Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Livermore wine district renewal moves toward final hearing after petition and a single written protest
Summary
Staff said petitions representing more than 50% of assessed value support renewing the Livermore Valley Wine Heritage District; staff reported one valid written protest so far and the final public hearing is scheduled June 8, 2026.
Staff told the Livermore City Council on April 27 that petitions representing more than 50% of the assessment total have cleared the first threshold to renew the Livermore Valley Wine Heritage District for another five‑year term.
“Business improvement districts are a financing mechanism in which businesses within a defined geographic area vote to assess themselves,” Management Analyst Terresa Deega told the council, summarizing the renewal process and statutory requirements. Deega said the district, formed in 2021, has provided more than $500,000 annually for marketing and programs that benefit assessed wineries.
Brandy Lombardi, executive director of the Livermore Valley Wine Growers Association, urged council to approve the renewal, saying the petition result is “not a marginal outcome” and that the district has boosted visitation, tasting‑room traffic and coordinated regional marketing. “Renewing the district ensures that this momentum is not only maintained but expanded,” Lombardi said.
Staff reported one valid written protest from a winery owner and one public comment opposed to formation has been recorded so far; Deega reminded council that written protests can be submitted through June 8 and that a majority protest would stop the renewal. Council took no action tonight; a final public hearing and possible adoption are scheduled for the June 8 meeting.
Councilmembers asked staff about district boundaries after a member noted some Livermore‑area vineyards in the watershed were excluded from the district because they lie outside the city’s boundaries. Staff said the district’s boundaries were set during formation and that certain parcels (for example, Ruby Hill and others mentioned in a protest letter) are technically outside the city and therefore not assessed.
Next step: staff will accept written protests through the close of the public‑hearing period and tally valid protests for the June 8 hearing, when council may adopt a renewal resolution if a majority protest has not been reached.
