The Napa County Board of Supervisors agreed this week to accept $245,000 from Napa Pipe developers for county costs associated with the project, from studying water at the proposed site of 2,600 townhomes to hiring a public relations firm.

Napa Redevelopment Partners will cover $90,000 for county staff time spent processing the proposal, $65,000 toward investigating the water supply at the 152-acre site, $60,000 for financial analysis and $30,000 for a local PR firm.

“On large projects of this nature, it is common for developers to pay,” said Larry Florin, Napa County’s community and intergovernmental affairs director.

Napa Pipe developer Keith Rogal concurred, calling it “the norm in every jurisdiction in California” for developers to pay for application costs. He added that if developers did not reimburse fees, costs would otherwise fall on taxpayers’ shoulders.

Both Florin and Rogal note that the agreement follows a request from the county to the developers. Florin said he and Napa County Planning Director Hillary Gitelman made the request to Rogal.

As part of the reimbursement agreement, Napa’s Balzac Communications & Marketing will organize the five remaining public workshops dedicated to the Napa Pipe proposal. The workshops are special meetings of the Napa County Planning Commission. But to prepare for what is expected to be a large public turnout, the firm will handle invitations and logistics and will report back to the county on the public comments.

Among the topics scheduled for review are design, open space, traffic and water. The next meeting is scheduled for April 8, 6 p.m., at the Napa County Office of Education.

The first public workshop, held March 18, came under fire from slow-growth advocates who argued that Napa Pipe consultants should not have been allowed to participate in the brainstorming sessions.

While the consultants were present, they mostly observed at the meeting, according to notes provided by Napa Redevelopment Partners staff. Florin said he did not see Napa Pipe consultants leading the brainstorming sessions, “but by having Balzac coordinate this  … if there’s any concerns about that, then we hope that alleviates that.”

Florin dismissed concerns that allowing the developers to pay for a PR firm would taint the public meeting process.

“Their charge is to get a cross-section of input so that it can inform the planning process as well as the environmental review which is underway,” Florin said.

County departments that will be reimbursed by Napa Pipe developers include the CEO’s office, the planning department, residents and intergovernmental affairs division, public works, county counsel’s office, the office of the auditor, and the environmental management division. CalFire and the Napa County Sheriff’s department will also be paid for their investigation of the Napa Pipe projects’ potential effects on services.

The Napa Pipe proposal includes 2,560 townhomes, industrial and retail space, a hotel and parks.

Florin assures the public that the payment from Napa Pipe developers will have no bearing on how the application is processed. “All of these efforts are being directed by the county, not by the developer,” he said. “The developer has no say in who is selected, so whoever is hired is hired by us and reports to us.”

Said Florin, “They’re not beholden in any way, shape or form to the developer.”

Rogal agreed. “We are crystal clear that paying these costs does not imply anything whatsoever with respect to the supervisors’ final decision on the project.”

To be sure, Supervisor Diane Dillon asked Florin on Tuesday to add a paragraph to the reimbursement agreement emphasizing that “it does not constitute a promise by the Board of Supervisors to approve” Napa Pipe.

The clarification, she said, “sends a message” to the public and will be “out there for everybody to see.”

Tuesday’s vote follows a meeting earlier this month in which supervisors rejected the idea of hiring lawyers to negotiate a development agreement between the county and Napa Pipe developers. Supervisors feared that the negotiations would signal a preliminary desire to approve the project before the application process is complete.

As a result, the $245,000 reimbursement agreement struck Tuesday is significantly less than the amount originally discussed by county staff. The original reimbursement figure would have included an additional $335,000 in legal fees and $90,000 more for county staff time.