The rate increase was a result of past mismanagement of the county-owned sewer collection system, which has previously been acknowledged by the Board of Supervisors.
Prior to the vote being taken, discussion occurred concerning the city of Clearlake with reference to Clearlake devoting $2.5 million in redevelopment funds to assist with the upgrade effort.
Prior to the Oct. 19 board meeting, Board Chair Anthony Farrington asked to meet jointly with the city of Clearlake and the board in the hope of the city coming forward to share in the cost of the wastewater collection system, irregardless of the fact that the system is the responsibility of the county.
On Oct. 7, County Administrator Kelly Cox, Board Chair Anthony Farrington, City Administrator Dale Nieman and I took the first step to meet together in an informal meeting to exchange ideas prior to a formal joint meeting. This informal meeting was publicly announced both at a Board of Supervisors meeting and a Clearlake City Council meeting.
When Farrington reported back on Oct. 19 to the board regarding the result of the informal meeting, he reported erroneous information along with his own personal opinions which did not accurately reflect what had transpired.
The informational meeting that was held by the four governmental officials was a meeting to share ideas and opinions. No official proposal was presented; only a conceptual proposal that was written on a piece of paper for the purpose of discussion.
The unofficial proposal revolved around the city redevelopment agency contributing $2.5 million in an exchange for an amendment to a tax sharing agreement with the county that capped tax increment at a certain amount. Any tax increment that came in beyond that cap would have been loaned to the city from the county’s general fund.
the conceptual proposal further sought a developer impact fee consistent with the mitigation fee act, a small annual payment from reduction in debt service fee and a long-term lease to locate the city’s public works corporation yard to the sanitation district’s treatment plant. The concept also included a reduction in the sewer rate.
After further evaluating the discussions that transpired, taking into account the opinions that were shared, it was determined the following week that the conceptual proposal would not be in the best interests of the city.
The use of the city’s redevelopment funds would be better utilized to try to improve the local economy by increasing the revenue base in order that the city could stay financially solvent. By investing in our community, the economics benefits would be greater versus sharing in the county owned sewer system.
County Administrator Kelly Cox also questioned if the city should use redevelopment funds for the sewer project in light of the city’s financial condition.
Farrington stated at the Oct. 19 meeting that “He never encountered such a situation where a deal was offered and then retracted so suddenly.” He stated that he was “somewhat concerned about the decision making process internally.”
What Farrington failed to understand is that there never was an “official deal,” as he called it. Because there was not an official proposal from the city, only a concept, it did not require any action from the city council for it to be withdrawn.
Farrington had assumed a deal had been struck. If Farrington had stopped to examine the situation in detail, he would have realized that none of the four officials of the informal meeting had the authority to “strike a deal” without the approval of the governing bodies in open sessions.
This is not the way governmental business is transacted. To imply anything different is a defamation of the integrity of each official who was present at the informational meeting along with a defamation of the offices held by the elected bodies. Neither the city council nor the Board of Supervisors condones this type of activity.
Farrington further goes on to say that he “thinks things could be more open and transparent in the city of Clearlake.” His personal opinion is an insult to the city council, city staff and the citizens we serve. The Clearlake City Council and staff promote transparency and will continue to do so. It is always easy to declare non-transparency when one does not agree with actions that are taken.
The city of Clearlake has received unfair criticism as a result of the actions of Farrington due to his lack of understanding and his projection of his own personal views.
Farrington does not reside in the city of Clearlake. He knows very little of the business within the city of Clearlake. He does not serve the citizens of Clearlake. He represents the district of Lakeport.
A lack of understanding of issues from individuals throughout the entire county continues to promote ridicule to deface our city. It is time we to begin to set the record straight and stand up for the integrity of our City, our staff and the residents we serve.
In 2007 and 2008, the city of Clearlake staff met with the county of Lake sewer district staff concerning the proposed regional shopping center project. Throughout this period of time, numerous closed sessions were held with the city council and the city administrator in order that the city council could continuously give direction to the city administrator.
The county staff stated the construction of a sewer lift station and force main would be required. Later, after a $54,000 study was completed and paid for by the developers of the proposed shopping center project, the county staff determined that additional improvements to the sewer system would be required. The total cost was estimated to be $2.5 million.
The city staff agreed with the requirements of the county staff along with offering to work with the county to develop the best long term solution to solve the problems of the sewer system. The Lake County Southeast Regional Wastewater System has been plagued with past mismanagement deficiencies. Staff also advised that the city’s contribution of $2.5 million would be recommended only if a shopping center proposal was approved.
Because the city administrator does not have the authority to approve offers, the recommendations were brought before the city council for approval. Once the approval was obtained by the city council in open session, the negotiation process of a cost sharing agreement with the county of Lake began.
On April 8, the Clearlake City Council voted 5-0 to drop the negotiations with the county due to a lawsuit filed by the Sierra Club over the proposed shopping center project. Due to the action by the Sierra Club, the council felt it was not known if there would be a viable project going forward; therefore, it would not put money into the county-owned wastewater collection system with no guarantee of a return for our investment.
Clearlake has been questioned about whether the withdrawal of the cost sharing agreement was a result of “politics at play” as a result of actions that had been taken from members of the Board of Supervisors. It was always clear from the very beginning of our negotiations that our offer was contingent on the proposed regional shopping center project being approved. Clearlake does not play politics at the expense of the welfare of our citizens.
We have also been questioned that City Administrator Dale Nieman had made all of the decisions. The city administrator does not have this type of authority. He does not have the authority to accept or withdraw official offers. The responsibility of all city administrators, city managers and county administrators is to make recommendations to their governing bodies. All elected officials are dependent on the staff they employ to provide information to make informed decisions. The ultimate decisions rest with the governing bodies.
Decisions made are not always agreeable with everyone. That is the nature of the offices elected officials hold. Irregardless of the negativity we receive, many times as a result of not understanding the issues, our goal is to always work in what we believe to be in the best interests of our city and the citizens we represent.
Judy Thein is mayor of the city of Clearlake, Calif.
How to resolve AdBlock issue? 
