LAKEPORT, Calif. – At the end of a special Wednesday morning meeting, the Board of Supervisors voted to support putting a half-cent sales tax measure to benefit lake-related projects before the voters this November.
The refined sales tax expenditure plan and ordinance will go before the board for final approval next Tuesday, July 24, at 10 a.m.
The board acknowledged that in order to get the needed support for the measure there needs to be an education effort.
The board also considered a sales tax measure to support roads, but after the Clearlake City Council decided last week to pursue its own one-cent sales tax measure to benefit roads and code enforcement, and with the Lakeport City Council voting to support the lake tax but not the roads at its Tuesday meeting, the road tax no longer seemed like a realistic option, said Board Chair Rob Brown.
“It’s disappointing,” Brown said.
Supervisor Anthony Farrington made presentations to both city councils and to his board colleagues, supporting the lake sales tax.
Public Works Department staff said the half-cent sales tax could bring in $2.4 million annually for lake projects.
Programs the funding would support include invasive species prevention, aquatic weeds and algae mitigation, water quality control and testing, capital projects matching funds, and a small amount of administrative expenses for the auditor-controller.
The percentages for the different programs will be refined and decided up on by the the board next week.
Even though they ultimately voted for the road tax, board members voiced their concern for the condition of county roads.
“Roads are in an absolutely disastrous situation,” said Supervisor Jim Comstock.
He said he didn’t have any idea if his south county district would support a tax to benefit Clear Lake.
Supervisor Jeff Smith felt the county should pursue a half-cent sales tax split between roads and the lake, which he felt was the only way to pass either of the measures.
Smith said he also was concerned that there would be the public perception that putting all of the money into the lake would solve all of its problems. “It’s just not that simple.”
Even after the county has spent more than $1 million on lake projects recently, Brown said he still gets nonstop calls asking for more to be done.
“We’re not going after every weed and we're not removing the algae from the lake in its entirety,” said Farrington, adding the intent is to mitigate those nuisances.
He agreed the roads also need improvement, but suggesting the state and federal governments needed to reallocate money and quit putting infrastructure on the back burner.
Supervisor Denise Rushing said almost all of the calls she gets from constituents are about the lake. “This is our responsibility at this point.”
She said biologists have told the county that they have crossed a threshold with the lake, and they don’t know what has happened to the lake’s chemistry to cause the lyngbya outbreaks of recent years.
“We may be able to get a little bit ahead of this game” with the funding, she said.
Without a sales tax proposal for roads, Public Works Director Scott De Leon said his staff would still be able to fix potholes, but wouldn’t be able to take on extended maintenance like crack seals and fog seals.
He said his department had $250,000 in gas tax money from the state for preventive maintenance, but within the last few weeks the state swept half of that away.
A transportation tax would allow the county to use gas tax money for routine maintenance, including bridge maintenance, snow removal, pothole repair and pavement preservation. If they can’t do pothole preservation, potholes will get worse.
Finley resident Phil Murphy said he wouldn’t support a lake tax until other options are fully explored. He suggested one of those options was dissolving Lake County Vector Control and moving its budget into the county health department.
He also raised the issue of Yolo County’s responsibility, since that county’s flood protection district owns the water rights to Clear Lake. “Basically what you're asking taxpayers to do is to pay to protect the water sources for a very large part of the economy of Yolo County.”
Murphy added, “That’s not fair. Yolo County is not doing its share.”
Officials from the city of Clearlake and Lakeport also were present for the discussion, including Clearlake Mayor Joey Luiz, Clearlake City Manager Joan Phillipe and Lakeport City Manager Margaret Silveira.
Luiz said he felt his city’s one-cent sales tax can succeed, no matter what the county does.
Silveira said she felt the sales tax was important for everyone, but she said the Board of Supervisors had signaled to the Lakeport City Council that it had a different approach to regional governance.
She cited the county’s issues with signed annexation agreements from several years ago covering the S. Main Street corridor, Farrington’s request earlier this spring to have county staff refuse the city an encroachment permit for a water main project and her assertion that the county disregards the city’s general plan.
Silveira said that last week Capt. Chris Macedo of the Lake County Sheriff’s Office sent out a memo to his department’s staff saying that the Lakeport Police Department should not have received $17,000 in Indian gaming funds, when the sheriff’s department received more than $200,000. She said Macedo asked his deputies not to call Lakeport Police to respond to incidents as backup as a result.
“The city of Lakeport wants to work regionally with the county,” she said, and the city hopes the county respects the city and doesn’t disregard its needs.
Melissa Fulton, chief executive officer for the Lake County Chamber of Commerce, felt the cities and the county needed to work together to have a successful measure. She worried that Clearlake’s road tax could cost the county its tax measure.
Fulton pointed out that most lakes charge launch fees, though Clear Lake doesn’t have one. “It is time to take a look at that.”
Email Elizabeth Larson at
How to resolve AdBlock issue? 
