The meeting will begin with a closed session regarding employee labor negotiations at 5:30 p.m. in the council chambers at Lakeport City Hall, 225 Park St., with the open session to follow.
At its July 7 meeting, the council once again discussed passing on to city retirees a health insurance surcharge, and the item is up for possible action on Tuesday.
As currently proposed, the surcharge would cost $92.55 per person per month, $194.38 for two or $277.67 for a family on a monthly basis, as Lake County News has reported.
The council gave direction to City Attorney Steve Brookes to look into health care alternatives, including different and lower-cost insurance packages, but indicated plans to begin requiring retirees to pay the surcharge beginning this month.
Also on the agenda is a resolution adopting and confirming the report of delinquent utilities charges and requesting Lake County to collect such charges on the tax roll.
One of the meeting's main purposes is for the council to adopt the fiscal year 2009-10 budget.
During a budget workshop last Tuesday, the council went over a preliminary budget draft that begins with a $7.2 million fund balance as of June 30; on June 20, 2010, the fund balance is expected to be just over $6 million.
Anticipated revenues for the coming year are $14.6 million, with $15.1 million in expenditures listed, plus another $627,618 in Measure I expenses, for a net income loss of $1.16 million.
The council chose to hold the budget over an extra week from that discussion to allow for some minor revisions to the document, including a shift of about $15,000 for additional weed control.
Kevin Burke, the city's acting city manager and police chief, said the proposed budget includes the health insurance surcharge being passed on to retirees, and doesn't offer cost of living increases to current employees.
It does not, however, account for furloughs, despite the fact that the city's final offer made last month to the Lakeport Employees Association included eight furlough days, two more than were agreed to late last year, as Lake County News has reported.
Council considers park ranger position
Burke said the budget also includes $20,000 for a part-time park ranger to help monitor boat launches at Library Park. The temporary position is meant to help prevent the arrival of the invasive quagga and zebra mussels to Clear Lake.
The position, however, had opposition from council members.
The Aug. 3 meeting was the first time City Councilman Bob Rumfelt said he'd seen the budget, and he objected to the park ranger position. Councilman Jim Irwin – acting as mayor pro tem at the meeting in the absence of Mayor Ron Bertsch – wanted the position stricken from the budget, saying there are better uses for the money.
Councilman Roy Parmentier said he wanted a code enforcement officer added. Just because, in Parmentier's opinion, the county “can't get its act together” and deal with the invasive mussels doesn't mean it should be up to Lakeport.
Burke said he also believes they need a code enforcement officer, but pointed out that it involves highly specialized training.
Irwin argued against the position. He said the city already has given early retirement deals to several employees to cut general fund expenses in a palatable way. “We cut some of our departments pretty thin from what I hear from staff,” he said. “The big picture doesn't look right to me.”
The council-appointed Measure I/J Committee submitted a list of proposals for Measure I funds to the council late last month, and the ranger position was included. “It's very much a one-time expense at the pleasure of the council,” Burke said, adding that, ideally, the county would have a greater role in the quagga mussel issue.
“We need to find the right person for this job,” Burke said.
Debate over Measure I funds
The council then entered into a discussion about the use of Measure I money in general. The funds, which come from a half-cent sales tax, make up a large part of the city's general fund.
The measure can be used for general public works and roads projects, although some council members, such as Irwin and Parmentier, have argued that most of the funds should be used for roads.
“It doesn't sit very well with me that Measure I is a catch-all,” said Parmentier, saying that most of it was supposed to go for streets.
He complained about the Measure I list the committee submitted, which included just over $427,000 in proposed expenses. The list included $30,520 for Westshore Pool operation, $73,000 toward a new fleet of police cars, $4,000 for a school resource officer, nearly $5,000 for aquatic weed management, $58,755 for Public Works salaries/benefits in connection with road maintenance and repair work, and $107,287 in park operating expenses.
It also proposes a $50,000 payment toward a street sweeper, $50,000 for asphalt and $19,100 for street materials.
Parmentier said he's hearing from people who aren't happy with the way the money is being spent.
Council member Suzanne Lyons, who chaired the committee, said the council chose the people it wanted to sit on the committee. She said people aren't just concerned about streets – they're also concerned about parks and other city needs.
“It wasn't just about roads,” she said.
Rumfelt said that, based on his experience campaigning for the measures in 2004, “The intent of Measure I was not for roads only. It was for just this type of stuff.”
He said when Measure I passed nobody anticipated government would be in its current fiscal predicament, and that because of it Lakeport is better off than many other cities. Rumfelt pointed out that it can't be used totally for roads.
“Neither was Measure I intended, I don't believe, as the city's general fund reserve,” Irwin said.
Rumfelt replied, “It can be used for any general fund use. That's real clear when you look at it.”
Irwin pointed out that of the nearly $1.2 million in the general fund to start the year, basically all of it is from Measure I.
Rumfelt said the funds should be available for the city's needs. Irwin said the general fund reserve is for unanticipated issues. He said he disagreed with using the funds for police cars, which in his opinion didn't fit with the money's traditional uses like roads and parks. Rumfelt said the general fund reserves are better saved for emergencies.
Irwin said the people he's heard from want to see Measure I funds go toward expansion of services. He said police cars are an ongoing obligation and, like Parmentier, didn't want to see Measure I become a catch-all.
On the police cars expenditure, Irwin said, “I think calling that a Measure I expense is problematic.”
Lyons asked why none of these concerns were brought up when the Measure I/J Committee presented its report to the council on July 7. Nobody, she said, raised any issue at that time.
The committee, she said, noted that the coming fiscal year was “a really different year” in justifying its proposals.
“A lot of people spent a lot of time meeting and talking about things and trying to figure out how it should be done,” she said.
The council was barely able to get eight people to fill up the committee, and she asked why the people complaining to fellow council members didn't sign up to serve as committee members.
Irwin said he has a lot of people complain to him who didn't want to be on the committee, but that doesn't mean they don't care about how Measure I is spent.
Parmentier said the council isn't obligated to follow the committee's recommendations. Irwin said he was still gathering city budget information when the report was presented last month.
“I recognize there's different opinions about Measure I,” said Burke, who noted he doesn't have anyone who complains to him about Measure I expenses.
Burke said the council needs to assess what's in the best interest of the city and community in making its decisions. The committee also had concerns about how to spend the funds. He said if the city could get the money elsewhere, he wouldn't advocate spending Measure I funds on some of the proposed uses.
Lyons emphasized the measure wasn't just for roads. Burke said some people may not have understood what they were voting for, but the council has to go with what's actually in the text.
Rumfelt said a lot of people look at the measure and see only certain uses – whether it was repairs to the Westshore Pool or roads. “They only see what they want to see,” he said.
“We tried three times in our history to get a road initiative passed where the money went to the roads, period. And we lost every time,” he said. It wasn't until they took a general ballot measure, which only needed a simple 50 percent plus one majority – not 66 percent – that it passed, he said.
Burke said they may not need to use Measure I for the proposed purposes in the next fiscal year.
Parmentier suggested doing away with the park ranger position and spending the $20,000 on weed abatement. Council members agreed weeds were an issue; Rumfelt said he's talking to people at Konocti Harbor Resort & Spa who can't stand the weeds in Lakeport and are putting their boats in elsewhere.
Burke said he realizes not everyone is happy with the budget, which represents “the best balance I could strike.”
Council members list other priorities
Irwin asked Parmentier what he was looking to change in the budget. Parmentier said he wanted a code enforcement officer. “We've talked about this three or four years and nothing's happened.”
Lyons said a ranger would help them keep track of who is coming and going without quagga mussel inspection stickers. Keeping weeds out is a short-term issue, but the long-term concern is keeping the mussels out of Clear Lake, which she said would be devastating.
She said she spoke to a visitor who has property on Lake Mead, where the mussels have been found. “If it gets here you can't give your property away,” she said.
She suggested they try it at least one year. Parmentier complained about the county and state not taking responsibility. “We're not getting a damn dime out of this,” he said, noting that Yolo County officials – specifically, Yolo County Flood Control & Water Conservation District, which holds Clear Lake's water rights – should be helping.
Lyons suggested the city look for grants and funds to initiate a larger prevention program, but she emphasized that, if they don't protect the lake, they've got nothing. “It looks like it's on our watch and here it is.”
Measure I/J Committee member Pete MacRae, who made the committee's presentation to the board last month, said the city is setting an example both for the county and the city of Clearlake in its mussel prevention initiatives.
The council agreed to move around other funds to add $15,000 to the $5,000 it has set aside for weed abatement.
E-mail Elizabeth Larson at
How to resolve AdBlock issue? 
