported crimes resulting in an arrest or determined to be unfounded. The average overall clearance rate is 36%. The clearance rate for violent crimes averages 58%, which is lowest among all local law enforcement agencies. • Jurisdictional Comparisons: Reported Crimes ACPD’s five-year averages between 2005-2006 and 2009-2010 for violent crimes and property crimes total 45 and 417, respectively. These amounts are lower than the respective national averages of 49 violent crimes and 499 property crimes for similarly sized jurisdictional agencies as measured by population during the period.18 • Jurisdictional Comparisons: Clearance Rates ACPD’s five-year averages between 2005-2006 and 2009-2010 for clearing violent crimes and property crimes are 58% and 26%, respectively. These clearance rates are both higher than the national averages of 53% and 21% for similarly sized jurisdictional agencies as measured by population during the period. ACPD Service Characteristics: Service Calls and Crime Totals Table III/I; Source: ACPD and United States Department of Justice Category 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Average Trend Service Calls 15,511 19,047 17,544 16,883 16,716 17,140 +7.8% Total Reported Crimes 471 370 588 647 647 544.6 +37.4% Violent Crimes 32 28 51 53 59 44.6 +84.4% Simple Assault Crimes 94 70 102 77 70 82.6 -25.5% Property Crimes 345 272 435 517 518 417.4 +50.1% Total Clearances 189 112 160 250 280 198.2 +48.1% Violent Crimes 17 11 33 36 39 27.2 +129.4% Simple Assault Crimes 74 47 64 69 61 63.0 -17.6% Property Crimes 98 54 63 145 180 108.0 +83.7% Clearances to Crimes % 40.1 30.3 27.2 38.6 43.3 36.4 +8.0% Violent Crimes 53.1 39.3 64.7 67.9 66.1 61.0 +24.5% Simple Assault Crimes 78.7 67.1 62.7 89.6 87.1 76.3 +10.7% Property Crimes 28.4 19.9 14.5 28.0 34.7 25.9 +22.2% 18 The comparison against national averages involves law enforcement agencies with service populations ranging between 10,000 and 24,999. 30 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County 2.0 City of Calistoga Calistoga was incorporated in 1886 as a general law municipality. It is approximately 2.6 square miles in size and provides a full range of municipal services directly or through agreements with outside contractors; no special districts overlap Calistoga with the exception of five countywide districts that provide mosquito abatement, flood control, park and recreation, farmworker housing, and resource conservation services. Calistoga currently has 43.0 fulltime equivalent employees. Calistoga is the second smallest of five municipalities in Napa County as measured by residents with a current population of 5,188 as estimated by the California Department of Finance. Calistoga has experienced negative growth over the last 10 years as its population has decreased by 0.7% or 0.1% annually. This decline in population is presumably attributed to an influx of single-family residences being converted to bed/breakfast establishments. Calistoga’s population density is 1,995 residents for every square mile; the second lowest figure among all five municipalities. Resident Population in Calistoga Table III/J; Source: California Department of Finance 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Trend 5,225 5,238 5,177 5,183 5,218 5,253 5,284 5,335 5,370 5,188 -0.7% 2.1 Planning Policies Map Three Calistoga’s General Plan was comprehensively updated in 2003 and codifies land use policies for the City through 2020. The General Plan outlines a vision statement for Calistoga to remain a walkable small town with an eclectic commercial main street along with pedestrian- oriented neighborhoods that will continue to be attractive to visitors. Towards this end, the General Plan includes several unique growth control policies, such as discouraging the annexation of adjacent unincorporated lands, and as such, does not designate or prezone any unincorporated lands. Calistoga recently established an allocation system to better control the annual rate of residential and non-residential growth in the City. Notably, this allocation system restricts the number of approved residential projects to ensure no more than a 1.35% annual increase in population. Allocations are subject to an application process and formally awarded by the City Council. Notably, no allocations were awarded for 2011 due to a lack of application activity. 31 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County Calistoga’s General Plan orients development within the City Residential Uses in Calistoga to include a perimeter of rural to low density residential uses. Table III/K; Source: DOF Single-Family 51% Medium to high density residential along with public and Mobile Home 26% commercial uses are directed within the City core. Residential Multi-Family 23% density allowances range from one to 20 housing units per acre. There are currently 2,319 housing units in Calistoga. These units are divided in order of volume between single-family at 51%, mobile homes at 26%, and multi-family at 23%. Housing units overall have decreased by 0.4% over the last five years declining by 10 since 2007 with the change largely attributed to 10 demolition/rebuild projects between 2007 and 2011. Housing Units in Calistoga Table III/L; Source: California Department of Finance Type 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Trend Total 2,329 2,341 2,342 2,343 2,319 -0.4% -Single-Family 1,174 1,185 1,184 1,185 n/a +0.9% -Multi-Family 551 551 551 551 n/a +0.0% -Mobile 604 605 607 607 n/a +0.5% Vacant (%) 9.15 9.14 9.14 9.13 12.94 +41.4% Map Four Calistoga’s sphere of influence was last updated by the Commission in 2008 and is nearly coterminous with the City’s jurisdictional boundary with the exception of 5.3 acres of unincorporated land located adjacent to the southeast panhandle section occupying a City owned wastewater holding site. Calistoga, however, does maintain water service connections that extend beyond the sphere, principally serving residential uses located along Tubbs Lane and Petrified Forest Road. Most of these outside connections were established prior to CKH. Any new or extended services outside Calistoga would require Commission approval under Government Code 56133. 32 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County 2.2 Finances Calistoga’s current General Fund operating expenses Calistoga collects more in transient are budgeted at $6.3 million; an amount representing a occupancy taxes than any other per capita expenditure of $1,209. The largest municipality in Napa County as discretionary operating expenses are dedicated to measured on a per capita basis with the police services ($2.3 million) and support services exception of the Town of Yountville. ($1.0 million). General Fund operating revenues are budgeted at $6.9 million with more than one-half ($3.5 million) expected to be drawn from transient occupancy tax proceeds. Towards this end, on a regional level, Calistoga collects more in transient occupancy taxes than any other municipality in Napa County as measured on a per capita basis with the exception of the Town of Yountville at $601.19 Property tax revenues are projected to represent the second largest discretionary revenue source for Calistoga accounting for over one-fifth ($1.6 million) of the total budgeted amount. Calistoga’s General Fund Revenues and Expenses Table III/M; Source: City of Calistoga 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Actual Actual Estimated Estimated Budgeted Budgeted Revenues Expenses Revenues Expenses Revenues Expenses $7.208 $7.168 $6.811 $6.625 $6.921 $6.274 Dollars in Millions /Amounts as of July 1st Calistoga’s most recently completed audit is for the 2009-2010 fiscal year. A review of these audited financial statements reflect Calistoga experienced a moderate positive change in its agency wide equity increasing by 2.8% or $0.5 million between 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 from $28.6 to $29.3 million. The financial statements, however, note the unrestricted portion of the overall fund balance significantly decreased in value over the preceding 12- month period by 15.1% or $0.1 million to $0.6 million. The financial statements, in terms of ratios, also provide that Calistoga finished the last audited fiscal year with relatively low liquidity as its total current assets equal 1.4 times its current liabilities. Moreover, Calistoga also finished the last audited fiscal year holding a sizable amount of long-term obligations relative to its net assets as measured by its debt-to-equity of 72%, reflecting a leveraged capital position. The operating margin finished negative at -15.4% due to excess expenses over revenues. Financial Measurements for Calistoga Based on Last Audit (2009-2010) Table III/N; Source: Napa LAFCO Current Ratio Debt-to-Net Assets Operating Margin (Liquidity) (Capital) (Profitability) 1.4 to One 72.0% -15.4% 19 The State Controller’s most recently published Cities Annual Report notes Calistoga’s per capita transient occupancy tax collection was $601. This amount is second locally to Yountville’s per capita collection total of $935 and surpassed the collection total amounts for County of Napa at $294, St. Helena at $188, Napa at $105, and American Canyon at $28. 33 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County Calistoga’s 2009-2010 audited financial statements identify the City’s General Fund year-end balance for all unreserved/undesignated as well as emergency/contingency accounts totaling $0.9 million. This year-end amount equals over one month of general operating expenditures during the fiscal year.20 This year-end amount available to be allocated feely by the City Council has also increased over the last five audited fiscal years by over triple. Calistoga’s Audited General Fund Balances Table III/O; Source: City of Calistoga Category 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Trend Reserved 1.540 1.559 0.589 0.448 0.000 -100.0% Unreserved/Emergency Designated 0.253 0.327 1.101 0.941 0.933 +268.8% Unreserved/Undesignated 0.000 0.000 0.021 0.000 0.000 +0.0% Total $1.793 $1.886 $1.711 $1.389 $0.933 -48.0% Dollars in Millions /Amounts as of July 1st 2.3 Law Enforcement Services Available Resources Calistoga is directly responsible for providing the majority of law enforcement services provided in the City; other related services such as special weapons and tactics are provided by mutual agreement with the County of Napa. Calistoga’s law enforcement services are provided by its own Police Department (“CPD”), which currently is budgeted with 15.0 full- time equivalent employees divided between 11 sworn and four support personnel. Sworn personnel include a police chief, two sergeants, and eight officers. Support personnel include four full- time and three part-time dispatchers. CPD’s organizational structure comprises four CPD Self Contract distinct divisions: 1) administration; 2) operations; 3) Dispatch code enforcement; and 4) records/dispatch services. Patrol Investigations Operations is the largest of the four divisions and is Parking Enforcement set up to include two patrol units during the day and Animal Control two patrol units during the night. One officer is Specialized: assigned to each patrol unit with all marked vehicles - Search and Rescue equipped with multi-frequency radio and video.21 - Special Weapons / Tactics - Bomb Squad Operations personnel generally work three 12-hour - Canine Deployment shifts one week followed by three 12-hour and one - Short-Term Holding eight-hour shift the next week totaling 80 hours - Long-Term Holding every two weeks. CPD operates its own short-term - Gang Unit holding facility with a maximum detainee capacity of six. Long-term holding is provided by the County of Napa’s Department of Corrections. 20 Calistoga’s General Fund operating expenses in 2009-2010 totaled $6.6 million. 21 CPD reports all vehicles are replaced every five to six years irrespective of mileage. 34 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County CPD’s approved operating expenses in 2011-2012 total $2.32 million. This amount is entirely funded through Calistoga’s General Fund and accounts for 37% of the City’s budgeted operating expenses. CPD’s overall per capita cost is $447. CPD’s Facilities, Equipment, and Resources Table III/P; Source: CPD Facilities Location Size Built 1) Administration / 1235 Washington Street 3,072 square feet 1991 Operations Building Calistoga 94515 Marked/Unmarked Vehicles Motorcycles Bicycles Watercrafts Helicopters 8 0 1 0 0 2010-11 2011-12 Sworn Staff Canines Support Staff Actual Exp. Adopted Exp. 11 1 4 $1.74 Million $2.32 Million 2.1 / 0.2 / 0.8 / $334,811 / $447,186 / 1,000 Residents 1,000 Residents 1,000 Residents 1,000 Residents 1,000 Residents Demand on Resources CPD reports it has experienced an approximate six CPD Snapshot: FY2006 to FY2010 percent decrease in total annual service calls between Table III/Q; Source: Napa LAFCO 2005-2006 and 2009-2010. This produces a relatively Change in Service Calls -5.8% high five-year average of 1,364 calls for every 1,000 - Avg. Calls / 1,000 residents 1,364 Change in Total Crimes -13.8% residents compared to the other law enforcement - Avg. Crimes / 1,000 residents 30 agencies.22 Actual reported crimes have experienced Avg. Clearance Rate 30.5% a similar decrease by declining nine percent during Calls to Crimes Ratio 44 the same period with the five-year average resulting in 30 reported crimes for every 1,000 residents. Further, with regard to the relationship between service calls and reported crimes, the five-year average in Calistoga resulted in one reported crime for every 44 service calls. A summary of service demands on CPD between 2005-2006 and 2009-2010 follows. • Trends in Reported Crimes Approximately 91% of reported crimes in Calistoga between 2005-2006 and 2009- 2010 are classified as non-violent and involve either property or simple assault offenses. Property offenses account for close to four-fifths of the total non-violent crimes with the largest portion involving larceny/theft followed by simple assault.23 Non-violent crimes overall have decreased during the period by 13%. 22 Per 1,000 resident estimates are based on Calistoga’s projected population of 5,188 as of January 1, 2011. 23 Larceny/theft offenses in Calistoga between 2005 and 2009 accounted for 56% of all non-violent crimes. Simple assault during this period accounted for 21% of all non-violent crimes. 35 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County • Trends in Violent Crimes Violent crimes continue to represent a relatively small portion of the overall offense totals (nine percent) and have significantly decreased in Calistoga by 25% between 2005-2006 and 2009-2010. Aggravated assault offenses constitute 82% of all violent crimes during this period. Murder rates in Calistoga during this period have been low with one total homicide, which occurred in 2009-2010. • Trends in Clearance Rates Clearance rates overall have fluctuated between 2005-2006 and 2009-2010 from a low of 25% to a high of 35% in terms of reported crimes resulting in an arrest or determined to be unfounded. The current average overall clearance rate is 31%. The clearance rate for violent crimes averages 82% and is the highest among all local law enforcement agencies. • Jurisdictional Comparisons: Reported Crimes CPD’s five-year averages between 2005-2006 and 2009-2010 for violent crimes and property crimes total 14 and 116, respectively. Both amounts both fall slightly above the respective national averages of 10 violent crimes and 107 property crimes for similarly sized jurisdictional agencies as measured by population during the period.24 • Jurisdictional Comparisons: Clearance Rates CPD’s five-year averages between 2005-2006 and 2009-2010 for clearing violent crimes and property crimes are 82% and 15%, respectively. This clearance rate for violent crimes is significantly higher than the national average of 57% for similarly sized jurisdictional agencies as measured by population during the period. Conversely, the clearance rate for property crimes is lower than the national average of 20% for similarly sized jurisdictional agencies. CPD Service Characteristics: Service Calls and Crime Totals Table III/R; Source: CPD and United States Department of Justice Category 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Average Trend Service Calls 7,187 6,728 7,439 7,261 6,767 7,076 -5.8% Total Reported Crimes 167 154 179 166 144 162.0 -13.8% Violent Crimes 16 8 23 12 12 14.2 -25.0% Simple Assault Crimes 33 40 28 34 22 31.4 -33.3% Property Crimes 118 106 128 120 110 116.4 -6.8% Total Clearances 50 49 45 52 51 49.4 +2.0% Violent Crimes 11 6 18 12 11 11.6 0.0% Simple Assault Crimes 23 28 11 26 16 20.8 -30.4% Property Crimes 16 15 16 14 24 17.0 +50.0% Clearances to Crimes % 29.9 31.8 25.1 31.3 35.4 30.5 +11.3% Violent Crimes 68.8 75.0 78.3 100.0 91.7 81.7 +33.3% Simple Assault Crimes 70.0 70.0 39.3 76.5 72.7 66.2 +3.9% Property Crimes 13.6 14.2 12.5 11.7 21.8 14.6 +60.3% 24 The comparison against national averages involves law enforcement agencies with service populations under 10,000. 36 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County 3.0 City of Napa Napa was incorporated in 1914 as a charter-law municipality.25 It is approximately 18.2 square miles in size and provides a full range of municipal services directly or through contracts with the notable exception of sewer, which is the responsibility of a separate governmental entity, the Napa Sanitation District. No other special districts overlap Napa with the exception of five countywide districts that provide mosquito abatement, flood control, park and recreation, farmworker housing, and resource conservation services. Napa currently has **** fulltime equivalent employees. Napa is the largest of five municipalities in Napa County as measured by permanent residents with a current population of 77,464 as estimated by the California Department of Finance. Napa has experienced the second largest rise in population among all five municipalities over the last 10 years with an overall increase of 4.6% or 0.5% annually. Napa’s population density is 4,256 residents for every square mile; the highest among all five municipalities with nearly 1,000 more residents per square mile than the next densest municipality. Resident Population in Napa Table III/S; Source: California Department of Finance 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Trend 74,054 74,736 75,701 75,772 76,094 76,247 76,857 77,917 78,791 77,464 +4.6% 3.1 Planning Policies Map Five Napa’s General Plan was comprehensively updated in 1998 and codifies land use and development policies for the City through 2020. Major and explicit land use objectives within the General Plan include engendering a small town atmosphere enhancing the residential character of existing neighborhoods paired with considerable focus on economic growth. The General Plan also emphasizes a commitment to contained urban development within Napa’s rural urban limit (RUL); an urban growth boundary that was established by the City Council in 1975 and has remained relatively unchanged over the last four decades.26 25 The City of Napa was originally incorporated in 1872 as a general law municipality. 26 The Napa City Council delegated the authority for making changes to the RUL to voters as part of a charter amendment adopted in 1999. 37 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County Napa’s General Plan divides lands within the RUL into 12 Residential Uses in Napa distinct planning areas with residential designations comprising Table III/T; Source: DOF the City’s north, east, and west perimeters. Residential density Single-Family 68% Multi-Family 27% allowances range from two to 40 housing units per acre. There Mobile Home 5% are currently 30,176 housing units in Napa divided between single-family comprising 68%, multi-family comprising 27%, and mobile homes comprising five percent. Housing units overall have increased by 1.0% over the last five years rising by 302 since 2007. Napa has also experienced a sizable increase in unoccupied residences, which are presumably attributed to foreclosures. Housing Units in Napa Table III/U; Source: California Department of Finance Type 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Trend Total 29,874 30,094 30,232 30,388 30,176 +1.0% -Single-Family 20,426 20,598 20,677 20,748 n/a +1.6% -Multi-Family 8,059 8,107 8,166 8,166 n/a +1.3% -Mobile 1,389 1,389 1,389 1,474 n/a +6.1% Vacant (%) 2.87 2.87 2.87 2.87 6.58 +129.3% Map Six Napa’s sphere of influence was last updated by the Commission in 2005 and is substantially coterminous with the City’s jurisdictional boundary. Exceptions include the inclusion of approximately 600 unincorporated acres within the sphere of influence divided between three prominent areas commonly referred to as “North Big Ranch Road,” “Ghisletta,” and “Napa State Hospital.” Napa also maintains close to 1,600 water service connections outside its sphere of influence with the majority located in the Montecito Boulevard area. Most of these outside connections were established prior to CKH. Any new or extended services outside Napa would require Commission approval under Government Code 56133. 38 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County 3.2 Finances Napa’s current General Fund operating expenses are On a regional level, only budgeted at $62.4 million; an amount representing a per American Canyon collects more capita expenditure of $805. The largest discretionary in property taxes than Napa as operating expenses are dedicated to police ($21.0 million) measured on a per capita basis. and fire protection services ($13.4 million). General Fund operating revenues are budgeted at $58.1 million with more than one-third ($21.4 million) expected to be drawn from property tax proceeds. Only American Canyon collects more in property taxes than Napa as measured on a per capita basis.27 Sales tax revenues are projected to represent the second largest discretionary revenue source for Napa accounting for over one-fifth ($12.0 million) of the total budgeted amount. Nonetheless, as reflected in the following table, Napa has incurred an operating deficit as of late due to the national economic downturn highlighted by declining general tax revenues. Napa’s General Fund Revenues and Expenses Table III/V; Source: City of Napa 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Actual Actual Estimated Estimated Budgeted Budgeted Revenues Expenses Revenues Expenses Revenues Expenses $58.188 $62.314 $56.904 $59.200 $58.147 $62.372 Dollars in Millions /Amounts as of July 1st Napa’s most recently completed audit is for the 2009-2010 fiscal year. A review of audited financial statements reflects Napa experienced a negative change in its agency wide equity decreasing by 0.3% or $1.7 million between 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 from $511.1 to $509.4 million. Financial statements also note the unrestricted portion of the overall fund balance decreased in value over the preceding 12-month period by 1.7% or $0.8 million to $45.6 million due to reduced revenues and drawdown on undesignated/unreserved funds to support service operations. Nonetheless, in terms of ratios, the financial statements provide that Napa finished the last audited fiscal year with a high amount of liquidity as its total current assets equal nearly eight times its current liabilities. Moreover, Napa also finished the last audited fiscal year holding a manageable amount of long-term obligations relative to its net assets as measured by its debt-to-equity of 22.9%. The operating margin finished negative at -1.2% due to excess expenses over revenues. Financial Measurements for Napa Based on Last Audit (2009-2010) Table III/W; Source: Napa LAFCO Current Ratio Debt-to-Net Assets Operating Margin (Liquidity) (Capital) (Profitability) 7.9 to One 22.9% -1.2% 27 The State Controller’s most recently published Cities Annual Report notes Napa’s per acre property tax collection was $1,244. This amount is second locally to American Canyon’s per acre collection total of $2,169 and surpassed the collection total amounts for St. Helena at $762, Calistoga at $716, Yountville at $560, and County of Napa at $105. 39 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County Napa’s 2009-2010 audited financial statements identify the City’s General Fund year-end balance for all unreserved/designated as well as emergency/contingency accounts totaling $11.0 million. This year-end amount equals two months of general operating expenditures during the fiscal year.28 This year-end amount available to be allocated freely by the City Council has also decreased over the last five audited fiscal years by over two-fifths. Napa’s Audited General Fund Balances Table III/X; Source: City of Napa Category 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Trend Reserved 1.874 1.838 2.127 1.911 2.877 +53.5% Unreserved/Designated 8.016 6.573 7.000 7.934 7.537 -6.0% Unreserved/Undesignated 10.991 19.933 17.652 8.236 3.458 -68.5% Total $20.881 $28.344 $26.779 $18.081 $13.872 -33.6% Dollars in Millions /Amounts as of July 1st 3.3 Law Enforcement Services Available Resources Napa is directly responsible for providing a full range of law enforcement services within the City with the exception of contracting with the County of Napa for specialized services ranging from animal control to special weapons and tactics. Napa’s law enforcement services are provided through the City’s own Police Department (“NPD”), which currently is budgeted with 125 full-time equivalent employees divided between 74 sworn and 51 support personnel. Sworn personnel include a police chief, two captains, two lieutenants, 10 sergeants, and 59 officers. Support personnel include 26 dispatchers. NPD provides dispatch services to County Sheriff, which in turn includes law enforcement services in the City of American Canyon and the Town of Yountville. NPD’s organizational structure comprises three NPD Self Contract distinct divisions: 1 operations; 2) support Dispatch services/dispatch; and 3) administration. Operations Patrol is the largest of the three divisions and is set up to Investigations Parking Enforcement include a minimum of four one-person patrol units Animal Control between 12:00 AM and 3:00 AM, three patrol units Specialized: between 3:00 AM and 6:30 AM, four patrol units - Search and Rescue between 6:30 AM and 1:30 PM, and five patrol units - Special Weapons / Tactics between 1:30 PM and 12:00 AM. Patrol personnel - Bomb Squad - Canine Deployment work either four 10-hour shifts or three 12.5-hour - Short-Term Holding shifts to offer seven day coverage and 40 hours total - Long-Term Holding each week.29 Long-term holding is provided by the - Gang Unit County of Napa Department of Corrections. 28 Napa’s General Fund operating expenses in 2009-2010 totaled $62.3 million. 29 NPD reports all vehicles are replaced every three years or between 85,000 and 100,000 miles. 40 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County NPD’s approved operating expenses in 2011-2012 total $17.70 million. This amount is entirely funded through Napa’s General Fund and accounts for 28% of the City’s budgeted operating expenses. NPD’s overall per capita cost is $228. NPD’s Facilities, Equipment, and Resources Table III/Y; Source: NPD Facilities Location Size Built 1) Administration / 1539 First Street 20,830 square feet 1959 Operations Building Napa 94559 Marked/Unmarked Vehicles Motorcycles Bicycles Watercrafts Helicopters 53 5 10 0 0 2010-11 2011-12 Sworn Staff Canines Support Staff Actual Exp. Adopted Exp. 74 2 51 $19.06 Million $17.70 Million 1.0 / 0.02 / 0.6 / $245,985 / $228,519 / 1,000 Residents 1,000 Residents 1,000 Residents 1,000 Residents 1,000 Residents Demand on Resources NPD reports it has experienced a two percent NPD Snapshot: FY2006 to FY2010 decrease in total annual service calls between 2005- Table III/Z; Source: Napa LAFCO 2006 and 2009-2010. This produces a relatively Change in Service Calls -2.3% moderate five-year average of 779 calls for every - Avg. Calls / 1,000 residents 779 Change in Total Crimes -13.2% 1,000 residents compared to other local law - Avg. Crimes / 1,000 residents 41 enforcement agencies.30 Actual reported crimes Avg. Clearance Rate 34.2% have experienced a more substantive decrease by Calls to Crimes Ratio 19 declining 13% during the same period with the five-year average resulting in 41 reported crimes for every 1,000 residents. Further, with regard to the relationship between service calls and reported crimes, the five-year average in Napa resulted in one reported crime for every 19 service calls. A summary of service demands on NPD between 2005-2006 and 2009-2010 follows. • Trends in Reported Crimes Approximately 90% of all reported crimes in Napa between 2005-2006 and 2009- 2010 are classified as non-violent and involve either property or simple assault offenses. Property offenses account for close to three-fourths of the total non- violent crimes with the largest contributor involving larceny/theft offenses followed by burglaries.31 Non-violent crimes overall have declined during the period by 11%. 30 Per 1,000 resident estimates are based on Napa’s projected population of 77,464 as of January 1, 2011. 31 Larceny/theft offenses in Napa between 2005 and 2009 accounted for 53% of all non-violent crimes. Burglaries during this period accounted for 14% of all non-violent crimes. 41 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County • Trends in Violent Crimes Violent crimes continue to represent a relatively small portion of the overall offense totals (10%) and have significantly decreased in Napa by 29% between 2005-2006 and 2009-2010. Aggravated assault offenses constitute 77% of all violent crimes during this period. Murder rates in Napa during this period have totaled six and represent exactly one-half of all countywide homicides. • Trends in Clearance Rates Clearance rates overall have fluctuated between 2005-2006 and 2009-2010 from a low of 31% to a high of 38% in terms of reported crimes resulting in an arrest or determined to be unfounded. The average overall clearance rate is 34%. The clearance rate for violent crimes averages 63% and is moderate relative to all local law enforcement agencies. • Jurisdictional Comparisons: Reported Crimes NPD’s five-year averages between 2005-2006 and 2009-2010 for violent crimes and property crimes total 306 and 2,095, respectively. This amount for violent crimes falls slightly below the national average of 310 for similarly sized jurisdictional agencies as measured by population during the period. Moreover, the amount for property crimes falls measurably below the national average of 2,486 for similarly sized jurisdictional agencies.32 • Jurisdictional Comparisons: Clearance Rates NPD’s five-year averages between 2005-2006 and 2009-2010 for clearing violent crimes and property crimes are 63% and 15%, respectively. This clearance rate for violent crimes is significantly higher than the national average of 46% for similarly sized jurisdictional agencies as measured by population during the period. Conversely, the clearance rate for property crimes is lower than the national average of 19% for similarly sized jurisdictional agencies. NPD Service Characteristics: Service Calls and Crime Totals Table III/AA; Source: NPD and United States Department of Justice Category 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Average Trend Service Calls 64,394 61,996 55,786 56,600 62,945 60,344 -2.3% Total Reported Crimes 3,202 3,348 3,509 2,896 2,779 3,146.8 -13.2% Violent Crimes 384 336 288 249 272 305.8 -29.2% Simple Assault Crimes 722 829 860 731 590 746.4 -18.3% Property Crimes 2,096 2,183 2,361 1,916 1,917 2,094.6 -8.5% Total Clearances 1,198 1,035 1,092 992 1,064 1,076.2 -11.2% Violent Crimes 279 204 172 151 172 195.6 -38.4% Simple Assault Crimes 654 585 579 528 491 567.4 -24.9% Property Crimes 265 246 341 313 401 313.2 +51.3% Clearances to Crimes % 37.4 30.9 31.1 34.3 38.3 34.2 +2.4% Violent Crimes 72.7 60.7 59.7 60.6 63.2 64.0 -13.1% Simple Assault Crimes 90.6 70.6 67.3 72.2 83.2 76.0 -8.2% Property Crimes 12.6 11.3 14.4 16.3 20.9 15.0 +65.9% 32 The comparison against national averages involves law enforcement agencies with service populations ranging between 50,000 and 99,999. 42 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County 4.0 City of St. Helena St. Helena was incorporated in 1876 as a general law municipality. It is approximately 5.1 square miles in size and provides a full range of municipal services directly or through agreements with outside contractors. No other special districts overlap St. Helena with the exception of five countywide districts that provide mosquito abatement, flood control, park and recreation, farmworker housing, and resource conservation services. St. Helena currently has 62.0 fulltime equivalent employees. St. Helena is the third largest municipality in Napa County as measured by permanent residents with a current population estimated by the California Department of Finance at 5,849. St. Helena has experienced the second largest fall in population among all five municipalities over the last 10 years with an overall decrease of three percent, or -0.3% annually; a dynamic presumably attributed to the influx of single-family residences being converted to bed and breakfast establishments. St. Helena’s population density is 1,156 residents for every square mile; the lowest among all five municipalities. Resident Population in St. Helena Table III/BB; Source: California Department of Finance 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Trend 6,013 6,042 5,977 5,960 5,942 5,936 5,905 5,969 6,010 5,849 -2.7% 4.1 Planning Policies The St. Helena General Plan was last comprehensively updated in 1993 Map Seven and codifies land use policies for the City through 2010; a new update is currently underway. The General Plan is predicated on maintaining the City’s existing small town character through a number of growth control measures. This includes establishing an urban limit line that comprises less than two-thirds of St. Helena’s incorporated boundary and designating the majority of properties within and along the perimeter of the City for agricultural use; a designation compatible with the influx of commercial vineyards located within the City limits. The substantive effect of these two growth control measures is a municipal-controlled greenbelt. The St. Helena General Plan also includes a number of discretionary elements highlighting particular areas of unique focus to the City, most notably tourism management. 43 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County Agricultural and open space uses serve as the predominant Residential Uses in St. Helena land use designation within the St. Helena General Plan Table III/CC; Source: DOF Single-Family 70% and provide the aforementioned greenbelt for its relatively Multi-Family 25% compact urban core. Residential density allowances range Mobile Home 5% from one to 20 housing units per acre. There are currently 2,775 housing units in St. Helena. These units are divided in order of volume between single-family at 70%, multi-family at 25%, and mobile homes at five percent. Housing units overall have increased by 0.5% over the last five years rising by 13 between 2007 and 2011. Further, a relatively large percentage of housing units in St. Helena have been consistently unoccupied, presumably reflecting a high number of secondary and/or vacation residences. Housing Units in St. Helena Table III/DD; Source: California Department of Finance Type 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Trend Total 2,762 2,745 2,749 2,751 2,775 +0.5% -Single-Family 1,906 1,906 1,910 1,912 n/a +0.3% -Multi-Family 694 694 694 694 n/a +0.0% -Mobile 162 145 145 145 n/a -10.5% Vacant (%) 12.06 12.06 12.04 12.03 13.51 +12.0% Map Eight St. Helena’s sphere of influence was last updated by the Commission in 2008 and is entirely coterminous with the City’s jurisdictional boundary with the exception of excluding Bell Reservoir. St. Helena, however, does maintain water service connections that extend beyond the sphere, principally serving residential uses in the Oak Knoll subdivision and commercial uses along State Highway 29 towards Rutherford. Most of these outside connections were established prior to CKH. Any new or extended services outside St. Helena would require Commission approval under Government Code 56133. 44 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County 4.2 Finances St. Helena’s current General Fund operating expenses are budgeted at $7.9 million; an amount representing a On a regional level, St. Helena per capita expenditure of $1,372. The largest collects more than double the discretionary operating expenses are dedicated to police combined sales tax collected among all ($2.4 million) and planning services ($0.9 million). other municipalities in Napa County as measured on a per capita basis. General Fund operating revenues are budgeted at $8.0 million with over one-half ($5.0 million) expected to be drawn from property and sales tax proceeds. Property tax revenues are projected to represent the largest discretionary revenue source for St. Helena accounting for over one- third ($2.9 million) of the total budgeted amount. Significantly, on a regional level, St. Helena collects more than double the combined sales tax collected among all other municipalities in Napa County as measured on a per capita basis.33 St. Helena’s General Fund Revenues and Expenses Table III/EE; Source: City of St. Helena 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Actual Actual Estimated Estimated Budgeted Budgeted Revenues Expenses Revenues Expenses Revenues Expenses $8.176 $7.899 $7.793 $7.187 $8.028 $7.903 Dollars in Millions /Amounts as of July 1st St. Helena’s most recently completed audit is for the 2009-2010 fiscal year. A review of audited financial statements reflects St. Helena experienced a negative change in its agency wide equity decreasing by 3.8% or $2.3 million between 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 from $59.1 to $56.8 million. Financial statements also note the unrestricted portion of the overall fund balance decreased in value over the preceding 12-month period by 15.5% or $1.6 million to $8.8 million. Nevertheless, in terms of ratios, the financial statements provide that St. Helena finished the last audited fiscal year with above average liquidity as its total current assets equal four times its current liabilities. St. Helena also finished the last audited fiscal year holding a manageable amount of long-term obligations relative to its net assets as measured by its debt-to-equity of 34%. The operating margin, however, finished negative at -50.5% due to excess expenses over revenues. Financial Measurements for St. Helena Based on Last Audit (2009-2010) Table III/FF; Source: Napa LAFCO Current Ratio Debt-to-Net Assets Operating Margin (Liquidity) (Capital) (Profitability) 4.1 to One 34.0% -50.5% 33 The State Controller’s most recently published Cities Annual Report notes St. Helena’s per capita sales tax collection was $305. This amount surpassed the collection total amounts for the County of Napa at $240, Yountville at $152, American Canyon at $138, Calistoga at $113, and Napa at $111. 45 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County St. Helena’s 2009-2010 audited financial statements identify the City’s General Fund year- end balance for all unreserved/undesignated as well as emergency/contingency accounts totaling $3.8 million. This year-end amount equals nearly six months of general operating expenditures during the fiscal year. 34 This year-end amount available to be allocated feely by the City Council has also decreased over the last five audited fiscal years by one-tenth. St. Helena’s Audited General Fund Balances Table III/GG; Source: City of St. Helena Category 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Trend Reserved n/a 0.804 n/a 0.578 0.369 -54.1% Unreserved/Designated n/a 1.246 n/a 1.268 1.074 -13.8% Unreserved/Undesignated n/a 3.123 n/a 3.411 2.329 -25.4% Total $4.195 $5.173 5.651 $5.257 $3.773 -10.1% Dollars in Millions /Amounts as of July 1st 4.3 Law Enforcement Services Available Resources St. Helena directly provides law enforcement services through its Police Department (SHPD). SHPD currently budgets 17 full-time equivalent employees divided between 11 sworn and six support personnel. Sworn personnel include a police chief and 10 officers, with the latter group alternating between 36-hour and 44-hour work weeks with shifts generally lasting 12 hours. Support personnel include four dispatchers and two community service officers. SHPD’s organizational structure is unique relative to SHPD Self Contract other local law enforcement agencies given it Dispatch Patrol comprises one blended patrol division in which all Investigations sworn personnel are responsible for multiple Parking Enforcement functions. This blended approach was recently Animal Control implemented and tasks each sworn officer with Specialized: performing patrol as well as investigations, traffic - Search and Rescue - Special Weapons / Tactics control, crime prevention, youth education, and - Bomb Squad community outreach. One of four sergeants and - Canine Deployment one of six officers are always on duty.35 SHPD - Short-Term Holding operates its own short-term holding facility with a - Long-Term Holding detainee capacity of eight. Long-term holding is - Gang Unit provided by the County of Napa Department of Corrections. SHPD’s approved operating expenses in 2011-2012 total $2.44 million. This amount is entirely funded through St. Helena’s General Fund and accounts for 31% of the City’s budgeted operating expenses. SHPD’s overall per capita cost is $417. 34 St. Helena’s General Fund operating expenses in 2009-2010 totaled $7.9 million. 35 SHPD reports all vehicles are replaced every 110,000 miles or five years. 46 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County SHPD’s Facilities, Equipment, and Resources Table III/HH; Source: SHPD Facilities Location Size Built 1) Administration / 1480 Main Street 5,000 square feet 1955 Operations Building St. Helena, CA 94574 Marked/Unmarked Vehicles Motorcycles Bicycles Watercrafts Helicopters 9 1 0 0 0 2010-11 2011-12 Sworn Staff Canines Support Staff Actual Exp. Adopted Exp. 11 1 6 $2.35 Million $2.44 Million 1.9 / 0.2 / 1.0 / $402,182 / $416,759 / 1,000 Residents 1,000 Residents 1,000 Residents 1,000 Residents 1,000 Residents Demand on Resources SHPD reports it has experienced a three percent SHPD Snapshot: FY2006 to FY2010 increase in total annual service calls between 2005- Table III/II; Source: Napa LAFCO 2006 and 2009-2010. This produces an extremely Change in Service Calls +2.5% high five-year average of 1,764 calls for every 1,000 - Avg. Calls / 1,000 residents 1,764 Change in Total Crimes -40.0% residents compared to other local law enforcement - Avg. Crimes / 1,000 residents 18 agencies.36 Actual reported crimes have experienced Avg. Clearance Rate 22.4% a more substantive increase by rising 40% during the Calls to Crimes Ratio 94 same period with the five-year average resulting in 18 reported crimes for every 1,000 residents. Further, with respect to the relationship between service calls and actual reported crimes, service calls in St. Helena resulted in one reported crime for every 94 service calls. A summary of service demands on SHPD between 2005-2006 and 2009-2010 follows. • Trends in Reported Crimes Approximately 94% of all reported crimes in St. Helena between 2005-2006 and 2009-2010 are classified as non-violent and involve either property or simple assault offenses. Property offenses account for close to nine-tenths of the total non-violent crimes with the largest contributor involving larceny/theft followed by burglary.37 Non-violent crimes overall have declined during the period by 41%. • Trends in Violent Crimes Violent crimes continue to represent a relatively small portion of the overall offense totals (six percent) and have decreased in St. Helena by 20% between 2005-2006 and 2009-2010. Aggravated assault offenses constitute 93% of all violent crimes during this period. There have been no murders in St. Helena during this period. 36 Per 1,000 resident estimates are based on St. Helena’s projected population of 5,849 as of January 1, 2011. 37 Larceny/theft offenses in St. Helena between 2005 and 2009 accounted for 55% of all non-violent crimes. Burglaries during this period accounted for 27% of all non-violent crimes. 47 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County • Trends in Clearance Rates Clearance rates overall have fluctuated between 2005-2006 and 2009-2010 from a low of 17% to a high of 34% in terms of reported crimes resulting in an arrest or determined to be unfounded. The average overall clearance rate is 23%. The clearance rate for violent crimes averages 63% and is moderate relative to all local law enforcement agencies. • Jurisdictional Comparisons: Reported Crimes SHPD’s five-year averages between 2005-2006 and 2009-2010 for violent crimes and property crimes total seven and 92, respectively. These amounts both fall below the respective national averages of 10 violent crimes and 107 property crimes for similarly sized jurisdictional agencies as measured by population during the period.38 • Jurisdictional Comparisons: Clearance Rates SHPD’s five-year averages between 2005-2006 and 2009-2010 for clearing violent crimes and property crimes are 63% and 13%, respectively. This clearance rate for violent crimes is significantly higher than the national average of 53% for similarly sized jurisdictional agencies as measured by population during the period. Conversely, the clearance rate for property crimes is lower than the national average of 21% for similarly sized jurisdictional agencies. SHPD Service Characteristics: Service Calls and Crime Totals Table III/JJ; Source: SHPD and United States Department of Justice Category 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Average Trend Service Calls 8,965 9,655 12,355 11,441 9,188 10,320 +2.5% Total Reported Crimes 145 102 112 102 87 109.6 -40.0% Violent Crimes 5 14 8 3 4 6.8 -20.0% Simple Assault Crimes 11 14 14 9 6 10.8 -45.5% Property Crimes 129 74 90 90 77 92.0 -40.3% Total Clearances 24 35 30 17 17 24.6 -29.2% Violent Crimes 2 10 5 2 3 4.4 +50.0% Simple Assault Crimes 6 10 13 8 5 8.4 -16.7% Property Crimes 16 15 12 7 9 11.8 -43.8% Clearances to Crimes % 16.6 34.3 26.8 16.7 19.5 22.4 +17.5% Violent Crimes 40.0 71.4 62.5 66.7 75.0 64.7 +87.5% Simple Assault Crimes 54.5 71.4 92.9 88.9 83.3 77.8 +52.8% Property Crimes 12.4 20.3 13.3 7.8 11.7 12.8 -5.6% 38 The comparison against national averages involves law enforcement agencies with service populations under 10,000. 48 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County 5.0 Town of Yountville The Town of Yountville was incorporated in 1965 as a general law municipality. It is approximately 1.5 square miles in size and provides a full range of municipal services directly or through agreements with outside contractors; no special districts overlap Yountville with the exception of five countywide districts that provide mosquito abatement, flood control, park and recreation, farmworker housing, and resource conservation services. Yountville currently has 24.0 fulltime equivalent employees. Yountville is the smallest of the five municipalities in Napa County as measured by residents with a current population estimated at 2,997 by the California Department of Finance. Yountville has experienced the largest decline in population among all five municipalities over the last 10 years with an overall decrease of nine percent, or close to one percent annually. The decline in population appears to be largely attributed to a rise in second home ownership. Yountville’s population density is 1,998 residents for every square mile; the third highest figure among all five municipalities. Resident Population in Yountville Table III/KK; Source: California Department of Finance 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Trend 3,294 3,282 3,259 3,241 3,248 3,271 3,257 3,267 3,257 2,997 -9.0% 5.1 Planning Policies Map Nine Yountville’s General Plan was most recently updated in 1992 and codifies land use objectives and related policies for the Town through 2020.39 The General Plan is predicated on preserving the Town’s small-town character along with protecting surrounding agricultural and open-space lands. This includes an explicit policy statement to support Napa County’s Agricultural Lands Preservation Initiative (“Measure P”) and maintaining the existing incorporated boundary by discouraging sphere of influence amendments and the annexation of any adjacent agricultural lands. This policy statement is reflected, among other ways, in Yountville’s decision not to designate or prezone any lands outside its jurisdictional boundary. 39 Yountville’s General Plan was initially adopted in 1966 and oriented to plan and promote new urban growth extending as far north as Oakville with an expected population of 30,000 by 1985. The General Plan was initially updated in 1975 to significantly scale back anticipated growth and to emphasize a desire to retain the Town’s rural character. 49 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County Yountville’s General Plan orients development within the Residential Uses in Yountville Town on a traditional grid system in which Washington Table III/LL; Source: DOF Single-Family 68% Street serves as the focal point of most commercial and civic Mobile Home 26% uses. Significantly, nearly one-half of Yountville’s Multi-Family 6% jurisdictional boundary is dedicated to public uses tied mostly to the State of California Veteran’s Home and its approximately 1,300 residents; markedly, Yountville does not have land use authority to the Veteran’s Home properties, which account for close to one-half of its total jurisdictional boundary. Residential density allowances range from one to 10 units per acre. There are currently 1,280 total housing units in Yountville. These units are divided in order of volume between single-family at 68%, mobile-home at 26%, and multi-family at 6%. Yountville’s housing units overall have increased by 7.2% over the last five years rising by 86 since 2007 with the change attributed to a concerted policy effort to increase affordable housing units along with a rise in second home ownership. Housing Units in Yountville Table III/MM; Source: California Department of Finance Type 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Trend Total 1,194 1,195 1,194 1,197 1,280 +7.2% -Single-Family 808 809 810 811 n/a +0.4% -Multi-Family 78 78 76 78 n/a +0.0% -Mobile 308 308 308 308 n/a +0.0% Vacant (%) 7.87 7.87 7.87 7.85 16.09 +204.4% Map Ten Yountville’s sphere of influence was last updated by the Commission in 2007 and is entirely coterminous with the Town’s jurisdictional boundary. Nonetheless, as noted in the associated report prepared for the referenced update, Yountville does provide water services outside its sphere of influence. The majority of Yountville’s outside water service connections involves single-family residences and were established prior to CKH. This includes multiple residences located along Yountville Cross Road and Silverado Trail. It appears water services to these residences are generally limited to domestic uses, although many of the affected properties may also be irrigating for purposes of landscaping and vineyard use. There are also several commercial customers along Yountville Cross Road receiving outside water service from Yountville. Yountville also provides sewer service outside its sphere of influence to Domaine Chandon. Any new or extended services outside Yountville would require Commission approval under Government Code 56133. 50 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County 5.2 Finances Yountville’s current General Fund operating expenses are On a regional level, Yountville budgeted at $5.6 million; an amount representing a per collects more in transient capita expenditure of $1,882. The largest discretionary occupancy taxes than any other expenses are dedicated to law enforcement ($0.8 million) municipality in Napa County as and planning ($0.5 million). General Fund operating measured on a per capita basis. revenues are budgeted at $6.2 million with more than three-fifths ($3.8 million) expected to be generated from transient occupancy tax proceeds. Notably, on a regional level, Yountville collects more in transient occupancy taxes than any other municipality in Napa County as measured on a per capita basis at $935.40 Property tax revenues are projected to represent the next largest discretionary revenue source for Yountville accounting for one-eighth ($0.8 million) of the total budgeted amount. Yountville’s General Fund Revenues and Expenses Table III/NN; Source: Town of Yountville 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Actual Actual Estimated Estimated Budgeted Budgeted Revenues Expenses Revenues Expenses Revenues Expenses $5.647 $4.978 $6.481 $5.917 $6.225 $5.640 Dollars in Millions /Amounts as of July 1st Yountville’s most recently completed audit is for the 2010-2011 fiscal year. A review of audited financial statements reflects Yountville experienced a slight positive change in its agency wide equity increasing by 1.6% or $0.5 million between 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 from $31.8 to $32.3 million. The financial statements, however, note the unrestricted portion of the overall fund balance decreased modestly in value over the previous 12-month period by 2.6% or $0.2 million to $5.6 million. In terms of assessing ratios, the financial statements note Yountville finished the last audited fiscal year with average liquidity as its current assets (cash, investments, accounts receivable) equal over three times its current liabilities (accounts payable, accrued expenses, grants payable). Yountville also finished the last audited fiscal year holding a manageable amount of long-term obligations relative to its net assets as measured by its debt-to-equity of 38%, reflecting available capital to leverage. The operating margin also finished positive at 13.3%. Financial Measurements for Yountville Based on Last Audited Fiscal Year (2010-2011) Table III/OO; Source: Napa LAFCO Current Ratio Debt-to-Net Assets Operating Margin (Liquidity) (Capital) (Profitability) 3.0 to One 38.0% 13.3% 40 The per capita transient occupancy amount of $935 is based on the State Controller Office’s most recently published Cities Annual Report. 51 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County Yountville’s 2010-2011 audited financial statements identify the Town’s General Fund year- end balance for all unreserved/unrestricted/emergency/contingency accounts totaling $1.5 million. This year-end amount equals slightly less than three months of general operating expenditures for the fiscal year.41 This year-end amount available to be allocated freely by the Town Council has also increased over the last five audited fiscal years by over double. Yountville’s Audited General Fund Balances Table III/PP; Source: Town of Yountville Category 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 Trend Restricted/Committed/Assigned 0.240 0.167 0.200 1.599 0.223 -7.1% Unreserved/Unrestricted/Contingencies 0.685 0.825 1.025 0.577 1.499 +118.8% Total $0.925 $1.092 $1.225 $2.176 $1.822 +97.0% 5.3 Law Enforcement Services Available Resources Yountville indirectly provides law enforcement services through a long-standing contract relationship with the County of Napa. This contractual relationship was established at the time of Yountville’s incorporation in 1965 and provides continual law enforcement coverage through a County Sheriff substation (“Yountville Station”) located within the Town. Coverage includes patrol, investigations, and traffic control as well as related support services, including records management and vehicle issuance and maintenance. The contract has been periodically updated to reflect new service levels as requested by the Town Council. Yountville is the only municipality in Napa County, notably, that does not operate its own police department. Yountville currently contracts with County Sheriff to Yountville Self Contract staff the Yountville Station with four fulltime sworn Dispatch Patrol officers. This includes one sergeant and three Investigations deputies with the former serving as supervisor for all Parking Enforcement patrol related activities. The sergeant assigned to the Animal Control Specialized: Yountville Station is determined by the Sheriff’s - Search and Rescue Office in consultation with the Town Council. The - Special Weapons / Tactics - Bomb Squad assigned sergeant is responsible for preparing a - Canine Deployment quarterly report to the Town Manager on all related - Short-Term Holding - Long-Term Holding law enforcement activities and attends Town Council - Gang Unit meetings as needed. All four sworn officers – the sergeant and three deputies – work 40 hours each week by way of four 10 hour shifts. Dispatch services to the Yountville Station are provided by the City of Napa through a separate contract with County Sheriff. The Yountville Station operates Monday through Sunday with 24-hour law enforcement coverage. Any service calls generated for Yountville during non-operating hours are redirected by dispatch to the next closest County Sheriff patrol. Long-term holding is provided by the County of Napa’s Department of Corrections. 41 Yountville’s General Fund operating expenses in 2010-2011 totaled $6.1 million. 52 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County Yountville’s contact for County Sheriff law enforcement services in 2011-2012 totals $0.8 million. This amount is entirely funded through Yountville’s General Fund and accounts for 14.9% of the Town’s budgeted operating expenses. Yountville’s overall per capital law enforcement cost is $280. Yountville’s Facilities, Equipment, and Resources Table III/QQ; Source: County Sheriff Facilities Location Size Built 1) Yountville Regional Office 1950 Mulberry Street 850 square feet 2009 Yountville, CA 94599 Marked/Unmarked Vehicles Motorcycles Bicycles Watercrafts Helicopters 4 0 2 0 0 2010-11 2011-12 Sworn Staff Canines Support Staff Actual Exp. Adopted Exp. 4 0 0 $0.81 Million $0.84 Million 1.3 / 0 / 0 / $250,844 / $279,833 / 1,000 Residents 1,000 Residents 1,000 Residents 1,000 Residents 1,000 Residents * All facilities, transportation pool, and personnel contracted with the County Sheriff Demand on Resources County Sheriff reports Yountville has experienced Yountville Snapshot: FY2006 to FY2010 a three percent increase in total annual service calls Table III/RR; Source: Napa LAFCO between 2005-2006 and 2009-2010. This produces Change in Service Calls +3.3% - Avg. Calls / 1,000 residents 685 a relatively low five-year average of 685 calls for Change in Total Crimes -23.7% every 1,000 residents compared to other local law - Avg. Crimes / 1,000 residents 21 enforcement agencies.42 Actual reported crimes Avg. Clearance Rate 33.1% have also experienced a decrease by declining 24% Calls to Crimes Ratio 32 during the same period with the five-year average resulting in 21 reported crimes for every 1,000 residents. Further, with respect to the relationship between service calls and actual reported crimes, service calls in Yountville resulted in one reported crime for every 32 service calls. A summary of service demands in Yountville between 2005-2006 and 2009-2010 follows. • Trends in Reported Crimes Approximately 95% of all reported crimes in Yountville between 2005-2006 and 2009-2010 are classified as non-violent and involve either property or simple assault offenses. Property offenses account for close to four-fifths of the total non-violent crimes with the largest contributor involving larceny/theft followed by burglaries.43 Non-violent crimes overall have decreased during the period by 26%. 42 Per 1,000 resident estimates are based on Yountville’s projected population of 2,997 as of January 1, 2011. 43 Larceny/theft offenses in Yountville between 2005 and 2009 accounted for 57.6% of all non-violent crimes. Burglaries during this period accounted for 17.5% of all non-violent crimes. 53 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County • Trends in Violent Crimes Violent crimes continue to represent a relatively small portion of the overall offense totals (five percent) although they have increased in Yountville by 33% between 2005-2006 and 2009-2010. Aggravated assault offenses constitute 67% of all violent crimes during this period. There have been no murders during this period. • Trends in Clearance Rates Clearance rates overall have drastically fluctuated between 2005-2006 and 2009-2010 from a low of 22% to a high of 57% in terms of reported crimes resulting in an arrest or determined to be unfounded. The average overall clearance rate is 33%. The clearance rate for violent crimes averages 60% and is moderate relative to all local law enforcement agencies. • Relationship to County Service calls within Yountville represent approximately eight percent of the average annual totals for the County Sheriff. This relationship is nearly identical to the proportion of reported crimes for the County Sheriff generated in Yountville. • Jurisdictional Comparisons: Reported Crimes Yountville’s five-year averages between 2005-2006 and 2009-2010 for violent crimes and property crimes total three and 48, respectively. These amounts both fall below the respective national averages of 10 violent crimes and 107 property crimes for similarly sized jurisdictional agencies as measured by population during the period.44 • Jurisdictional Comparisons: Clearance Rates Yountville’s five-year averages between 2005-2006 and 2009-2010 for clearing violent crimes and property crimes are 60% and 21%, respectively. This clearance rate for violent crimes is marginally higher than the national average of 53% for similarly sized jurisdictional agencies as measured by population during the period. The clearance rate for property crimes equals the national average of 21% for similarly sized jurisdictional agencies. Yountville Service Characteristics: Service Calls and Crime Totals Table III/SS; Source: County Sheriff and United States Department of Justice Category 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Average Trend Service Calls 2,021 2,151 2,110 1,889 2,087 2,051.6 +3.3% Total Reported Crimes 76 51 76 56 58 63.4 -23.7% Violent Crimes 3 2 5 1 4 3.0 +33.3% Simple Assault Crimes 19 9 13 10 11 12.4 -42.1% Property Crimes 54 40 58 45 43 48.0 -20.4% Total Clearances 43 11 22 15 14 21.0 -67.4% Violent Crimes 3 1 3 1 1 1.8 -66.7% Simple Assault Crimes 16 3 10 9 8 9.2 -50.0% Property Crimes 24 7 9 5 5 10.0 -79.2% Clearances to Crimes % 56.6 21.6 28.9 26.8 24.1 33.1 -57.4% Violent Crimes 100.0 50.0 60.0 100.0 25.0 60.0 -75.0% Simple Assault Crimes 84.2 33.3 76.9 90.0 72.7 74.2 -13.7% Property Crimes 44.4 17.5 15.5 11.1 11.6 20.8 -73.9% 44 The comparison against national averages involves law enforcement agencies with service populations under 10,000. 54 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County 6.0 County of Napa The County of Napa (“County”) was established in 1850 as one of the original 27 county governments in California.45 Napa County itself is approximately 788.3 square miles in size making it the 11th smallest county in the state in terms of total land area. There are a total of 18 special districts that cover all or portions of the unincorporated area. Countywide services provided by special districts include mosquito abatement, flood control, park and recreation, farmworker housing, and resource conservation. Several smaller and regionalized special districts also provide water, sewer, street lighting and cleaning, and cemetery services. Napa County’s unincorporated area has a current population of 26,448 as estimated by the California Department of Finance. The unincorporated area has experienced an overall decrease in its resident population of six percent or 0.6% annually over the last 10 years; a decline that appears principally attributed to an influx of converting single-family residences to bed and breakfast establishments and secondary homes. The population density in the unincorporated area is 35 residents for every square mile; an amount that equals three percent of the least dense city (St. Helena) in Napa County. The County currently has 1,313.0 fulltime equivalent employees. Resident Population in Unincorporated Napa County Table III/TT; Source: California Department of Finance 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Trend 28,071 28,184 28,023 27,961 28,067 28,108 28,732 28,714 28,653 26,448 -5.8% 6.1 Planning Policies Map Eleven The County’s General Plan was last comprehensively updated in 2008 and codifies land use policies through 2030. The General Plan includes a vision statement for the County to moderate and direct growth in ways that minimize resource consumption and make the unincorporated area a sustainable rural community. The General Plan also incorporates and complements two voter initiatives strongly influencing growth in the unincorporated area commonly referred to as Measures “A” and “P.” Measure A was approved by voters in 1980 and subsequently re-adopted by the Board of Supervisors as an ordinance in 2000 and limits housing growth in the unincorporated area to 1% annually. Measure P was originally approved by voters in 1990 and subsequently extended in 2008 to prohibit the redesignation of unincorporated lands designated for agricultural or open space use to another category except by majority vote of the people through 2058. 45 Please note “County” refers to the governmental entity while “Napa County” refers to the geographic area. 55 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County The County’s General Plan directs the majority of urban Residential Uses in development within the five incorporated cities with the Unincorporated Napa County exception of a small number of unincorporated communities Table III/UU; Source: DOF that range in resident population from approximately 70 in Single-Family 91% Mobile Home 6% Oakville to approximately 920 in Berryessa Highlands. The Multi-Family 3% majority of the unincorporated area is designated for agriculture and open space use with minimum lot densities ranging from 40 to 160 acres. There are currently 12,314 housing units in the unincorporated area. These units are divided in order of volume between single-family at 91%, mobile homes at six percent, and multi- family at three percent. Housing units overall have increased by 3.4% in the unincorporated area over the last five years rising by 411 between 2007 and 2011. Further, a relatively large percentage of housing units in the unincorporated have remained unoccupied, presumably reflecting a high number of secondary residences. Housing Units in Unincorporated Napa County Table III/VV; Source: California Department of Finance Type 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Trend Total 11,903 11,984 12,028 11,961 12,314 +3.4% -Single-Family 10,810 10,866 10,902 10,903 n/a +0.9% -Multi-Family 361 363 363 361 n/a +0.0% -Mobile 732 755 763 697 n/a -4.8% Vacant (%) 14.59 14.59 14.59 14.59 21.97 +50.6% Map Twelve 56 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County 6.2 Finances The County’s current General Fund operating expenses are budgeted at $227.3 million; an amount representing a countywide per capita expenditure of $1,660.46 The largest discretionary operating expenses are dedicated to Sheriff ($24.1 million) and mental health services ($18.9 million). General Fund operating revenues are budgeted at $216.4 million with the majority expected to be drawn from property ($60.4 million) and transient occupancy ($9.0 million) tax proceeds. County of Napa’s General Fund Revenues and Expenses Table III/WW; Source: County of Napa 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Actual Actual Estimated Estimated Budgeted Budgeted Revenues Expenses Revenues Expenses Revenues Expenses $192.661 $184.687 $207.744 $223.688 $216.409 $227.344 Dollars in Millions /Amounts as of July 1st The County’s most recently completed audit is for the 2010-2011 fiscal year. A review of audited financial statements reflects the County experienced a positive change in its agency wide equity increasing by 6.6% or $21.9 million between 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 from $330.8 to $352.7 million; a rise principally attributed to excess property tax proceeds associated with the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund of “ERAF.” The financial statements, however, note the unrestricted portion of the overall fund balance decreased in value over the preceding 12-month period by 12.4% or $17.8 million from $143.2 to $125.4 million. In terms of assessing ratios, the financial statements note the County finished the last audited fiscal year with high liquidity as its current assets (cash, investments, accounts receivable) equal exactly 10 times its current liabilities (accounts payable, accrued expenses, grants payable). The County also finished the last audited fiscal year holding an average amount of long-term obligations relative to its net assets as measured by its debt-to-equity of 20%, reflecting available capital to leverage for purposes of funding new equipment or programs. The general operating margin finished positive at 10.2%. Financial Measurements for County of Napa Based on Last Audited Fiscal Year (2010-2011) Table III/XX; Source: Napa LAFCO Current Ratio Debt-to-Net Assets Operating Margin (Liquidity) (Capital) (Profitability) 10.1 to One 20.2% 10.2% 46 Budgeted expenses include a $6.0 million allocation to reserves. 57 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County The County’s 2010-2011 audited financial statements identify its General Fund year-end balance for all unreserved/unrestricted/emergency/contingency accounts totaling $23.1 million. This year-end amount has decreased by over two-fifths over the preceding five-year period as the County has relied these discretionary reserves to support and subsidize operating expenses. This year-end amount also equals just over one month of general operating expenditures for the fiscal year.47 County of Napa’s Audited General Fund Balances Table III/YY; Source: County of Napa Category 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 Trend Reserved 11.696 9.662 10.397 10.511 31.231 +167.0% Unreserved/Designated 22.981 20.617 25.017 23.015 34.081 +48.3% Unreserved/Undesignated 40.450 19.692 15.553 27.848 23.136 -42.8% Total $75.127 $49.971 $50.967 $61.374 $88.448 * +17.7% Dollars in Millions /Amounts as of July 1st * The change between 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 – $27.074 – is largely attributed to an accounting change mandated by GASB Statement No. 54 necessitating that the County begin booking its special revenue funds as part of its general fund beginning in fiscal year 2010-2011. 6.3 Law Enforcement Services Available Resources Sheriff-Coroner’s Office Law enforcement services provided by the County are primarily the responsibility of the County of Napa Sheriff-Coroner’s Office (“Sheriff”) and are generally divided between (a) field and (b) coroner/civil operations.48 The former includes patrol and detective services while the latter involves determining the manner and cause of all violent, sudden, or unusual deaths. Sheriff currently budgets 132 full-time equivalent employees divided between 104 sworn and 28 support personnel; this includes sworn personnel assigned to staff ACPD (23) and serve the Town of Yountville (4). Two-thirds of budgeted personnel are assigned to patrol services and are set up to include 10 units during the daytime, four units during the afternoon/evening, and five units during the graveyard shift. Patrol services include all of the unincorporated area with one deputy assigned to each unit with all marked vehicles equipped with multi-frequency radio and video.49 Patrol staff assigned to the unincorporated area work eight, 10, or 12 hours per shift totaling 80 hours every two weeks.50 The majority of non-sworn support personnel include staffing for the Technical Services Bureau, which is located in the Sheriff’s main operation facility in the 47 The County’s General Fund operating expenses in 2010-2011 totaled $200.4 million. 48 The County also provides correctional services on behalf of all other local law enforcement agencies in Napa County, which is run independent of the Sheriff and headed by a Board of Supervisors-appointed administrator. 49 As discussed, County Sheriff also provides patrol services on a contractual basis within American Canyon and Yountville. 50 Sheriff reports all vehicles are replaced every 90,000 miles. 58 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County airport area and is responsible for all document management activities as well as processing and clearing arrest warrants, fingerprinting, and registering sex and drug offenders. Other non-sworn support personnel provide staffing for the civil process division, which involves issuing court notices ranging from summons and complaints to restraining orders. Sheriff’s approved operating expenses in 2011-2012 total $24.15 million.51 Funding this amount is derived from three key revenue sources. The largest revenue source is the County General Fund, which is expected to cover close to one-half of the current fiscal year total. The remaining one-half of expected funding is to be generated from the Sheriff’s contracts with the City of American Canyon and the Town of Yountville for law enforcement services as well as proceeds generated from Proposition 172.52 Sheriff’s overall per capita cost as it relates to its unincorporated and contracted service areas is $492. Sheriff also provides specialized law enforcement services that are not otherwise available in Napa County. Full-time specialized services include animal control and drug-related investigations as summarized below.53 Animal Services Sheriff’s animal services capture strayed or abandoned animals as well as investigate dog bites, dangerous animal sightings, and animal neglect in the unincorporated area.54 Sheriff is also contracted separately to provide these animal services within the Cities of American Canyon and Napa. Sheriff is not contracted by the Cities of Calistoga, St. Helena, or the Town of Yountville to provide animal services, though Sheriff will respond to reported dog bites in those jurisdictions as a preventative measure against the spread of rabies.55 This division is currently staffed with five full-time animal service officers and one full-time administrative clerk with services available daily.56 Special Investigations Bureau Sheriff’s special investigations bureau (“NSIB”) is a countywide and multi-agency drug task force supervised and managed by the California Department of Justice Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement. NSIB is staffed by eight employees drawn from the Sheriff, NPD, and County of Napa Probation Department. Funding is shared by the County and the Cities of Calistoga, Napa, and St. Helena along with an annual allocation from 51 The budgeted amount covers general field operations only and does not include expenses tied to special services. 52 Expected service charges from the City of American Canyon and the Town of Yountville in 2011-2012 total $4.909 million and $0.834 million, respectively. Expected proceeds from Proposition 172 total $4.025 million. 53 Other specialized services provided by the Sheriff include overseeing a civil search and rescue unit consisting of 43 trained volunteers as well as a hazardous devices team comprising three volunteer deputies, all of whom must complete a six week bomb technician course. Sheriff also maintains its own special weapons and tactics (SWAT) team consisting of 14 volunteer deputies responsible for responding to critical incidents in which there is an immediate threat to life and property. SWAT team members must pass extensive interviews and physical tests before joining. 54 Captured strayed or abandoned animals are delivered to the County’s animal shelter, which is run by the County Environmental Management Department. 55 Sheriff’s animal services division adopted budget in 2011-2012 totals $0.866 million. More than one-fourth of the budgeted amount is expected to be drawn from service charges collected from the Cities of American Canyon and Napa with the remainder provided by the County. 56 Animal services division is staff seven days a week with one or more officers available between 6:00 AM and 10:00 PM. An on-call officer will respond to emergencies between 10:00 PM and 6:00 AM. 59 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County the United States Drug Enforcement Administration.57 NSIB’s principle activities include conducting covert investigations in arresting drug offenders as well as seizing contraband with time resources principally dedicated to addressing marijuana and methamphetamine operations. County Sheriff’s Facilities, Equipment, and Resources Table III/ZZ; Source: County Sheriff Facilities Location Size Built 1) Administration/Operations 1535 Airport Blvd 38,800 square feet 2005 Main Office Napa, CA 94558 2) Angwin 100 Howell Mountain Road 600 square feet n/a Regional Office Napa, CA 94558 3) Lake Berryessa 5520 Knoxville Road 620 square feet n/a Regional Office Napa, CA 94558 4) St. Helena 3111 N. Saint Helena Hwy 400 square feet n/a Regional Office St. Helena, CA 94574 Marked/Unmarked Vehicles Motorcycles Bicycles Watercrafts Helicopters 30 7 0 10 0 2010-11 2011-12 Sworn Staff Canines Support Staff Actual Exp. Adopted Exp. 77 3 28 $23.35 Million $24.15 Million 2.9 / 0.1 / 1.1 / $479,014 / $491,514/ 1,000 Residents 1,000 Residents 1,000 Residents 1,000 Residents 1,000 Residents Vehicle and staffing amounts are for the unincorporated area only Department of Corrections Additionally, and separate from the law enforcement services provided by the Sheriff, the County of Napa Department of Corrections (“Corrections”) is responsible for housing both sentenced and pre- sentenced inmates. Corrections was formed in 1975 and is currently one of three county correctional facilities not operated by its respective sheriff’s office in California. Corrections operates a single jail facility located adjacent to the County’s Administrative Building with a maximum rated capacity of 264 inmates. Staffing currently includes 132 employees divided between four distinct divisions: administration, operations, food services, and building maintenance.58 Civilian officers currently total 52. A director appointed by the County Board of Supervisors is responsible for managing day-to-day activities and ensuring compliance with minimum statewide standards required by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. 57 NSIB’s adopted budget in 2011-2012 totals $0.821 million. Close to three-fourths of this amount is funded by the County with the remainder largely shared by the Cities of Calistoga, Napa, and St. Helena. 58 Corrections adopted a 2011-2012 budget total of $12.717 million. 60 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County Demand on Resources Sheriff-Coroner’s Office The Sheriff reports it has experienced an County Sheriff Snapshot: approximate six percent increase in total annual FY2006 to FY2010 service calls between 2005-2006 and 2009-2010 for Table III/AAA; Source: Napa LAFCO Change in Service Calls +5.8% unincorporated Napa County. The overall totals - Avg. Calls / 1,000 residents 912 produce a relatively high five-year average of 912 Change in Total Crimes -11.4% calls for every 1,000 residents compared to other - Avg. Crimes / 1,000 residents 25 local law enforcement agencies.59 Actual reported Avg. Clearance Rate 32.6% crimes experienced a moderate decrease by Calls to Crimes Ratio 37 declining 11% during the same period with the five-year average resulting in 25 reported crimes for every 1,000 residents. Furthermore, with respect to the relationship between service calls and actual reported crimes, service calls for the Sheriff resulted in one reported crime for every 37 service calls. A summary of service demands on the Sheriff between 2005-2006 and 2009-2010 follows. • Trends in Reported Crimes Approximately 92% of all reported crimes for the Sheriff between 2005-2006 and 2009-2010 are classified as non-violent and involve either property or simple assault offenses. Property offenses account for three-fourths of the total non-violent crimes with the largest contributor involving larceny/theft followed by burglary.60 Non- violent crimes overall have declined during the period by 12%. • Trends in Violent Crimes Violent crimes continue to represent a relatively small portion of the overall offense totals for the Sheriff (eight percent) and have remained consistent at 35 between 2005-2006 and 2009-2010. Aggravated assault offenses constitute 79% of all violent crimes during this period. There have been two murders for the Sheriff during this period; one occurring in 2005-2006 and one occurring in 2006-2007. • Trends in Clearance Rates Clearance rates overall have fluctuated between 2005-2006 and 2009-2010 from a low of 28% to a high of 41% in terms of reported crimes resulting in an arrest or determined to be unfounded. The average overall clearance rate is 33%. The clearance rate for violent crimes averages 68% and is moderate relative to all local law enforcement agencies. 59 Per 1,000 resident estimates are based on unincorporated Napa County’s estimated population of 26,448 as of January 1, 2011. 60 Larceny/theft offenses in unincorporated Napa County between 2005 and 2009 accounted for 50 percent of all non- violent crimes. Burglaries during this period accounted for 26 percent of all non-violent crimes. 61 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County • Jurisdictional Comparisons: Reported Crimes Sheriff’s five-year averages between 2005-2006 and 2009-2010 for violent crimes and property crimes total 52 and 466, respectively. These amounts both fall significantly below the respective national averages of 126 violent crimes and 1,159 property crimes for similarly sized jurisdictional agencies as measured by population during the period.61 • Jurisdictional Comparisons: Clearance Rates Sheriff’s five-year averages between 2005-2006 and 2009-2010 for clearing violent crimes and property crimes are 68% and 15%, respectively. This clearance rate for violent crimes is significantly higher than the national average of 49% for similarly sized jurisdictional agencies as measured by population during the period. Conversely, the clearance rate for property crimes is lower than the national average of 20% for similarly sized jurisdictional agencies. County Sheriff Service Characteristics: Service Calls and Crime Totals Table III/BBB; Source: County Sheriff and United States Department of Justice Category 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Average Trend Service Calls 23,385 25,762 24,679 22,002 24,746 24,115 +5.8% Total Reported Crimes 594 663 810 688 526 656.2 -11.4% Violent Crimes 35 50 79 60 35 51.8 +0.0% Simple Assault Crimes 127 160 163 119 122 138.2 -3.9% Property Crimes 432 453 568 509 369 466.2 -14.6% Total Clearances 246 184 246 227 168 214.2 -31.7% Violent Crimes 21 25 51 52 26 35.0 +23.8% Simple Assault Crimes 104 97 123 111 102 107.4 -1.9% Property Crimes 121 62 72 64 40 71.8 -66.9% Clearances to Crimes % 41.4 27.8 30.4 33.0 31.9 32.6 -22.9% Violent Crimes 60.0 50.0 64.6 86.7 74.3 67.6 +23.8% Simple Assault Crimes 81.9 60.6 75.5 93.3 83.6 77.7 +2.1% Property Crimes 28.0 13.7 12.7 12.6 10.8 15.4 -61.4% County Sheriff Service Characteristics: Animal Control Table III/CCC; Source: County Sheriff Category 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 Average Trend Total Service Calls n/a n/a 1,946 2,075 1,578 1,866.3 -18.9% Loose/Stray Animal Calls n/a n/a 622 622 928 724.0 +49.2% Animals Licensed n/a n/a 1,321 1,349 1,300 1,323.3 -1.6% * Sheriff began tracking and recording service calls and related information in 2008-2009. County Sheriff Service Characteristics: Special Investigations Bureau Table III/DDD; Source: County Sheriff Category 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 Average Trend Number of Searches n/a n/a 143 118 103 121.3 -28.0% Contraband Seized (grams) n/a n/a 4,882 10,906 7,575 7,787.7 +55.2% Number of Arrests n/a n/a 150 122 115 129.0 -23.3% 61 The comparison against national averages involves law enforcement agencies with service populations ranging between 25,000 and 49,999. 62 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County Department of Corrections Corrections reports it has experienced a four percent decrease in annual bookings between the fiscal years ending in 2007 and 2011. The five-year average is 6,442, which results in nearly 18 bookings per day. Despite the overall decrease in annual bookings, the average daily population has increased during the period by three percent and currently averages 252; an amount that is close to reaching Corrections’ rated inmate capacity of 264 and reflects inmates are in holding for longer periods than in previous years. County Corrections Characteristics Table III/EEE; Source: County Department of Corrections Category 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 Average Trend Total Bookings 6,538 6,317 6,491 6,592 6,271 6,441.8 -4.1% Average Daily Population 255 245 250 250 262 252.4 +2.7% 63 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County This page has been left intentionally blank for photocopying 64 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County IV. PERTINENT DEMOGRAPHIC CONDITIONS 1.0 Growth Factors Growth trends serve as integral components in influencing the level and range of law enforcement services in local communities. Specifically, information collected and analyzed from national and local law enforcement agencies demonstrates a direct correlation between growth and crime. This section examines this correlation through four distinct though interrelated growth categories pertinent in Napa County: (a) population; (b) density; (c) development; and (d) visitor. This includes assessing these four growth categories relative to recent, current, and future conditions as well as regional comparisons as appropriate. 1.1 Population Recent and Current Projections Local law enforcement agencies currently serve a permanent resident population in Napa County totaling 137,639. This total amount represents close to an 8.0% overall increase in permanent residents in Napa County during the last 10 year period despite recent declines. The largest increase in permanent residents during this period occurred between 2002 and 2005 and, as described in greater detail in the succeeding sections, is attributed to a surge in new single-family residential construction. Most notably, there was a 1.5% increase between 2002 and 2003 alone, representing a net population addition of 1,898. More recent growth, however, has actually declined over the last two years and is attributed to the economic downturn coupled with incorporating new demographic information generated in the recent census. Resident Population in Napa County: Past/Current Projections Table IV/A; Source: California Department of Finance/Napa LAFCO 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 127,918 129,816 131,254 132,314 133,448 134,726 136,276 137,723 138,917 137,639 --- +1.5% +1.1% +0.8% +0.9% +1.0% +1.2% +1.1% +0.9% -0.9% Close to 81% of the countywide permanent resident Close to 81% of the county population currently resides in one of the five incorporated population live in cities with cities with nearly nine-tenths of this amount belonging to nearly 9/10 of the amount the Cities of American Canyon and Napa. American residing in the Cities of Canyon has experienced the largest percentage increase in American Canyon and Napa. permanent residents over the last 10 years by rising 75% from 11,261 to 19,693; an amount that represents nearly nine-tenths of the overall increase in population for the county as a whole as well as the fourth highest percentage increase among all 101 cities in the Bay Area during this period.62 Napa remains the largest city and experienced a moderate population increase of one-twentieth during this period rising from 74,054 to 77,464. The remaining three cities as well as the unincorporated area have all experienced a decrease in population over the last 10 years. 62 Only Brentwood (Contra Costa), Rio Vista (Solano), and Dublin (Alameda) have experienced a larger percentage increase in population than American Canyon based on Department of Finance estimates. 65 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County Resident Population of Local Jurisdictions in Napa County: Past/Current Projections Table IV/B; Source: California Department of Finance/Napa LAFCO Year American Canyon Calistoga Napa St. Helena Yountville Unincorporated Total 2002 11,261 5,225 74,054 6,013 3,294 28,071 127,918 2003 12,334 5,238 74,736 6,042 3,282 28,184 129,816 2004 13,117 5,177 75,701 5,977 3,259 28,023 131,254 2005 14,197 5,183 75,772 5,960 3,241 27,961 132,314 2006 14,879 5,218 76,094 5,942 3,248 28,067 133,448 2007 15,911 5,253 76,247 5,936 3,271 28,108 134,726 2008 16,241 5,284 76,857 5,905 3,257 28,732 136,276 2009 16,521 5,335 77,917 5,969 3,267 28,714 137,723 2010 16,836 5,370 78,791 6,010 3,257 28,653 138,917 2011 19,693 5,188 77,464 5,849 2,997 26,448 137,639 Annual +7.5% -0.1% +0.5% -0.3% -0.9% -0.6% +0.8% Total +74.9% -0.7% +4.6% -2.7% -9.0% -5.8% +7.6% In terms of regional context, Napa County’s permanent resident population growth rate over the last 10 years exceeds the growth Napa County’s growth rate rate for the remaining eight counties comprising the San overall has exceeded the Francisco Bay Area (“Bay Area”) by over two to one or 7.6% to remaining Bay Area 2:1 3.7%. Napa County continues to represent a very small portion over the last 10 years. of the overall Bay Area population, however, despite outperforming the remaining region in recent growth trends. Specifically, Napa County’s current population of 137,639 represents less than two percent of the nine county Bay Area total of 7,206,083. Resident Population of Counties in San Francisco Bay Area: Past/Current Projections Table IV/C; Source: California Department of Finance/Napa LAFCO Contra San San Santa Year Alameda Costa Marin Napa Francisco Mateo Clara Solano Sonoma 2002 1,482,473 981,614 249,773 127,918 793,086 714,453 1,715,329 408,430 468,379 2003 1,490,072 993,766 250,402 129,816 797,992 715,898 1,726,183 412,837 470,738 2004 1,494,675 1,005,678 250,789 131,254 801,753 717,653 1,738,654 416,299 473,516 2005 1,498,967 1,016,407 251,586 132,314 806,433 720,042 1,753,041 418,876 475,536 2006 1,506,176 1,025,509 252,921 133,448 812,880 722,994 1,771,610 420,514 476,659 2007 1,519,326 1,035,322 254,527 134,726 823,004 728,314 1,798,242 422,477 478,662 2008 1,537,719 1,048,242 256,511 136,276 835,364 736,951 1,829,480 424,397 482,297 2009 1,556,657 1,060,435 258,618 137,723 845,559 745,858 1,857,621 426,729 486,630 2010 1,574,857 1,073,055 260,651 138,917 856,095 754,285 1,880,876 427,837 493,285 2011 1,521,157 1,056,064 254,692 137,639 812,820 724,702 1,797,375 414,509 487,125 Annual +0.3% +0.8% +0.2% +0.8% +0.3% +0.1% +0.5% +0.2% +0.4% Total +2.6% +7.7% +2.0% +7.6% +2.5% +1.4% +4.8% +1.5% +4.0% 66 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County Future Projections It is reasonable to assume the rate of population growth within each local jurisdiction in Napa County over the next five years It is reasonable to assume the rate of new growth in will correspond with percentage changes that have occurred the near-term will mirror between 2008 and 2010 according to the California percentage changes between Department of Finance. This approach presumes the 2008 and 2010. economic downturn that began in earnest in 2008 will continue into the near-term and depress new development. It also presumes the percentage change in growth in the most recent calendar year (2011) is largely an anomaly and attributed to the California Department of Finance’s practice of recalibrating their population projections every 10 years following the latest census release. With the preceding assumptions in mind, it is anticipated overall permanent resident population growth in Napa It is projected Napa County’s overall County will slightly decrease from its current annual growth rate will decrease from its estimate of 0.8% to 0.5%. This would increase the current annual estimate of 0.8% to overall resident population from 137,639 to 142,143 by 0.5%; resulting in a countywide 2016; a difference of 4,504.63 Close to three-fourths of population of 142,143 by 2016. this projected new population will occur in Napa with the remaining one-quarter allocated to American Canyon. The remaining local jurisdictions – Calistoga, St. Helena, Yountville, and the unincorporated area – are expected to experience either minimal, zero, or negative growth. Resident Population of Local Jurisdictions: Future Projections Table IV/D; Source: California Department of Finance/Napa LAFCO Year American Canyon Calistoga Napa St. Helena Yountville Unincorporated Total 2012 19,933 5,216 78,114 5,884 2,997 26,424 138,528 2013 20,177 5,244 78,769 5,919 2,997 26,400 139,423 2014 20,423 5,273 79,430 5,954 2,997 26,375 140,324 2015 20,673 5,302 80,096 5,989 2,997 26,351 141,230 2016 20,925 5,330 80,768 6,024 2,997 26,327 142,143 Annual +1.0% +0.4% +0.7% +0.5% 0.0% -0.1% +0.5% Total +5.0% +2.2% +3.4% +2.4% 0.0% -0.4% +2.6% 1.2 Density As already referenced, another key measurement of growth There is a direct correlation involves density and its relationship between permanent between increases in residents and land area. In particular, the measurement of population and crime; there is density helps to influence the type and level of law also a direct correlation enforcement services for a community with denser areas between community densities and crime totals. generally necessitating more policing than less populated areas. The latter statement emphasizes the inherent correlation between population and crime. There is also a direct correlation between increases in density of a community and crime. 63 The five-year projected timeframe corresponds with the municipal service review cycle period. 67 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County Napa and American Canyon are the densest local jurisdictions in Napa County with 4,256 and 3,581 permanent residents, respectively, for every square mile. Yountville, Calistoga, and St. Helena have a density range approximately half of these amounts at respectively 1,998, 1,995, and 1,147. The unincorporated area is by far the least dense local jurisdiction with only 35 residents for every square mile. Resident to Square Mile Densities of Local Jurisdictions in Napa County Table IV/E; Source: California Department of Finance/Napa LAFCO Land Area Permanent Residents Jurisdiction Population (Square Miles) Per Square Mile Napa 77,464 18.2 4,256.3 American Canyon 19,693 5.5 3,580.5 Yountville 2,997 1.5 1,998.0 Calistoga 5,188 2.6 1,995.4 St. Helena 5,849 5.1 1,146.9 Unincorporated 26,448 755.4 35.0 Average 22,939.8 131.4 174.6 Napa County as a whole remains sparsely populated relative to the Bay Area in terms of permanent resident densities. Napa County currently averages 175 residents for every square mile. The remaining eight Bay Area counties, comparatively, average nearly six times this amount with 1,097 residents for every square mile. Resident to Square Mile Densities of San Francisco Bay Area Counties Table IV/F; Source: California Department of Finance/Napa LAFCO Land Area Permanent Residents County Population (Square Miles) Per Square Mile Alameda 1,521,157 738.0 2,061.2 Contra Costa 1,056,064 802.2 1,316.5 Marin 254,692 606.0 420.3 Napa 137,639 788.3 174.6 San Francisco 812,820 49.0 16,588.2 San Mateo 724,702 449.1 1,613.7 Santa Clara 1,797,375 1,315.0 1,366.8 Solano 414,509 909.4 455.8 Sonoma 487,125 1,573.5 309.6 Average 800,676 803.4 996.6 1.3 Development Consistent with most metropolitan suburbs, the predominant development use among local jurisdictions in Napa County The rate of new residential remains residential with commercial a distant second. (Industrial development among all uses are relatively limited to an approximate 4.6 square mile area local jurisdictions has considerably slowed over adjacent to the Napa County Airport and overlap the the last 10 year period. jurisdictions of the County and American Canyon.) The rate of residential development among all local jurisdictions has considerably slowed over the last 10 year period; a trend directly attributed to the collapse of the “housing bubble” and subsequent downturn in the national and local economies. 68 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County Estimates prepared by the California Department of Finance More than four-fifths of all indicate an overall 10% increase in the total number of new housing unit development housing unit development among all local jurisdictions in in Napa County since 2002 Napa County over the last 10 years rising from 49,713 to belongs to American Canyon 54,882. However, the rate of this growth has sharply (43%) and Napa (37%). decreased with nearly two-thirds of the total number of new housing unit development occurring in the first five years and the remaining one-third taking place in the last five years. More than four-fifths of all new housing unit development during this period belongs to American Canyon (43%) and Napa (37%). Total Housing Unit Development Within Local Jurisdictions: Recent/Current Table IV/G; Source: California Department of Finance/Napa LAFCO American Year Canyon Calistoga Napa St. Helena Yountville Unincorporated Total 2002 3,765 2,256 28,245 2,726 1,159 11,562 49,713 2003 4,125 2,260 28,489 2,737 1,163 11,629 50,403 2004 4,448 2,263 29,246 2,743 1,164 11,674 51,538 2005 4,844 2,278 29,433 2,750 1,165 11,739 52,209 2006 5,109 2,307 29,735 2,758 1,177 11,855 52,941 2007 5,481 2,329 29,874 2,762 1,194 11,903 53,543 2008 5,591 2,341 30,094 2,745 1,195 11,984 53,950 2009 5,635 2,342 30,232 2,749 1,194 12,028 54,180 2010 5,708 2,343 30,388 2,751 1,197 11,961 54,348 2011 6,018 2,319 30,176 2,775 1,280 12,314 54,882 Change +59.8% +2.8% +6.8% +1.8% +10.4% +6.5% +10.4% Napa County remains predominantly rural given an estimated 95% of its total land area currently categorized as Napa County remains undeveloped or greenfield.64 The rate of greenfield predominantly rural given an development over the last 10 years countywide has increased estimated 95% of its total land by one percent raising the total land dedicated for urban use area currently categorized as from 21,110 to 23,557 acres. The average annual conversion undeveloped or greenfield. of land from non-urban to urban use is 220 acres with the majority of the transitions occurring in the south county. 64 For purposes of this report, “greenfield” is defined as land that has not been developed or used for any purpose other than farm land, graze land, or other passive usage. 69 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County Recent Greenfield Development Projects in Napa County Table IV/H; Source: California Department of Conservation/Napa LAFCO Project Name Acreage Jurisdiction Villagio Inn and Spa (1998-00) 5.0 Yountville Napa Valley Gateway Business Park (1998-00) 150.0 Napa La Vigne Subdivision (2000-02) 130.0 American Canyon Capriana Subdivision (2002-04) 20.0 Napa Eucalyptus/Gladwell Subdivision (2002-04) 75.0 American Canyon Central Valley Distribution Warehouses (2002-04) 20.0 American Canyon Vintage Ranch Subdivision I (2004-06) 90.0 American Canyon Solage Resort (2006-08) 35.0 Calistoga Meritage Resort (2006-08) 15.0 Napa Vintage Ranch Subdivision II (2006-08) 75.0 American Canyon Napa Junction Shopping Center (2006-08) 40.0 American Canyon California Freight Sales Warehouses (2006-08) 10.0 American Canyon Calistoga Ranch Resort (2006-08) 15.0 Calistoga Hanna Court Business Center (2008-10) 20.0 American Canyon Kendall-Jackson/Biagi Distribution (2008-10) 17.0 American Canyon American Canyon High School (2008-10) 50.0 American Canyon Springhill Suites Marriott (2008-10) 5.0 County Napa County is the least developed county in the Bay Area in Bay Area Counties: % Developed terms of the percentage of total land area used for urban Table IV/I; Source: Napa LAFCO County % Developed purposes. The average percent of land developed for urban San Francisco 100% use among the eight other Bay Area counties is 29% with a Contra Costa 30% high of 100% in San Francisco and a low of seven percent in Alameda 28% Sonoma.65 The remaining Bay Area counties overall have Santa Clara 23% San Mateo 20% increased their collective allocation of land dedicated for Marin 11% urban use by four percent during the 10 year period. Solano 10% Sonoma 7% Napa 5% 1.4 Visitor Current Conditions Visitors – defined to include non-resident touring guests – are an integral component in supporting Napa County’s It is estimated the average economy and create additional and unique demands on local overnight visitor population in law enforcement agencies. The volume of visitors during Napa County during peak tourist season is 9,217. peak tourist periods (June through August), in particular, significantly increases the day population in the county by an estimated 10% with the addition of 15,753 daytime guests. Most notably, a recent economic study estimated 4.7 million day visits during one calendar year with close to three-fifths of the amount resulting in one or more overnight stays; the latter producing an average overnight visitor population in peak periods of 9,217.66 65 San Francisco County includes expansive parklands, most notably Golden Gate Park, that are categorized as urban given the approximate 1,000 acre site is largely dedicated to civic facilities. 66 Information on one-day and overnight visits are generated from Napa County Visitor Profile and Economic Impact Study (March 2006). For purposes of this review, LAFCO staff incorporated the baseline information included in the referenced economic study coupled with updated total lodging information along with the following independent assumptions: (a) the increased number of guestrooms since 2006 has been effectively canceled out by the downturn in the economy in terms of any increases in one-day and overnight visits; (b) an average of 2.5 persons per guestroom; (c) peak occupancy rate of 85% in July and August; and (d) an overall average year occupancy rate of 70%. 70 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County Visitors to Napa County: Day and Overnight 15,541 15,753 15,753 12,768 13,600 13,834 12,629 11,666 11,432 11,531 15,000 9,552 10,416 Overall Avg. Day Visitors 12,500 10,000 Avg. Day Overnight Visitors 7,500 5,000 Avg. Day Day-Only Visitors 2,500 - * A full diagram on average day visits is provided as an appendix Visitor growth as measured by guestrooms has increased in Napa County over the last five years by close to one-fourth from 3,582 to 4,400. More than two-thirds of the guestrooms are located either in the City of Napa (46%) or the unincorporated area (22%). American Canyon has experienced the largest percentage increase (291%) in guestrooms over the five- year period by adding an additional 233 guestrooms. Notably, at full occupancy, Yountville’s overnight population increases by over one-third. Lodging Units Within Local Jurisdictions: Recent/Current Table IV/J; Source: NCLOG/Napa LAFCO/Napa Valley Destination Council Est. Visitor Total Est. % of Jurisdiction 2005 2010 Change at Full Occupancy Current Population Yountville 347 423 +21.9% 1,058 35.3 Calistoga 618 490 -20.7% 1,225 23.6 Unincorporated 846 958 +13.2% 2,395 9.1 St. Helena 202 209 +3.5% 523 8.9 Napa 1,489 2,007 +34.8% 5,018 6.5 American Canyon 80 313 +291.3% 783 4.0 Total 3,582 4,400 +22.8% 11,000 8.0 * Estimated visitor amounts assume 2.5 persons per guestroom. Future Conditions There are 12 additional projects have been approved by local land use authorities and if constructed would generate an There are 12 additional project additional 1,363 guestrooms in Napa County. This includes approvals that would increase Napa’s existing approval of two new luxury resorts (Ritz the total number of guestrooms Carlton and St. Regis) that would add 526 guestrooms in the in Napa County by nearly one- City.67 All told, these 12 projects would have the potential to third if constructed. generate an estimated 3,408 additional overnight visitors at full occupancy; an increase of nearly one-third over the current guestroom capacity. 67 The other 10 projects include two County approvals for a new luxury resort and conference center (Montalcino) in the Napa County Airport Area with 379 guestrooms along with an eight room expansion to an existing hotel in the Carneros region (Carneros Inn). Six additional City of Napa approvals involve hotels and expansions (California Boulevard Hotel, Eliza Yount Mansion Inn, La Residence, Milliken Creek Inn Expansion, Soscol Hotel, and Meritage Inn Expansion) would result in 305 new guestrooms. The remaining two projects involve St. Helena approvals for two new hotels (Grandview and Vineland Station) that would result in an additional 95 guestrooms. There are no existing approvals for new hotels or expansions to existing hotels within American Canyon, Calistoga, and Yountville. 71 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County 2.0 Socioeconomic Factors Similar to population and development growth, Socioeconomic factors play important roles socioeconomic factors play important roles in in underlying local law enforcement underlying local law enforcement services. This services specifically as it relates to includes, in particular, the relationship between employment and income conditions. how economics and employment conditions interplay with the amount of crime occurring within local communities. The inferred correlation being communities with higher income and lower unemployment levels on average will experience less crime than communities characterized by lower income and higher unemployment levels. This section examines this correlation through two distinct and interrelated socioeconomic factors within Napa County: (a) employment rates and (b) household income levels. This includes assessing these two socioeconomic factors relative to recent, current, and future conditions as well as regional comparisons as appropriate. 2.1 Employment Rates Most recent labor reports indicate approximately 8.5% of the overall labor force in Napa County is All five cities in Napa County have currently unemployed.68 Markedly, this current experienced a doubling of their unemployment rate over the last five years. unemployment rate reflects an overall five percent increase over the last five years. American Canyon presently holds the largest unemployment rate among local jurisdictions at 13.5%; the unincorporated area presently holds the lowest unemployment rate at 5.4%. All five cities have experienced a doubling of their unemployment rate since 2006. Employment Rates Among Local Jurisdictions: Recent/Current Table IV/K; Source: CA Employment Development Department/Napa LAFCO American St. Category Canyon Calistoga Napa Helena Yountville Unincorporated Total 2006 Unemployment Rate 6.3% 3.1% 4.0% 4.2% 2.8% 3.7% 3.9% Labor Force 5,300 2,900 42,800 3,500 1,200 16,200 71,900 Total Employed 5,000 2,800 41,100 3,400 1,200 15,600 69,100 Total Unemployed 300 100 1,700 100 0 600 2,800 2011 Unemployment Rate 13.5% 6.8% 8.9% 9.1% 6.2% 5.4% 8.5% Labor Force 5,800 3,100 45,200 3,700 1,300 16,600 75,700 Total Employed 5,000 2,800 41,200 3,400 1,200 15,700 69,300 Total Unemployed 800 200 4,000 300 100 900 6,400 5-Year Difference +114% +119% +123% +117% +121% +46% +118% * Labor force is calculated by adding the number of employed individuals within a local jurisdiction to the number of unemployed individuals actively seeking employment within the same jurisdiction. 68 Unemployment information provided by the California Employment Development Department. This agency collects and reports labor force, employment, and unemployment information for each local jurisdiction within Napa County and includes two “Census Designated Places” (CDPs); Angwin and Deer Park. Data for 2011 is currently preliminary. 72 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County Napa County as a whole remains relatively sound in terms of its countywide unemployment rates compared to the rest of the Bay Area. Napa County currently averages 85 unemployed persons for every 1,000 members of its labor force. The remaining eight Bay Area counties, comparatively, average slightly more than this amount with 94 unemployed persons for every 1,000 members of their aggregate labor force. Employment Rates Among San Francisco Bay Area Counties: Current Table IV/L; Source: CA Employment Development Department/Napa LAFCO County Labor Force Total Employed Total Unemployed Unemployment Rate Alameda 750,500 674,100 76,400 10.2% Contra Costa 518,800 466,500 52,300 10.1% Marin 132,500 122,700 9,800 7.4% Napa 75,700 69,300 6,400 8.5% San Francisco 459,600 421,700 37,900 8.3% San Mateo 375,300 345,200 30,000 8.0% Santa Clara 889,700 804,400 85,300 9.6% Solano 212,800 189,300 23,500 11.0% Sonoma 254,800 230,900 23,900 9.4% Average 407,744.4 369,344.4 38,388.9 9.4% 2.2 Household Income Levels Data collected from the last two Census publications The average median household income identifies the average median household income in in Napa County has increased by 30% Napa County is currently $66,970 and represents over the last ten years to $66,970. The nearly a 30% increase over the last 10 year period. The poverty rate is currently at 8.6%. data also shows that an estimated 8.6% of the overall countywide population is presently living in poverty with the largest proportional allocation residing in Napa at 11.0%. American Canyon, conversely, has the lowest poverty rate among local jurisdictions at 3.5%. The poverty rate overall has increased slightly by 0.3% over the 10 year period. Household Income Levels Within Local Jurisdictions Table IV/M; Source: US Census Bureau/Napa LAFCO 2009 Median 1999 Median 2009 1999 Jurisdiction Population Household Household Poverty Poverty Income Income Level Level American Canyon 19,693 $78,718 $52,105 3.5% 8.8% Calistoga 5,188 $52,393 $44,375 6.3% 8.0% Napa 77,464 $64,180 $49,154 11.0% 8.9% St. Helena 5,849 $70,900 $58,902 5.3% 6.4% Yountville 2,997 $69,028 $46,944 5.2% 7.3% Unincorporated 26,448 $68,416 n/a 9.7% 6.8% Countywide Total 137,639 $66,970 $51,738 8.6% 8.3% Napa County as a whole has the second lowest median household income compared to the other eight Bay Area counties. Napa County currently averages $66,970 per household; approximately 13% lower than the aggregate median household income for the remaining eight counties in the region. Napa County’s poverty rate also remains relatively low compared to the other eight Bay Area counties. 73 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County Household Income Levels Among San Francisco Bay Area Counties Table IV/N; Source: US Census Bureau/Napa LAFCO 2009 Median 1999 Median 2009 1999 County Population Household Household Poverty Poverty Income Income Level Level Alameda 1,521,157 $68,863 $55,946 10.8% 11.0% Contra Costa 1,056,064 $77,838 $63,675 9.5% 7.6% Marin 254,692 $87,728 $71,306 7.3% 6.6% Napa 137,639 $66,970 $51,738 8.6% 8.3% San Francisco 812,820 $70,040 $55,221 11.7% 11.3% San Mateo 724,702 $84,426 $70,819 7.6% 5.8% Santa Clara 1,797,375 $85,569 $74,335 9.1% 7.5% Solano 414,509 $67,920 $54,099 10.7% 8.3% Sonoma 487,125 $63,848 $53,076 9.5% 8.1% Average 800,676 $74,800 $61,135 9.4% 8.3% 74 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County V. LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICE MEASUREMENTS 1.0 Capacities The ability of law enforcement agencies to adequately accommodate demands is directly dependent on certain key planning factors that collectively capacitate the level and range of services provided. These planning factors are generally determined on an annual or biannual basis by the agency’s respective governing board relative to perceived community needs paired with available resources. This section examines this relationship through three distinct and interrelated capacity categories: (a) financial resources; (b) staffing levels; and (c) equipment and facilities. This includes assessing these capacity categories relative to recent, current, and future conditions as well as regional comparisons as appropriate. 1.1 Financial Resources The financial resources of law enforcement agencies represent the most important capacity factor with regard to their ability to adequately address service demands. In practical terms, and more so than any other input, financial resources dictate agencies’ staffing levels as well as facilities and equipment. This factor is highlighted by the importance of the revenue to expense relationship and proportional impact of law enforcement costs on agency-wide resources. Other pertinent financial considerations relevant to assessing the present and future level of law enforcement include expenses on a per capita basis as well as the status of reserves, liquidity, and capital. Revenues and Expenses Nearly all funding for law enforcement services provided by the six affected agencies in Napa County subject to this General fund monies collected by review is generated from discretionary general tax revenues the six affected agencies have collected by the respective governing bodies, commonly increased by an annual average referred to as “general fund” monies.69 The principal of 3.1% over the last five years. general tax revenue source for all of the affected agencies is predominantly property followed either by sales or transient-occupancy. Over the last five years, general fund monies collected by the affected agencies have increased by an average of 3.1% annually rising from an estimated total of $274.3 to $316.7 million. Significant increases in property tax revenues combined with moderate increases in transient-occupancy tax revenues underlie the overall increase despite sizeable decreases in sales tax revenues. 69 A key exception relates to the County and its reimbursement for contracted law enforcement services with American Canyon and Yountville. All five local agencies also receive some annual funding from federal and state grant programs. 75 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County General Fund Revenue Source Totals Among Local Jurisdictions Table V/A; Source: Agency Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports and Budgets/Napa LAFCO General Fund American St. Revenues Canyon Calistoga Napa Helena Yountville County Total 2010-11 (Millions) Property Tax $7.391 $1.686 $21.436 $2.901 $0.925 $84.196 $118.535 Sales Tax $1.930 $0.739 $11.583 $2.139 $0.810 $5.142 $22.343 Transient Tax $0.600 $3.432 $9.161 $1.257 $3.800 $8.299 $26.549 Year-End Total $14.985 $7.069 $56.904 $8.028 $6.481 $223.184 $316.651 2009-10 (Millions) Property Tax $7.133 $1.655 $23.111 $2.722 $0.943 $91.575 $127.139 Sales Tax $1.928 $0.671 $11.559 $2.092 $0.792 $16.795 $33.837 Transient Tax $1.104 $3.042 $8.242 $1.193 $3.347 $8.301 $25.229 Year-End Total $11.755 $9.740 $58.188 $8.176 $5.647 $192.661 $286.167 2008-09 (Millions) Property Tax $7.229 $1.710 $23.251 $2.577 $0.899 $85.734 $121.400 Sales Tax $2.276 $0.843 $13.288 $2.608 $0.707 $28.460 $48.182 Transient Tax $1.068 $3.209 $8.242 $1.310 $3.150 $9.371 $26.350 Year-End Total $22.552 $12.078 $62.363 $8.979 $5.759 $183.012 $294.743 2007-08 (Millions) Property Tax $7.165 $1.461 $23.365 $2.530 $0.762 $75.713 $110.996 Sales Tax $2.447 $0.820 $13.502 $1.970 $0.682 $31.188 $50.609 Transient Tax $1.043 $3.402 $8.725 $1.537 $3.382 $10.810 $28.899 Year-End Total $17.280 $11.040 $65.644 $9.313 $5.806 $174.321 $283.404 2006-07 (Millions) Property Tax $6.416 $1.329 $21.267 $2.257 $0.699 $69.224 $101.192 Sales Tax $1.277 $0.556 $13.695 $2.533 $0.663 $30.598 $49.322 Transient Tax $0.784 $2.522 $7.779 $1.493 $3.217 $9.654 $25.449 Year-End Total $12.869 $5.019 $60.216 $8.204 $5.255 $182.779 $274.342 Calistoga has experienced the largest increase in general fund General Fund Revenue Trends: FY2007 to FY2011 monies over the last five years among the six affected agencies Table V/B; Source: Napa LAFCO with its composite total rising by approximately 40% from an Calistoga +40.8% estimated $5.019 to $7.069 million; an increase highlighted by Yountville +23.3% County of Napa +22.1% a one-third rise in transient-occupancy tax proceeds. American Canyon +16.4% Yountville, the County, and American Canyon have also St. Helena -2.1% experienced increases in their composite general fund monies Napa -5.5% during this period with their respective percentage changes rising by approximately one-fifth. Napa and St. Helena, conversely, have both experienced small decreases in their composite general fund monies during this period primarily as a result of sales tax losses. Similar to revenue changes in general fund monies, law enforcement expenses among the six affected agencies Law enforcement expenses among have also increased over the last five years by a composite the six affected agencies have increased by a composite average average of 2.9% annually rising from $45.89 to $52.60 of 2.9% over the last five years. million. The increase in personnel costs underlies the rise in expenses with the largest single year change occurring in 2008-2009 as most of the agencies began funding other post-employment benefit costs as required by the Government Accounting Standards Board.70 70 Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement 45 was initially established in 2004 and requires governmental entities to recognize the cost of other post-employment benefits, such as retiree healthcare, when they are earned rather than when they are paid. 76 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County Law Enforcement Expenditures Within Local Jurisdictions: Recent Table V/C; Source: Agency Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports and Budgets/Napa LAFCO Jurisdiction 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 Average Trend American Canyon $3.19 $3.74 $5.29 $5.25 $5.26 $4.55 +64.9% Calistoga $1.85 $2.09 $2.20 $2.20 $1.74 $2.02 -5.9% Napa $17.82 $18.63 $20.58 $20.68 $19.06 $19.35 +7.0% St. Helena $2.27 $2.55 $2.55 $2.55 $2.35 $2.45 +3.5% Yountville $0.53 $0.58 $0.65 $0.81 $0.84 $0.68 +58.5% County Sheriff $20.23 $20.54 $22.77 $22.79 $23.35 $21.94 +15.4% Countywide Total $45.89 $48.13 $54.04 $54.28 $52.60 $50.99 +14.6% Amounts in millions As for individual agency trends, and in contrast to overall totals, only two of the six affected local agencies – Calistoga and County Sheriff – have experienced positive ratios over the last five years in terms of percentage changes in general fund revenues exceeding law enforcement costs. Calistoga experienced the largest positive change as its general fund revenues increased by 40% while their law enforcement costs decreased by 6%. Conversely, American Canyon and Yountville experienced the largest percentage differences as their law enforcement costs exceeded their general fund revenues by three to one. Napa and St. Helena also experienced negative ratios as their law enforcement costs increased while their general fund revenues decreased. Agency Trends: General Fund Revenues to Law Enforcement Costs: Recent Table V/D; Source: Agency Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports and Budgets/Napa LAFCO Category American Canyon Calistoga Napa St. Helena Yountville County Sheriff Change in General Fund Revenue +16.4% +40.8% -5.3% -2.1% +23.3% +22.1% Change in Law Enforcement Cost +64.9% -5.9% +7.0% +3.5% +58.5% +15.4% Negative Positive Negative Negative Negative Positive Relationship to Total General Fund Expenses Considering the percentage of general fund monies dedicated to supporting law enforcement services helps to contextualize and assess the actual demand of sustaining these services relative to local resources. Four of the six affected agencies – American Canyon, Napa, St. Helena, and Yountville – have experienced moderate to sizable increases in the percentage of their general fund monies being dedicated to law enforcement services ranging from 6% to 42% over the last five years. The remaining two affected agencies – Calistoga and County – have experienced actual decreases in its law enforcement demand on its general fund at (33%) and (6%), respectively. Current Percentage of General Fund Monies Budgeted to Law Enforcement Table V/E; Source: Napa LAFCO Year American Canyon Calistoga Napa St. Helena Yountville County of Napa 2006-07 25% 37% 30% 28% 10% 11% 2010-11 34% 25% 33% 29% 13% 10% Change +41.6% -33.2% +13.2% +5.8% +28.5% -5.5% 77 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County Per Capita Expenses The County Sheriff has averaged the highest per capita expense for law enforcement services over the last five years at $453 among the six affected agencies. This amount, however, is artificially inflated given there is no practical method of adjusting to account for the cost recovery associated with its service contracts with American Canyon and Yountville.71 Among the cities, there is a sizeable cost difference as measured by per capita law enforcement expenses between the two north valley and three south valley cities with the latter group incurring a cost savings of nearly two-fifths relative to the former group. Law Enforcement Expenditures Per Capita Within Local Jurisdictions Table V/F; Source: Napa LAFCO Jurisdiction 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 Average Change County Sheriff $427.79 $425.88 $469.47 $467.53 $475.19 $453.17 +11.1% St. Helena $382.41 $431.84 $427.21 $424.29 $401.78 $413.51 +5.1% Calistoga $352.18 $395.53 $412.37 $409.68 $335.39 $381.03 -4.8% American Canyon $200.49 $230.28 $320.20 $311.83 $267.10 $265.98 +33.2% Napa $233.71 $242.40 $264.13 $262.47 $246.05 $249.75 +5.3% Yountville $162.03 $178.08 $198.96 $248.70 $280.28 $213.61 +73.0% Countywide Total $340.62 $353.18 $392.38 $390.74 $382.16 $371.82 +12.2% Yountville has experienced the largest percentage change Changes in Law Enforcement Per in its per capita law enforcement cost by rising 73% over Capita Costs: FY2007 to FY2011 the last five years. American Canyon follows as it has Table V/G; Source: Napa LAFCO experienced a 33% increase in its per capita law Yountville +73.0% American Canyon +33.2% enforcement cost since 2006-2007. County Sheriff, Napa, County Sheriff +11.1% and St. Helena have also experienced moderate increases Napa +5.3% in their per capita law enforcement expenses ranging St. Helena +5.1% between 5% and 11% during the period. Calistoga is the Calistoga -4.8% only affected agency that has experienced an actual decline in its per capita law enforcement expense as reflected by its 5% decrease. Agency Reserves The majority of the six affected agencies providing law enforcement services in Napa County have experienced precipitous declines in their general fund reserves over the audited fiscal year period of 2005-2006 to 2009-2010.72 These declines in general fund reserves for the majority of the affected agencies are principally attributed to absorbing operating deficits as a result of operating expenses outpacing operating revenues over the last several years due to the economic downturn. Overall, the combined general fund reserves of the six affected agencies have collectively decreased by 17% from $109.8 million to $90.8 million. This trend has had a particular negative effect on the portion of the affected agencies’ fund balances that are either set aside for unreserved/undesignated and or emergency/contingency purposes; the portion of the fund balance that could be immediately accessed to absorb law 71 Calculations for law enforcement expenses per capita for the County Sheriff incorporate a population base to include the unincorporated area, the City of American Canyon, and the Town of Yountville. 72 The 2005-2006 to 2009-2010 period has been chosen for review given it marks the last audited fiscal year for four of the six affected local agencies providing law enforcement services in Napa County; the County and Yountville are the only agencies that has completed audits for the 2010-2011 fiscal year. 78 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County enforcement overruns. These discretionary reserves, notably, have decreased by 40% during this time from an approximate composite of $61.9 to $37.2 million. Calistoga has experienced the largest percentage decrease in audited general fund reserves declining by nearly (50%) between fiscal years 2006 and 2010 from $1.8 to $0.9 million; an amount equaling only one month of generally operating expenses. St. Helena, Napa, and the County follow with declines in their audited general fund reserves during the five year period at (44%), (33%), and (17%), respectively. Yountville and American Canyon, conversely, experienced positive changes in their general fund reserve over the five year period by increasing 154% and 24%, respectively; the former increase attributed to aggressive spending reductions in 2009-2010. Changes in Local Agencies’ Audited General Fund Reserves Table V/H; Source: Affected Agencies’ CAFRs Agency 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Change American Canyon $8.119 $7.963 $10.977 $11.327 $10.074 +24% Calistoga $1.793 $1.886 $1.711 $1.389 $0.933 -47% Napa $20.881 $28.344 $26.779 $18.081 $13.872 -33% St. Helena $4.195 $5.173 5.651 $5.257 $2.330 -44% Yountville $0.858 $0.925 $1.092 $1.225 $2.176 +154% County of Napa $73.954 $75.127 $49.971 $50.967 $61.374 -17% Amounts in millions Agency Liquidity and Capital A review of their last audited financial statements show a Liquidity: Recent Current Ratios distinct liquidity divide between the County and two south (Measurement of Short-Term Standing) Table V/I; Source: Napa LAFCO county cities compared to the three north county cities as it County 10.1 to One relates to measuring the agencies’ ability to meet short-term American Canyon 8.9 to One Napa 8.0 to One obligations. Markedly, the County, American Canyon, and St. Helena 4.1 to One Napa all finished their last audited fiscal year with ratios Yountville 3.0 to One showing their current assets exceed their current liabilities Calistoga 1.4 to One by at least eight-fold; i.e., all three agencies have at least Calculation of Current Assets Divided By Current Liabilities eight dollars in available assets for every one dollar of liabilities due within a calendar year. The County finished with the highest measurement of liquidity with the ability to cover short-term obligations by tenfold followed by American Canyon and Napa at ninefold and eightfold, respectively. The north county cities – Calistoga, St. Helena, and Yountville – finished comparatively their last audited fiscal year with current assets to current liabilities ratios at or less than half of their counterparts in the county. Further, of the three north county cities, Calistoga finished their last audited fiscal year with by far the lowest ratio with just over one dollar in current assets for every one dollar in current liabilities; an indication, among other issues, of limited financial flexibility. 79 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County Similar to the geographic dynamic involving liquidity, there Capital: Debt to Net Assets is a distinct divide between the south county and north (Measurement of Long-Term Standing) Table V/J; Source: Napa LAFCO county cities as it relates to measuring their respective American Canyon 6.9% capital and ability to incur additional long-term debt. County 20.2% Specifically, the two south county cities along with the Napa 22.9% St. Helena 34.0% County finished the last audited fiscal year with the lowest Yountville 38.0% ratios of debt to net assets among the six affected agencies. Calistoga 72.0% American Canyon finished with the lowest ratio of debt to Calculation of Long-Term Liabilities Divided By Net Assets net assets at 6.9% followed by the County and Napa at 20.2% and 22.9%, respectively. St. Helena and Yountville’s debt to net asset ratios total 34.0% and 38.0%, respectively, while Calistoga finished at 72.0%; the latter amount indicating the Calistoga has minimal to no leverage available to take on any additional debt. 1.2 Staffing Levels Staffing levels among local law enforcement agencies are generally divided between two distinct categories: sworn officers and support personnel. It is common practice for most local law enforcement agencies that their sworn officers represent a significantly larger portion of their overall staffing compared to their support personnel and are typically the most likely group to have interactions with the general public. Nonetheless, support personnel appear to be assuming incrementally more responsibilities within law enforcement agencies as part of a national trend towards “community policing” in which there is a greater emphasis on organizing and managing citizen engagement. Combined Personnel Totals The six law enforcement agencies in Napa County subject to this review collectively employ 272 law enforcement Total number of actual law personnel divided between 191 sworn officers and 81 enforcement personnel among the support staff.73 This aggregate total has increased by only six agencies has increased by only three over the last five years. three over the last five years with changes limited to increasing the number of sworn officers by seven with a decrease of four support staff. The current total produces a composite breakdown in which 70% of local law enforcement personnel within the six affected agencies are sworn officers. All six affected agencies have experienced some change in the number and division of their law enforcement personnel. Five agencies have experienced a net increase in law enforcement personnel and include the County Sheriff at six, American Canyon at one, Calistoga at one, St. Helena at one, and Yountville at one. Only Napa decreased their law enforcement personnel over the last five years by a total of seven. 73 Personnel totals as of June 30, 2011. 80 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County Law Enforcement Personnel Within Local Jurisdictions: Recent Table V/K; Source: FBI Uniform Crime Reports 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 Jurisdiction Sworn/Support Sworn/Support Sworn/Support Sworn/Support Sworn/Support American Canyon 22 3 22 3 22 3 23 3 23 3 Calistoga 10 4 11 4 11 4 11 4 11 4 Napa 71 43 69 42 74 41 71 43 66 41 St. Helena 12 4 13 4 12 4 12 4 11 6 Yountville 3 0 3 0 3 0 4 0 4 0 County Sheriff 66 31 71 27 76 28 73 28 76 27 Totals: 184 85 189 80 198 80 194 82 191 81 Division of Personnel: (68%) (32%) (70%) (30%) (71%) (29%) (70%) (30%) (70%) (30%) * Preceding totals represent actual filled positions; budgeted numbers may differ * County Sheriff totals exclude sworn officers assigned by contract to American Canyon and Yountville Sworn Officers Relative to Population A common measurement for law enforcement agencies with Average Sworn Officers/1,000: respect to quantifying the relationship between staff and FY2007 to FY2011 Table V/L; Source: Napa LAFCO service population is to consider the number of sworn officers County Sheriff 2.6 for every 1,000 persons residing in their respective Calistoga 2.0 jurisdictions (emphasis added). Although no national standard St. Helena 2.0 exists, the current composite total for law enforcement American Canyon 1.3 Yountville 1.1 agencies in the western United States are 1.84 sworn officers Napa 0.9 for every 1,000 residents.74 The composite range among the six affected agencies Napa County over the last five years has been relatively stagnant from a low of 1.37 to a high of 1.44 sworn officers for every 1,000 residents. County Sheriff has averaged the highest ratio over the last five years at 2.6 sworn officers for every 1,000 residents; an expectedly high ratio compared to the other affected local agencies given the Sheriff’s expanded services, which include special investigations, animal control, and court-related functions. Calistoga and St. Helena have paced the remaining affected local agencies by averaging 2.0 sworn officers for every 1,000 residents during this period. American Canyon, Yountville, and Napa follow with an average number of sworn officers for every 1,000 residents of 1.3, 1.1, and 0.9, respectively. The overall ratio of sworn officers for every 1,000 residents The current ratio of sworn officers among the six affected agencies in Napa County is currently per 1,000 residents in Napa 1.39. This amount falls within the bottom one-third of the County is 1.39; an amount that entire nine county Bay Area region and ahead of only falls within the bottom one-third of the entire Bay Area region. Alameda and Solano. 74 The composite average for law enforcement agencies in the western United States showing 1.84 sworn officers per 1,000 residents derived from the Department of Justice’s Uniform Crime Report for 2010, Table 71. 81 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County Current Sworn Officers / 1,000 Residents Among Bay Area Counties Table V/M; Source: FBI 2010 Uniform Crime Reports / Napa LAFCO County Ratio San Francisco 3.80 Sonoma 1.68 Marin 1.62 Contra Costa 1.52 San Mateo 1.51 Santa Clara 1.46 Napa 1.39 Solano 1.22 Alameda 1.14 1.3 Equipment and Facilities Napa County’s geographic setting as a suburban area underscores the importance of motor vehicles as the central equipment resource for the six affected local agencies in providing law enforcement services. The importance of, and reliance on, motor vehicles is evident given none of the six affected agencies regularly deploy sworn officers to bike or foot patrols. This section examines the availability (i.e., volume) of motor vehicles relative to service population, service area, and replacement schedule. This section also considers the adequacy of administrative facilities in terms of size, age, and usage. Motor Vehicles Motor vehicles among local law enforcement agencies include cars, sport utilities, and motorcycles and are generally divided between two categories: marked and unmarked. Marked vehicles are largely dedicated to patrol services and represent the largest group in Napa County among the six affected agencies with a total of 117. Unmarked vehicles are generally dedicated to administrative and special investigations services and currently total 14. In all, there are 131 law enforcement motor vehicles currently operatingin Napa County. This report considers three distinct capacity Given the lack of data involving other measurements relating to law enforcement motor regions, this report applies the three vehicles with the caveat there are no national measurements for assessing motor vehicle standards. All three measurements represent capacities – (a) residents, (b) jurisdictions, different efforts to contextualize coverage area based and (c) sworn officers – to the individual agencies for local comparisons only on quantifiable inputs involving (a) residents, (b) jurisdictions, and (c) sworn officers. Nevertheless, given the lack of data involving other motor vehicle totals in the region, this report applies the three measurements only to the individual agencies for local comparisons. 82 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County Relative to Population The measurement of motor vehicle resources Motor Vehicles/Relative to Population: FY2011 relative to population results in Calistoga and Table V/N; Source: Napa LAFCO St. Helena having the highest ratios among the Motor Per 1,000 Agency Vehicles Residents six affected local agencies at 1.73 and 1.71 for Calistoga 9 1.73 every 1,000 residents, respectively. Yountville, St. Helena 10 1.71 County Sheriff, American Canyon, and Napa Yountville 4 1.33 follow the two north county cities with County Sheriff 31 1.17 American Canyon 16 0.81 respective ratios of motor vehicles for every Napa 61 0.79 1,000 residents at 1.33, 1.17, 0.81, and 0.79. Significantly, and similar to per capita sworn staffing levels, this measurements highlights a clear distinction in relative law enforcement resources between the north and south county cities. This distinction is evident in this measurement by American Canyon and Napa having motor vehicle resource ratios that represent less than half of the ratios for the two north county cities, Calistoga and St. Helena. Relative to Jurisdictional Area The measurement of motor vehicle resources Motor Vehicles/Relative Jurisdiction: FY2011 relative to jurisdictional area results in Calistoga Table V/O; Source: Napa LAFCO having the highest ratio among the six affected Motor Per local agencies at 3.46 for every square mile. Agency Vehicles Square Mile Calistoga 9 3.46 This measurement generally follows the Napa 61 3.35 population measurement with one key American Canyon 16 2.91 difference: the two south county cities – Napa Yountville 4 2.67 St. Helena 10 1.96 and American Canyon – have the second and County Sheriff 31 0.04 third highest number of motor vehicles for every square mile at 3.35 and 2.91, respectively. This inverse relationship to the population measurement, however, appears logical and is attributed to the two south county cities’ high population densities; a distinction that, nonetheless makes Calistoga’s amount even more anomalous. Yountville, St. Helena, and County Sheriff follow Napa and American Canyon with 2.67, 1.96, and 0.04 motor vehicles for every square mile. Relative to Sworn Staff The measurement of motor vehicle resources Motor Vehicles/Relative to Sworn Staff: FY2011 Table V/P; Source: Napa LAFCO relative to sworn staff – and distinct from the Motor Per other two measurements – results in Agency Vehicles Officers Yountville having the highest ratio among the Yountville 4 1.00 six affected local agencies at exactly 1.0 for Napa 61 0.92 St. Helena 10 0.91 every officer. Napa and St. Helena follow Calistoga 9 0.82 with nearly matching ratios of 0.92 and 0.91 American Canyon 16 0.70 motor vehicles per sworn officer, respectively. County Sheriff 31 0.41 Calistoga, American Canyon, and County Sheriff are next with respective ratios of 0.82, 0.70, and 0.41 motor vehicles per sworn officer. 83 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County There does not appear to be any direct Measuring the percent of motor vehicle relationship explaining the resulting arrangement capacity relative to their minimum of motor vehicles relative to sworn officers. needs of having at least one vehicle for However, this measurement does offer a every two sworn officers provides secondary tool in quantifying the percent of helpful context in assessing resource adequacy; a measurement that is motor vehicle capacity for each of the six affected particularly relevant to cities given their local agencies relative to their minimum needs of predominant focus on patrol services. having at least one vehicle for every two sworn officers; a measurement particularly relevant to cities given their predominant focus on patrol services. This minimum standard, among other considerations, provides each agency with at least one motor vehicle for each sworn staff assuming distinct work (i.e., daytime versus nighttime) schedules. A review of motor vehicle capacity using the Motor Vehicles/ Capacity: FY2011 Table V/Q; Source: Napa LAFCO referenced measurement shows Yountville with the % Above/Below highest ratio at 100% above their minimum needs. Agency Minimum Needs Napa follows at 84.4% and succeeded by St. Helena Yountville +100.0% and Calistoga at 66.6% and 50.0%, respectively. Napa +84.4% St. Helena +66.6% American Canyon’s motor vehicle capacity is the Calistoga +50.0% lowest among the five cities at 33.3%. 75 American Canyon +33.3% County Sheriff -18.4% As for other pertinent considerations, five of the six affected local agencies follow their own competitive The estimated countywide motor vehicle procurement process and have established motor replacement cost for marked vehicles vehicle replacement schedules based on service years every six years is close to $4.8 million less any trade-in and outfitting savings. and/or service miles; Yountville follows the County Sheriff. The estimated replacement cost for marked vehicles – the most common purchase – is currently $41,000 based on a recent procurement bid process.76 This estimate suggests the countywide motor vehicle replacement cost for marked vehicles every six years is approximately $4.8 million less any trade-in and outfitting savings; an amount that equates to an average annual cost of $0.8 million. All current schedules indicate the range of replacement Motor Vehicles/ Replacement Schedules occurs between three and six years or 80,000 and Table V/R; Source: Napa LAFCO 110,000 miles. American Canyon, Napa, and St. Agency Years Miles American Canyon 4 or 80,000 Helena have the most detailed schedules given all three Calistoga 5 to 6 -- include replacement triggers involving both service Napa 3 or 85,000 years and service miles. Further, among these three St. Helena 5 or 110,000 Yountville -- or 90,000 agencies, American Canyon appears to have the most County Sheriff -- or 90,000 aggressive schedule in terms of incurring the least amount of “wear and tear” on their motor vehicles by replacing no later than four years or 80,000 miles; an amount that presumes each motor vehicle will average only 20,000 miles of use per year before replacement. Napa and St. Helena’s schedules, in contrast, presume each of their motor vehicles will average 28,000 and 22,000 miles annually, respectively, before 75 The minimum vehicle needs for the six affected local agencies has been calculated as follows: Yountville at two; Napa at 33; St. Helena at six; Calistoga at six; American Canyon at 12; and County Sheriff at 38. 76 The estimate per unit cost includes purchasing a new car along with outfitting for law enforcement purposes. 84 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County replacement. Calistoga, Yountville, and County Sheriff have less detailed schedules and focus replacement either on a service year or service mile amount. Administrative Facilities The six affected local agencies providing law Administrative Facilities: enforcement services in Napa County all operate their Stand Alone or Shared Space Table V/S; Source: Napa LAFCO own administrative facilities with the exception of Agency Stand Alone Shared Yountville; Yountville utilizes a County Sheriff American Canyon substation. Usage is equally divided between stand Calistoga alone - Calistoga, Yountville, and County Sheriff - Napa St. Helena and shared - American Canyon, Napa, and St. Helena Yountville - spaces. Only County Sheriff operates more than County Sheriff one administrative facility with four regional substations complementing its main headquarters located near the Napa County Airport. Administrative Facilities: American Canyon, Calistoga, Yountville, and County Sheriff’s Building Date administrative facilities were all built within the last 25 years. Table V/T; Source: Napa LAFCO Within this group, only American Canyon utilizes shared space. American Canyon 2006 Calistoga 1991 Napa and St. Helena, conversely, both utilize shared Napa 1959 administrative facilities built in the 1950s.77 None of the six St. Helena 1955 affected local agencies anticipate new or remodeled Yountville 2009 County Sheriff 2005 administrative facilities in the near future. The combined administrative facilities’ square footage among the six affected local agencies totals 57,837. This amount equals an average ratio of 198.4 square feet of administrative space for every one law enforcement personnel (sworn/civilian) currently employed by the six affected local agencies. County Sheriff has the highest square foot per personnel ratio of 385.2; an amount that includes space dedicated to three year-round substations serving the Angwin, Lake Berryessa, and North Valley communities. Calistoga and Yountville follow with the second and third highest ratios at 212.5 and 204.8, respectively. A sizeable ratio decrease follows with Napa at 83.3, St. Helena at 73.5, and American Canyon at 70.6. Administrative Facilities: Square Feet to Personnel Ratio Table V/U; Source: Affected Local Agencies / Napa LAFCO Square Feet to Agency Square Feet Personnel Personnel Ratio County Sheriff 40,450 105 385.2 - Main Headquarters 38,800 -- -- - Angwin Substation 600 -- -- - Lake Berryessa Substation 650 -- -- - St. Helena Substation 400 -- -- Yountville 850 4 212.5 Calistoga 3,072 15 204.8 Napa 10,415 125 83.3 St. Helena 1,250 17 73.5 American Canyon 1,800 25.5 70.6 Totals 57,837 291.5 198.4 77 Napa’s administrative facility was comprehensively remodeled in 1993. 85 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County 2.0 Demands Demands on law enforcement continue to serve as important indicators with respect to assessing the capacity of affected agencies in protecting and serving their respective communities. Most notably, although not an exclusive connection, an underlying principle in considering demands and its informative relationship to capacities is the tenet that law enforcement in and of itself serves as a deterrent to criminal activity. This section examines the range of demands on local law enforcement agencies through three distinct and interrelated categories: (a) service calls; (b) reported crimes; and (c) types of reported crimes. This includes assessing these demand categories relative to recent and current conditions as well as regional comparisons as appropriate. 2.1 Service Calls Countywide Service Calls The six affected local agencies providing law enforcement services in Napa County collectively tallied 122,449 service calls in 2009- Service calls overall have increased modestly by 2010. This amount represents a slight increase in annual service approximately 1% over calls over the preceding five year period of nearly one percent or the last five years. 986. The increase is attributed to service call rises reported by American Canyon, County Sheriff, Yountville, and St. Helena. Service Calls Among Local Law Enforcement Agencies Table V/V; Source: Affected Local Agencies / Napa LAFCO Agency 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Average Trend American Canyon 15,511 19,047 17,544 16,883 16,716 17,140 +7.8% County Sheriff 23,385 25,762 24,679 22,002 24,746 24,115 +5.8% Yountville 2,021 2,151 2,110 1,889 2,087 2,052 +3.3% St. Helena 8,965 9,655 12,355 11,441 9,188 10,321 +2.5% Napa 64,394 61,996 55,786 56,600 62,945 60,344 -2.3% Calistoga 7,187 6,728 7,439 7,261 6,767 7,076 -5.8% Totals 121,463 125,339 119,913 116,076 122,449 121,048 +0.8% Individual Agency Service Calls The five year average among the six affected agencies produces a ratio of 879 service calls for every 1,000 residents Calistoga and St. Helena have in Napa County. This ratio translates to nearly nine out of averaged more than one ten residents generating one annual service call to law service call for every resident enforcement. The two north valley cities – St. Helena and over the last five years. Calistoga – both averaged more than one service call per resident during the five year period with their five year average ratio (calls per 1,000) totaling 1,764 and 1,364, respectively. The remaining four affected agencies – County Sheriff, American Canyon, Napa, and Yountville – averaged less than one call per resident during the five year period with respective ratios totaling 927, 870, 779, and 685. 86 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County Five-Year Average Service Calls Per 1,000 Residents Among Local Law Enforcement Agencies Table V/W; Source: Affected Local Agencies / Napa LAFCO Average Annual Calls Service Calls Per Agency 2005-06 to 2009-10 Current Population 1,000 Residents St. Helena 10,320 5,849 1,764.4 Calistoga 7,076 5,188 1,364.0 County Sheriff 24,115 26,448 911.8 American Canyon 17,140 19,693 870.4 Napa 60,344 77,464 779.0 Yountville 2,052 2,997 684.6 Totals 121,048 137,639 879.5 2.2 Reported Crimes Reported crime totals among all local law enforcement agencies are annually collected and cataloged by the United States Department of Justice. Reported crimes represent actual criminal offenses that have been tallied by law enforcement agencies in response to service calls and/or self-reporting. The phrase “reported” denotes the crime has not been adjudicated by the courts or cleared by other available means. Countywide Trends in Reported Crimes The six affected local law enforcement agencies in Napa County have collectively averaged 4,682.6 reported Annual crime totals overall in Napa County have declined by nearly 9% crimes between 2005-2006 and 2009-2010. Annual over the preceding five year period. totals have experienced a sizable reduction in reported All of the local agencies with the crimes over the preceding five year period of nearly nine exception of American Canyon have percent or 414. All of the affected agencies with the experienced declines in reported crimes during this period. exception of American Canyon have experienced declines in reported crimes during this period. St. Helena experienced the largest percentage decline in reported crimes at 40.0% followed by Yountville, Calistoga, Napa, and County Sheriff at 23.7%, 13.8%, 13.2%, and 11.4%, respectively. American Canyon, conversely, experienced nearly a 40% increase in reported crimes with the most recent years marking peak totals. Reported Crimes Among Local Law Enforcement Agencies Table V/X; Source: CA Department of Justice/ Napa LAFCO Agency 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Average Trend American Canyon 471 370 588 647 647 544.6 +37.4% Calistoga 167 154 179 166 144 162.0 -13.8% County Sheriff 594 663 810 688 526 656.2 -11.4% Napa 3,202 3,348 3,509 2,896 2,779 3,146.8 -13.2% Yountville 76 51 76 56 58 63.4 -23.7% St. Helena 145 102 112 102 87 109.6 -40.0% Totals 4,655 4,688 5,274 4,555 4,241 4,682.6 -8.9% 87 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County Individual Agency Relationship Between Service Calls and Reported Crimes The relationship between service calls and reported crimes serves as an effective measurement in assessing the actual value of calls. More specifically, the ratio of service calls to reported crimes serves as a reasonable indication on how efficient law enforcement resources are being utilized. While there is no national standard, a lower ratio is preferred given it indicates a more direct relationship between calls and crimes. A higher ratio, conversely, suggests a higher proportion of unwarranted calls to law enforcement agencies. Napa has the lowest ratio among the six affected local Average Call to Crime Ratio: agencies with 19 service calls for every one reported crime FY2006 to FY2010 Table V/Y; Source: Napa LAFCO over the last five years. American Canyon, Yountville, County Napa 19 to 1 Sheriff, and Calistoga follow relatively close to Napa with American Canyon 32 to 1 respective ratios of 32, 32, 36, and 44 service calls for every Yountville 32 to 1 County Sheriff 37 to 1 one reported crime in their respective jurisdictions. St. Calistoga 44 to 1 Helena, on the other hand, has a relatively high ratio of 94 St. Helena 94 to 1 service calls for every one reported crime; an amount that more than doubles the next highest total and is attributed by SHPD to community casualness with respect to contacting police for a wide range of issues. Individual Agency Relationship Between Crimes and Population The relationship between reported crimes and resident population helps to contextualize demands on law enforcement agencies relative to their respective constituent base. An accepted method in assessing this relationship is to quantify crime totals in more manageable amounts with the most common measurement being in 1,000 person increments. A lower ratio is inherently preferred given it indicates crime levels within the affected community are presumably manageable. A higher ratio, in contrast, suggests crime levels within the affected community are more pervasive and require additional resources to address. Average reported crime totals among the six affected law enforcement agencies between St. Helena has averaged the lowest proportional 2005-2006 and 2009-2010 generally crime totals of the six affected agencies over the last correspond with population totals with the five years by tallying 18.7 reported crimes for every larger communities producing more crime on 1,000 residents. Conversely, Napa has averaged the highest proportional crime totals by tallying 40.6 average than smaller communities. Towards reported crimes for every 1,000 residents. this end, St. Helena has averaged the lowest crime totals of the six affected agencies over the last five years by tallying 18.7 reported crimes for every 1,000 residents. Conversely, Napa has averaged the highest crime totals by tallying 40.6 reported crimes for every 1,000 residents. A notable outlier involves Calistoga, which along with St. Helena have two of the three smallest resident populations of the six affected agencies, but finished with the second highest average crime totals by tallying 30.8 reported crimes for every 1,000 residents. 88 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County Five-Year Average Reported Crimes Per 1,000 Residents Among Local Law Enforcement Agencies in Napa County Table V/Z; Source: Affected Local Agencies / Napa LAFCO Average Reported Crimes Current Reported Crimes Per Agency 2005-06 to 2009-10 Population 1,000 Residents St. Helena 109.6 5,849 18.7 Yountville 63.4 2,997 21.2 County Sheriff 656.2 26,448 24.8 American Canyon 544.6 19,693 27.7 Calistoga 160.0 5,188 30.8 Napa 3,146.8 77,464 40.6 2.3 Types of Reported Crimes Not all crimes are equal and there is value in distinguishing the types of criminal offenses in terms of assessing severity. The most serious types of crimes are uniformly categorized by law enforcement as violent and involve force or threat of force. Violent crimes are subdivided to include murder, rape, aggravated assault, and robbery. Simple assault crimes follow violent in terms of severity and are generally characterized by the lack of intent and are subdivided to include inadvertent physical harm, unwelcome physical contact, and threats of violence. Property crimes are relatively the least serious offenses and generally involve inanimate objects, such as theft of property with no force or threat of force against the victims. Examples include burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson. Countywide Trends in Types of Reported Crimes The breakdown of reported crime types has remained Property crimes on average represented relatively consistent in Napa County between 2005-2006 more than two-thirds of all reported and 2009-2010. Property crimes on average represented incidents among the six local law more than two-thirds of all reported incidents among enforcement agencies during this the six affected local law enforcement agencies during period followed by simple assault (one- fifth) and violent (one-tenth) offenses. this period followed by simple assault (one-fifth) and violent (one-tenth) offenses. Markedly, during this period, the percentage of property crimes in one year never fell below 66.7% while the percentage of violent crimes never exceeded 10.2%. Reported Crime Types in Napa County Table V/AA; Source: CA Department of Justice/ Napa LAFCO Year 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 % of Total Violent 475 438 454 378 386 9.1 Simple Assault 1,006 1,122 1,180 980 821 21.8 Property 3,174 3,128 3,640 3,197 3,034 69.1 Totals 4,655 4,688 5,274 4,555 4,241 100.0 89 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County In terms of trends, consistent with overall volume, crime within each of the three category types has declined over Crime within each of the three category types has declined over the last five years in Napa County with the sharpest the last five years with the sharpest decreases occurring most recently. The largest percentage decreases occurring most recently. decline involved violent crimes, which has decreased by 18.7% and underlined by over a one-third decrease in countywide aggravated assault totals. Further, murder totals countywide have remained relatively moderate and have averaged 2.4 in each of the last five reported years with a peak total of six occurring during 2005-2006.78 Simple assaults have also experienced a sizeable decrease during the period at 18.4% followed by property crimes at 4.4%. Trends in Reported Crime Types in Napa County Table V/BB; Source: CA Department of Justice/ Napa LAFCO Year 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Trend Violent 475 438 454 378 386 -18.7% Simple Assault 1,006 1,122 1,180 980 821 -18.4% Property 3,174 3,128 3,640 3,197 3,034 -4.4% Totals 4,655 4,688 5,274 4,555 4,241 -8.9% Individual Agency Trends in Types of Reported Crimes Violent Crimes American Canyon experienced the largest percentage Agency Trends in Violent Crimes: change in violent crimes during the last five years with an FY2006 to FY2010 Table V/CC; Source: Napa LAFCO increase of 84.4%, which is attributed to an over two- American Canyon +84.4% third increase in robberies.79 Yountville followed with a Yountville +33.3% 33.3% increase in violent crimes during this period. County Sheriff +0.0% St. Helena -20.0% Napa experienced the largest percentage decrease in Calistoga -25.0% violent crimes by declining 29.2%; a change attributed to Napa -29.2% an over two-fifths drop in aggravated assaults.80 St. Helena and Calistoga also experienced percentage decreases in violent crimes at 20.0% and 25.0%, respectively. Simple Assaults All six affected local agencies experienced declines in Agency Trends in Simple Assaults: simple assaults during the last five year period. St. FY2006 to FY2010 Table V/DD; Source: Napa LAFCO Helena experienced the largest percentage change with a County Sheriff -3.9% decrease of 45.5%. Yountville experienced the second Napa -18.3% highest decline at 42.1% followed by Calistoga at 33.3%, American Canyon -25.5% Calistoga -33.3% American Canyon at 25.5%, Napa at 18.3%, and County Yountville -42.1% Sheriff at 3.9%. St. Helena -45.5% 78 The average annual murder rates in Napa County over the last five reported years equates approximately to one homicide for every 25,000 residents according to the California Department of Justice. This ratio lies within the midrange of the other eight counties in the San Francisco Bay Area with their respective totals as follows: Marin at 1:80,000, San Mateo at 1:51,000, Sonoma at 1: 43,000, Santa Clara at 1:35,000, Alameda at 1:26,000, San Francisco at 1:25,000, Solano at 1: 19,000, and Contra Costa at 1:16,000. 79 Robberies in American Canyon have increased by 71% rising from nine to 31 between 2005-2006 and 2009-2010. 80 Aggravated assaults in Napa have declined by 42.3% over the five-year period by decreasing from 331 to 191 incidents. 90 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County Property Crimes American Canyon experienced the largest percentage Agency Trends in Property Crimes: change in property crimes by increasing 50.1% over the FY2006 to FY2010 Table V/EE; Source: Napa LAFCO last five years. This change is primarily attributed to American Canyon +50.1% nearly a four-fifths increase in larceny and thefts Calistoga -6.8% followed by a one-tenth increase in motor vehicle thefts. Napa -8.5% County Sheriff -14.6% The other five affected local agencies experienced Yountville -20.4% declines in property crimes during the period. St. St. Helena -40.3% Helena has experienced the largest percentage decrease during the period at 40.3%, underlined by a two-fifths reduction in larceny and thefts. Calistoga, Napa, County Sheriff, and Yountville also experienced decreases in property crimes at 6.8%, 8.5%, 15.2%, and 20.4%, respectively. 3.0 Performance Assigning appropriate performance measures for law enforcement agencies is challenging given the number of external and changing variables influencing the level and range of service delivery. This includes, most notably, local conditions that are unique to individual communities and difficult to quantify relative to creating an “apples to apples” comparison among multiple service providers. It appears reasonable, accordingly, to focus performance measures to those factors that are less impressionable to external factors and easier to quantify in terms of cross-agency comparisons. With this in mind, this section focuses on two types of performance measures for law enforcement: (a) clearance rates and (b) public complaint filings. The former measurement includes assessing the portion of reported crimes that have been successfully adjudicated or determined to be unfounded while the latter involves the number of citizen complaints filed by and/or on behalf of the public. 3.1 Clearance Rates Trends in Clearance Rates: Overall Reported Crimes The six affected law enforcement agencies in Napa County Countywide clearance rates have collectively cleared on average 1,584 of the 4,683 total have fluctuated between 2005- reported crimes between 2005-2006 and 2009-2010. This 2006 and 2009-2010 from a low results in an average overall clearance rate of 33.8%. Total of 30.2% and a high of 37.6%. The period average is 33.8%. annual clearance rates have fluctuated considerably during this period from a low of 30.2% to a high of 37.6%. The five year trend, nevertheless, shows clearance rates have remained stagnant as measured by the beginning and ending points equaling each other in terms of percentage. The total number of clearances during this period has experienced a sizeable reduction of nearly nine percent or The housing market collapse and 156; a reduction that parallels the overall nine percent economic downturn appear to have decline in reported crimes during the five year span. The significantly and adversely affected percentage of cleared crimes during this period has crime clearance rates between 2006-2007 and 2008-2009. remained consistent at 37.6% despite fluctuations in the intermediate years. Significantly, overall clearance rates 91 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County experienced a precipitous two-year decline after 2005-2006 dropping to a five-year period low of 30.2%. This sharp decrease in clearance rates during the two-year period parallels the timing of the housing market collapse and suggests law enforcement capacities were overtaxed and their response to this “stress test” resulted in a dramatic one-year decline in clearance rates; rates that have gradually been improving since 2007-2008. Trends in Clearance Rates: Overall Reported Crimes in Napa County Table V/FF; Source: CA Department of Justice/ Napa LAFCO Category 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Trend Reported Crimes 4,655 4,688 5,274 4,555 4,241 -8.7% Clearances 1,750 1,426 1,595 1,553 1,594 -8.9% % Cleared 37.6 30.4 30.2 34.1 37.6 +0.0% American Canyon has achieved the highest five-year clearance rate among the six affected agencies at 36.4%. Napa follows American Canyon has American Canyon with a five-year clearance rate of 34.2% the highest five-year clearance rate at 36.4%. preceded by Yountville at 33.1%, County Sheriff at 32.6%, and Calistoga at 30.5%. St. Helena has the lowest five-year clearance rate at 22.4%; over one-fourth lower than the next lowest clearance rate. Five-Year Average of Clearances and Clearance Rates Among Local Law Enforcement Agencies in Napa County Table V/GG; Source: Affected Local Agencies / Napa LAFCO Average Reported Crimes Average Clearances Average Clearance Rate Agency 2005-06 to 2009-10 2005-06 to 2009-10 2005-06 to 2009-10 American Canyon 544.6 198.2 36.4 Napa 3,146.8 1,076.2 34.2 Yountville 63.4 21.0 33.1 County Sheriff 656.2 214.2 32.6 Calistoga 162.0 49.4 30.5 St. Helena 109.6 24.6 22.4 Totals 4,682.6 1,583.6 33.8 Trends in Clearance Rates: Individual Reported Crime Types The breakdown of types of reported crime clearance Countywide clearance rates show two rates in Napa County between 2005-2006 and 2009- distinct and opposite patterns in 2010 highlight two distinct and opposite patterns with crime solving: violent and simple respect to the probability of certain offenses being assault offenses have been cleared on adjudicated or deemed unfounded by one of the six average 72.6% while property offenses are cleared on average 16.5%. affected law enforcement agencies. Violent and simple assault crimes, specifically, have been collectively cleared on average nearly three-fourths of the time at 72.6% despite percentage declines in respective clearance rates over the corresponding period. Property crimes, contrarily, have been collectively cleared on average less than one-fifth of the time at 16.4% despite a percentage increase in clearance rates. It appears a reasonable explanation underlying the distinction in which local law enforcement agencies are far more successful in clearing violent and simple assault crimes compared to property crimes is that the former (i.e., violent and simple assault offenses) are more likely to produce eye-witnesses. 92 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County Trends in Clearance Rates: Individual Reported Crime Types in Napa County Table V/HH; Source: CA Department of Justice/ Napa LAFCO Year 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Average Trend Violent 70.1 58.7 62.1 67.2 65.3 64.7 -6.8% Simple Assault 87.2 68.6 67.8 76.6 83.2 76.0 -4.6% Property 17.0 12.8 14.1 17.1 21.7 16.4 +27.6% Trends in Clearance Rates: Individual Agencies Four of the six affected agencies with the exception of Yountville and County Sheriff have experienced Four of the six affected agencies improvement in their respective clearance rates between with the exception of Yountville and 2005-2006 and 2009-2010. Calistoga and St. Helena County Sheriff have improved their respective clearance rates between experienced the largest percentage improvements in their 2005-2006 and 2009-2010. respective clearance rates by rising nearly one-fifth during this period. American Canyon also experienced an approximate one-tenth improvement in its clearance rate followed by Napa which finished the period with a slight percentage increase. Yountville and County Sheriff’s clearance rates declined precipitously by three-fifths and one-fifth, respectively, highlighted by sharp decreases occurring in 2006-2007. Average and Trends in Clearance Rates: Individual Agencies in Napa County Table V/II; Source: CA Department of Justice/ Napa LAFCO Category 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Average Trend American Canyon 40.1 30.3 27.2 38.6 43.3 36.4 +8.0% Calistoga 29.9 31.8 25.1 31.3 35.4 30.5 +18.4% Napa 37.4 30.9 31.1 34.3 38.3 34.2 +2.4% St. Helena 16.6 34.3 26.8 16.7 19.5 22.4 +17.5% Yountville 56.6 21.6 28.9 26.8 24.1 33.1 -57.4% County Sheriff 41.4 27.8 30.4 33.0 31.9 32.6 -22.9% Trends in Clearance Rates: Types of Reported Crimes Violent Crimes The overall clearance rate for violent crimes is 64.7% Agency Average Clearance Rates among the six affected local law enforcement agencies for Violent Crime: between 2005-2006 and 2009-2010. Calistoga has FY2006 to FY2010 Table V/JJ; Source: Napa LAFCO averaged the highest clearance rate for violent crimes Calistoga 81.7% during the period at 81.7%. The remaining five agencies’ County Sheriff 67.6% clearance rates for violent crimes have averaged from a St. Helena 64.7% Napa 64.0% low of 60.0% to a high of 67.6%. American Canyon 61.0% Yountville 60.0% 93 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County The overall trend in clearance rates for violent crimes has Agency Trends in Clearance Rates been a 6.8% decline between 2005-2006 and 2009-2010. for Violent Crime: This overall decline is attributed to Napa and Yountville FY2006 to FY2010 Table V/KK; Source: Napa LAFCO with their respective 13.1% and 75.0% decreases in St. Helena +87.5% clearance rate for violent crimes during this period.81 Calistoga +33.3% The remaining four affected agencies all experienced American Canyon +24.5% County Sheriff +23.8% improvements in their clearance rates for violent crimes Napa -13.1% led by St. Helena at 87.5% and followed by Calistoga, Yountville -75.0% American Canyon, and County Sheriff at 33.3%, 24.5%, and 23.8%, respectively. Simple Assault Crimes The overall clearance rate for simple assault crimes is Agency Average Clearance Rates 76.0% among the six affected local law enforcement for Simple Assault Crime: agencies between 2005-2006 and 2009-2010. St. Helena, FY2006 to FY2010 Table V/LL; Source: Napa LAFCO County Sheriff, American Canyon, Napa, and Yountville St. Helena 77.8% have averaged the highest clearance rates for simple County Sheriff 77.7% assault crimes during the period at 77.8%, 77.7%, 76.3%, American Canyon 76.3% Napa 76.0% 76.0%, and 74.2%, respectively. Calistoga’s clearance Yountville 74.2% rate for simple assault crimes has averaged 66.2%. Calistoga 66.2% The overall trend in clearance rates for simple assault Agency Trends in Clearance Rates crimes has been a 4.6% decline between 2005-2006 and for Simple Assault Crime: 2009-2010. This overall decline is attributed to Napa FY2006 to FY2010 and Yountville with their respective 8.2% and 13.7% Table V/MM; Source: Napa LAFCO St. Helena +52.8% decreases in clearance rates for simple assault crimes American Canyon +10.7% during this period.82 The remaining four affected Calistoga +3.9% agencies all experienced improvements in their clearance County Sheriff +2.1% Napa -8.2% rates for simple assault crimes led by St. Helena at 52.8% Yountville -13.7% and followed by American Canyon, Calistoga, and the County at 10.7%, 3.9%, and 2.1%, respectively. 81 In 2005-2006, Napa cleared 279 of the 384 violent crimes in its jurisdiction, resulting in a percentage of 72.7%. Yountville cleared all three violent crimes in its jurisdiction, resulting in a percentage of 100.0%. Comparatively, Napa cleared only 172 of the 272 violent crimes in 2009-2010, resulting in a percentage of 63.2%. Yountville cleared only one of the four violent crimes in 2009-2010, resulting in a percentage of 25.0%. 82 In 2005-2006, Napa cleared 654 of the 722 simple assault crimes in its jurisdiction, resulting in a percentage of 90.6%. Yountville cleared 16 of the 19 simple assault crimes in its jurisdiction, resulting in a percentage of 84.2%. Comparatively, Napa cleared only 491 of the 590 simple assault crimes in 2009-2010, resulting in a percentage of 83.2%. Yountville cleared eight of the 11 simple assault crimes, resulting in a percentage of 72.7%. 94 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County Property Crimes The overall clearance rate for property crimes is 16.4% Agency Average Clearance Rates among the six affected local law enforcement agencies for Property Crime: between 2005-2006 and 2009-2010. American Canyon FY2006 to FY2010 Table V/NN; Source: Napa LAFCO has averaged the highest clearance rates for simple American Canyon 25.9% assault crimes during the period at 25.9%. The Yountville 20.8% remaining five agencies’ clearance rates for property County Sheriff 15.4% Napa 15.0% crimes have averaged from a low of 12.8% to a high of Calistoga 14.6% 20.8%. St. Helena 12.8% The overall trend in clearance rates for property crimes Agency Trends in Clearance Rates has been a 27.6% increase between 2005-2006 and 2009- for Property Crime: 2010. This overall rise is attributed to Napa, Calistoga, FY2006 to FY2010 Table V/OO; Source: Napa LAFCO and American Canyon with their respective 65.9%, Napa +65.9% 60.3%, and 22.2% increases in clearance rates for Calistoga +60.3% property crimes during this period. St. Helena, County American Canyon +22.2% St. Helena -5.6% Sheriff, and Yountville experienced decreases in their County Sheriff -61.4% clearance rates for property crimes at 5.6%, 61.4%, and Yountville -73.9% 73.9%, respectively. 3.2 Public Complaint Filings Another appropriate measurement in assessing law enforcement performance involves considering the number of public complaint filings received over a specified time period. Public complaint filings, in particular, represent tangible indicators of law enforcement service quality as measured by the number of instances in which misconduct is alleged. Further, irrespective of the influence of externalities, public complaint filings help measure the effectiveness of local law enforcement agencies in protecting and serving citizenry in a manner preserving individual rights.83 All six affected local agencies providing law enforcement services in Napa County have established their own procedures to receive and process formal complaints involving alleged misconduct. This includes four of the affected local agencies – American Canyon, Calistoga, Napa, and County Sheriff – maintaining searchable databases indexing all registered public complaint filings and their current disposition. Conversely, public complaint filings with Yountville are registered without geographic distinction into the County Sheriff’s database; Yountville does not maintain its own separate tracking system. St. Helena does track public complaint filings, but this information was has not been made available to date to LAFCO. 83 Key externalities include distinctions in demographic and socioeconomic conditions. For example, income level influences volume of crime, which in turn influences volumes of interactions, and in turn influences probability of filing complaints. The demographic and socioeconomic attributes throughout Napa County, however, are generally level with moderate fluctuations and therefore provide for appropriate comparisons between the local jurisdictions. 95 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County With the caveats outlined in the preceding paragraph, the The number of annual public average number of public complaint filings among the five complaint filings in and of itself reporting law enforcement agencies in Napa County appears relatively low given on (American Canyon, Calistoga, Napa, Yountville, and County average it is equivalent to only Sheriff) totaled 11.0 annually between 2005-2006 and 2009- one out of 12,500 residents have registered a complaint in 2010. This total amount represents a ratio of 0.08 public each of the last five years. complaint filings for every 1,000 residents within the five affected jurisdictions. This ratio in and of itself appears relatively low given on average it is equivalent to only one out of 12,500 residents have registered a formal public complaint in each of the last five years. In terms of trends, there has been a relatively measurable decrease in the number of public complaint filings among the One notable outlier is that over one-half of the total public five reporting local agencies of 27% between 2005-2006 and complaint filings during the 2009-2010; only Napa has experienced an actual increase in last five years involved County the annual number of filings. Trends in public complaint Sheriff; an amount presumably filings also generally correspond with countywide trends in dedicated nearly or entirely to the unincorporated area. reported crimes with both peaking in 2007-2008. One notable outlier, nevertheless, is that over one-half of the total public complaint filings during this period involved County Sheriff; an amount presumably dedicated nearly or entirely to the unincorporated area. Public Complaint Filings: Individual Agencies in Napa County Table V/PP; Source: CA Department of Justice/ Napa LAFCO Category 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 Total Average Trend American Canyon 0 4 7 0 0 11 2.2 +0.0% Calistoga 1 1 2 0 1 5 1.0 +0.0% Napa 2 1 4 1 3 11 2.2 +33.3% St. Helena n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a County Sheriff * 8 6 4 6 4 28 5.6 -50.0% Total 11 12 17 7 8 55 11.0 -27.3% * Public complaint filings involving Yountville are registered without geographic distinction within County Sheriff totals. Additional context indicates on average Calistoga has Average Public Complaint Filings Per 1,000 Residents: experienced the highest number of public complaint filings FY2006 to FY2010 for every 1,000 residents at 0.19 annually between 2005-2006 Table V/QQ; Source: Napa LAFCO Calistoga 0.19 and 2009-2010. County Sheriff and American Canyon County Sheriff 0.18 follow Calistoga with annual averages during this period of American Canyon 0.14 0.18 and 0.14 public complaint filings per 1,000 residents, Napa 0.03 respectively. Napa experienced the lowest average annual St. Helena n/a number of public complaint filings per 1,000 residents at 0.03; an amount that is one-sixth of Calistoga’s average ratio. 96 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County As referenced, each affected local Public Complaint Filings Disposition: agency has its own system in reviewing FY2006 to FY2010 Table V/RR; Source: Napa LAFCO and processing public complaint filings Total Sustained Percentage with one of three common possible Agency Complaints Complaints Sustained results: the complaint is determined to Calistoga 5 0 0.0% American Canyon 11 2 18.2% be sustained, exonerated, or Napa 11 2 18.2% unfounded. Calistoga has experienced County Sheriff * 28 13 46.4% the highest success rate over the five St. Helena n/a n/a n/a year period with none of its five total * Public complaint filings involving Yountville are registered without geographic distinction within County Sheriff totals. public complaints resulting in a sustained finding of misconduct. American Canyon and Napa follow with each agency having two of their 11 public complaints sustained. County Sheriff has experienced the lowest success rate with 13 of its 28 total complaints sustained. 97 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County This page has been left intentionally blank for photocopying 98 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County VI. SOURCES 1.0 General • Association of Bay Area Governments, “Projections and Priorities” (2009): http://www.abag.org/ • California Department of Finance, Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2010-2011 with 2010 Census Benchmark: http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-5/2011- 20/view.php • California Department of Justice, Crime Statistics: http://ag.ca.gov/cjsc/datatabs.php • California Employment Development Department: http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/ • California State Controller’s Office: http://sco.ca.gov/ • Federal Bureau of Investigations, Unified Crime Reports: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr • Governmental Accounting Standards Board: http://gasb.org/ • Napa County Visitor Profile and Economic Impact Study, 2006 (Purdue University) • Towards a Countywide Visitor-Serving Strategy, Existing Conditions: Land Use, Infrastructure, and Business Distribution, 2005 (Napa County League of Governments Community Development Strategy Task Force) • Unified Crime Reporting Handbook, 2005: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/additional-ucr- publications/ucr_handbook.pdf 99 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County 2.0 American Canyon Primary Agency Contact • Jean Donaldson, American Canyon Police Department Chief Documents/Materials • American Canyon General Plan, 1994 (City of American Canyon) • Budget for Fiscal Year 2006-2007 (City of American Canyon) • Budget for Fiscal Year 2007-2008 (City of American Canyon) • Budget for Fiscal Year 2008-2009 (City of American Canyon) • Budget for Fiscal Year 2009-2010 (City of American Canyon) • Budget for Fiscal Year 2010-2011 (City of American Canyon) • Budget for Fiscal Year 2011-2012 (City of American Canyon) • City of American Canyon Agreement No. 2003-28, Agreement for Animal and Licensing Services Between the County of Napa and the City of American Canyon • Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Fiscal Year 2005-2006 (City of American Canyon) • Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Fiscal Year 2006-2007 (City of American Canyon) • Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Fiscal Year 2007-2008 (City of American Canyon) • Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Fiscal Year 2008-2009 (City of American Canyon) • Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Fiscal Year 2009-2010 (City of American Canyon) • Municipal Service Review Agency Questionnaire for American Canyon Police Department, 2009 (LAFCO of Napa County) • Napa County Agreement No. 3220, Agreement for Law Enforcement Services Between the County of Napa and the City of American Canyon • Napa County Agreement No. 3886, Agreement for Animal and Licensing Services Between the County of Napa and the City of American Canyon 100 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County 3.0 Calistoga Primary Agency Contact • Jonathan Mills, Calistoga Police Department Chief Documents/Materials • Budget for Fiscal Year 2006-2007 (City of Calistoga) • Budget for Fiscal Year 2007-2008 (City of Calistoga) • Budget for Fiscal Year 2008-2009 (City of Calistoga) • Budget for Fiscal Year 2009-2010 (City of Calistoga) • Budget for Fiscal Year 2010-2011 (City of Calistoga) • Budget for Fiscal Year 2011-2012 (City of Calistoga) • Calistoga General Plan, 2003 (City of Calistoga) • Calistoga Operating and Capital Improvement Budgets, Fiscal Year 2010-2011 (City of Calistoga) • Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Fiscal Year 2005-2006 (Krieg CPA) • Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Fiscal Year 2006-2007 (Krieg CPA) • Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Fiscal Year 2007-2008 (Krieg CPA) • Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Fiscal Year 2008-2009 (Krieg CPA) • Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Fiscal Year 2009-2010 (Krieg CPA) • Municipal Service Review Agency Questionnaire for Calistoga Police Department, 2009 (LAFCO of Napa County) 101 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County 4.0 Napa Primary Agency Contact • Steve Potter, Napa Police Department Commander Documents/Materials • Budget for Fiscal Year 2006-2007 (City of Napa) • Budget for Fiscal Year 2007-2008 (City of Napa) • Budget for Fiscal Year 2008-2009 (City of Napa) • Budget for Fiscal Year 2009-2010 (City of Napa) • Budget for Fiscal Year 2010-2011 (City of Napa) • Budget for Fiscal Year 2011-2012 (City of Napa) • Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Fiscal Year 2005-2006 (Maze & Assoc.) • Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Fiscal Year 2006-2007 (Maze & Assoc.) • Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Fiscal Year 2007-2008 (Maze & Assoc.) • Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Fiscal Year 2008-2009 (Maze & Assoc.) • Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Fiscal Year 2009-2010 (Maze & Assoc.) • Municipal Service Review Agency Questionnaire for Napa Police Department, 2009 (LAFCO of Napa County) • Napa County Agreement No. 3585, City of Napa Agreement No. 8350, Agreement for Animal and Licensing Services Between the County of Napa and the City of Napa • Napa General Plan, 1998 (City of Napa) • Staffing Study of the Police Department, City of Napa, 2005 (Matrix Consulting) • Strategic Plan 2006-2011 (Napa Police Department) 102 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County 5.0 St. Helena Primary Agency Contact • Jackie Rubin, St. Helena Police Department Chief Documents/Materials • Budget for Fiscal Year 2006-2007 (City of St. Helena) • Budget for Fiscal Year 2007-2008 (City of St. Helena) • Budget for Fiscal Year 2008-2009 (City of St. Helena) • Budget for Fiscal Year 2009-2010 (City of St. Helena) • Budget for Fiscal Year 2010-2011 (City of St. Helena) • Budget for Fiscal Year 2011-2012 (City of St. Helena) • Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Fiscal Year 2005-2006 (City of St. Helena) • Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Fiscal Year 2006-2007 (City of St. Helena) • Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Fiscal Year 2007-2008 (City of St. Helena) • Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Fiscal Year 2008-2009 (City of St. Helena) • Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Fiscal Year 2009-2010 (City of St. Helena) • Municipal Service Review Agency Questionnaire for St. Helena Police Department, 2009 (LAFCO of Napa County) • St. Helena General Plan, 1993 (City of St. Helena) 103 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County 6.0 Yountville Primary Agency Contact • Steven Rogers, Yountville Town Manager Documents/Materials • Budget for Fiscal Year 2006-2007 (Town of Yountville) • Budget for Fiscal Year 2007-2008 (Town of Yountville) • Budget for Fiscal Year 2008-2009 (Town of Yountville) • Budget for Fiscal Year 2009-2010 (Town of Yountville) • Budget for Fiscal Year 2010-2011 (Town of Yountville) • Budget for Fiscal Year 2011-2012 (Town of Yountville) • Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Fiscal Year 2006-2007 (Town of Yountville) • Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Fiscal Year 2007-2008 (Town of Yountville) • Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Fiscal Year 2008-2009 (Town of Yountville) • Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Fiscal Year 2009-2010 (Town of Yountville) • Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Fiscal Year 2010-2011 (Town of Yountville) • Municipal Service Review Agency Questionnaire for Napa County Sheriff, 2009 (LAFCO of Napa County) • Napa County Agreement No. 1841, Agreement for Law Enforcement Services Between the County of Napa and the Town of Yountville • Yountville Community Center and Library, Construction Project Management, Owner’s Representative, 2006: http://3smanagement.com/projects/yountville- community-center-library/ • Yountville General Plan, 1992 (Town of Yountville) • Yountville Operating Budget, Fiscal Year 2010-2011 (Town of Yountville) 104 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County 7.0 County of Napa Primary Agency Contact • Tracey Stuart, Napa County Sheriff’s Office Captain Documents/Materials • Budget for Fiscal Year 2006-2007 (County of Napa) • Budget for Fiscal Year 2007-2008 (County of Napa) • Budget for Fiscal Year 2008-2009 (County of Napa) • Budget for Fiscal Year 2009-2010 (County of Napa) • Budget for Fiscal Year 2010-2011 (County of Napa) • Budget for Fiscal Year 2011-2012 (County of Napa) • Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Fiscal Year 2006-2007 (County of Napa) • Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Fiscal Year 2007-2008 (County of Napa) • Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Fiscal Year 2008-2009 (County of Napa) • Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Fiscal Year 2009-2010 (County of Napa) • Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Fiscal Year 2010-2011 (County of Napa) • Municipal Service Review Agency Questionnaire for Napa County Sheriff, 2009 (LAFCO of Napa County) • Napa County Adult Probation Department, 2008-2009 Final Report (Napa County Grand Jury) • Napa County Agreement No. 1841, Agreement for Law Enforcement Services Between the County of Napa and the Town of Yountville • Napa County Agreement No. 3220, Agreement for Law Enforcement Services Between the County of Napa and the City of American Canyon • Napa County Agreement No. 3585, City of Napa Agreement No. 8350, Agreement for Animal and Licensing Services Between the County of Napa and the City of Napa • Napa County Agreement No. 3886, Agreement for Animal and Licensing Services Between the County of Napa and the City of American Canyon • Napa County Criminal Justice Facilities: County Jail and Juvenile Hall, 2008-2009 Final Report (Napa County Grand Jury) • Napa County General Plan, 2008 (County of Napa) • Napa Special Investigations Bureau, 2007 Annual Report (County of Napa) • Year-End Report, 2009 (Napa County Sheriff’s Office) • Year-End Report, 2010 (Napa County Sheriff’s Office) 105 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County VII. MISCELLANEOUS 1.0 Report Definitions Association of Bay Area Governments or ABAG ABAG is the regional planning agency for the nine counties and 101 cities and towns of the San Francisco Bay Area. ABAG is responsible, among other items, for preparing and issuing regional housing needs allocations among local jurisdictions, which must be addressed in each agency’s housing element. ACPD Acronym for American Canyon’s Police Department. Assembly Bill 109 State legislation enacted in 2011 that realigns low-level, nonviolent criminal offenders from the state prison and parole system to county jails and probation departments. Capital The term “capital” is used in this report to mean material wealth in the form of money or property. Change of Organization A “change of organization” is used in this report to mean a jurisdictional boundary or service change authorized by LAFCO. Examples include (a) city incorporations, (b) district formations, (c) city and district annexations, (d) city and district detachments, (e) city disincorporations, (f) district dissolutions, (g) city and district consolidations, (h) city and district mergers, (i) establishment of subsidiary districts, and (j) establishing or divesting district service powers. CPD Acronym for Calistoga’s Police Department. Clearance / Cleared Crime This term is commonly used by law enforcement agencies to mean an offense is cleared or "solved" for crime reporting purposes. In certain situations a clearance may be counted by "exceptional means" when the law enforcement agency definitely knows the identity of the offender, has enough information to support an arrest, and knows the location of the offender but for some reason cannot take the offender into custody. Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 A section of California Government Code commonly referred to as “LAFCO Law” and outlines uniform duties, responsibilities, and goals for all 58 commissions in California. Current Assets The term “current assets” is used in this report to mean an agency’s available assets that could be converted to cash within a fiscal year. These typically include cash and investments, receivables, prepaid items, and inventory. 106 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County Current Liabilities The term “current liabilities” is used in this report to mean an agency’s financial obligations due within a fiscal year. These typically include accounts payable, accrued liabilities, compensated absences, claims payable, accrued interest, deposits payable, deferred revenue, and payments toward long-term debt. Current Ratio The term “current ratio” is used in this report as a comparison to measure an agency’s liquidity by dividing their current assets by their current liabilities. A higher number is typically better. Day Time Visitor A non-resident touring guest to Napa County that does not result in an overnight stay. Debt to Net Assets Ratio The term “debt-to-net assets” is used in this report as a comparison to measure an agency’s capital by dividing their non-current liabilities by their total net assets or fund balance. A lower number is typically better. Exonerated A law enforcement term for situations when an allegation of official misconduct is filed and the resulting investigation discloses the subject activity was justified, lawful, and/or proper. Governmental Accounting Standards Board or GASB GASB is an independent organization created in 1984 for purposes of establishing and improving standards of accounting and financial reporting for state and local governments. General Fund The primary monetary fund of a public agency for discretionary purposes. The general fund records all assets and liabilities as well as provides the resources necessary to sustain day-to- day activities. Government Code Section 56133 A section of LAFCO law regulating the approval processes for cities and districts to provide new or extended municipal services outside their jurisdictional boundaries. LAFCOs Acronym for local agency formation commissions. LAFCOs are empowered under the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 with regulatory and planning powers to coordinate the logical formation and development of cities and districts. The Legislature mandates LAFCOs orient their actions to discourage urban sprawl and protect agricultural and open space resources. Liquidity The term “liquidity” is used in this report to mean an agency’s assets that can be converted to cash quickly. 107 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County Measure A A measure passed by Napa County voters in 1980 and re-adopted as an ordinance by the Board of Supervisors in 2000 to limit housing growth in the unincorporated area to 1% annually as measured by housing units. Measure P A measure passed by Napa County voters in 2008 requiring countywide voter approval to change the designation of any unincorporated lands identified for agricultural or open-space use under the County General Plan to an urban use though 2059. This measure succeeds Measure J. Municipal Service Review A comprehensive evaluation by LAFCO of the availability and adequacy of one or more services within a defined area or of the range and level of services provided by one or more agencies as required under Government Code Section 56430. Not Sustained A law enforcement term for situations when an internal investigation of alleged misconduct discloses that there is insufficient evidence to sustain a complaint or fully exonerate an employee. NCSO Acronym for the County of Napa’s Sheriff’s Office. NPD Acronym for Napa’s Police Department. Operating Margin The term “operating margin” is used in this report to measure an agency’s net operating income against their net operating revenues. A positive number denotes profit. Overnight Visitor A non-resident touring guest to Napa County that stays one night in a hotel or related transient accommodation. Poverty Rate The proportion of a population earning less than the minimum level of income deemed adequate in a given jurisdiction by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics. Property Crime A law enforcement term for an offense involving the taking or destruction of money or property, but there is no force or threat of force against the victims. Examples include burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson. Reorganization Two or more changes of organization as defined under LAFCO law contained within a single proposal. 108 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County Reported Crime A law enforcement term referring to an incident in which the rules or laws of a governing authority have been breached or violated and reported to the affected agency. Rural Urban Limit or RUL An RUL is policy statement adopted by a local land use authority or their voters demarking the extent of planned urban development within the community. San Francisco Bay Area Region A geographic region comprising the following nine counties: Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Rosa, Solano, and Sonoma. SHPD Acronym for St. Helena’s Police Department. Simple Assault A law enforcement term for an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact. Sphere of Influence A LAFCO planning tool used to demark probable physical boundaries and service area of a local agency. All jurisdictional changes, such as annexations, must be consistent with the affected spheres of influence with limited exceptions. Sustained A law enforcement term for situations when an investigation discloses there is sufficient evidence to establish that an alleged act of official misconduct has occurred. Unemployment Rate The number of unemployed persons actively seeking employment divided by the total labor force as calculated by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics. Uniform Crime Reporting or UCR The UCR is an annual publication of national, state, and local crime statistics based on filings with the United States Federal Bureau of Investigations. Unfounded A law enforcement term for situations when an internal investigation discloses that an alleged act of official misconduct did not occur or. Violent Crime A law enforcement term for an offense involving force or threat of force, including murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Visitor A non-resident touring guest to Napa County. 109 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County 2.0 Listing of Report Maps Map Page One: American Canyon General Plan 25 Two: American Canyon Jurisdictional Boundary/Sphere of Influence 26 Three: Calistoga General Plan 31 Four: Calistoga Jurisdictional Boundary/Sphere of Influence 32 Five: Napa General Plan 37 Six: Napa Jurisdictional Boundary/Sphere of Influence 38 Seven: St. Helena General Plan 43 Eight: St. Helena Jurisdictional Boundary/Sphere of Influence 44 Nine: Yountville General Plan 49 Ten: Yountville Jurisdictional Boundary/Sphere of Influence 50 Eleven: County of Napa General Plan 55 Twelve: Napa County Jurisdictional Boundary 56 110 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County 3.0 Listing of Report Tables Table Page I/A: LAFCOs’ Regulatory Authority........................................................................... 5 I/B: Napa LAFCO’s Commission Roster.................................................................... 7 I/C: Mandatory Municipal Service Review Determinations...................................... 8 III/A: Resident Population in American Canyon......................................…………... 25 III/B: Residential Uses in American Canyon………………………………………... 26 III/C: Housing Units in American Canyon………………………………………….. 26 III/D: American Canyon’s General Fund Revenues and Expenses…………………. 27 III/E: Financial Measurements for American Canyon Based on Last Audit………... 27 III/F: American Canyon’s Audited General Fund Balances………………………… 28 III/G: ACPD’s Facilities, Equipment, and Resources……………………………….. 29 III/H: ACPD Snapshot: FY 2006 to FY 2010……………………………………….. 29 III/I: ACPD Service Characteristics: Service Calls and Crime Totals………………. 30 III/J: Resident Population in Calistoga……………………………………………… 31 III/K: Residential Uses in Calistoga…………………………………………………. 32 III/L: Housing Units in Calistoga……………………………………………………. 32 III/M: Calistoga’s General Fund Revenues and Expenses………………………….. 33 III/N: Financial Measurements for Calistoga Based on Last Audit…………………. 33 III/O: Calistoga’s Audited General Fund Balances…………………………………. 34 III/P: CPD’s Facilities, Equipment, and Resources…………………………………. 35 III/Q: CPD Snapshot: FY 2006 to FY 2010…………………………………………. 35 III/R: CPD Service Characteristics: Service Calls and Crime Totals………………. 36 III/S: Resident Population in Napa………………………………………………….. 37 III/T: Residential Uses in Napa……………………………………………………… 38 III/U: Housing Units in Napa………………………………………………………... 38 III/V: Napa’s General Fund Revenues and Expenses……………………………….. 39 III/W: Financial Measurements for Napa Based on Last Audit…………………….. 39 III/X: Napa’s Audited General Fund Balances……………………………………… 40 III/Y: NPD’s Facilities, Equipment, and Resources………………………………… 41 III/Z: NPD Snapshot: FY 2006 to FY 2010…………………………………………. 41 III/AA: NPD Service Characteristics: Service Calls and Crime Totals……………. 42 III/BB: Resident Population in St. Helena………………………………………….. 43 III/CC: Residential Uses in St. Helena……………………………………………… 44 III/DD: Housing Units in St. Helena………………………………………………… 44 III/EE: St. Helena’s General Fund Revenues and Expenses………………………… 45 III/FF: Financial Measurements for St. Helena Based on Last Audit………………. 45 III/GG: St. Helena’s Audited General Fund Balances………………………………. 46 III/HH: SHPD’s Facilities, Equipment, and Resources……………………………... 47 III/II: SHPD Snapshot: FY 2006 to FY 2010………………………………………... 47 III/JJ: SHPD Service Characteristics: Service Calls and Crime Totals…………….. 48 III/KK: Resident Population in Yountville………………………………………….. 49 III/LL: Residential Uses in Yountville………………………………………………. 50 III/MM: Housing Units in Yountville……………………………………………….. 50 III/NN: Yountville’s General Fund Revenues and Expenses……………………….. 51 III/OO: Financial Measurements for Yountville Based on Last Audit…………….. 51 III/PP: Yountville’s Audited General Fund Balances………………………………. 52 111 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County III/QQ: Yountville’s Facilities, Equipment, and Resources………………………… 53 III/RR: Yountville Snapshot: FY 2006 to FY 2010…………………………………. 53 III/SS: Yountville Service Characteristics: Service Calls and Crime Totals……….. 54 III/TT: Resident Population in Unincorporated Napa County………………………. 55 III/UU: Residential Uses in Unincorporated Napa County………………………….. 56 III/VV: Housing Units in Unincorporated Napa County……………………………. 56 III/WW: County of Napa’s General Fund Revenues and Expenses………………… 57 III/XX: Financial Measurements for County of Napa Based on Last Audit………… 57 III/YY: County of Napa’s Audited Fund Balances………………………………….. 58 III/ZZ: County Sheriff’s Facilities, Equipment, and Resources…………………….. 60 III/AAA: County Sheriff Snapshot: FY 2006 to FY 2010…………………………... 61 III/BBB: County Sheriff Service Characteristics: Service Calls/Crime Totals…….. 62 III/CCC: County Sheriff Service Characteristics: Animal Control………………… 62 III/DDD: County Sheriff Snapshot: Special Investigations Bureau............................ 62 III/EEE: County Corrections Characteristics…........................................................... 63 IV/A: Resident Population in Napa County: Past/Current Projections....................... 65 IV/B: Resident Population of Local Jurisdictions: Past/ Current Projections………. 66 IV/C: Resident Population of Bay Area Counties: Past/Current Projections……….. 66 IV/D: Resident Population of Local Jurisdictions: Future Projections…................... 67 IV/E: Resident to Square Mile Densities of Local Jurisdictions…………………….. 68 IV/F: Resident to Square Mile Densities of Bay Area Counties…………………….. 68 IV/G: Housing Units Within Local Jurisdictions: Recent/ Current............................. 69 IV/H: Recent Greenfield Development Projects in Napa County............................... 70 IV/I: Bay Area Counties: % Developed…………………………….......................... 70 IV/J: Lodging Units within Local Jurisdictions: Recent/Current................................ 71 IV/K: Employment Rates Among Local Jurisdictions: Recent/Current...................... 72 IV/L: Employment Rates Among Bay Area Counties: Current................................... 73 IV/M: Household Income Levels Within Local Jurisdictions..................................... 73 IV/N: Household Income Levels Among Bay Area Counties……………................. 74 V/A: General Fund Revenue Source Totals Among Local Jurisdictions.................... 76 V/B: General Fund Revenue Trends: FY 2007 to FY 2011………………………..... 76 V/C: Law Enforcement Expenditures Among Local Jurisdictions: Recent…………. 77 V/D: Agency Trends: General Fund Revenues to Law Enforcement Costs………… 77 V/E: Current Percentage of General Fund Dedicated to Law Enforcement………… 77 V/F: Law Enforcement Expenditures Per Capita Within Local Jurisdictions………. 78 V/G: Changes in Law Enforcement Per Capita Costs: FY 2007 to FY 2011……….. 78 V/H: Changes in Local Agencies’ Audited General Fund Reserves………………... 79 V/I: Liquidity: Recent Current Ratios………………………………………………. 79 V/J: Capital Debt to Net Assets……………………………………………………... 80 V/K: Law Enforcement Personnel Within Local Jurisdictions: Recent…………….. 81 V/L: Average Sworn Officers/1,000 Residents: FY 2007 to FY 2011……………… 81 V/M: Current Sworn Officers/1,000 Residents Within Bay Area Counties………… 82 V/N: Motor Vehicles/Relative to Population: FY 2011…………………………….. 83 V/O: Motor Vehicles/Relative to Jurisdiction: FY 2011………………...………….. 83 V/P: Motor Vehicles/Relative to Sworn Staff: FY 2011……………………………. 83 V/Q: Motor Vehicles/Capacity: FY 2011…………………………………………… 84 V/R: Motor Vehicles/Replacement Schedules………………………………………. 84 V/S: Administrative Facilities: Stand Alone or Shared Space……………………… 85 112 | P a g e Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services LAFCO of Napa County V/T: Administrative Facilities: Building Date……………………………………… 85 V/U: Administrative Facilities: Square Feet to Personnel Ratio……………………. 85 V/V: Service Calls Among Local Law Enforcement Agencies……………………... 86 V/W: 5-Year Avg. Service Calls/1,000 Residents Among Local Agencies...………. 87 V/X: Reported Crimes Among Local Law Enforcement Agencies…………………. 87 V/Y: Average Call to Crime Ratio: FY 2006 to FY 2010………………………….. 88 V/Z: 5-Year Avg. Reported Crimes/1,000 Residents Among Local Agencies…….. 89 V/AA: Reported Crime Types in Napa County……………………………………... 89 V/BB: Trends in Reported Crime Types in Napa County…………………………... 90 V/CC: Agency Trends in Violent Crimes: FY 2006 to FY 2010…………………… 90 V/DD: Agency Trends in Simple Assaults: FY 2006 to FY 2010…………………... 90 V/EE: Agency Trends in Property Crimes: FY 2006 to FY 2010…………………... 91 V/FF: Trends in Clearance Rates: Overall Reported Crimes in Napa County……… 92 V/GG: 5-Year Avg. Clearances and Clearance Rates Among Local Agencies…….. 92 V/HH: Trends in Clearance Rates: Individual Crime Types in Napa County………. 93 V/II: Avg. and Trends in Clearance Rates: Individual Local Agencies…………….. 93 V/JJ: Avg. Clearance Rates for Violent Crimes: FY 2006 to FY 2010…………….. 93 V/KK: Agency Clearance Rate Trends for Violent Crime: FY 2006 to FY 2010.….. 94 V/LL: Agency Clearance Rates Simple Assault Crimes: FY 2006 to FY 2010…….. 94 V/MM: Agency Clearance Rate Trends Simple Assault Crime: FY2006 to FY2010. 94 V/NN: Agency Average Clearance Rates for Property Crime: FY 2006 to FY 2010. 95 V/OO: Agency Trends in Clearance Rates Property Crime: FY 2006 to FY 2010…. 95 V/PP: Public Complaint Filings: Individual Agencies in Napa County…………….. 96 V/QQ: Average Public Complaint Filings/1,000 Residents: FY 2006 to FY 2010…. 96 V/RR: Public Complaint Filing Disposition: FY 2006 to FY 2010…………………. 97 113 | P a g e d Local d Agen fc yFormationCom m issi no LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION C OMMISSION OF NAPA COUNTY Policy on Municipal Service Reviews NapaCounty Adopted: November 3, 2008 I. Background The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 requires the Commission to prepare municipal service reviews in conjunction with its mandate to review and update each local agency’s sphere of influence every five years as necessary. The legislative intent of the municipal service review process is to inform the Commission with regard to the availability, capacity, and efficiency of governmental services provided within its jurisdiction prior to making sphere of influence determinations. Municipal service reviews must designate the geographic area in which the governmental service or services are under evaluation. Municipal service reviews must also include determinations addressing the governance factors prescribed under Government Code Section 56430 and any other matters relating to service provision as required by Commission policy. II. Purpose The purpose of these policies is to guide the Commission in conducting municipal service reviews. This includes establishing consistency with respect to the Commission’s approach in the (a) scheduling, (b) preparation, and (c) adoption of municipal service reviews. III. Objective The objective of the Commission in conducting municipal service reviews is to proactively and comprehensively evaluate the level, range, and structure of governmental services necessary to support orderly growth and development in Napa County. Underlying this objective is to develop and expand the Commission’s knowledge and understanding of the current and planned provision of local governmental services in relationship to the present and future needs of the community. The Commission will use the municipal service reviews not only to inform subsequent sphere of influence determinations but also to identify opportunities for greater coordination and cooperation between providers as well as possible government structure changes. IV. Municipal Service Review Policies A. Scheduling Beginning in 2008, and every five years thereafter, the Commission will hold a public hearing to adopt a study schedule calendaring municipal service reviews over the next five year period. Public hearing notices will be circulated 21 days in advance to all local agencies as well as posted on the Commission website. The Commission will generally schedule municipal service reviews in conjunction with sphere of influence updates. The Commission, however, may schedule municipal service reviews independent of sphere of influence updates. The Commission may also amend the study schedule to add, modify, or eliminate calendared municipal service reviews to address changes in circumstances, priorities, and available resources. Policy on Municipal Service Reviews Page 2 of 3 In adopting a study schedule, the Commission will calendar three types of municipal service reviews. These three types of municipal service reviews are 1) service- specific, 2) region-specific, and 3) agency-specific and are summarized below. • A service-specific municipal service review will examine particular governmental services across multiple local agencies on a countywide basis. • A region-specific municipal service review will examine the range of governmental services provided by local agencies within a particular area. • An agency-specific municipal service review will examine the breadth of governmental services provided by a particular local agency. B. Preparation The Commission will encourage input among affected local agencies in designing the municipal service reviews to enhance the value of the process among stakeholders and capture unique local conditions and circumstances effecting service provision. This includes identifying appropriate performance measures as well as regional growth and service issues transcending political boundaries. The Commission will also seek input from the affected local agencies in determining final geographic area boundaries for the municipal service reviews. Factors the Commission may consider in determining final geographic area boundaries include, but are not limited to, spheres of influence, jurisdictional boundaries, urban growth boundaries, general plan designations, and topography. The Commission will prepare the municipal service reviews but may contract with outside consultants to assist staff as needed. Data collection is an integral component of the municipal service review process and requires cooperation from local agencies. The Commission will strive to reduce the demands on local agencies in the data collection process by using existing information resources when available and adequate. All service related information compiled by local agencies will be independently reviewed and verified by the Commission. Each municipal service review will generally be prepared in three distinct phases. The first phase will involve the preparation of an administrative report and will include a basic outline of service information collected and analyzed by staff. The administrative report will be made available to each affected local agency for their review and comment to identify any technical corrections. The second phase will involve the preparation of a draft report that will be presented to the Commission for discussion at a public meeting. The draft report will incorporate any technical corrections identified during the administrative review and include determinations. The draft report will be made available to the public for review and comment for a period of no less than 21 days. The third phase will involve the preparation of a final report and will address any new information or comments generated during the public review period and will be presented to the Commission as part of a public hearing. Policy on Municipal Service Reviews Page 3 of 3 As noted, each municipal service review will include one or more determinations addressing each of the following governance factors required under Government Code Section 56430 and by Commission policy: 1. Growth and population projections for the affected area. (§56340(a)(1)). 2. Present and planned capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services, including infrastructure needs or deficiencies. (§56340(a)(2)) 3. Financial ability of agencies to provide services. (§56340(a)(3)) 4. The status of, and opportunities for, shared facilities. (§56340(a)(4)) 5. Accountability for community service needs, including governmental structure and operational efficiencies. (§56340(a)(5)) 6. Relationship with regional growth goals and policies. (Commission) C. Adoption The Commission will complete each scheduled municipal service review by formally receiving a final report and adopting a resolution codifying its determinations as part of public hearing. Countywide Visitor Population Category January February March April May June July August September October November December Average % of Total 6.30% 6.95% 7.54% 8.15% 8.97% 9.92% 10.39% 10.39% 8.83% 8.33% 7.36% 6.87% 8.33% Overall Visitors Per Month 296,100 326,650 354,380 383,050 421,590 466,240 488,330 488,330 415,010 391,510 345,920 322,890 391,666.7 Overnight Visitors Per Month 173,250 191,125 207,350 224,125 246,675 272,800 285,725 285,725 242,825 229,075 202,400 188,925 229,166.5 Daytime-Only Visitors Per Month 122,850 135,525 147,030 158,925 174,915 193,440 202,605 202,605 172,185 162,435 143,520 133,965 162,500.2 Overall Visitors Per Day 9,552 11,666 11,432 12,768 13,600 15,541 15,753 15,753 13,834 12,629 11,531 10,416 12,872.8 Overnight Visitors Per Day 5,589 6,826 6,689 7,471 7,957 9,093 9,217 9,217 8,094 7,390 6,747 6,094 7,531.9 Daytime-Only Visitors Per Day 3,963 4,840 4,743 5,298 5,642 6,448 6,536 6,536 5,740 5,240 4,784 4,321 5,340.8 Room Demand 2,235.5 2,730.4 2,675.5 2,988.3 3,182.9 3,637.3 3,686.8 3,686.8 3,237.7 2,955.8 2,698.7 2,437.7 3,012.8 % of Rooms Occupied 51.6% 63.0% 61.7% 68.9% 73.4% 83.9% 85.0% 85.0% 74.7% 68.2% 62.3% 56.2% 69.5% Annual Visitors 4,700,000 Average Day Visits: Day and Night Average Day 12,876.7 Overnight Visits 2,749,998.2 Single-Day Visits 1,950,001.8 15,000 12,500 Total Lodging Rooms 4,335 10,000 Daytime-Only Visitors Per Day Visitors Per Room 2.5 7,500 Overnight Visitors Per Day 5,000 Overall Visitors Per Day 2,500 -