SOUTH NAPA COUNTY WORKING GROUP:
Phase 1 Report

(Reviewed, revised, and ratified on September 8, 1997)


TABLE OF CONTENTS 

  1. Introduction

  2. Phase I Recommendations

  3. Appendices

    • Complete Text of the Draft Memorandum of Understanding to Establish a Subregional Planning Framework (Ratified September 8, 1997)




I. INTRODUCTION

[First draft prepared September 3, 1997. Reviewed and ratified September 8, 1997.]

A. OVERVIEW OF PHASE I OF THE FACILITATED SNCWG PROCESS

Summary of Phase I Meetings:

The South Napa County Working Group (Working Group) has met five times (April 28, May 19, June 16, July 14, September 8) with a facilitation team from the firm CONCUR. The Working Group established two subcommittees to delve into specific issues in more detail. The Greenbelt Planning Subcommittee has met twice (July 28, August 18), and the Subregional Planning Framework Subcommittee has met once (August 4).

The Working Group's charge has been to address issues associated with the Airport Industrial Area Specific Plan and associated subregional planning issues, and to begin developing a collaborative land use planning framework for South Napa County. Members of the Working Group include the six elected officials listed above, as well as the respective planning directors and City Managers or Administrative Officers from each municipality. This work has been funded in a large part by a $40,000 grant from the Association of Bay Area Governments, and has been augmented with funds from the three jurisdictions.

At its first meeting in April, the Working Group adopted a Mission Statement and Groundrules to guide its work, and heard an initial presentation from the County of Napa about the elements of the Airport Industrial Area Specific Plan (AIA Specific Plan).

At its May, June, and July meetings, Working Group members heard a series of presentations on planning issues such as jobs/housing balance, transportation, sewer and water infrastructure, provision of affordable housing, and revenue sharing to help focus its deliberations on the AIA Specific Plan.

On July 14, the Working Group ratified an Interim Report which specifically emphasized a review of the AIA Specific Plan.

Also at its July meeting, the Working Group heard two presentations. The City of American Canyon presented a proposal to amend its RUL line. This presentation kicked off a valuable discussion about the need to view RUL expansion together with greenbelt planning as a "package" in effective subregional planning. A second presentation by the City of Napa and by the developer of the proposed Stanly Ranch property outlined the planning history and the elements of the proposed Stanly Ranch plan.

Since the July meeting, the Working Group has focused its attention on two substantive tasks: Initiating joint greenbelt planning and outlining in more detail the elements of a Subregional Planning Framework.

Contents of the Final Report:

This Final Report consists of three sections, beginning with the Introduction as Section I. Section II contains the recommendations of the South Napa County Working Group for Subregional and Greenbelt Planning. Three Appendices comprise Section III: Complete draft text for a Subregional Planning Memorandum of Understanding, the Interim Report that was ratified July 14, 1997, and a compilation of all the South Napa County Working Group meeting agendas.

The Working Group views its work over the past six months as a significant step in improving governmental relations and initiating effective subregional planning for South Napa County.


B. RATIFICATION (Ratified September 8, 1997)

We, the Members of the South Napa County Working Group, have drafted, revised, and ratified the attached Final Report. Our signatures are an indication of our:

  1. Active participation in, and commitment to, Phase I of the South Napa County Working Group process.

  2. Full agreement with the contents of the Final Report.

  3. Recommendation to pursue Phase II, as outlined in the Draft Memorandum of Understanding.

This document is not intended to be a legally binding agreement.


C. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
    South Napa County Working Group
    (Ratified April 28, 1997)

The South Napa County Working Group (SNCWG) is composed of elected public officials of the County of Napa and the Cities of Napa and American Canyon and their staff and has been convened to jointly identify, analyze, and work to resolve issues of common concern centered around land use planning in South Napa County. To accomplish this goal, the SNCWG will focus initially on issues related to the existing and proposed update of the Airport Industrial Area Specific Plan (AIA Plan).

Specifically, the SNCWG seeks to accomplish the following tasks:

  1. Develop a common understanding of the needs and interests of the respective jurisdictions in land use planning and decision making in South Napa County.

  2. Develop a common understanding of the purpose and content of the existing and proposed update of the AIA Plan and the process of developing and adopting Specific Plans.

  3. Identify and clarify issues related to the adoption of the AIA Plan Update, including but not limited to: jobs/housing balance; provision and financing of infrastructure; circulation; type, location, intensity and phasing of development; and natural resource management and protection.

  4. Identify opportunities to delineate RUL's with Greenbelts and develop revenue sharing programs (within the context of the AIA Plan update and in the broader planning context.)

  5. Identify areas where additional information is needed and develop a program for establishing a common base of information.

  6. Build trust and establish the foundation for ongoing collaborative working relationships among the parties.

  7. Enable direct face-to-face dialogue among elected officials and staff in a structured process that is both collegial and constructive.

  8. Draft and ratify an interim report, within 45 days of this first facilitated meeting of the SNCWG. This report will: document the group's consensus agreement on a list of critical issues; establish an initial prioritization of those issues; identify areas where additional information is needed; and identify potential alternative solutions/options. This interim report will constitute the Working Group's initial work product and will be submitted to the three jurisdictions for their review.

  9. Participants are committed to completing and ratifying, by consensus vote, a final report or detailed memorandum within 6 months of the first facilitated meeting which will document the substantive findings and agreements arrived at in the negotiations, including:

    • Statement of Purpose;
    • Groundrules and procedures for the SNCWG's operation;
    • A logical sequence of issues in the form of a Table of Contents; A summary of technical information reviewed;
    • Conclusions and recommendations;
    • and Strategies to implement the proposed recommendations

  10. Establish a clear and meaningful relationship between their collaborative negotiations in the SNCWG process and the formal decision making processes of their jurisdictions.

  11. Establish a draft procedure for addressing future land use decision making in Napa County, to satisfy the requirements of the ABAG Subregional Planning Grant.


D. GROUNDRULES
    South Napa County Working Group
   (Ratified April 28, 1997)

Participation
  1. Participants in the South Napa County Working Group (SNCWG) have been recruited based on their status, respectively, as elected representatives of the County of Napa and the Cities of Napa and American Canyon.

  2. The staff of the Cities, the County, and the Association of Bay Area Governments is invited to participate in an advisory capacity and as an integral part of the working group.

    3. Personal Conduct and Representation
    1. The personal integrity, values, and legitimacy of the interests of each participant will be respected by other participants. This includes the avoidance of personal attacks and stereotyping. The motivations and intentions of participants will not be impugned.

    2. Participants agree to be fully committed to the work of the SNCWG and to devote the time necessary to allow the work of the SNCWG to proceed efficiently. Participants agree to read background information and thoroughly review the agenda packets before each meeting, to attend all meetings, and be prepared to effectively discuss issues on the agenda.

    3. The participants understand that the work of the SNCWG is an opportunity for the elected officials to be briefed on the subject matter under consideration and to develop consensus on the information and issues involved. The participants recognize that the process is not a forum in which staff will debate the issues and data. Rather, staff will provide support to the Working Group to enable it to have constructive dialogue and effective collaborative negotiations.

    4. Commitments will not be made lightly and will be kept. Delay will not be employed as a tactic to avoid an undesired result.

    5. Disagreements will be regarded as problems to be solved rather than battles to be won.

    6. Every participant will give regular briefings of proceedings to their peers, senior staff and/or governing boards, preferably after each meeting to keep them informed of the status and timelines of the SNCWG process.

    7. Each elected official is responsible for communicating the interests of his or her jurisdiction to the SNCWG. It is incumbent upon each participant to state their interests. Voicing these interests is essential to enable meaningful dialogue and full consideration of issues and to craft satisfactory agreements.

    8. If a participant must miss a meeting, that person will communicate his or her comments orally or in writing to the facilitators at least two days before the scheduled meeting. Participants can also contact the facilitators between meetings at any time to discuss their concerns and needs related to this dialog. If requested by the participants, these discussions can be treated as confidential with the facilitators.

    9. In order to establish group trust, consistent participation is strongly encouraged. Participants will not send substitutes to attend meetings.

    Development of Multiple Options for Issues Under Discussion
    1. To encourage brainstorming and creative thinking, and in order to promote the achievement of mutual gains in these negotiations, participants commit to develop multiple options for each of the issues under the discussion, rather than insisting that only one possible solution exists.

    2. As part of this process of developing multiple options, participants are encouraged to put forward tentative proposals for consideration, which may later be withdrawn. Withdrawal of such proposals will not be made lightly; the rationale for withdrawing a proposal will be explained clearly to all participants.

    3. Evaluation and refinement of proposals will be carried out via the single text method described below.

    Information Sharing and Joint Fact-Finding

    1. An essential activity of the SNCWG negotiations is the need to come to a shared understanding and agreement, to the greatest extent possible, on a variety of technical issues. To this end, participants agree to full participation in joint fact-finding and commit to an approach to all fact-finding efforts that is receptive and responsive to new information.

    2. SNCWG members will strive to identify and articulate questions that need to be addressed.

    3. SNCWG members and their respective staffs and consultants are asked to provide pertinent information for items under discussion at all meetings. This means that participants have an obligation to share any specific (including possible or pending) decisions within or by the jurisdictions they represent, as well as information in the form of reports, memos and studies which may affect the deliberations.

    4. Claims of privileged, proprietary or confidential information will not be asserted lightly. Any privileged, proprietary, or confidential information will be clearly identified and marked as such.

    5. Tentative or sensitive information will be treated as such.

    6. Individual members are free to discuss the work of the SNCWG with other Working Group members outside of SNCWG meetings.

    Ratification and Single Text Approach

    1. Participants shall work toward ratification of the work products by informing their respective organizations of the progress of the SNCWG's work leading to final ratification. The exact form of any final ratification will be determined by the participants as the work proceeds.

    2. The participants to the discussion will use a single text approach for all items to be ratified. This simply means that all comments on written documents under consideration by the participants are to be made on the actual document at the meeting at which the text is presented, so they can be easily understood and integrated into the revised text. Comments made via separate memos, letters, phone calls and faxes will not be accepted.

    3. As the participants discuss and make decisions on these issues, the facilitators will draft language that reflects the emerging consensus of the participants. Draft statements that are prepared in this manner will then be circulated for review by all participants, using the single text approach. The facilitators will then integrate comments into a revised statement, which in turn will be presented to the next plenary meeting where the facilitators will seek it's ratification. This pattern of drafting, revising and ratification will be the primary method of seeking agreements that emerge from discussions held by the participants.

    Media Contact

    1. While the participants are studying, negotiating or evaluating issues, the participants will not initiate media contact or make public statements except as mutually agreed. Such statements can hamper creative discussion, prejudge outcomes, and undermine the group's ability to modify draft proposals.

    2. If the media contacts a member, members will represent only the interests of their respective jurisdiction.

    3. At the conclusion of these discussions, the protocols for contact with the media will be changed to the following: When discussing the proceedings, discussions and process of the SNCWG with the media, participants will be careful to present only their own views and not those of other participants; Participants are encouraged to suggest that media representatives contact other participants who may have different points of view. The temptation to discuss or represent someone else's point of view or interests in discussions with the media should be avoided.

    Agenda, Timetable and Work Products

    1. The facilitators will be responsible for preparing the agenda for each meeting, in collaboration with participants. Before the conclusion of each meeting, the items to be considered at the next meeting will be discussed and agreed to by the participants.

    2. Within 45 days of this first facilitated meeting, the SNCWG will draft and ratify an interim memorandum or report. This memorandum will:

      • document the group's consensus agreement on a list of critical issues;
      • establish an initial prioritization of those issues;
      • identify areas where additional information is needed;
      • identify potential alternative solutions/options.

    3. Within 6 months of the first facilitated meeting, participants are committed to completing and ratifying, by consensus vote, a final report or detailed memorandum, which will document the substantive findings and agreements arrived at in the negotiations, including:

      • Statement of Purpose;
      • Groundrules and procedures for the SNCWG's operation;
      • A logical sequence of issues in the form of a Table of Contents;
      • A summary of technical information reviewed;
      • Conclusions and recommendations;
      • Strategies to implement the proposed recommendations.

    4. The facilitators will serve as a Secretariat, responsible for updating the successive versions of draft work products developed at each meeting.


    E. PROCESS CHALLENGES IDENTIFIED BY THE FACILITATION TEAM

     The CONCUR facilitation team of Scott McCreary and Tim Hicks has identified a series of procedural and substantive issues that must be addressed in order for effective collaborative negotiation to move forward.

    1. Increased acknowledgment of and mutual respect for the interests and concerns of each jurisdiction relative to the land use planning being undertaken by the others.

    2. Increased attention to convey, and confirm the effective transmission of information about the details and impacts of the Airport Area Specific Plan.

    3. A serious commitment to consider revising timetables for adoption of planning decisions by the three jurisdictions.

    4. A further commitment to joint fact-finding (JFF). The first steps in a complete JFF process would include:

      • Agree on specific questions that need more specific investigation.
      • Agree to retain or be advised by a unified group of experts.
      • Establish the criteria for recruiting the experts.
      • Description of the format of work products.
      • Agree on equitable cost sharing to pay for desired experts.

    5. Agreement to use the Working Group as a primary forum to discuss and resolve land use planning issues in South Napa County.

    6. Agreement to establish a basic framework for subregional planning in south Napa County. The framework will include:

      • boundaries - extent and limitations
      • format and frequency of consultation
      • development of an agreed upon timeline and process for completing pending plans and studies. Look for the opportunities for concurrent review and cumulative assessment of fiscal and environmental impact.


    F. SOME NEXT STEPS
    1. Acknowledge and affirm that it is in the interest of the County of Napa, the City of Napa, and the City of American Canyon to work in a collaborative manner.

    2. Commit to a process of joint development of information. Historically, and even as recently as early June, the respective jurisdictions have each recruited their own experts to give them advice. This arrangement of "dueling experts" generates duplication of efforts and expense, and often yields competing recommendations. It is the view of the Working Group that a collaborative effort to jointly scope studies, retain and direct consultants, and prescribe the format of the work product would benefit all three jurisdictions.

      3. A specific area to research is whether the subregion can support some or all of the proposed developments, including golf courses, hotel resorts, and industrial growth.

    3. Widen the definition of subregional planning for South Napa County beyond the AIA Specific Plan. Take steps to bring to the table five other major issues affecting subregional planning in South Napa County:

      • RUL for American Canyon;

      • the development proposal for the Stanly Ranch property;

      • open space development and preservation (e.g. wetlands, foothills, greenbelts, etc.);

      • improved traffic circulation within the subregion;

      • local availability of appropriate housing to serve the projected job growth in the area.

    4. Reach agreement on completing pending plans and studies to facilitate collaborative discussion in the context of Subregional Planning for South Napa County.

    5. Establish a pattern of interaction in which the respective interests and concerns of each local government are treated with consideration and mutual respect.

    6. Establish that the SNCWG is a primary forum for discussion of the elements, impacts, and implications of the AIA specific plan and other South County planning issues. As noted in #4, this may mean adjusting the planning timelines for one or more planning processes now underway.



    II. PHASE I RECOMMENDATIONS

    A. RECOMMENDATION FOR A SUBREGIONAL PLANNING FRAMEWORK MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

    A principal charge of the South Napa County Working Group has been to develop a Draft Framework for Subregional Planning. The Working Group formed a subcommittee to prepare this framework.

    The Subcommittee, which met on August 4, 1997, developed an outline of steps and requested that CONCUR draft an MOU incorporating their ideas. The resulting Draft MOU was reviewed and revised, and then ratified on September 8, 1997 as a recommendation from the full Working Group.

    The MOU addresses the role of the Joint Planning Group, the structure and frequency of the Joint Planning effort, the internal sequence of broad policy issues to be addressed, the types of site-specific issues to be presented to the full Working Group for exchange of information, and the geographic scope of the SNCWG.


    B. RECOMMENDATION FOR A JOINT GREENBELT PLANNING FRAMEWORK

        [First draft prepared August 1, 1997; second draft reviewed and revised on August 18, 1997; third draft for reviewed and ratified on September 8, 1997]

    Introduction At the July 14th meeting of the South Napa County Working Group (SNCWG), a subcommittee was established to address the issue of Greenbelts and Community Separators. The subcommittee has met twice. On July 28th, subcommittee members attending the meeting were Jill Techel from the City of Napa, Ben Anderson from American Canyon, and Mike Rippey from the County. Mark Joseph and Chris Gustin from American Canyon, John Yost from the City of Napa, and Jeff Redding from the County of Napa also participated in the meeting.

    After discussing the charge from the full SNCWG and reviewing initial statements of interest, the subcommittee proceeded to outline the elements of a Joint Policy Statement and Joint Greenbelt Planning Effort.

    On August 18, the subcommittee met again for a site visit to South Napa County and a follow-up review and discussion of this draft document.

    1. Elements of a Joint Greenbelt Planning Effort

      The County of Napa and the Cities of American Canyon and Napa agree to initiate joint planning for establishing a permanent greenbelt for South Napa County. The goals of this joint planning effort will include:

      • Establish objective criteria and procedures for including land in greenbelts.

      • Establish strategies for protection and preservation.

      • Establish a process that enables full, broad-based public involvement in greenbelt planning.

      • Establish permanent community separators for the purpose of clearly delineating communities.

      • Integrate infrastructure planning with greenbelt protection.

      • Permanently protect and restore lands with significant natural, biologic, aesthetic, and/or agricultural values.


    2. Further Recommendations by the Subcommittee

      3. The tasks listed below are not in order of priority.

      • To some degree, the issues of community separators and greenbelt/open space must be treated separately. There will be different strategies applied to the two issues. The opening preamble of a Joint Policy Statement should outline and describe this distinction.


      • The initial Joint Policy Statement will generalize about principles and high priority areas (for example, "Resource lands are to be permanently preserved") without being specific in regards to individual parcels. Identification of specific parcels will be a second step and will include appropriate policy guidelines.

      • The Joint Policy Statement should be a recommendation jointly supportable by all jurisdictions and is not "law" used to delineate specific greenbelt lands, and interim and permanent uses and similar issues.

      • The process will require open public meetings.

        The preamble to the Joint Policy Statement should include a comprehensive and effective justification and explanation of greenbelt/open space and community separators, outlining the various benefits and emphasizing resource protection.

      • A strong endorsement by the South Napa County Working Group will be very important to the City Councils and the Board of Supervisors and is a significant element in the initiation of a joint greenbelt planning process for the South County.

      • Investigate the creation of an entity that could administer and do planning for greenbelts such as an open or a joint powers authority.

      • Each jurisdiction is committed to seeking potential funding and will investigate the following sources or mechanisms to accomplish established goals:

        1. CALFED grants once a resource inventory is complete
        2. wetland mitigation banks

        3. transfer of development rights

        4. density bonuses

        5. purchase of easements

        6. development and impact fees funding a pool with which to purchase land or easements

        7. transfer from public agencies of benefits of greenbelt/open space designation (for example, transfer station or the Napa Sanitation District)

        8. creation of an open space district

      • Attention should be given to the appropriate public access opportunities in conjunction with Bay area trail systems, existing rail lines, creek corridors, the Napa River corridor, and County bike trails.

      • A joint greenbelt planning process will require a joint commitment of administrative resources from the jurisdiction partnership (financial, staff, and past studies resources)

      • The target date for completion of a resource inventory should be 6/1/98.

    3. Next Steps

      • Confirm that Joint Greenbelt Planning process is a priority of the full SNCWG.

      • Develop a Joint Greenbelt Policy Statement to be incorporated and elaborated upon in each jurisdiction's General Plan.

      • Investigate the creation of an entity that could administer and conduct planning for greenbelts, such as an open space district or joint powers authority.

      • Initiate the natural resource inventory process with the first step being to assemble currently available data. This should be provided by each jurisdiction to the county in an acceptable format. The County will collate and assemble.

      • Identify what administrative resources are available from each of the jurisdictions.

      • Contact appropriate state and federal agencies to obtain information on significant biological and other natural resources about which each has knowledge or information.

      • Outline the steps and timeline of the greenbelt planning process (identification of candidate land, development of policy guidelines, design and implementation of a public involvement process, etc.)

    4. Glossary of Key Terms

      Community Separator: A land use concept or planning tool that provides a buffer between developed areas. (Not defined in state law.)¹

      Greenbelt: Integrated system of open land that surrounds and supports a community or a metropolitan region and is protected from urban and incompatible rural development -- preferably by an RUL, which forms the Greenbelt's inner edge. (Greenbelts are currently not defined in state law.)²

      Open Space: Land in its natural state or altered for natural resource-based uses (farming, parks). Defined in state law to include agricultural land, watersheds, parks, forests, habitat areas.³



      ¹ Definition developed by members of the South Napa County Group
      ² Definition developed by members of the South Napa County Group
      ³ Definition provided by a Fact Sheet distributed by the Greenbelt Alliance, 116 New Montgomery, Suite 640, San Francisco, CA 94105



    III. APPENDIX A

    DRAFT MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF NAPA, THE CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON, AND THE COUNTY OF NAPA: TO ESTABLISH A JOINT SUBREGIONAL PLANNING FRAMEWORK

    [First draft reviewed and revised by subcommittee week of August 25, 1997; second draft reviewed, revised, and ratified by full SNCWG September 8, 1997. This draft MOU must be reviewed and acted upon by the full Napa County Board of Supervisors and full City Councils of the City of Napa and the City of American Canyon before it becomes effective.]

    • Parties: This Memorandum of Understanding (hereinafter referred to as "MOU") is entered into by and between the City of Napa, the City of American Canyon, and the County of Napa (collectively referred to as "Party" or "Parties"), to form the South Napa County Working Group ("SNCWG").

    • Recitals: Each Party to this MOU is a public agency duly authorized and existing under the laws of the State of California.

    • Purpose and Justification: The purpose of the SNCWG is to establish a planning framework to address subregional planning issues of importance to the Parties and their respective jurisdictions.

    • Role of the Joint Planning Group: The Subregional Planning Group has four complementary roles. The first overarching role is to serve as a forum for exchange of information, communication, and coordination pertaining to land use and related issues in South Napa County. The Parties intend that the SNCWG would be the principal forum for good faith discussions of these issues within South Napa County. The second role is to carry out joint analysis on issues of mutual importance within South Napa County. In this capacity, the SNCWG may provide funds and/or direct staff to gather data, carry out studies, frame policy issues, and develop policy recommendations for consideration by the SNCWG, the full Board of Supervisors, and the respective City Councils of the Cities of Napa and American Canyon. The third role is to review and discuss site-specific projects that are likely to result in impacts across jurisdictional boundaries, and to seek opportunities to avoid or mitigate those impacts. The fourth role will be to build agreements, and a spirit of cooperation which will foster goodwill and more efficient and effective government.

    • Structure and Frequency of the Joint Planning Effort: The full South Napa County Working Group will meet quarterly. The SNCWG will consist of two elected representatives from each jurisdiction, the County Administrative Officer, the City Managers of Napa and American Canyon, and the Planning Directors from all three jurisdictions. Additional technical advisors may be recruited to join the SNCWG as appropriate.

      A Joint Fact-Finding subcommittee will be formed to discuss issues such as: Greenbelts/open space, housing, circulation, fiscal impacts and revenue sharing, and economic issues as each relates to South Napa County development. Meetings will occur approximately monthly, as necessary, to provide guidance to staff and consultants, to review draft reports, and to frame presentations and tentative recommendations back to the full Working Group. Membership on the Subcommittee shall be rotated as appropriate.

    • Internal Sequence of Broader Policy and Planning Issues: The joint fact-finding subcommittee will address the following subregional planning issues identified in paragraph five in the following order: Greenbelt/open space; housing; circulation; fiscal impacts and revenue sharing; and economic issues. This sequence should not necessarily limit future areas for consideration.

    • Site-Specific Issues: In order for a specific land use issue to be presented to the joint planning group for exchange of information, the issue must be:

      • a significant legislative or land use project; or

      • a significant public or private project; or

      • significantly impacts a natural resource; or

      • potentially results in a significant commitment of public funds

      • legal counsel has been sought by one or more jurisdictions. The Planning Directors should meet on a regular basis to identify candidate projects. Elected officials should confer with their colleagues and their staff prior to nominating candidate projects for discussion.

    • Geographic Scope of SNCWG>: The focus of this Working Group activity will be South Napa County as broadly defined by the City of Napa, the City of American Canyon, and the County lands in proximity.

    • Mission Statement and Groundrules: An initial task of the Working Group will be to establish groundrules to guide its activities. The Working Group may choose to use as a basis the Mission Statement and Groundrules ratified on April 28, 1997.

    • Termination of MOU: This MOU shall terminate upon the occurrence of any of the following conditions:

      • completion of the Project referred to in the "Purpose" statement above (item #3).

      • written withdrawal by any Party hereto.

    • Amendment: This MOU may be amended at any time upon the written approval of all Parties to the MOU.

    • Contract Administration: The City of Napa will serve as the fiscal agent for any funds received and disbursed in support of the SNCWG, and will provide contract administration and accounting services, as well as periodic reports to the SNCWG.

    • Financial Commitment: Costs of administrating this MOU will be shared among the Parties. The exact funding formula will be the subject of an amendment to this MOU.

      • Parties commit to participate in SNCWG for a period of one year, and will endeavor to renew that commitment at the conclusion of each contracted year.




Back to Our Home Page Search Our Site Drop Us a Line

Copyright © 1996-1998 ABAG. All rights reserved.
jmc 12/23/98