SUPPLEMENTAL REPORTS & COMMUNICATIONS
Office of the City Clerk
City Council of the City of Napa
Regular Meeting
January 16, 2024
FOR THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NAPA
AFTERNOON SESSION:
SUBMITTED PRIOR TO THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS:
5.A. 2024 Legislative Platform
• PowerPoint Presentation from Merchant McIntyre & Associates
5.B. Vision Zero Local Resolution of Support
• PowerPoint Presentation from Staff
5.C. Informational Briefing on Financial Analysis and Polling • PowerPoint Presentation from Staff
Federal Funding and
Legislative Strategy Update
January 16, 2024
Presented by
• Kathryn E. Peterson, Partner and General Counsel
• Drew Donaher, Senior Government Relations Associate
• Jason Lever, Government Relations Associate
City Council Regular Meeting
January 16, 2024
Supplemental - Item 5.A
From: Merchant McIntyre
Pending Grant
Applications
• Department of Energy (DOE) Charging
F
ram
ework and Infrastructure (CFI)
grant program ($600,000).
• National Endowment for the Arts (NEA)
Our To
wn grant program ($50,000).
• Department of Commerce Economic
D
eve
lopment Administration (EDA)
($327,725).
• Moved forward for consideration by
Inve
stment Review Committee.
Connection to
Legislative Platform
• The Legislative Platform continues to
guide
and inform ongoing work.
• Engagement and energy from Napa
leade
rship and department staff is
e
xceptional.
• Funding focuses: Climate Change and
Envir
onmental Resiliency;
Transportation and Infrastructure;
Housing, Public Health, and Socia
l
S
ervices; Public Safety, Fire, and
Community Policing.
Ongoing Work and
Upcoming Priorities
Water Resources
Development Act (WRDA).
FY25 Congressionally Directed
Spending and Community
Project Funding.
FEMA “Suite of Projects”
(AFG, SAFER, and FP&S).
Additional opportunities that
align with legislative
priorities, including climate
resiliency, transportation and
infrastructure, and housing.
Questions?
Napa Valley Vision Zero Plan
Napa City Council Meeting
January 16, 2024
Presented by:
Lorien Clark, Senior Transportation Planner - Cit y of Napa Diana Meehan, Principal Planner - NVTA
VISION ZERO
City Council Regular Meeting
January 16, 2024 Supplemental -
Item 5.B
From: City Staff and NVTA
Vision & Goals
Use the Plan as a framework for making
the transportation system safer, more
comfortable, and more equitable for
users of all ages and abilities through the
Safe System Approach
“Napa Valley is committed to an equity-
focused, data-driven effort to eliminate
traffic deaths and severe injuries on our
streets by 2030.”
Vision Statement:
The Safe System Approach
Death/serious injury
is unacceptable
Humans make mistakes Humans are
vulnerable
Responsibility is shared Safety is proactive Redundancy is crucial
Funding Eligibility
FUNDING
Multiple grant funding programs require that jurisdictions have transportation-related safety plans to be eligible for funding, including:
• Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
• One Bay Area Grant (OBAG)
• Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A)
Existing Efforts
• NVTA Community-Based Transportation Plan (2018)
• State Route 29 Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor
Plan (2020)
• Countywide Transportation Plan-Advancing Mobility
(2021)
• Countywide Pedestrian Master Plan (2016)
• Countywide Bicycle Plan (2019)
• Three member agencies have created Local Road
Safety Plans
• City of Napa LRSP (2022)
• Napa County LRSP (2022)
• American Canyon LRSP (2022)
PROFILES &
COUNTERMEASURES
DRAFT THE VISION
ZERO PLAN
GATHER & ANALYZE
SAFETY DATA
PLAN & VISION ZERO
POLICY ADOPTION
PROCESS
What does a Vision Zero Plan Include?
PLAN COMPONENTS
Engagement
Invite discussion with key
stakeholders
Project Prioritization or
Location-Specific
Engineering
Recommendations
Strategies for Engineering,
Education, and
Enforcement
Partnerships
Develop internal
partnerships
High-Injury
Network (HIN)
Identification
Systematic and
Data-Driven Analysis
Strategic
Planning
Vision Statement
and Goals
Strategies for
Evaluation and
Implementation
(e.g. funding sources)
Discussion of
Existing Efforts
Collision Data
COLLISIONS SUMMARY
Data from the Transportation Injury
Mapping System (TIMS)
• 2015-2021
• Inclusive of fatal and injury collisions
(Killed or Severe Injury-KSI)
• Excludes Property Damage Only (PDO)
collisions
• Inclusive of all public roadways across
Napa County except for any grade
separated Caltrans facilities
All Collisions
0 150
300
450
600
750
0 20
40 60
80 KSI Collisions
Modal Breakdowns
PRELIMINARY COLLISION FINDINGS
All Collisions (2015-2021) KSI Collisions (2015-2021)
89%
6% 5%
81%
9%
10%
Collisions
involving:
vehicles only
bicycles
pedestrians
High Injury Network (HIN)
2015-2021
COUNTYWIDE HIN
City of Napa
HIN Map:
Countywide
HIN Map:
Collision Profiles
PROFILES
• Collision data used to find the most
com
mon and pressing characteristics of
collisions in Napa Valley
• The collisions that fall into these profiles
acc
ount for 77% of all collisions and 79%
of KSI collisions
• The data covers collisions resulting in
injur
ies between the years of 2015-2021
List of 10 Profiles of Emphasis
1. Unsafe Speeds on Non-Urba n
Thoroughfares
2. Driving Under the Influence (DUI)
3. Broadside Collisions
4. Hit Object Collisions
5. Nighttime Collisions Along Major
Roadw
ays
6. Pedestrians Hit in Crosswalks at
Int
ersections
7. Pedestrians Hit Crossing Outside
Cross
walks or Walking in Road
8. Bicycle Collisions at Intersections
9. Highway Gateways
10. Collisions Along Highways Serving as
Main
Streets
Engineering Countermeasures
• Engineering countermeasures are paired with each profile • A comprehensive toolbox organized by category is included in the Vision Zero Plan as Appendix A
• Example Engineering Countermeasures:
o Pedestrian improvements
o Bike lanes and bike improvements
o Intersection improvements
o Signal improvements
o Signing and striping improvements
Bike
Box
High-Vis
Crosswalk
Road
Diet
Prohibit
Turns During
Ped Phase
Curve
Advance
Warning Sign
Non- Engineering
Countermeasures
Examples Include:
• Enforcement (i.e., targeted enforcement,
aut
omated red light cameras)
• Policy changes (i.e., programmatic speed
limit
modifications)
• Education & Public Awareness Campaigns
Safety Projects
• Safety project were identified through the collision and data analysis and review of existing plans
• Full list of projects is included in Appendix B
• Ten Representative Projects included Countywide with two located in the City of Napa:
o Trancas Street/Redwood Road (Dry Creek Rd to Eastern City Limits) o Soscol Avenue (Trancas St to Imola Ave)
Community Engagement
• Stakeholder Groups
o Technical Advisory Working Group
o Stakeholder Working Group
• Community Outreach
o In-Person Events
o Presentations
o Online Webpage
• Attitudinal Survey
o Provided in English and Spanish
o 585 Responses
People Agree that Roadway Safety is a
Top Priority:
Status & Next Steps
NVTA Board Adoption
On October 18, 2023, the Napa Valley
Transportation Authority Board adopted
the Vision Zero Plan and supporting
resolution.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that City Council take the
following action:
Adopt a resolution supporting the Napa Valley
Transportation Authority Vision Zero Plan and
its goal of eliminating traffic collisions resulting
in severe injuries or fatalities in Napa County
by 2030.
Briefing: Financial Analysis
and Polling
January 16, 2024
City Council Regular Meeting
January 16, 2024
Supplemental - Item 5.C
From: City Staff
Presentation Outline
Context:
• Projections for the City budget, services, and
infrastructure projects
• Expenditures forecasted to outpace revenue
Briefing:
• Evaluation of revenue options and feasibility
• Data from research
• Measure of community support
Recommended Action:
• Direct staff to further explore tax measure
through:
• Communication & outreach
• Tracking poll
• Returning to Council with additional
information
City Council Priorities
Fiscal Years
2023/2024
& 2024/2025
City Budget
Make-up
(General
Fund)
Summary of General Fund
Budget Projections
• Modest growth in
rev
enue projected
• Expenditures are
incr
easing faster than
revenues
• Result is a projected
struc
tural deficit would
not allow for the City to
maintain current service
levels
• Current staffing levels
and cu
rrent service
levels are anticipated to
cost more than future
projected revenues
Capital Improvement Program
2-Year Budget (General Fund)
• The general fund has very
limite
d capacity for CIP
projects
• Approximately 1% of the
gener
al fund is programmed
for general City projects
• $2.49M total programmed
over
2-years
• Over 80% of funding devoted
to r
epairs (bridges, storm
drains, parks)
• Less than 20% for new or
commu
nity enhancement
projects (Alston Park
restroom and study for
Oxbow pedestrian bridge)
New
Projects ,
$425,000
Repair
Projects ,
$2,067,000
Financial Analysis
In addition to continuing current service levels, there is community desire to increase programs, improve services, bolsterstaffing and to fund infrastructure projects—current revenue levels are projected to fall short of even the status quo level into the future
Evaluated potential options
for increased revenue
Revenue amount generated
Allowable uses, restrictions
Voter approval requirements
Potential for community support
Options
evaluated
Transient Occupancy Tax
Parcel Tax
Community Facilities
District (CFD)
Sales Tax
Summary of Findings
Transient
Occupancy Tax
(TOT)—each 1%
increase yields
approx. $2.5M,
paid by visitors,
existing rate is high
compared to other
communities (15%)
Finding: would not
generate sufficient
funding, would be
impactful for local
business & not
likely to gain
support (requires
50% +1 voter
approval)
Parcel Tax—paid
on property tax
bills, analysis
reviewed uniform
rate per parcel and
uniform rate per
square foot
Finding: the tax
increase to reach
even the minimum
revenue targets is
too high to be
practical (requires
67% voter
approval)
Community
Facilities District
(CFD)—paid on
property tax bills,
reviewed rates for
single and multi-
family residential
and commercial/
industrial
Finding: the tax
increase to reach
even the minimum
revenue targets is
too high to be
practical (requires
67% voter
approval)
General Sales
Tax—1% increase
yields approx.
$21M, existing rate
of 7.75% among
lowest in region,
visitors contribute
Finding: funding
level would
support
community and
safety services,
infrastructure and
building projects
(requires 50% +1
voter approval)
Local Sales Tax Measures—General & Special
General Sales Tax
– Cities may place on ballot
– Requires 50% +1
vot
er approval
– Statewide over 75% of
mea
sures passed since 2001
– Must be placed on ballot for
gener
al election (Nov.)
– Available for all governmental
pur
poses at discretion of City
Council
– Recommended option
Special Sales Tax
– Cities and special districts may
plac
e on ballot
– Requires 66.7% voter appr oval
– Statewide less than 50% of
mea
sures passed since 2001
– May be placed on any ballot
(Sp
ecial/ Primary/General)
– Must be spent on purposes in
speci
fically defined expenditure
plan on ballot
Statewide Results: Local General Sales Tax
General
Municipal
Election
# of
General
Sales Tax
Measures
Total #
Passed by
Voters
% of
Measures
Passed
Some of the Communities
Voting for Approval
Nov 2022 47 34 72%
Sausalito, San Anselmo, Chico,
Ontario, Pacifica, Tehachapi,
Vallejo
Nov 2020 71 60 85%
Sonoma, Petaluma,
Healdsburg, San Rafael, San
Pablo, South Lake Tahoe,
Concord, Orinda
Nov 2018 58 52 90%
Sebastopol, Santa Rosa,
Alameda, Sacramento,
Pasadena, Redwood City
Nov 2016 59 51 86% St. Helena, Fairfield, Vacaville,
Suisun City, Fairfax, Capitola
Source: CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Marin
Napa
Solano
Sonoma 15
7.25%
State Min
Polling
Purpose:
• Determine level of support for a
loc
al sales tax on the November
2024 ballot for investments in
public safety, community
infrastructure, and community
services.
Process:
• Research firm prepared
questi
onnaires and contacted a
sample of likely registered voters
by text, email, and phone.
• 25 minutes duration, conducted to
measu
re level of support for a tax
initiative and programs of most
support.
• The methodology resulted in
sta
tistically valid response data.
Language from Polling
To protect and maintain funding for City of
Napa services that the State cannot take such
as:
– Repair potholes, streets/sidewalks;
– Water quality;
– Fire protection;
– Parks/recreation;
– Cleaning up
enca
mpments/abandoned vehicles;
– Connecting homeless residents to
men
tal health services;
– 911 emergency response times;
– Senior and youth programs;
– Constructing essential public
saf
ety/city facilities; and
– General government use.
Sha
ll the City of Napa measure be adopted
levying a 1¢ sales tax, raising $21 million
dollars annually, until ended by voters,
including yearly audits?
Polling Questionnaire
• Asked respondent how they would vote on the tax
measu
re
• Listed various city services/programs, asked
res
pondent if they would be more or less likely to
support measure with specific service/program
• Statements of factual informational were
pro
vided and respondent asked a second time
how they would vote on the tax measure
• Messages intended to provide critical views were
pro
vided and respondent asked a third time how
they would vote on the tax measure
Polling Data
All 3 times the measure was
read, more than 50% of
respondents said they would
definitely or probably vote yes
Positive starting point for
potential future ballot measure
Most support garnered for
services and operations related
to a safe, clean, and healthy
community
Expenditures: Critical Community
Services and Infrastructure
• At 1¢, approximately $21M annually
will be generated
• The general tax can support
investments like:
– Community infrastructure
including streets, sidewalks,
clean waterways, and parks
– Public safety, emergency
operations, and community
center services and facilities
– Youth and senior programs
• Expenditures can be phased to
make significant community
investments right away, and address
long term needs
Steps to Date
• Financial analysis of options
• Voter polling
• Discussions with leadership of
each employee bargaining group
• Provided employee briefing
• Initial discussions with several
City partners
• Developed a draft
communication plan
Recommended Action:
• Direct staff to:
– Hold discussions with broad
range of City stakeholders
– Solicit feedback from
community groups and partners
– Conduct tracking poll to update
measurement of community
support
– Prepare ordinance language for
ballot measure
– Return to Council in June 2024
with information for Council to
consider placing the measure on
the November 2024 ballot