Calistoga residents won't be choosing their next mayor or two City Council members this November.

With only one qualified candidate for each position, the city canceled all three municipal races.

At its August 19 meeting, the City Council voted to appoint the three candidates rather than conduct an uncontested election. The decision, permitted under California law, is expected to save the city $35,000 to $60,000.

But the money saved is only part of the story.

Three Seats, Three Candidates

Current Councilmember Kevin Eisenberg will become mayor in January, serving a two-year term.

Fellow Councilmember Scott Cooper will begin another four-year term, while longtime resident and Housing Advisory Committee member Lana Richardson joins the council for the first time.

Richardson, a former bed-and-breakfast owner, had hoped to see more candidates—particularly younger residents—enter the race.

She encouraged others to consider running, but no additional candidates completed the filing process.

One prospective candidate, Stephanie Garcia, obtained nomination papers but ultimately decided not to run. She has indicated an interest in preparing for a future opportunity.

Calistoga had already increased council stipends in an effort to make public service more accessible. Yet compensation is only one consideration. Work schedules, family obligations, and the demands of serving in public office can discourage otherwise interested residents.

So can the prospect of public criticism when controversial decisions arise.

A Growing Statewide Trend

Calistoga isn't alone.

Research examining California municipal elections found that the proportion of uncontested City Council elections increased from 10.3% in 2006 to approximately 30.8% in 2024.

That's nearly three times the earlier rate.

Researchers have identified several contributing factors, including the transition from citywide to district-based elections in many California communities. While district elections can improve representation, smaller voting districts may also produce fewer candidates for individual seats.

The findings don't establish why Calistoga's particular races went uncontested, but they show that the city's experience reflects a broader pattern.

Why Local Elections Matter

Calistoga's next council will face decisions affecting the entire community.

The future of the historic fairgrounds has already generated controversy, as we explored in a previous article. Housing affordability, rising water costs, aging infrastructure, and the city's dependence on tourism present continuing challenges.

Those decisions affect longtime residents, business owners, hospitality workers, and families trying to remain in Calistoga.

An uncontested election doesn't mean the candidates are unqualified or lack community support. But it does mean residents have fewer opportunities to compare different approaches to those issues.

And canceling the municipal races doesn't cancel the general election. 

Calistoga residents can still vote November 3 on other offices and ballot measures.

What Would Encourage More Residents to Run?

The city has already tried increasing council compensation. Richardson has personally encouraged prospective candidates. And at least one resident who considered running may seek office in the future.

The challenge now is finding ways to make local public service practical for people whose work, family responsibilities, or financial circumstances make it difficult to commit.