JAN 18 2011 Clerk of the Mapa Superior Court Napa County Regional Park*

The County's intent was to provide funds for the initial operational support of the District. Response: Agree

The BOS anticipated a base level of funding to the District of $350,000 per year (with adjustments for inflation, and adopted labor agreements) and an additional amount for election costs. Response: Agree

In formation of the District, the BOS did not acknowledge any additional need for acquisition and capital improvement funding above the base level of funding. Response: Disagree. The Board Agenda Letter for June 13, 2006, regarding formation of the District, clearly notes that the District would need considerably more acquisition and capital improvement funding than the base level of funding that was to be provided by the County. RECEIVED JAN 1 4 2011 Napa Superior Court 1195 Third Street, Room 210, Napa, California 94559 www.NapaOutdoors.org fax: 707-299-4471 telephone: 707-259-5933

The BOS anticipated costs to the County in future years would be reduced, as the District is successful in obtaining its own outside funds. Response: Disagree. While it is clear that the Board of Supervisors expected the District to seek dedicated revenues for the District, it is not clear that they intended to reduce County support once dedicated revenues were obtained. The Board Agenda Letter for June 13, 2006, regarding formation of the District, which represents the County staff's position, did note that "The cost to the County in future years can be reduced as the District is successful in obtaining its own dedicated revenues." However, the actual resolution adopted by the Board of Supervisors initiating the formation of the District (Resolution 06-110), included the following statement: "Whereas, the County of Napa intends to provide the initial operational support for the recommended District at a level comparable to that which the County is currently budgeting for park, recreation and related open space purposes, with the expectation that the District will develop additional sources of revenue in future years..." (emphasis added)

All increased TOT taxes go to a SPF within the County's General Fund and are allocated as directed by the BOS. Response: Agree

In the most recent distribution of the SPF in FY 2008-2009, 60 percent was allocated to the District, 30 percent to the NVDC, and 10 percent to the Arts Council of Napa Valley. Response: Disagree. The percentages for the three purposes were adopted by the Board of Supervisors on July 31, 2007. These percentages were for a three year period. The amount actually granted to each purpose for any given fiscal year could be (and in fact have been) above or below the set percentages. In addition, the 60 percent figure was for the purpose of parks and open space generally, and not guaranteed to only be granted to the District. Apart from the funds granted to the District for its general operations, the County utilized a competitive grant process to determine to whom the remainder of the funding for parks and open space would be awarded.

The BOS Resolution No. 07-97 of July 18, 2009, providing principles for allocation of the SPF, will expire June 30, 2010. Response: Disagree. This Finding has a typographical error. The Resolution was adopted in 2007, not 2009.

District budgets do not differentiate between County and outside sources of funds for acquisitions and capital improvements. Response: Disagree. As noted in the District Board's July 12, 2010 response to the Recommendations contained in the Final Report, the District's budget does in fact clearly differentiate between County and outside sources of funds for acquisitions and capital improvements.

The annual allocation of the SPF for the District's operation and capital improvements, plus an additional $200,000 per year is designated in the SPF for use by the District for the anticipated future purchase of Skyline Park. Response: Disagree. At the present time, the County has not made a determination regarding the future ownership of Skyline Park, assuming the State and County can come to an agreement on terms of sale. The funding which the County has set aside for potential purchase of the property is entirely under the control of the County, and is neither available nor promised to the District.

The District has been operating within the limits of the SPF as currently allocated by the BOS. Response: Agree.

The District has the authority to raise revenues through some types of property assessments and taxes if approved by the voters. Response: Agree.

The FY 2009-2010 District Budget, dated May 11, 2009, indicates an increase in funding from the County. Response: Agree.

The County anticipates a reduction in the SPF available in the FY 2010-2011 due to the decline in the TOT collections. Response: Agree.

The District is currently considering whether to form its own non-profit foundation or join an existing community foundation. Response: Agree. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions regarding our responses as noted above. Sincerely, mucallhramas Myrna Abramowicz President, Board of Directors Cc: David Mendelsohn, Foreperson, 2010-2011 Napa County Grand Jury