RESOLUTION NO. 2024 - 112
RESOLUTION REQUESTINGCONSENT OF THE CITIES OF AMERICAN CANYON, CALISTOGA, NAPA, AND ST. HELENA AND THE TOWN OF YOUNTVILLE TO
RENEW THE NAPA VALLEY TOURISM IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors (the “Board”) of the County of Napa (the “County”) desires to begin proceedings to renew the Napa Valley Tourism Improvement District (“NVTID”); and
WHEREAS, certain lodging business owners have requested that the Board renew the NVTID; and
WHEREAS, a portion of the territory proposed to be included in the NVTID lies within the boundaries of the cities of American Canyon, Calistoga, Napa, and St. Helena, and the Town of Yountville (the “cities and town”), as shown on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporatedherein by such attachment; and
WHEREAS, the area of the cities and town which lies within the boundaries of the proposed NVTID will, in the opinion of the Board, be bene?ted by the improvements and activities, and the purpose sought to be accomplished by the work can best be accomplishedbe a single comprehensive scheme of work.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of the County that:
Section 1: The above recitals are true and correct.
Section 2: Consent of the cities and town, through their respective City Councils and Town Council, is hereby requested to renew the NVTID, and to grant to the Board jurisdiction for all the purposes in connection with creation, operation, and future renewals of the proposed NVTID.
Section 3: The Clerk of the Board is hereby directed to transmit a certi?ed copy of this Resolution to the City Clerk of the cities of American Canyon, Calistoga, Napa, and St. Helena, and the Town Clerk of the Town of Yountville.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION WAS DULY AND REGULARLY ADOPTED by the Napa County Board of Supervisors, State of California, at a regular meeting of the Board Item #7.2.
AYES: SUPERVISORS GREGORY, COTTRELL, PEDROZA,
RAMOS, AND GALLAGHER
NOES: SUPERVISORS NONE
ABSTAIN: SUPERVISORS NONE
ABSENT: SUPERVISORS NONE
NAPA COUNTY, a political subdivisionof
the State of California
} By: 7/
JOE E GALLA > Ry€h€irofthe
Cardof Supervisors
APPROVED AS TO FORM APPROVED BY THE NAPA COUNTY ATTEST: NEHA HOSKINS Of?ce of County Counsel BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: S. Darbinian
Deputy County Counsel
Date: 10/9/2024
Date: October 15, 2024
grocessed
By:
Deputy Clerk of the Board
Item #7.2.
Exhibit A: NVTID Boundary Map
Napa Valley Tourism Improvement District (NVTID)
@alistoga
Yountville
Item #7.2.
RESOLUTION NO. 2024 —111
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF
NAPA DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO RENEW THE NAPA VALLEY
TOURISM IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (NVTID) AND FIXING THE TIME
AND PLACE OF A PUBLIC MEETING AND A PUBLIC HEARING THEREON
AND GIVING NOTICE THEREOF
WHEREAS, the Property and Business Improvement Law of 1994, Streets and Highways Code § 36600 et seq., authorizes cities and countiesto establish and renew property and business improvement districts for the purposes of promoting tourism; and
WHEREAS, the Napa Valley Tourism Improvement District (NVTID) was established in 2010, for a ?ve-year period, pursuant to the Property and Business Improvement Law of 1994; and WHEREAS, the NVTID was subsequently renewed on June 10, 2014, by Resolution No. 2014— 64, for a ten (10) year term which ends on June 15, 2025; and WHEREAS, Visit Napa Valley, lodging business owners, and representatives from the County have met to consider the renewal of the NVTID; and
WHEREAS, Visit Napa Valley has drafted a Management District Plan (Plan) which sets forth the proposed boundary of the NVTID, a service plan and budget, and a proposed means of governance; and
WHEREAS, the renewed NVTID includes all lodging businesses, existing and in the future, available for public occupancy located within the boundaries of the cities of American Canyon, Calistoga, Napa, and St. Helena, the Town of Yountville, and the unincorporatedarea of the County of Napa Gurisdictions); and
WHEREAS, consent to include lodging businesses in their respective jurisdictions will be requested from the cities of American Canyon, Calistoga, Napa, and St. Helena and the town of Yountville; and
WHEREAS, lodging business who will pay more than ?fty percent (50%) of the assessment under the NVTID have petitionedthe Board of Supervisors to renew the NVTID.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS THAT:
Item #7.2.
District Law of 1994.
The Board of Supervisors ?nds that the Plan satis?es all requirements of Streets and Highways Code §36622.
The Board of Supervisors declares its intention to renew the NVTID and to levy and collect assessments on lodging businesses within the NVTID boundaries pursuant to the Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994.
The NVTID shall include all lodging businesses, existing and in the future, availablefor public occupancy located within the boundaries of the cities of American Canyon, Calistoga, Napa, and St. Helena, the Town of Yountville, and the unincorporatedarea of the County of Napa, as shown in the map attached as Exhibit A.
The name of the district shall remain the Napa Valley Tourism Improvement District (NVTID).
The annual assessment rate is two percent (2%) of gross short-term (30 days or less) sleeping room rental revenue. In years three (3), six (6) and nine (9) of the NVTID’s term, the assessment rate may be recommendedto be increased by the Visit Napa Valley Board of Directors and then brought to the Napa Valley Tourism Corporation Board for ?nal approval. The maximum increase in years three (3), six (6) and nine (9) shall be one half of one percent (0.5%). The total assessment rate may not exceed three percent (3%) of gross short-term (30 days or less) sleeping room rental revenue. Based on the bene?t received, assessments will not be collected on stays of more than thirty (30) consecutive days. Stays by government employees on government business shall not be subject to assessment. “Government employee” shall mean foreign or domestic government employees subject to exemption from transient occupancy tax pursuant to each municipality’s municipal/county code.
The assessments levied for the NVTID shall be applied toward valley-wide marketing and sales and local jurisdiction destinationmarketing programs to market assessed lodging businesses in NVTID as tourist, meeting, and event destinations, as describedin the Plan. Funds remaining at the end of any year may be used in subsequent years in which NVTID assessments are levied as long as they are used consistent with the requirements of this resolution and the Plan.
The renewed NVTID will have a ten (10) year term, beginning June 16, 2025 or as soon as possible thereafter, and ending ten (10) years from its start date, unless renewed pursuant to Streets and Highways Code § 36660.
Item #7.2.
13. 14.
15. set for December 17, 2024, at 9:00 AM, or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, at the Board of Supervisors Chamberslocated at 1195 Third Street, Third Floor, Napa, CA 94559. The Clerk of the Board is directed to provide written notice to the lodging businesses subject to assessment of the date and time of the meeting and hearing, and to provide that notice as required by Streets and Highways Code §36623, no later than October 18, 2024.
At both the public meeting and hearing, the testimony of all interested persons for or against the renewal of the NVTID may be received. If at the conclusion of the public hearing, there are of record written protests by the owners of the lodging businesses within the renewed NVTID that will pay ?fty percent (50%) or more of the estimatedtotal assessment of the entire NVTID, no further proceedings to renew the NVTID shall occur for a period of one (1) year.
The complete Plan is on ?le with the Clerk of the Board and may be reviewed upon request.
This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the Board of Supervisors.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION WAS DULY AND REGULARLY ADOPTED by the Napa County Board of Supervisors, State of California, at a regular meeting of the Board held on the 15th day of October, 2024, by the following vote:
AYES: SUPERVISORS GREGORY, COTTRELL, PEDROZA.
RAMOS, AND GALLAGHER
NOES: SUPERVISORS NONE
ABSTAIN : SUPERVISORS NONE
ABSENT: SUPERVISORS NONE
N - A COUNTY, po-lit'rcal‘subdivision of
, 'a
i
B : x
,
J ELLEGALLA HER:Chair ofthe Boardof
upervisors
Item #7.2.
EXHIBIT A
Item #7.2.
District Boundaries
Napa Valley Tourism Improvement District (NVTID)
9 Galistega
®'@L[‘r{ta?gm
Yountville
Item #7.2.
City of Calistoga
STAFF REPORT
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Mitch Celaya, Assistant City Manager
Meeting: City Council - Dec 03 2024
Subject: Discussion on Local Control of Lincoln Avenue/Hwy 29 Sidewalks AGENDA TITLE:
Discussion on Local Control of Lincoln Avenue/Hwy 29 Sidewalks RECOMMENDATION:
Consider Discussing the Item and Providing Staff Direction SUMMARY:
Lincoln Avenue is a state highway, Highway 29. As a result, Caltrans has sole ownership and responsibility for the right-of-way all along Lincoln Avenue. This right-of-way extends from building face to building face which includes the sidewalks on both sides of the street. Caltrans prohibits all commercial uses on sidewalks within their jurisdiction. This includes the placement of any objects on the sidewalk. The city does not have the authority to regulate or enforce sidewalk use violations such as business activities or the use of tables, chairs, planters, or advertising occurring on the sidewalk. Physical objects on the sidewalk not only violate Caltrans' policy prohibiting commercial activities but can pose pedestrian safety issues pertaining to ADA and health & safety issues such as tripping hazards. These have been the source of complaints to the city by both community members and businesses. As the city is unable to apply its municipal code, the city has been perceived as unresponsive to complaints. This effect is compounded as Caltrans does not seem to have the bandwidth to enforce violations or address complaints, leaving complainants frustrated as well as not addressing a potential safety issue. In addition, at times businesses will take advantage of the situation and conduct unregulated activities which the city is unable to address and Caltrans unable to manage.
Following the removal of the parklets and discussions about code enforcement along Lincoln Avenue, the City Council directed staff to look into how the City could obtain more local control over the sidewalks. By managing the use of the sidewalks, the city could better support businesses by implementing and ensuring consistent safe use of the sidewalks, create a vibrant and economic sustainable downtown, address complaints, and be consistent in applying the city's municipal code to include Lincoln Avenue.
This report summarizes the work done and information collected to date following the City Council's direction.
ANALYSIS:
In trying to determine what options are available for additional local control, Staff met with representatives from Senator Dodd's office and Assemblywoman Curry's office and had multiple Item #7.3.
discussions with Caltrans, including with District Branch Chief Jim Bozionelos of the Division of Right Away. Staff then explored several options to achieve some level of local control including the ability to approve, regulate, and enforce activities on the Lincoln Avenue/Hwy 29 sidewalks.
Legislative Option
Originally staff understood it would take legislative action to make any changes. It was believed that to extend an "air lease" option to sidewalks that Caltrans currently uses for parks and roadways would require a legislative change. This would be a lengthy process that would take more than a year to accomplish with the help of both of Calistoga's State-elected officials, city staff, city council, and Caltrans to lead and carry this through the state legislative process.
After consultation with District Branch Chief Bozionelos, he believes there is no need for a legislative change as the proposal is not in conflict with any state law or policy. Since there is no expressed prohibition to prevent Caltrans from contracting with the city to manage the sidewalks, and since the city currently has agreements with Caltrans that allow the city to issue encroachment permits to perform general maintenance, Branch Chief Bozionelos believes that a non-legislative approach involving support from our state legislators advocating for Caltrans to enter into an agreement with the city to manage the sidewalks and relieve Caltrans of the management burden is a viable solution. See "Lease Option."
Ownership Option
Questions have been asked about the city taking ownership in fee title and therefore full responsibility of the sidewalks. This has been done in St. Helena.
The ownership option provides the city control of all aspects of the sidewalks. This includes regulating and enforcing uses as well as the financial liability of maintaining and repairing the sidewalks and the liability for potential trip and fall hazards.
The condition of Lincoln Avenue sidewalks varies widely from some areas needing immediate repair or replacement to being in good condition (see attached photos). An assessment of the total sidewalk condition was not conducted as it would require a substantial investment to engage an engineer and could not be accomplished in a timely manner. To give an anecdotal example of potential costs to repair and replace portions of a sidewalk, the City of St. Helena is paying approximately $2.5 million dollars for the design and construction cost to repair 650 linear feet of sidewalk on Main Street between Pine Street and Adams Street (one block). This project consists of resetting pavers, new trees, new curb/gutters, and similar work. This cost equates to approximately $4,000 per linear foot of the sidewalk. The reason for St. Helena's project was to repair and reset pavers contributing to an uneven sidewalk and creating a pedestrian hazard. Applying this dollar amount to the approximately 3,315 linear feet of sidewalk between Foothill and Brannon Street would equate to $13,260,000 ($13.2M) to do similar work in Calistoga.
Taking on the current conditions of the Lincoln Avenue sidewalk is likely to require some immediate repairs or replacement of portions of the sidewalk to address potential trip and fall issues (see attached photos). Routine maintenance would also be added to Public Works duties. The repairs and replacement of the Lincoln Avenue sidewalk would most likely be complicated by infrastructure located under the sidewalk such as PG&E utility lines, sewer laterals, and other utilities that feed the individual businesses.
For any and all sidewalk work, all general law cities rely on the Street Highway Code (SHC) that requires the adjacent property owner to take on maintenance, repair, and liability costs. (See attached California Legislative text on Streets and Highway Code Division 7 Part 3 Chapter 3 Item #7.3.
Maintenance of Sidewalks Article 2 Repairs Sections 5600 - 5618). Staff would expect significant opposition to this responsibility from local businesses and property owners. If the city council (current or future) is unwilling to impose the financial requirements on the property owners, there is currently no other dedicated funding source and, like St. Helena did, the city would have to take on this financial burden and take funding from the General Fund.
Status Quo Option
A third option would be to continue the status quo. The city would continue to maintain its existing control of signage attached to buildings and some types of encroachment permits, generally for underground utility repairs and building maintenance that require such permits, such as scaffolding.
Peer pressure, staff requests, and voluntary help from the Chamber of Commerce could be utilized to achieve the "look and feel" of the downtown that the community wishes to see. Caltrans would continue to have the legal authority to address many complaints.
Lease Option
Staff met with representatives from Senator Dodd's office, Assemblywoman Curry's office, and Caltrans to explore the possibility of a lease agreement with Caltrans that would offer the city the ability to regulate and enforce uses and furnishings on the sidewalks within Caltrans' right of way.
Should the city be able to lease the sidewalk, or portions of the sidewalk, the city would look to create and implement a program where businesses can, through a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process, establish certain uses on the Lincoln Avenue sidewalks. The city's ability to establish and implement a CUP process would ensure the appropriate paths of travel are retained, address complaints and safety issues, apply the municipal code to the Lincoln Avenue sidewalks, and support Lincoln Avenue businesses through consistent regulations and enforcement.
Currently, Caltrans has an "air lease" program for parks and roadway right-of-way. We are told it has not been used for sidewalks in any jurisdiction. It is this program that we would ask Caltrans to use for negotiating a lease for the Lincoln Avenue sidewalks. It is unknown how the lease rate would be established or if the city could subsequently recover costs from businesses wishing to use the space. Therefore, there is still much to consider regarding the specifics and there may be a need to return again to the city council for additional direction in the future. However, if successful, Calistoga would be a leader in establishing such a process.
To achieve this, staff would still need to engage with our state elected officials to urge Caltrans to make time to negotiate an agreement to allow the city to manage the Lincoln Avenue sidewalks. It will take staff time from multiple departments and city attorney time for which we will not be reimbursed.
Recommended Option
City staff recommends the limited lease agreement that addresses the city council's interest in local control including the ability to regulate and conduct code enforcement activities in the Lincoln Avenue/Hwy 29 sidewalk right-of-way with the least possibly amount of risk and cost exposure to the city.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Staff time, potentially considerable staff time, may be necessary depending on the direction received from the City Council. Should the city council direct staff to continue work on a lease option, both staff and city attorney time will be necessary. The project is not expressly budgeted. In addition, should the city have increased control of the sidewalks, significant staff and city attorney time may Item #7.3.
be necessary to work with local businesses on their use of the sidewalks (including creating formal agreements) and conduct code enforcement activities.
CEQA STATUS:
Not Applicable
ATTACHMENT(S):
Lincoln Avenue Sidewalk Pictures 112124
California Street and Highway Code 5600 tol 5618
Lincoln Avenue Sidewalk Report 120324 (002)
APPROVAL(S):
Connie Cardenas, Admin. Services Director Approved - Nov 22 2024 Laura Snideman, City of Calistoga | City Manager Approved - Nov 26 2024 Yudiana Galvan, City of Calistoga | City Clerk Approved - Nov 26 2024 Item #7.3.
LINCOLN
AVENUE
SIDEWALK
Conditions
Item #7.3.
LINCOLN
AVENUE
SIDEWALK
Code Enforcement
Examples
Item #7.3.
Wm
LEGISLATIVE INFORMATION
Home BillInformation California Law Publications Other Resources My Subscriptions My Favorites Code: Select Codev Section: 1or20r1001
EPA
STREETS AND HIGHWAYSCODE - SHC
DIVISION 7. THE IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1911 [5000 - 6794] (Division 7 added by Stats. 1941, Ch. 79. ) PART 3. PERFORMINGTHE WORK [5100 - 5954] (Part 3 added by Stats. 1941, Ch. 79.) CHAPTER 22. Maintenance of Sidewalks [5600 - 5630] (Chapter 22 added by Stats. 1941, Ch. 79. ) ARTICLE 2. Repairs [5610 - 5618] (Article 2 added by Stats. 1941, Ch. 79. ) relation thereto.
(Added by Stats. 1941, Ch. 79.)
The owners of lots or portions of lots fronting on any portion of a public street or place when that street or place is improved or if and when the area between the property line of the adjacent property and the street line is maintained as a park or parking strip, shall maintain any sidewalk in such condition that the sidewalk will not endanger persons or property and maintain it in a condition which will not interfere with the public convenience in the use of those works or areas save and except as to those conditions created or maintained in, upon, along, or in connection with such sidewalk by any person other than the owner, under and by virtue of any permit or right granted to him by law or by the city authorities in charge thereof, and such persons shall be under a like duty in §610.
When any portion of the sidewalk is out of repair or pending reconstruction and in condition to endanger persons or property or in condition to interfere with the public convenience in the use of such sidewalk, the superintendent of streets shall notify the owner or person in possession of the property fronting on that portion of such sidewalk so out of repair, to repair the sidewalk. (Added by Stats. 1941, Ch. 79.}
Notice to repair may be given by delivering a written notice personally to the owner or to the person in possession of the property facing upon the sidewalk so out of repair, or by mailing a postal card, postage prepaid, to the person in possession of such property, or to the owner thereof at his last known address as the same appears on the last equalized assessment rolls of such city or to the name and address of the person owning such property as shown in the records of the office of the clerk. (Added by Stats. 1941, Ch. 79.)
The postal card shall contain a notice to repair the sidewalk so out of repair, and the superintendent of streets shall, immediately upon the mailing of the notice, cause a copy thereof printed on a card of not less than 8 inches by 10 inches in size, to be posted in a conspicuous place on the property. In lieu of posting a copy of the mailed notice on the property as provided in this section, the superintendent of streets may, not less than seven days nor more than 10 days after the mailing of the first postal card notice, mail an additional postal card, postage prepaid, marked “Second Notice,” to the person to whom the first postal card notice was addressed. The second notice shall otherwise contain the material required by this article, but shall not extend the time for commencing repairs specified in Section 5614.
(Amended by Stats. 1969, Ch. 211.)
§613.
The notice shall particularly specify what work is required to be done, and how it is to be done, and what materials shall be used in the repair and shall further specify that if the repair is not commenced within two weeks after notice is given and diligently and without interruption prosecuted to completion, the superintendent of streets shall make such repair, and the cost of the same shall be a lien on the property. (Amended by Stats. 1953, Ch. 798.)
§614yl
Item #7.3.
The legislative body may adopt a resolution determining that bonds shall be issued and assessments collected and enforced pursuant to Part 5 of this division. In such event, the notice to repair shall specify that bonds shall be issued to represent the security of the unpaid assessments, payable over a period of not to exceed six years, and shall further recite a maximum rate of interest to be paid on the indebtedness, which shall not exceed 7 percent a year, payable semiannually.
(Amended by Stats. 1968, Ch. 986.)
If the repair is not commenced and prosecuted to completion with due diligence, as required by the notice, the superintendent of streets shall forthwith repair the sidewalk. Upon the written request of the owner of the property facing the sidewalk so out of repair, as ascertained from the last equalized assessment roll of the city, or as shown in the records of the office of the clerk, the superintendent may repair any other portion of the sidewalk fronting on the property that is designated by the owner. The superintendent shall have power to prescribe the form of the written request. The cost of repair work done by request pursuant to this section shall be a part of the cost of repairs for which, pursuant to this chapter, subsequent notices are given, hearings held and assessment and collection procedures are conducted.
(Amended by Stats. 1963, Ch. 648.)
Upon the completion of the repair, the superintendent of streets shall cause notice of the cost of the repair to be given in the manner specified in this article for the giving of notice to repair, which notice shall specify the day, hour and place when the legislative body will hear and pass upon a report by the superintendent of streets of the cost of the repair together with any objections or protests, if any, which may be raised by any property owner liable to be assessed for the cost of such repair and any other interested persons. If bonds are to be issued, the notice shall also contain the information required by Section 5614.1. (Amended by Stats. 1967, Ch. 615.)
Upon the completion of the repair, the superintendent of streets shall prepare and file with the legislative body a report specifying the repairs which have been made, the cost of the repairs, a description of the real property in front of which the repairs have been made and the assessment against each lot or parcel of land proposed to be levied to pay the cost thereof. Any such report may include repairs to any number of parcels of property, whether contiguous to each other or not.
(Added by Stats. 1941, Ch. 79.)
Upon the day and hour fixed for the hearing the legislative body shall hear and pass upon the report of the superintendent of streets, together with any objections or protests which may be raised by any of the property owners liable to be assessed for the work of making such repair and any other interested persons. Thereupon the legislative body may make such revision, correction or modifications in the report as it may deem just, after which, by motion or resolution, the report as submitted, or as revised, corrected or modified, shall be confirmed. The legislative body may adjourn the hearings from time to time. The decisions of the legislative body on all protests and objections which may be made, shall be final and conclusive. (Added by Stats. 1941, Ch. 79.)
Item #7.3.
1 Lincoln Avenue/Hwy 29
Sidewalks
City Council Meeting
December 3, 2024
Item #7.3.
2 Current Status
• Lincoln Avenue is a State Highway
• Caltrans has sole ownership and
responsibility from building face to building
face
• Caltrans does not allow any commercial
activities or any use on their sidewalks
• City has no authority to apply or enforce our
municipal code on the sidewalks; limited
authority for signage and encroachment
permits
Item #7.3.
3 Options
• Legislative Option • Ownership • Status Quo • Lease Agreement Item #7.3.
4 Legislative Option
• No conflict with state law or policy to prohibit
Caltrans to enter into a lease agreement.
• Legislative option is more than a year process
• Can pursue a non-legislative solution
Item #7.3.
5 Ownership Option
• City would assume responsibility for all aspects of
the sidewalk to include:
• Repair and Maintenance – $$$$$
• ADA compliance – $$$
• Liability for potential trip and fall issues – $?$?$?$ • Ability to regulate, enforce violations, and address
complaints – $
Item #7.3.
6 Status Quo
• Refer complaints to Caltrans
• Rely on persuasion related to the “look and feel”
of downtown
Item #7.3.
7 Lease Agreement Option
• Limited lease agreement to allow:
• Application of the Municipal Code
• Regulate and manage activities on the sidewalk
• Enforce code enforcement violations
• Regulate activities through a Conditional Use
Permit (CUP)
Item #7.3.
8 Recommended Action
Pursue the Lease Agreement option
Item #7.3.
City of Calistoga
STAFF REPORT
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Yudiana Galvan, City of Calistoga | City Clerk
Meeting: City Council - Dec 03 2024
Subject: Discussing Councilmember Interest in Serving on the Metropolitan Transportation Commission
AGENDA TITLE:
The Napa County Board of Supervisors will be appointing a Napa County representative to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and has requested to be notified if a Councilmember would like to be considered for nomination to serve on the Commission.
RECOMMENDATION:
Consider discussing if any City of Calistoga Councilmember would like to be nominated to serve on the MTC as a Napa County Representative.
BACKGROUND:
The Metropolitan Transportation Committee is a planning, financing and coordinating agency for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area. Pursuant to MTC's enabling legislation, the County representative is appointed by the Board of Supervisors from a list of three individuals nominated by the City Selection Committee of Napa County.
Meetings are currently held in San Francisco, on the 4th Wednesday of each month at a time to be determined. There is a stipend of $100 per meeting up for up to five meetings a month plus mileage.
ANALYSIS:
There will be a vacancy in Napa County representation on the Metropolitan Transportation Committee beginning in January, for an unexpired term that began February 10, 2023 and ends on February 9, 2027.
The Napa County City Selection Committee is to furnish the names of three nominees to the Board of Supervisors who will then appoint one of the nominees to represent the County. They will be selected for their special familiarity with the problems and issues in the field of transportation.
The purpose of this discussion is to determine if there are any Calistoga City Councilmembers who wish to be considered as a nominee for the MTC appointment.
The Clerk of the Board has requested an update by January, at which point she will schedule a special meeting of the City Selection Committee which will than approve the list of nominees that will be presented to the Board of Supervisors for appointment.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Item #7.4.
None
CEQA STATUS:
No Impact
APPROVAL(S):
Connie Cardenas, Admin. Services Director Approved - Nov 13 2024 Laura Snideman, City of Calistoga | City Manager Approved - Nov 15 2024 Yudiana Galvan, City of Calistoga | City Clerk Approved - Nov 15 2024 Item #7.4.