SUPPLEMENTAL REPORTS & COMMUNICATION - AFTERNOON — Napa City Council, June 6, 2023

SUPPLEMENTAL REPORTS & COMMUNICATIONS
Office of the City Clerk

City Council of the City of Napa
Regular Meeting
June 6, 2023

FOR THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NAPA

AFTERNOON SESSION:

SUBMITTED PRIOR TO THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING

3. SPECIAL PRESENTIONS

3.A Pride Month & 3.B. Juneteeth Holiday
1) Email from Elizabeth Mercer received on June 5, 2023.

4. PUBLIC COMMENT:
1) Email 1 from Jarvis Peay received on June 5, 2023.
2) Email 2 from Jarvis Peay received on June 5, 2023.
3) Email 3 from Jarvis Peay received on June 5, 2023
4) Email 4 from Jarvis Peay received on June 5, 2023

6.CONSENT HEARINGS:

6.B Citywide Landscape Maintenance Assessment District, Fiscal Year 2023-2024 1) Email from Lola Ellwein received on June 1, 2023.
2) City staff response to Lola Ellwein’s comment sent on June 5, 2023. 3) Email from Lola Ellwein received on June 6, 2023.

7. PUBLIC HEARINGS:

7.A City of Napa FY 2023/24 and FY 2024/25 Proposed Budget • PowerPoint Presentation from City Staff.
1) Email from Slow Down Napa received on June 5, 2023.

Liz
Fitrakis
Mercer
From
:

Clerk
To
:

Subject
:

Date
:
6 /
6 /
23 City
Council
Public
Comment
Submission
:

Agenda
Items
107
-
2023
and
119
-
2023
Monday
,
June
05 ,
2023
8 :
50 :
56 PM
k
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Hello
,
Please
submit
the
following
comment
in
regards
to
Agenda
Items
107
-
2023
and
119
-
2023
3 |
e
3 |
e
3 |
e
3 |
e
3 fe
3 fe
3 fe
Dear
Mayor
and
Council
Members
:

Thank
you
for
officially
recognizing
June
as
Pride
Month
,
and
for
the
celebration
of
Juneteenth
.

I
realize
that
I
am
perhaps
a
more
privileged
member
of
our
community
as
a
cis
,
white
woman
,
but
it
makes
me
proud
that
our
city
is
recognizing
the
struggles
of
all
members
of
our
community
and
is
celebrating
our
diversity
.

As
there
are
calls
to
"
choke
the
woke
"
right
here
in
our
town
,
that
very
loud
voice
is
in
the
minority
.

While
we
have
had
dark
moments
in
our
local
history
,
we
have
come
a
long
way
to
be
an
inclusive
and
welcoming
community
;
yet
we
have
a
long
way
to
go
.

These
proclamations
are
a
step
in
the
right
direction
.

These
two
critical
messages
are
not
only
what
the
rest
of
the
world
needs
to
hear
,
but
clearly
there
are
some
residents
that
need
to
be
reminded
as
well
.

By
making
these
two
official
proclamations
today
(
Agenda
Items
107
-
2023
and
119
-
2023
)
,
we
stand
in
solidarity
with
ALL
of
our
neighbors
and
send
a
clear
and
loud
message
that
ALL
are
welcome
here
in
Napa
.

With
deep
gratitude
,
Elizabeth
Mercer
Napa
,
CA
.

i
[

EXTERNAL
]
Items 3.A. and 3.B.

2 [EXTERNAL]

Thank you. Can an average Joe, or Flo just send a CPRA request to a government employee ? ............................................................................................................................. Gonzalez and Potter betrayed the public trust, as well as my trust that thy would honor their jobs and the rule of law by not responding to, or acting on my CPRA requests and complaints. They di
d so in violation of the law. i am now demanding full investigations. I am seeking a full investigation and a report about these incidents, as well as apologies, etc.

From:

Lola Ellwein
To:

Clerk
;
Scott Sedgley
;
Liz Alessio
;
Mary Luros
;
Bernie Narvaez
;
Michael Barrett
Subject:

June 6, 2023 Public Hearing Re: Citywide Landscape Maintenance Assessment District Date:

Friday, June 2, 2023 2:18:31 PM
June 2, 2023
City of Napa
City Clerk
Mayor
Councilmembers
City Attorney
City Hall - 955 School Street
Napa, CA 94559
Re:

Proposed Levy of Assessment for Landscape Maintenance
I reside in District 1 on Summerfield Drive. While I do not oppose assessments for landscape maintenance in general, I have several objections to the City’s recent proposal to levy an increased assessment.

1. The Proposed Increased Assessment Was Not Properly Noticed and Must Be Withdrawn.

I happened to see the notice of public hearing in the Napa Valley Register concerning the proposed levy of assessment for the citywide landscape maintenance. The proposed Resolution adopting the levy states that “[n]otice of the hearing was processed pursuant to provisions of Section 22626(a) of the Streets and Highways Code, duly noticed and published once in the local paper at least ten (10) days before the date of the hearing.” However, subsection (a) of Section 22626 applies only if “the assessments are to be levied in the same or lesser amounts than in any previous year.”

The notice published in the paper does not state that the assessment will be increased. However, the proposed Resolution ordering the levy expressly states that the City Council ordered the report “for the proposed increase of assessments.” The proposed increase in assessments triggers constitutional and statutory requirements of written notice by mail.

Section 22626(b) of the Streets and Highways Code states that “[i]f the assessments are to be increased from any previous year, the legislative body shall cause notice of the public hearing with respect to the increase to be given pursuant to Section 55753 of the Government Code.” Section 55753(b) provides that “[p]rior to levying a new or increased assessment, [EXTERNAL]
or an existing assessment that is subject to the procedures and approval process set forth in Section 4 of Article XIIID of the California Constitution, an agency shall give notice by mail to the record owner of each identified parcel.” Section 55753(b) also provides that the mailed notice must be given “45 days prior to the date of the public hearing upon the proposed assessment.”
Notice of this proposed increased assessment was not mailed and was not given 45 days prior to the hearing. Accordingly, the notice does not meet legal requirements and therefore must be withdrawn.

2. The Engineer’s Report Is Inadequate: It Does Not Present Required Specifications.

According to the Executive Summary Section of the Engineer’s Report, the proposed Resolution approving the Report and ordering the levy “directed Julie B. Lucido, P.E., to prepare and file a report presenting plans and specifications of the existing improvements to be made within the District or within any zone thereof, [and] an estimate of the costs of proposed new improvements and/or maintenance of servicing existing improvements, . . ..” However, the Report fails to provide any plans or specification.

The Report gives general information. It states: “Facilities to be maintained and serviced may include, but are not limited to: landscaping, parking lots, walkways, crosswalks, fences, signs, park and parkways, streetlights, retaining walls, embankments, drainage facilities, sprinkler systems, electrical energy for irrigation controllers and streetlights and associated appurtenant facilities. Landscaping may include ornamental planting including lawns, shrubs and trees. Servicing may include installing, operating, maintaining, repairing and replacing the public facilities together with the equipment, facilities, staff time and any necessary administrative
activities. The repair, removal or replacement of all or any part of any improvement, providing for the life, growth, health and beauty of the landscaping, treating for disease or injury, as well as the maintenance, repair and replacement, as necessary, of all irrigation systems and graffiti removal from walls immediately
adjacent to the cultivated areas.” This does not tell me what I’m being asked to pay for with regard to my subdivision.

The only “plan” or “specification” concerning my subdivision (Vineyard View Estates) in the Engineer’s Report is that “[t]he cost of maintaining the ten (10) foot strip, approximately 800 feet long on the west side of Summerfield Drive, shall be assessed equally to the owners of Lots 1 through 13 of Vineyard Vista Estates Subdivision. The ten (10) foot strip consists of the area behind the sidewalk and the area between the curb and sidewalk approximately 100 feet southerly of Salvador Avenue, all in the public right-of-way.” The attached “budget” for my subdivision does not provides any more specification. It refers only to costs for regular and part time employees, a property tax admin fee, an assessment roll “prep,” and water charges. These references are wholly inadequate to provide landowners notice of what we are being asked to pay for.

3. What Maintenance Has Been or Will Be Done?
As I said, I’m not opposed to paying for landscape maintenance. However, the 10 foot strip across the street in front of my home is never maintained. It looks awful and always has. Many of the original plants are dead or dying. The most that I’ve ever seen done to the strip is hacking the weeds and dried shrubs into square or rectangular shapes, and that’s only happened a few times in the 25+ years I’ve lived in my home. These squat weed shapes are bone dry most of the year. I guess there is no irrigation, though the Engineer’s Report refers to $550 allocated to “water” costs for my subdivision. The weed shapes have recently erupted with new weeds and have only turned green because of our recent showers and mild weather. I’m not sure you can call the weed shapes a “landscape.” But I’m curious. What is the plan? Same as it ever was? In which case, why would an increased assessment be appropriate?
I look forward to receiving your reply.

Lola Ellwein
Via email to:
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

From: Patrick Melgar
To: Clerk;
Cc: Heather Maloney
Subject: RE: June 6, 2023 Public Hearing Re: Citywide Landscape Maintenance Assessment District Date: Monday, June 05, 2023 4:05:14 PM
Dear Ms. Ellwein,

There is no proposed increase in the Vineyard Vista Estates assessments for the upcoming year. The assessment on your property in Vineyard Vista Estates has remained at $160 per year since Fiscal Year 1997/1998. The City complied with the noticing requirement for the June 6, 2023 Public Hearing on the assessment for the Citywide Landscape Maintenance District for Fiscal Year 2023- 2024.

The Staff Report for the agenda item stated that “[t]he City proposes to continue the levy of assessments at the same amounts (no increase) and in the same manner as last year.” Therefore, because the proposed assessment is the same amount as has been levied in prior years, the City was only required to publish notice in the Napa Valley Register 10 days prior to the hearing under California Streets and Highways Code Sec. 22626.

The City was not required to provide written
notice to each property owner.

On May 16, 2023, the City Council adopted a resolution of intention to approve the Preliminary Engineer’s Report, levy and collect assessments, and give notice of a Public Hearing for the Citywide Landscape Maintenance Assessment.

The Public Hearing was set for June 6, 2023 and notice of the Public Hearing was published in the Napa Valley Register on May 26, 2023, which was more than ten days prior to the hearing date.

Pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, all parcels that have special benefit conferred upon them as result of the maintenance provided must be assessed, and each parcel is assessed in proportion to the estimated benefit received. Page 21 of the Engineer’s Report includes the following description of maintenance costs; “
the cost of maintaining the ten (10) foot strip,
approximately 800 feet long on the west side of Summerfield Drive, shall be assessed equally to the owners of Lots 1 through 13 of Vineyard Vista Estates Subdivision. The ten (10) foot strip consists of the area behind the sidewalk and the area between the curb and sidewalk approximately 100 feet southerly of Salvador Avenue, all in the public right-of-way”

The cost includes the labor, materials, the admin costs to prepare this report and manage the district over the year. The table on page 15 identifies estimated fiscal year 2023-24 costs of $4,000 to maintain the district.

These costs will be covered by $2,080 in assessments collected ($160 per parcel), and the City will contribute $1,370 of General Fund money, outside of the assessments, to subsidize the actual full cost of the Vineyard Vista Subdivision Assessment District during the year.

Thank you for contacting the City of Napa with your questions.

Sincerely,

Patrick Melgar
Management Analyst II

be increased. However, the proposed Resolution ordering the levy expressly states that the City Council ordered the report “for the proposed increase of assessments.” The proposed increase in assessments triggers constitutional and statutory requirements of written notice by mail.

Section 22626(b) of the Streets and Highways Code states that “[i]f the assessments are to be increased from any previous year, the legislative body shall cause notice of the public hearing with respect to the increase to be given pursuant to Section 55753 of the Government Code.” Section 55753(b) provides that “[p]rior to levying a new or increased assessment, or an existing assessment that is subject to the procedures and approval process set forth in Section 4 of Article XIIID of the California Constitution, an agency shall give notice by mail to the record owner of each identified parcel.” Section 55753(b) also provides that the mailed notice must be given “45 days prior to the date of the public hearing upon the proposed assessment.”

Notice of this proposed increased assessment was not mailed and was not given 45 days prior to the hearing. Accordingly, the notice does not meet legal requirements and therefore must be withdrawn.

2. The Engineer’s Report Is Inadequate: It Does Not Present Required Specifications.

From
:

To
:

Scott
Sedolev
Clerk
;
Liz
Alessio
;
Mary
Luros
;
Bernie
Narvaez
;
Michael
Barrett
;
Patrick
Melqar
Re
:

June
6 ,
2023
Public
Hearing
Re
:

Citywide
Landscape
Maintenance
Assessment
District
Tuesday
,
June
06 ,
2023
9 :
56 :
14 AM
Cc
:

Subject
:

Date
:
j
[

EXTERNAL
]
Thank
you
,
Scott
.

I
appreciate
your
response
.

If
the
proposed
Resolution
ordering
the
levy
had
not
expressly
stated
that
the
council
ordered
the
report
"
for
the
proposed
increase
of
assessments
,
"
there
would
have
been
no
issue
concerning
notice
.

To
avoid
the
problem
in
the
future
,
I
request
that
the
council
edit
the
word
"
increase
"
from
future
resolutions
,
if
in
fact
an
increase
is
not
being
proposed
.

However
,
my
objections
remain
concerning
the
adequacy
of
the
engineer
'
s
report
to
provide
notice
of
what
we
are
being
assessed
for
and
whether
any
actual
"
maintenance
"
has
been
or
will
be
done
.

As
the
response
I
received
from
Mr
.

Melgar
of
Public
Works
was
framed
in
general
terms
and
did
not
specifically
address
these
objections
,
I
hope
that
the
council
will
address
them
at
the
hearing
.

Lola
On
Tuesday
,
June
6 ,
2023
,
07 :
17 :
24 AM
PDT
,
Scott
Sedgley
<
ssedgley
@
cityofnapa
.
org
>
wrote
:

Good
morning
Lola
,
Thank
you
for
your
well
researched
and
articulated
comments
on
the
proposed
action
to
extend
the
existing
maintenance
district
.

This
action
does
not
include
increasing
fees
.

If
it
were
the
noticing
you
sight
would
come
into
play
.

Sincerely
Scott
Sent
from
my
iPhone
On
Jun
2 ,
2023
,
at
2 :
18 PM
,
Lola
Ellwein
wrote
:
i
[

EXTERNAL
]
June
2 ,
2023
City
of
Napa
City
Clerk
Mayor
Councilmembers
l
City Attorney
City Hall - 955 School Street
Napa, CA 94559
Re: Proposed Levy of Assessment for Landscape Maintenance I reside in District 1 on Summerfield Drive. While I do not oppose assessments for landscape maintenance in general, I have several objections to the City’s recent proposal to levy an increased assessment.

1. The Proposed Increased Assessment Was Not Properly
Noticed and Must Be Withdrawn.

Section 22626(b) of the Streets and Highways Code states that “[i]f the assessments are to be increased from any previous year, the legislative body shall cause notice of the public hearing with respect to the increase to be given pursuant to Section 55753 of the Government Code.” Section 55753(b) provides that “[p]rior to levying a new or increased assessment, or an existing assessment that is subject to the procedures and approval process set forth in Section 4 of Article XIIID of the California Constitution, an agency shall give notice by mail to the record owner of each identified parcel.” Section 55753(b) also provides that the mailed notice must be given “45 days prior to the date of the public hearing upon the proposed assessment.”
Notice of this proposed increased assessment was not mailed and was not given 45 days prior to the hearing. Accordingly, the notice does not meet legal requirements and therefore must be withdrawn.

2. The Engineer’s Report Is Inadequate: It Does Not Present Required Specifications.

According to the Executive Summary Section of the Engineer’s Report, the proposed Resolution approving the Report and ordering the levy “directed Julie B. Lucido, P.E., to prepare and file a report presenting plans and specifications of the existing improvements to be made within the District or within any zone thereof, [and] an estimate of the costs of proposed new improvements and/or maintenance of servicing existing
improvements, . . ..” However, the Report fails to provide any plans or specification.

The Report gives general information. It states: “Facilities to be maintained and serviced may include, but are not limited to:
landscaping, parking lots, walkways, crosswalks, fences, signs, park and parkways, streetlights, retaining walls, embankments, drainage facilities, sprinkler systems, electrical energy for irrigation controllers and
streetlights and associated appurtenant facilities. Landscaping may include ornamental planting including lawns, shrubs and trees. Servicing may include installing, operating, maintaining, repairing and replacing the public facilities together with the equipment, facilities, staff time and any necessary administrative activities. The repair, removal or replacement of all or any part of any improvement, providing for the life, growth, health and beauty of the landscaping, treating for disease or injury, as well as the maintenance, repair and replacement, as necessary, of all irrigation systems and graffiti removal from walls immediately adjacent to the cultivated areas.” This does not tell me what I’m being asked to pay for with regard to my subdivision.

Proposed Budget
FY 2023/24 and FY 2024/25
June 6, 2023
City
Council Regular Meeting
6/6/2023
Supplemental I - 7.A.

From: City Staff
Agenda
•
Council Priorities & Budget Theme
•
General Fund
•
CIP
•
Other Funds
•
Staffing Changes
•
Comments and Direction to Staff
FY 2022/23 Budget Process
City Council Priority Setting
January 31, 2023
CIP Workshop
April 4, 2023
Budget Workshop
April 18, 2023
Budget Public Hearing
June 6, 2023
Budget Adoption:

June 20, 2023
FY 2023/24 Council Priorities
•
General Plan Implementation
•
Climate Action & Sustainability
•
Housing & Homelessness
•
Traffic Safety for all Modes of Travel
•
Public Infrastructure
Budget Packages for Council Priorities
Climate Action &
Sustainability
,
$319,000
General Plan
Implementation
,
$1,824,960
Housing &
Homelessness
,
$500,000
Public Infrastructure
,
$2,406,470
Traffic Safety for all
Modes of Travel
,
$687,790
General Fund (Regular and Non
-
Recurring) Additional Funding for
Council Priorities in FY 2023/24 and FY 2024/25
General Fund Revenue Changes
FY 2024/25
FY 2023/24
125,653,380
121,300,150
Estimated Revenue at
4/18/2023
+541,000
+578,000
Updated TOT Projection
+234,000
+181,500
Revenue from Budget
Packages
+7,650
+9,270
Finalized Cost Allocation Plan
+0
+250,000
Additional Excess ERAF to
Balance the Budget
126,436,030
122,318,920
Estimated Revenue at
6/6/2023
General Fund Expenditure Changes
FY 2024/25
FY 2023/24
122,662,690
119,165,230
Estimated Expenditures at
4/18/2023
+2,143,950
+1,523,540
Budget Packages
-
128,200
+246,770
Self
-
Funded Insurance
Recalculation
+711,380
+652,840
Internal Service Fund
Recalculations
+133,850
+542,460
Transfers to Reserves
125,523,670
122,130,840
Estimated Expenditures at
6/6/2023
Budget Package Changes
•
Adjusted calculations for self
-
funded
insurances for all employees, including new
employees on budget packages
General Fund
R
evenues and Expenditures
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
2020/21
Actual
2021/22
Actual
2022/23
Adjusted
2023/24
Proposed
2024/25
Proposed
Millions
Expenditures
Operating Revenues
Non-Operating Revenues
General Fund
Operating Position
(8)
(6)
(4)
(2)
-
2 4
6 8
10 12
14/15
Actual
15/16
Actual
16/17
Actual
17/18
Actual
18/19
Actual
20/21
Actual
21/22
Actual
22/23
Adjusted
23/24
Proposed
24/25
Proposed
Millions
To CIP Reserves
To Emergency Reserve
To Operating Reserve
To Contingency Reserve
Surplus/(Deficit)
FMV
Investment
Adjustment
General Fund
Fund Balance / Reserves
-10
-5
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
2021/22 Actual
22/23 Adjusted
2023/24 Proposed
2024/25 Proposed
Millions
Unassigned Fund Balance
Emergency Reserve
Operating Reserve
Contingency Reserve
Legally Restricted
Proposed CIP FY24 by Category
Total Budget: $32,437,000
Bridge
,
150,000
Facilities
,
4,420,000
Materials Diversion
,
1,155,000
Miscellaneous
,
1,000,000
Park
,
717,000
Public Art
,
275,000
Storm Drain
,
600,000
Streets, Traffic Safety,
Multi
-
Modal
,
11,275,000
Traffic Signal
,
1,400,000
Water
,
11,445,000
Proposed CIP FY24 by Funding Source
Total Budget: $32,437,000
CIP Facilities Reserve
,
4,420,000
CIP General Reserve
,
1,367,000
Housing
,
500,000
Materials Diversion Fund
,
1,155,000
Measure T
,
10,900,000
N Jefferson DIF Street Imprv
,
922,000
Other Agencies
,
1,800,000
Public Art Fund
,
275,000
State Gas Tax
,
953,000
Street Imprv DIF Streets
,
500,000
Water Enterprise
,
9,645,000
Special Revenue Funds
•
Special Revenue Funds: Legally restricted
funding, total of $26.0M in FY 2023/24; $19.1M
in FY 2024/25
•
Includes Development Impact Fees, Assessment
Districts, Measure T, and other restricted funding
Internal Service Funds
•
Goods/Services provided by one City
department to another
•
Total of $17.0M in FY 2023/24 and $19.1 in FY
2024/25
Enterprise Funds
•
Solid Waste and Recycling Funds
–
FY24 Expenditure Budget: $47.8M
–
FY25 Expenditure Budget: $49.1M
–
Includes budgeted CIP projects
•
Water Funds
–
FY24 Expenditure Budget: $55.6M
–
FY25 Expenditure Budget: $51.5M
–
Includes budget for decision packages and CIP
projects
Staffing Changes
•
1 FTE deleted and replaced with different
classifications in FY 2023/24
•
8 Regular FTE added in FY 2023/24
–
4 General Fund, 1 General Liability Internal Service
Fund, 3 Water Enterprise Fund
•
1 Regular FTE added in FY 2024/25
–
1 General Fund
Conclusion
Next Steps:

June 20
th
Adoption
•
FY 2023/24 Operating Budget
•
FY 2024/25 Operating Budget
•
Five
-
Year Capital Improvement
Program (CIP)
•
Staffing Plan

Conclusion of Budget Presentation
Recommended Action:

Provide Comments / Direction
Council Questions or Comments?
June 5, 2023

The Honorable Scott Sedgley, Mayor City of Napa 955 School Street, Napa, California

Via email:

[email protected]

Supplemental written comments on item 7.A of June 6 City Council meeting: City of Napa FY 2023/24 and FY 2024/25 Proposed Budget

Dear Mayor Sedgley,

On behalf of Slow Down Napa we request that funding specifically for implementation of Traffic Calming be i
ncluded in the City of Napa budget for FY 2023/24 and FY 2024/25. A distinct budget line for Traffic Calming implementation will make clear the City's decision to advance beyond decades of good intentions and elaborate guidelines to begin making this refor m the
reality on our residential streets.

Since Slow Down Napa has participated in every community meeting for composing new Traffic Calming guidelines, we realize that the process is not complete, indeed the final set of meetings has not yet been schedule
d. It may therefore seem premature to allocate funds for a process that is still being defined. But the Public Works department can estimate the costs of one or a few implementations, and budge
ting this will eliminate one cause for delay after guidelines and plans
have been approved.

Last year’s transfer of $400,000 from the red light camera fund to support increased enforcement and traffic safety equipment is appreciated, but is not enough to address the problem of speeding in residential neighborhoods. W
e need to invest in Traffic Calming measures, such as speed cushions and narrower lanes.

Traffic Calming measures can be integrated into routine street paving and improvement work.

Most residential neighborhood measures are small
-
scale and relatively inexp
ensive. For example,
Calistoga is spending $10,000 on a pilot project with three speed cushions. When the City recently approved an advance of $500,000 for street paving that was ahead of schedule, the idea of including a few Traffic Calming pilot projects

was quickly dismissed. There is no apparent
intention to do this additional work.

The Key Initiative for FY 2023/24 and FY 2024/25 also lacks clear intentions about Traffic Calming implementation. The Initiative states that the City will complete the upda te to the Napa
Traffic Calming Program and solicit and evaluate applications for the NTCP. However, reviewing applications is not implementation work. While it is encouraging that a Senior Traffic Engineer has been proposed in the budget, this is bundled w ith vague mention of traffic studies
for $570,000 over two years. These expenses should be listed distinctly: how much for salary of Senior Traffic Engineer, for traffic studies, for implementation.

Our request for a specific budget line arises from a simi lar concern that bundled funding could
mask inaction on Traffic Calming implementation. As citizen volunteers we want to see our advocacy become reality, and not end up as another chapter in a history of futile good intentions.

Sincere

thanks from Slow Down Napa,

Katrina Cho,
Daniel Harder,
Genj
i Schmeder,
Joyce Stavert,
Mauren Trippe

Item 7.A.

Napa City CouncilJune 6, 2023

Napa City Council
June 6, 2023