Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tourism District topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Calistoga council delays decision on joining renewed Napa Valley tourism improvement district
Summary
After extensive public comment and questions about term length, local return of lodging assessments and representation of small hotels, the Calistoga City Council voted unanimously to table consenting to inclusion in the renewed Napa Valley Tourism Improvement District, seeking more local input before the county hearing.
Calistoga’s City Council on Nov. 12 tabled a decision on whether to consent to including the city’s lodging in a renewed Napa Valley Tourism Improvement District (NVTID), citing concerns from local hoteliers over a proposed 10-year term, the distribution of assessment revenue, and governance.
Assistant City Manager Salaya and representatives of Visit Napa Valley explained the renewal would impose a 2% assessment on guest lodging apportioned 74% to the valleywide district, 25% to local TIDs and 1% to Calistoga for administration. Lindsay Gallagher, president and CEO of Visit Napa Valley, said the district’s marketing has driven recovery and growth: “We now welcome 3,700,000 people into Napa Valley every year, and those visitors spend $2.5 billion,” she told the council.
Local lodging and tourism leaders urged the council to support the renewal, pointing to visitor dollars and jobs. Marcel Adderley, chair of the Napa Valley Tourism Corporation and general manager of Southbridge Napa Valley, asked council to view the renewal as an investment: “Please consider this renewal as an investment in the next 10 years of Napa Valley’s growth, its longevity, and prosperity.” Several Calistoga businesses echoed that support.
But multiple small-property operators and council members voiced sharp concerns. Pat Merchant of Indian Springs said she had asked Visit Napa Valley for concessions and worried the proposed 10-year term was “way too long,” and that an allowed increase from 2% to 3% could be enacted later; she urged delaying action. Mayor Williams compiled issues he said were raised by local hotel operators, including whether Calistoga receives exposure commensurate with roughly $2 million it contributes in assessments and whether the 25% local return is sufficient.
John Lambeth of Civitas Advisors, the district’s consultant, described the statutory amendment and protest process: changes to the management district plan require Board of Supervisors hearings and are subject to a district‑wide, weighted hotel protest vote (weighting is by assessed revenue). Lambeth said roughly 65% of Calistoga lodging had returned petitions in support, but acknowledged the concerns the council raised.
After extended discussion, Councilmember Eisenberg moved to table the city’s consent so staff could pursue additional local input; the motion, seconded by Councilmember Gift, passed on a roll-call vote with all council members present voting aye.
Next steps: the council asked staff to pursue further outreach with Calistoga hoteliers and to report back; the Board of Supervisors’ hearing on the countywide renewal remains scheduled but the city is delaying its consent pending further local review.
