Joint Statement from Councilmembers Aaron Barak and Billy Summers on the City’s Direction for Adams Street and the Surplus Land Act Process

We know there has been public commentary about the Council’s recent direction regarding the Adams Street property. We appreciate that residents are paying close attention and that people care deeply about the future of this community. That is a good thing. But it is important that our residents hear the context directly and factually, consistent with what we can share publicly under the law.

At our last closed session meeting, the City Council directed staff to bring an item back to consider declaring the Adams Street property as surplus property under the Surplus Land Act.  That direction was not impulsive or divisive; it was a deliberate choice grounded in data, state law, community interests, and the City’s housing responsibilities.

The City completed the Surplus Land Act process for the Main Street and Railroad Avenue properties and received bids that incorporated both hotel and housing elements. Those proposals were reviewed by staff and the Council, and while they included some promising ideas, they did not ultimately align with the City’s priorities and long-term community goals. In particular, a majority of the Council was not comfortable pursuing a hotel at the Main Street City Hall site because of its potential impact on Lyman Park, our community’s central gathering space and public green. The concern was not about the numbers; it was about compatibility, scale, and what best serves the long-term public character of the park and downtown area. At the same time, our shared commitment to advancing affordable housing on Railroad Avenue remains strong, and pausing negotiations related to those sites does not foreclose creative proposals in the future for affordable housing and mixed-use development on the Railroad Avenue and Main Street properties.

With that perspective, we believe that the Adams Street property offers a stronger opportunity to advance housing and mixed-use development consistent with state law and community priorities. Its size and location make it far better suited for exploring creative options that can include affordable and workforce housing, civic and recreational space, and potentially complementary uses that fit the scale of the community. We also fundamentally believe that selling City assets to cover operating shortfalls or continue deficit spending is not a sustainable or appropriate use of public funds. Any future consideration of City-owned property should be tied to clear community benefit, long-term value, and alignment with our fiscal responsibilities.

Moving forward with the Surplus Land Act process for Adams Street provides a structured, transparent, and legally sound way to evaluate housing proposals first. That process protects the City’s credibility with the California Department of Housing and Community Development and ensures we remain eligible for state housing programs. It also keeps future options open if no qualified housing proposals emerge.

We also want to address why we felt it important to provide this clarification ahead of the November 18 open session, where the Council will discuss this topic further. Given the inquiries we received within days of our meeting, there appears to be significant public confusion about the central themes of the Council’s recent direction.  More specifically, the opportunity for more housing, the potential for mixed-use development, and the simple fact that we do not yet have the hard data needed on our properties to make informed strategic decisions. Contrary to much of what has been circulating publicly, the Council’s decision was centered on broader questions of housing capacity, data, and long-term community benefit, not simply on whether to pursue a five-star resort. Our goal in providing this context is to ensure residents have an accurate understanding of why the Council chose this course and how it aligns with our broader housing and community development objectives.

This direction does not close the door on thoughtful economic development. It simply ensures that we approach it in the right order, with reliable information, consistent with state law, and with the public interest at the center of the discussion.

Finally, we want to emphasize that the City Council acts as a collective body, and that confidentiality around closed-session discussions exists to protect the City’s negotiating position and ensure that every party is treated fairly. The perspective we are sharing here reflects the general reasoning of the Council majority and our shared commitment to transparency, fairness, and responsible governance within the bounds of the law. Maintaining trust among Councilmembers is essential to that work. It allows for open dialogue, candid exploration of ideas, and thoughtful compromise before decisions are made in public. While healthy debate and the sharing of personal views on public matters are vital to democracy, the integrity of closed sessions and the mutual confidence that they require are what underpin effective local government.

Our focus now should be on moving forward together, reaffirming the norms of our local governing model, engaging residents early, inviting creative housing and mixed-use proposals, and ensuring that whatever happens on Adams Street strengthens the community for decades to come.

Councilmember Aaron Barak

Councilmember Billy Summers

City of St. Helena

*This statement has been reviewed by St. Helena Legal Counsel and complies with the brown act