LAKEPORT, Calif. – After a discussion with Lakeport city officials about the city’s proposal to annex the South Main Street/Soda Bay Road area of Lakeport, the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday directed staff to move forward with approving a feasibility study to explore developing a public water system for the area.
The issue of annexing the area has, since last fall, increasingly become a point of contention and strained relations between the county and the city, with hundreds of thousands of dollars of sales tax from one of the county’s most important commercial districts at stake.
The tensions arising from the issue were on display Tuesday, when Lakeport Mayor Stacey Mattina suggested a “smear campaign” had been employed to discourage property owners in the 197-acre annexation area from wanting to be added to the city’s jurisdiction.
The board had first discussed the proposed $27,000 feasibility study, which it is contracting with Ruzicka Associates of Lakeport to complete, on March 13, as Lake County News has reported. The study is meant to look at the possible development of a public water system and formation of a County Service Area in the South Lakeport area.
However, when city officials from Lakeport came to the March 13 meeting and questioned the reasons for the study – considering the city’s efforts to get the annexation process under way – the board delayed a decision.
Although previously Lakeport officials had indicated they could more easily provide water to the area, County Administrative Officer Kelly Cox told the board Tuesday that the city had indicated it would not provide water to the area unless it was annexed.
Mattina, City Manager Margaret Silveira and Utilities Director Mark Brannigan came to discuss the annexation matter with the board on Tuesday.
Silveira told the board that she and Cox had been in discussions over the annexation matter, and last week had talked about a “true partnership” between the two governments regarding sharing of sales tax.
“I feel we’re very close on agreement,” she said.
Cox, however, indicated that in addition to agreements between the two governments over sales tax and revenue, there needs to be a demonstration of support from residents, who he said are overwhelmingly against it.
“I don’t know that we’ll ever reach an agreement,” he said.
Mattina said there is a lot of misinformation circulating about the annexation, at which point she suggested a smear campaign was at work.
She said many residents don’t know what work the city already has done to annex the area, and added no “true survey” of property members had been completed.
“I think there is a campaign against it based on misinformation,” she said.
Cox said in normal annexations, property owners initiate it. This time, however, he said the city is the main mover.
He said there have been multiple surveys to gauge property owner interest, and reiterated there is opposition to annexation.
The other issue, he said, is the revenue exchange agreement that would be necessary between the city and county. On that agreement, he added, “I would say that we’re coming closer. We’re not there yet.”
Paul Racine, who along with fellow community members surveyed property owners in the proposed annexation area, said he didn’t like being referred to as a smear campaign.
He said he had taken it upon himself to go out and get the best information he could on property owner interest. His survey showed a majority of property owners in opposition.
“If you don’t believe me, that’s fine, but go do the work yourself,” Racine told city officials.
Mattina said she wasn’t referring to Racine in her remarks. She said she was concerned about a combination of things.
Cox said the county has done the same work to find out property owner interest, and their results were the same as Racine’s. He said it was clear to him that people in that area didn’t want to be annexed.
Lakeport claims 2002 agreement supporting annexation
Silveira said businesses have contacted the city with interest about annexation.
She then referred to a 2002 annexation agreement she said Supervisor Tony Farrington brought to the council, in which she said the county agreed to support the city pursuing annexation in 10 years, with a nominal sales tax agreement.
“We do have an agreement from the county, signed, that the city will annex” and the county will assist, said Silveira, adding that the agreement was an important factor that’s been left out of the conversation.
Cox said the board wasn’t agreeing to annexation in 2002. He questioned the agreement, and Board Chair Rob Brown asked to see the document, which Silveira called “a “pretty strong agreement.”
Farrington asked if the agreement had a sunset date. Silveira said no.
Brown said he couldn’t believe the board would have agreed to annexation in the way Silveira described.
Supervisor Jeff Smith said he hoped the city would get away from the annexation issue and focus on what’s best for the annexation area’s citizens by providing water.
“We’re just taking the step that’s natural, that we’re going to try to serve them water if we can,” he said.
Cox said the city has indicated it won’t provide water unless annexed. “We need to provide that water service,” he said, which is why the feasibility study is before the board.
Silveira said it was not recommended that a city provide water out of its jurisdiction.
Supervisor Jim Comstock said that the city could increase its customer base and bring down costs by serving the area.
“We need to quit bickering and arguing and kicking the can,” he said.
Farrington said the board needed to have $1 million to $2 million ready to address costs that arise from the county providing water service to the area, adding that property owners could be hurt financially by the county’s requirement that they tie into the water system.
Farrington also moved to approve the agreement with Ruzicka Associates, which the board approved 5-0.
Silveira told the Lakeport City Council during its very brief meeting Tuesday night – the open session was completed in nine minutes – that she hoped to schedule a workshop on annexation and what it will mean to property owners during the council’s next meeting.
Also on Tuesday, the Board of Supervisors adopted the update to the new housing element. The board had held a joint meeting with the Lake County Planning Commission regarding the document last week.
Supervisor Denise Rushing congratulated Community Development Department staff on an “excellent job” in updating the document.
Email Elizabeth Larson at
How to resolve AdBlock issue? 
