LAKEPORT, Calif. – The Board of Supervisors on Tuesday chose to take no action on a resolution to direct Public Works staff to refuse an encroachment permit for a proposed Lakeport water project, but the discussion served to underline continuing disagreements between the county and city.
Those disagreements are centered in the South Main Street area, where the water project would take place and which the city also wants to annex.
Supervisor Anthony Farrington asked the board to consider the resolution over his concerns that the water main extension – which the city says is necessary to loop its system and address water pressure and fire suppression concerns – won’t allow adjacent property owners to hook into it.
Lakeport City Manager Margaret Silveira, Lakeport Mayor Stacey Mattina, Utilities Director Mark Brannigan, Community Development Director Richard Knoll and City Engineer Scott Harter attended the meeting to address the resolution.
“This is a hard item to bring before this board,” said Farrington, who pointed out that the county also is studying putting a water main in the area.
Farrington said the city has maintained that it’s not its policy to provide water services outside of its jurisdiction. “My response is there is no such policy and there has never been such a policy,” said Farrington.
Last month the city council directed staff to formalize its policy, which Silveira said last week is not yet complete.
He said there are existing agreements with the city to provide water to some county water users if necessary due to algae blooms. The city also has accepted wastewater, and had an agreement to take wastewater from Lampson Field.
Regarding the Lampson Field agreement, Farrington said the city has indicated it won’t renew unless the county and city reach an agreement on annexation. There is $1 million in federal funding at stake if the agreement doesn’t continue, according to Farrington.
The city’s water main extension project along Parallel Drive, Farrington suggested, should actually have been rerouted down Main Street where there exists a larger commercial tax base, and where the county could have participated with up to $1 million.
“This project absolutely makes no sense to me,” he said.
He suggested it was a “strategic Trojan horse” approach to annexation and was a disservice to the people he represented.
Farrington also alleged that city staff had made “less than candid” comments to area business owners about being unable to provide services, and that Silveira previously had claimed that Lakeport has lower water rates than Kelseyville and Finley, which Farrington said isn’t true.
City officials explain need for project
Silveira, in her comments, began by stating that Farrington – who sits on the city’s redevelopment oversight board – voted to deny the city administrative costs to which it is entitled under the law phasing out redevelopment.
She said she had a two-hour phone conversation with him, asking how they could improve communications.
“I did advise him of what we were proposing,” she said in relation to the water main project.
Silveira suggested that Farrington could meet with city staff once a month or come to city council meetings occasionally in order to keep abreast of what is happening with the city.
She said the resolution was premature. “The city has not submitted an application for an encroachment permit,” she said and, as such, the county can’t make a decision on the project’s merits because no application yet exists.
Silveira also said an engineer had informed her that pairing the county and city water lines is workable.
The proposed resolution, she suggested, could bring with it unexpected, negative consequences, and added that the project has been in the city’s master plan for some time.
Farrington responded to Silveira’s comment about the oversight board by saying he had fiduciary responsibilities.
“Information that you give people needs to be credible, and not misleading,” he said, adding that of the $700,000 in tax increment revenue the city was receiving, more than $400,000 was going to administrative staff, well over the 10 percent the county allocates to its staff to help with redevelopment’s phaseout.
Lakeport city staff later told Lake County News that the actual amount going to cover administrative staff was about $250,000.
Board Chair Rob Brown told Farrington that redevelopment was not on the agenda.
Brannigan told the board that the city has been planning since the 1980s to loop its water mains to provide reliable, safe drinking water.
“This has been a process,” Brannigan said, with the city now having the opportunity to take advantage of long-term, low-interest financing from USDA.
Supervisor Denise Rushing said that if the board was going to consider the project’s merits, she would have plenty of questions, such as why the city is proposing to do only a mitigated negative declaration when the county has spent $1 million on environmental studies in the same area.
She asked County Counsel Anita Grant if the board could take action on the matter, and Grant suggested they could give direction to Public Works Director Scott De Leon.
“What we’re being asked to do is symbolic but it’s also got a pretty strong message to it,” said Brown, suggesting there were other ways to address the situation than through Farrington’s proposed resolution.
“If you’re really concerned about relationships, this probably isn’t the way to do it,” Brown said.
Brown pointed out that in the Kelseyville-Finley area the county didn’t let some property owners hook into the system. Later in the meeting, Special Districts Administrator Mark Dellinger explained that not allowing those hookups was a mitigation to protect agriculture in the area.
Silveira said the city is happy to provide property owners in the area with water, but they must go through the annexation process.
Farrington replied that he felt the city and county were at impasse on the annexation issue.
Brown said annexation was not on the agenda, either. “I don’t think this is the only alternative that we have in order to get some agreement,” he said. He also felt the resolution could do more harm than good.
When asked about the status of talks with the city, County Administrative Officer Kelly Cox told the board that negotiations over annexation were still under way. “We don’t have an agreement yet.”
He said he has not been involved with the water issue. “It appears that it could be in conflict with what we’re proposing to do,” he said.
Cox said it seemed appropriate not to issue a permit, and that he understood and agreed with Farrington’s concerns, adding that it didn’t make sense to install two water lines.
Grant said the county had the chance to “issue a warning salvo” to the city if it’s going to take a position against the project. She said a collaborative effort between the two jurisdictions may help resolve the issues.
De Leon, who was at the meeting, indicated he understood the board’s concerns and would come to them before approving any such permit.
Supervisor Jim Comstock had concerns over the resolution and, using Navy vernacular, he indicated that he would rather “put a shot over the bow,” adding, “If you don’t listen there will be one down your smoke stack, that’s where I’m coming from.”
Brown asked if the city would consider any other options to annexation. Silveira said yes, if it’s a “win-win” for everyone.
Calling for common sense
Supervisor Jeff Smith said he wanted common sense to prevail, and it didn’t appear that it was in the circumstance with the city. He said providing water to additional customers made sense to him.
“I feel like we’re being held hostage over an annexation,” he said.
In Clearlake, there are three different water systems, run by different entities, and it works all right, he said.
“Let’s get something done. We can help each other out,” Smith said, suggesting that they needed to take annexation out of the picture and consider it separately.
Harter told the board that an area in north Lakeport where the city provides water to county residents on an as-needed basis is a good example of issues that come up and impact the city’s capacity, and is a reason why it’s difficult to offer utilities outside of a system jurisdiction.
“It impacts us in a way that we have no control over,” he said.
Silveira said the city has had a good relationship with the county, and that the water main project was about what was best for the city.
She added that passing the resolution would be denying what is best for Lakeport residents.
On Tuesday evening, Silveira gave the Lakeport City Council a brief report on the meeting.
She said Farrington made misleading statements about the city, her and her staff.
“It’s very disappointing,” she said.
Email Elizabeth Larson at
How to resolve AdBlock issue? 
