Resident alleges city staff demanded $8,000 fee, urges public hearing on conduct

Daniel Hale, a St. Helena resident who identified himself during the Feb. 25 public forum, told the City Council he was asked to pay an additional $8,000 to process an application that he said was first submitted in October.

Hale said the city’s demand ‘‘applies even if the application is withdrawn or not approved’’ and said he and his client have already paid ‘‘$77,100 to process this project.’’ He asked the council to schedule a public hearing so the underlying issues could be aired.

The complaint was directed primarily at two staff members, whom Hale named in his remarks. ‘‘My my beef here is with the conduct of Anil Canelo and Maya de Rosa,’’ Hale said, adding that what he described as a city culture that allows such conduct to continue has discouraged complaints from being addressed up the chain.

Why it matters: multiple residents who spoke after Hale said his allegations raised wider concerns about staff behavior, transparency and whether the city’s personnel and records responses have been adequate. Those concerns can affect public trust in permitting, planning and enforcement processes.

Other residents who spoke tied Hale’s allegation to broader transparency concerns. Elaine DeMan said she found the letters Hale submitted ‘‘very disturbing’’ and asked whether an apparent code issue referenced by Hale had been dealt with immediately. ‘‘If this is true, it needs to stop right now,’’ DeMan said, while also acknowledging she would apologize if the allegations proved incorrect.

Longtime local volunteers Tracy and Jim Sweeney each said they have worked with Hale over decades and urged the council to examine the claims carefully. Tracy Sweeney noted Hale’s long record working with the city and said the current concerns appeared to be connected to recent staff changes. Jim Sweeney urged the council ‘‘to do your own diligence’’ and to ‘‘get to the bottom of what happened with the Dan Hale communication.’’

Council response and next steps: Vice Mayor Deasy acknowledged the frustration of residents and said the council is committed to ‘‘ensuring fair and respectful treatment for our members of the community’’ but did not announce any immediate formal action. Mayor Paul Doreen and other council members thanked speakers for raising the concerns and noted that the city manager had previously provided a written response to Hale.

No ordinance, motion or staff assignment was recorded on the public docket during the Feb. 25 meeting as a direct result of the public comments. Several speakers requested that the council place the matter on a future agenda for fuller consideration; the council did not schedule that follow-up during the meeting.

Context and clarifying details: Hale told the council his written material is on the record and that a city police report he sought was blank when he requested it. He also quoted language from what he described as the city’s demand letter, including a $1,000 minimum deposit requirement and broad indemnity language that, in his view, gives the city ‘‘sole discretion’’ over use of funds and consultant selection. Hale and other commenters criticized what they described as shifting directions by multiple planners working on the file.

What remains unresolved: Council members and staff acknowledged receipt of Hale’s letters and a city manager response, but no council action, investigation timeline, or staff directive to reopen the matter was recorded in the Feb. 25 public meeting minutes.

Speakers quoted in this article spoke during the Feb. 25 public comment period; their remarks were not followed by formal council action at that meeting.