LAKEPORT, Calif. – On Tuesday Lakeport’s city manager made a presentation to the council on the city’s proposal to annex 197 acres just south of the city limits.
The city, which has long included the proposed annexation area in its sphere of influence, is proposing to move forward with the action although the council has so far not acted formally to pass any resolutions.
Since last fall the city and county of Lake have had sharp public disagreements about the plan to annex the lucrative commercial corridor.
The county has faulted the city’s process, alleging it failed to follow state environmental quality laws and its own general plan. County officials also have stated that surveys of the area have shown property owners aren’t in support of the move.
City Manager Margaret Silveira’s presentation to a full council during its regular meeting Tuesday was the same one she gave to area property owners in the past, she said.
“It’s our intent to have future meetings with the property owners in the area,” Silveira said.
She said Lakeport is considering the submission of a resolution of application to the Local Agency Formation Commission for the annexation.
The proposed annexation area, she said, runs from Kmart down to the Lake County Waste Solutions transfer station.
Silveira said the annexation area has been in the Lakeport sphere of influence for more than 25 years, and the Lakeport General Plan sets the area as the city’s No. 1 annexation priority.
The first questions community members usually ask about annexation relate to costs, she said.
The city will bear all costs for the annexation process, and property taxes won’t increase, said Silveira.
The city does require right-of-way frontage improvements on property where more than $50,077 of nonexempt improvements are made over a five-year period, she said.
There is no obligation for existing homes or businesses to hook up to the city’s sewer or water services, but Community Development Director Richard Knoll said new development requires connection to sewer if it’s located within 200 feet of a hookup.
The city has a 7.75 percent sales tax, as opposed to 7.25 percent in the unincorporated county, and Silveira said the city doesn’t currently have a utility tax, although there has been a discussion regarding a proposed 1-percent tax on Mediacom users to support the county’s public access television station.
She said new residents annexed into the city would have to sign up for garbage service, which is mandatory in the city and is provided by Lakeport Disposal.
New residents would continue to be served by Lakeport Fire Protection District, and the Lakeport Police Department – with its good response times – would offer law enforcement services, Silveira said.
The city would grandfather in current agricultural uses to allow the keeping of animals in some areas, she said.
In addition, if newly annexed residents wanted water service, they would get some of the best water offered in Lake County for $28 a month, which Silveira said was one of the lowest rates in the county.
Silveira said the city has several preannexation agreements with the county for the area, including a memorandum of understanding from 1993 that established common road standards for South Main Street and city and county projects.
A 2001 South Main Street preannexation agreement called for future tax revenue sharing between the two governments, and other agreements reached in 1997 and 2002 also addressed how annexation would be pursued, she said.
Alan Flora of the County Administrative Office raised issues about continuing agricultural uses, suggesting that in fact use permits not required in the county may be necessary within the city. “There is some potential for nuisance complaints,” he said.
According to Flora, there also was a disparity in the numbers the city provided as to the total cost of the proposed South Main Street improvement project.
While numbers the city had presented – and which had been pulled from a December 2011 report from Quincy Engineers, hired by the county to work on the proposal – suggested $12.1 million was needed for roadway improvements, Flora said the actual number is $15.3 million, with a more than $3 million shortfall between the $11 million in funds the Lake County/City Area Planning Council has programmed for the project and the final price tag.
If the city annexed the area, it would have to come up with $5.9 million to finish the project, Flora said.
As for the preannexation agreements, Flora said the county is reviewing them.
“At this time we don’t consider those agreements to provide any sort of obligation on the county’s behalf” in moving forward, he said.
When asked about the public review process, Knoll said the city already has prepared an initial study on the annexation proposal and has gone through the public review process.
Most of the public comments the city received – 44 pages of them – came from the county, Knoll said.
He said the city is currently assessing those comments. “We’re in a strategic process here, determining the appropriate response.”
In response to Flora’s comments, he said there is a legitimate concern about the potential issues related to agricultural lands and how those would be affected by “urbanization” and annexation into the city. He said there currently isn’t a lot of agricultural activity within the city.
While he acknowledged the insinuation that because of the permit process the city could turn down agricultural-related permits, he said that has been neither the city’s practice nor the city’s intent.
“The bottom line is, we want to look at that, we want to address the issue,” and find out how property owners want to handle it and how it can fall more in line with the county, Knoll said.
Email Elizabeth Larson at
How to resolve AdBlock issue? 
