Local Government

LAKEPORT, Calif. – The Lake Transit Authority Board found itself at the center of an ongoing labor dispute on Wednesday, as its board meeting was the scene of a lengthy discussion about an indefinite strike of the county's transit workers.

Paratransit Services, the Washington-based nonprofit operating Lake Transit since 2007, and Teamsters Local 665 are deadlocked in their efforts to reach a new contract.

That led late in July to union members voting to go out on strike for the second time in less than a month.

The indefinite strike, which began on July 29, would be a source of discussion throughout the meeting, but in particular Teamsters Local 665 President Ralph Miranda had asked for the board to discuss restoring the county's transit services “with qualified, experienced, certified, competent employees,” according to the item's precise wording on the agenda.

Miranda, along with Local 665 Secretary-Treasurer Mark Gleason, asked the transit board to support binding arbitration between the union and Paratransit Services, which Gleason said was a path to getting services restored immediately – within 24 hours.

Union representatives also suggested that the board should appoint a neutral fact-finding group to help bring the negotiations, and the strike, to an end.

Board members received a Tuesday night email from Lake County Supervisor Anthony Farrington supporting the binding arbitration proposal. In addition to Farrington, the union said it had received support for the idea from state Sen. Noreen Evans.

While board members said they sympathized with transit workers, appreciated them and wanted to see them get back to work as soon as possible, board members maintained that the contract between Paratransit Services and Lake Transit prohibited the agency from interfering with the employer-employee relationship.

Board member Martin Scheel, a Lakeport City Council representative, questioned what action the board could take legally.

“I hate to say that our hands are tied,” said Scheel. “I know that's not what any of you want to hear. But in many aspects they are.”

Miranda would say toward the end of the meeting a while the workers appreciated the favorable sentiments of the board, ultimately they didn't hear what they wanted to from the board members.

Union members and their supporters suggested Wednesday that Paratransit Services is involved in attempts to bust the union, while Paratransit Services officials replied that the union has used heavy-handed tactics during the strike, alleging that drivers have been followed, harassed and threatened.

Board member Joey Luiz, a representative from the Clearlake city Council, reported that he was called a scab by striking workers as he was visiting the Lake Transit offices this week. Union members apologized to him during the meeting for that incident.

Both the union and Paratransit Services said they have filed charges against each other with the National Labor Relations Board.

During her report to the board, Christie Scheffer, Paratransit Services' chief operating officer and executive vice president, told the board with regard to the efforts to settle on a new contract, “We have to be reasonable, we have to be realistic, and the proposal that's been laid before us is completely unrealistic.”

Scheffer said Lake Transit's payroll runs a little over $1 million annually, and Paratransit Services has had to absorb large medical and insurance cost increases, which have outstripped the increases included in the Lake Transit contract.

During the meeting it was revealed that there may be a light at the end of the tunnel.

Miranda, who reiterated that Local 665 notified Paratransit Services last month in its strike notice that the union remained ready to return to the bargaining table, said he intended to call a federal mediator on Wednesday afternoon to ask that Paratransit Services return to the bargaining table.

Scheffer told Lake County News that Paratransit Services absolutely would return to negotiations if the federal mediator asked them to do so.

However, Scheffer qualified the news by explaining that mediators usually will ask if there are changes to the situation before attempting to get the sides back to the table. In this case, said Scheffer, there have been no changes in the stances of the two sides.

Support for experienced workers

Wednesday's meeting, held in the council chambers at Lakeport City Hall, was a departure from most, as Board Chair Marsha Wharff noted that the meetings usually are sparsely attended.

This time, however, it was standing room only, with numerous union members, community members there to show their support and Paratransit Services staff in the room.

During the nearly three-hour-long meeting, the board heard several impassioned pleas from community members who rely on the services offered by Lake Transit.

Among them was Lakeport resident Dana Spahn, who needs the services to get around. Spahn, a double amputee who is confined to a wheelchair, said no one else can lift her heavy motorized wheelchair, which can be handled by the lifts on the Lake Transit buses.

“This is ridiculous. No one is trying to make amends here,” she said.

Lake Transit general manager Mark Wall said he believed everyone in the room was concerned about the effects of people not having transit services, but he added that it takes more than one person to work at an agreement.

In discussing pay for Lake Transit's drivers, Wall said that in understanding how transit drivers are paid, the best way to get a true comparison between Lake and other counties is to consider the funding available to the transit system, the single greatest source of which comes from a sales tax.

Lake County doesn't have as much sales tax because it doesn't have as many retail outlets, Wall said.

For 2010-2011, Lake County received more than $1.2 million in transportation funds, compared to $3.6 million in Mendocino County, more than $16 million in Sonoma County, $5 million in Napa County and $6 million in Yolo County, Wall said.

He said counties with a closer comparison to Lake County for sales tax revenue include Siskiyou, Tehama, San Benito, Colusa, Glenn and Amador.

Wall said Paratransit Services reported increasing wages by 23.1 percent since 2007.

Among the riders the board heard from was Mendocino College political science professor Phil Warf, who because of a health issue had to stop driving. He's been taking Lake Transit buses from his Upper Lake home to Mendocino College in Ukiah until the strike hit.

“It's been a really great thing for me,” he said, adding that many college students also use the bus.

Warf was upset that the Lake Transit Board wasn't taking action, telling board members that they should be acting on behalf of the public, not Paratransit Services.

Gleason told the board that the union wanted binding arbitration. He said the “fiction” Paratransit Services is putting forth about the restoration of services will only prolong the suffering for riders. He suggested it could take months before services are fully restored.

“We call on the Lake Transit Authority to join us in this remedy to restore transit service to the people of this county,” he said.

Roger Elliott, a striking union member who has been a driver for Lake Transit since February 2009, recounted the long process of learning the job, which he estimated took about a year and a half.

“This job is all about on the job training and learning as you go,” he said, adding, “When they send a new driver out, that's when the learning process begins.”

Driver and union negotiator Don Joachimstaler said the workers previously had step increases in a contract with Laidlaw before Paratransit Services took over.

Due to the bad economy, he said, the union agreed to give up the step increases temporarily when negotiating in 2010. He said the understanding was the step increases eventually would be restored, but they haven't been, and the union has said that the step increases are a major sticking point.

Joachimstaler said the drivers know their riders' life stories and work with them daily. He accused Paratransit Services of holding the county hostage.

“To do this job, you do have to be committed to it,” said Elliott, returning to the podium. “At the very end of the day, you're responsible for people's lives.”

Elliott, who works full-time, said he is one of only five Lake Transit employees who carries the full insurance package, and he can't afford to add his wife to it.

He said bringing in new employees won't solve the issues, as the problems will still remain. Elliott added that he can't count all the people he's seen come and go from jobs at Lake Transit.

When Miranda asked the board if it would take action, Board member Chuck Leonard responded that he was amazed that the union would ask someone from the outside to get involved in the situation.

“It doesn't make sense for us to get involved in something like,” said Leonard, adding that they needed to go through the negotiation process.

Luiz said he wanted to see the situation resolved quickly, noting he has met with both sides over the last few weeks. “I know there are problems here that need to be fixed.”

Noting that the services really affect people's lives, Luiz said he's a fan of living wages and honoring contracts, and pointed to the large spectrum of people who use the services.

Board member Jim Comstock, a Lake County supervisor, commended the drivers for their work. “You are dedicated, good people. There is no question about it.”

Comstock said he wanted to see service restored soon so the workers can get back to the job. But he said that the contract with Paratransit Services prohibited them from getting involved.

“Let's cool down, figure this out and make it work,” he said.

In her report to the board, Scheffer said Paratransit Services wants to restore transit services as quickly and safely as possible, and is on track with training and credentialing to fully restore all routes after the start of September.

“We're not resting. People are not taking days off,” she said.

Outside after the meeting's discussion on Miranda's requested item, Gleason spoke to workers and said that they should keep in mind the names of the elected officials on the board so that they could vote against them when they come up for their respective elections.

The union also is suggesting that it will go to Sacramento to lobby to have funds that support Paratransit Services' Lake Transit contract cut off.

“This is probably going to be a long fight,” Gleason told union members.

Email Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . Follow her on Twitter, @ERLarson, or Lake County News, @LakeCoNews.

LAKEPORT, Calif. – The Board of Supervisors on Tuesday voted unanimously to approve the formation of an advisory group to work on a sales tax proposal for next June's ballot.

Supervisor Anthony Farrington took the proposal to the board, along with a suggestion to create a large advisory board with representatives from numerous groups and organizations.

The sales tax proposal, which would go before voters next June, would raise funds for lake-related projects, including weed and algae abatement, invasive species prevention and water quality.

A similar measure, Measure E, was put on last fall's ballot.

Measure E proposed a half-cent sales tax in the unincorporated area of the county, which would have raised an estimated $2.4 million to benefit Clear Lake.

The measure failed by just a few percentage points to get the necessary number of votes.

Having learned from Measure E, and with more lead time, Farrington told his board colleagues, “We're in a position to where we can put a proposal before the voters with much more input, much more collaboration.”

While Measure E was what Farrington called a “ninth inning effort,” with just a few months to lobby the community, the new sales tax measure would have several months for development and campaigning.

He said Measure E also had bigger obstacles to overcome, including a poor economy, two state proposed sales tax measures, and one sales tax measure in Clearlake, which also failed to get the needed votes.

Even so, he said Measure E did surprisingly well, receiving 63 percent of the vote. It needed 66 percent in order to be able to lock in the use of the funds for the lake, rather than have the money deposited into the general fund with no requirements.

Since Measure E's failure, Farrington said he has been approached by a number of organizations and individuals who asked him to take up the effort again.

Measure E is not a perfect document, but Farrington said it was a good starting point for a new effort.

He proposed the formation of a large advisory group that would include a member of the Board of Supervisors, representatives from the city councils of Lakeport and Clearlake, the Lake County Chamber and Clear Lake Chamber of Commerce, the Sierra Club, the Lake County Farm Bureau, local tribes, the Clear Lake Advisory Committee, nine members of the public, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, California Department of Food and Agriculture and the local board of Realtors.

Farrington was concerned, however, that if the group had to be a Brown Act-compliant organization, it could slow the process down.

Supervisor Rob Brown said the measure needed a specific plan, as that had been part of the downfall of Measure E.

Referring to the large size of the advisory group, Brown said, “It's going to take some time.”

County Counsel Anita Grant cautioned that enough time would be needed to have the measure approved by the state. She didn't have that deadlines available at the meeting on Tuesday.

“Probably the first thing the group should do is sit down and understand what that timeline is,” said Grant, noting it could be easy to pass the deadlines.

Regarding Brown Act requirements, she said that law has expanded its application. As such, if the board creates a committee and designates who it will include, “The Brown Act is going to apply.”

However, if the group is created privately, she said the board can allow staff to take part without the Brown Act requirements.

In offering her recommendation, Supervisor Denise Rushing said, “The goal is to come up with a really good plan that the public will trust enough to vote for and that will work.”

Keeping that goal in mind, Rushing questioned how they could go about coming up with a good plan quickly that also has a transparency that the public will trust. She said such processes can take months and they don't have months.

She suggested holding a series of public workshops where any member of the public with a plan could present it. In addition, Measure E and a plan formed by the Clear Lake Advisory Committee could be used to help create the new measure.

“There should be a small committee, the smaller the better,” she said.

At a minimum, she said they should be able to get all the ideas are on the table.

Farrington said holding workshops is a great idea.

County Water Resources and Public Works Director Scott De Leon didn't have any comments on the plan, but added he was happy to participate in any way the board directed him.

Farrington moved to direct De Leon to create the ad hoc working group to bring forward a proposal – including a detailed expenditure plan – for board consideration for placement on the June 2014 general election ballot.

By consensus, the board also encouraged Farrington to work with the ad hoc working group.

The board approved the motion 5-0.

Email Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . Follow her on Twitter, @ERLarson, or Lake County News, @LakeCoNews.

CLEARLAKE, Calif. – The city of Clearlake is retooling a draft medical marijuana cultivation that failed to pass the city council in late spring, with a view to bringing the revised document back to the council for consideration.

At its meeting last Thursday, the Clearlake City Council gave administrative staff direction to make several changes to the draft ordinance, which is modeled on the cultivation ordinance adopted by the Lake County Board of Supervisors last summer.

“The council wanted to put something in place so there is a tool for both law enforcement and code enforcement to use on these grows,” City Manager Joan Phillipe told Lake County News.

Like the county ordinance, Clearlake's draft cultivation ordinance connects plant numbers to parcel size, allowing six plants on the smallest parcels of less than a half acre and as many as 48 plants on properties 40 acres or larger.

Processing of marijuana would be limited to the amount of plants that can be grown on a given parcel.

Grows on vacant parcels are prohibited. There also are screening and setback requirements, and prohibitions against growing in mobile home parks – unless the management has designated a specific garden area – and on multifamily or apartment properties.

Those key aspects largely will remain the same, according to the direction the council gave Phillipe last Thursday.

The city's marijuana cultivation document, produced by city staff and recommended to the council for passage by the Clearlake Planning Commission, received unanimous council approval of its first reading on May 23 but stalled during its second reading on June 13.

The document languished due to disagreements amongst council members over a proposal to include daycares in the public and private schools definition. The ordinance requires a distance of 600 feet from schools.

Planning commissioners had recommended adding daycares to the schools definition, which the council initially rejected at the urging of Mayor Jeri Spittler on May 23.

However, at the June 13 meeting the majority of council members wanted to add daycares back to the schools definition, leading to sharp disagreements between Spittler and her council colleagues that continued at last week's meeting.

The council majority ultimately decided to create a separate definition category for daycares rather than include them in the schools definition, Phillipe said.

As with schools, a 600-foot distance between grows and established daycares would be required, with a grandfathering clause to be added, she said.

Phillipe said the council last Thursday also directed staff to work in some minor language changes regarding parcel sizes suggested by Lower Lake attorney Ron Green.

She said the council ultimately decided against a suggestion by Council member Gina Fortino Dickson to increase the fines for noncompliant grows to a per-plant basis, ranging from $100 per plant on the first offense up to $1,000 per plant for repeat offenses.

The city already has established precedent for such higher fees in its tree ordinance, which allows for much higher fine amounts for removing protected trees, Phillipe explained.

However, Phillipe said the majority of the council wanted to stay for the first year with the county-based fine amounts of $100 for the first offense, $300 for the second and $500 or up to six months in jail – or both – for the third offense.

After the first year, the council would then review the ordinance to see if those fine amounts are sufficient, Phillipe said.

Phillipe said the council wants to keep its ordinance close to the county's in order to minimize the potential for litigation, noting that the county's ordinance already has had judicial review.

The county was sued over its ordinance last year. Judge David Herrick granted a stay of enforcement through the end of 2012 on qualified growers who were in compliance with state law and who had planted their crops before the supervisors' initial July 9 vote on the document.

However, the county's plant limits were upheld, and the suit was dropped earlier this year before it moved to a trial for a permanent injunction.

Phillipe said she and City Attorney Malathy Subramanian are going over the council's directions and the proposed amendments to the draft ordinance in order to bring it back for consideration.

She did not have an estimate on Monday of when the ordinance might return to the council for its next review.

Clearlake is the only remaining jurisdiction in the county that does not have a medical marijuana cultivation ordinance in place.

Last summer, the county approved the second reading of its ordinance, which is temporary and remains in effect until July 2014.

The Lakeport City Council in June gave final approval to its own cultivation ordinance, which prohibits outdoor grows – requiring that they be conducted in accessory outdoor structures – and handles noncompliance through an administrative citation process.

Email Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . Follow her on Twitter, @ERLarson, or Lake County News, @LakeCoNews.

Blog Left ad

CITY OF CLEARLAKE
ORDINANCE NO. 162-2013

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLEARLAKE ADDING CHAPTER 3-7 TO THE CLEARLAKE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO A TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX FOR STREET AND ROAD MAINTENANCE AND CODE ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES TO BE ADMINISTERED
BY THE STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION

FINDINGS:

A. The transportation system in the City of Clearlake is rapidly deteriorating and in immediate need of maintenance throughout the City. Maintenance and repair of existing roadways cannot be accomplished with available funds, which are already stretched beyond their availability.

B. Without additional funds, the road and street system will crumble into permanent disrepair. Existing revenues are inadequate and competition for funds is increasing. Local governments must either generate revenues to maintain our investments or watch the system collapse and endanger the health, welfare and safety of Clearlake residents.

C. The City, due to severe budgetary constraints eliminated code enforcement funding beginning with Fiscal Year 2010-11 and laid off employees that had been dedicated to that function. As a result of elimination of code enforcement, the city has seen a dramatic decline in upkeep of properties resulting in increased complaints about health and safety issues on properties including buildings that are not fit for habitation, fire hazards, vermin, stench, lack of sanitary facilities, illegal construction in rights-of-way, increased feral animal population, abandoned and inoperative vehicles and other conditions that effect the public health, safety and welfare, as well as the enjoyment, use and value of private property.

D. Approval of a one percent transactions and use tax for street and road maintenance and code enforcement to supplement traditional revenues used for these purposes will benefit the City’s road system and will improve the City’s ability to maintain and increase its code enforcement efforts. The transactions and use tax set forth in this Ordinance will be used solely for maintenance of existing roadways, streets, bridges and bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the City and to maintain and increase the City’s code enforcement efforts, and is intended to supplement other revenues that will continue to be used for these same purposes.

E. A transactions and use tax for road maintenance and code enforcement requires a vote of the residents of the City, and two-thirds (2/3) of those voting on the tax must approve the tax in order for it to be implemented. In addition, this Ordinance, along with the Road Maintenance and Code Enforcement Transactions and Use Tax Expenditure Plan (“Expenditure Plan”) for use of the proceeds of the tax, which is attached to this Ordinance as Exhibit A, must be approved by two-thirds (2/3) of the City Council.

F. The City of Clearlake will continue to seek maximum funding for street and road improvements and code enforcement through State and Federal programs. The revenues currently used for street and road maintenance and code enforcement will continue to be used for street and road maintenance and code enforcement.

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLEARLAKE DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Amendment. Chapter 3-7 entitled “City of Clearlake Road Maintenance and Code Enforcement Transactions and Use Tax” is added to the City of Clearlake Municipal Code to read as follows:

“3-7.1 Short Title. This Ordinance shall be known as the “City of Clearlake Road Maintenance and Code Enforcement Transactions and Use Tax Ordinance.” This Ordinance shall be applicable in the incorporated territory of the City of Clearlake.

3-7.2 Operative Date. “Operative Date” means the first day of the first calendar quarter commencing more than 110 days after the Effective Date as set forth in Section 4 of this Ordinance.

3-7.3 Purpose. This Ordinance is adopted for the following purposes, and directs that the provisions hereof be interpreted in order to accomplish those purposes:

a. To impose a retail transactions and use tax in accordance with the provisions of Part 1.6 (commencing with Section 7251) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code and Section 7285.91 of Part 1.7 of Division 2, which authorizes the City to adopt this Ordinance. This Ordinance shall be operative if two-thirds (2/3) of the electors voting on the measure vote to approve the imposition of the tax at an election called for that purpose.

b. To adopt a retail transactions and use tax ordinance that incorporates provisions identical to those of the Sales and Use Tax Law of the State of California insofar as those provisions are not inconsistent with the requirements and limitations contained in Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.

c. To adopt a retail transactions and use tax ordinance that imposes a tax and provides a measure therefor that can be administered and collected by the State Board of Equalization in a manner that adapts itself as fully as practicable to, and requires the least possible deviation from the existing statutory and administrative procedures followed by the State Board of Equalization in administering and collecting the California State Sales and Use Taxes.

d. To adopt a retail transactions and use tax ordinance that can be administered in a manner that will be, to the greatest degree possible, consistent with the provisions of Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, thereby minimizing the cost of collecting the transactions and use taxes, and at the same time, minimize the burden of record keeping upon persons subject to taxation under the provisions of this Ordinance.

3-7.4 Contract with State. Prior to the operative date, the City shall contract with the State Board of Equalization to perform all functions incidental to the administration and operation of this transactions and use tax ordinance; provided, that if the City shall not have contracted with the State Board of Equalization prior to the operative date, it shall nevertheless so contract and in such a case the operative date shall be the first day of the first calendar quarter following the execution of such a contract. The City Council may make any technical amendments to this chapter required by the State Board of Equalization, except for any changes affecting the tax rate, tax methodology, tax expenditure or its manner of collection.

3-7.5 Imposition of Transactions Tax; Transactions Tax Rate. For the privilege of selling tangible personal property at retail, a transactions tax is hereby imposed upon all retailers in the incorporated territory of the City at the rate of one percent (1%) of the gross receipts of any retailer from the sale of all tangible personal property sold at retail in said territory on and after the operative date of this Ordinance.

3-7.6 Place of Sale. For the purposes of this Ordinance, all retail sales are consummated at the place of business of the retailer unless the tangible personal property sold is delivered by the retailer or his agent to an out-of-state destination or to a common carrier for delivery to an out-of-state destination. The gross receipts from such sales shall include delivery charges, when such charges are subject to the state sales and use tax, regardless of the place to which delivery is made. In the event a retailer has no permanent place of business in the State or has more than one place of business, the place or places at which the retail sales are consummated shall be determined under rules and regulations to be prescribed and adopted by the State Board of Equalization.

3-7.7 Imposition of Use Tax; Use Tax Rate. An excise tax is hereby imposed on the storage, use or other consumption in the City of tangible personal property purchased from any retailer on and after the operative date of this Ordinance for storage, use or other consumption in said territory at the rate of one percent (1%) of the sales price of the property subject to the tax. The sales price shall include delivery charges when such charges are subject to state sales or use tax regardless of the place to which delivery is made.

3-7.8 Adoption of Provisions of State Law by Reference. Except as otherwise provided in this Ordinance and except insofar as they are inconsistent with the provisions of Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, all of the provisions of Part 1 (commencing with Section 6001) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code are hereby adopted by this reference and made a part of this Ordinance as though fully set forth herein.

3-7.9 Limitations on Adoption of State Law and Collection of Use Taxes. In adopting the provisions of Part 1 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code:

a. Wherever the State of California is named or referred to as the taxing agency, the name of this City shall be substituted therefore. However, the substitution shall not be made when:

1. The word “State” is used as a part of the title of the State Controller, State Treasurer, State Board of Control, State Board of Equalization, State Treasury, or the Constitution of the State of California;

2. The result of that substitution would require action to be taken by or against this City or any agency, officer, or employee thereof rather than by or against the State Board of Equalization, in performing the functions incident to the administration or operation of this Ordinance.

3. In those sections, including, but not necessarily limited to sections referring to the exterior boundaries of the State of California, where the result of the substitution would be to:

(a) Provide an exemption from this tax with respect to certain sales, storage, use or other consumption of tangible personal property which would not otherwise be exempt from this tax while such sales, storage, use or other consumption remain subject to tax by the State under the provisions of Part 1 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, or;

(b) Impose this tax with respect to certain sales, storage, use or other consumption of tangible personal property which would not be subject to tax by the state under the said provision of that code.

4. In Sections 6701, 6702 (except in the last sentence thereof), 6711, 6715, 6737, 6797 or 6828 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.

b. The word “City” shall be substituted for the word “State” in the phrase “retailer engaged in business in this State” in Section 6203 and in the definition of that phrase in Section 6203.

3-7.10 Permit Not Required. If a seller’s permit has been issued to a retailer under Section 6067 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, an additional transactor’s permit shall not be required by this Ordinance.

3-7.11 Exemptions and Exclusions.

a. There shall be excluded from the measure of the transactions tax and the use tax the amount of any sales tax or use tax imposed by the State of California or by any city, city and county, or county pursuant to the Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law or the amount of any state-administered transactions or use tax.

b. There are exempted from the computation of the amount of transactions tax the gross receipts from:

1. Sales of tangible personal property, other than fuel or petroleum products, to operators of aircraft to be used or consumed principally outside the county in which the sale is made and directly and exclusively in the use of such aircraft as common carriers of persons or property under the authority of the laws of this State, the United States, or any foreign government.

2. Sales of property to be used outside the City which is shipped to a point outside the City, pursuant to the contract of sale, by delivery to such point by the retailer or his agent, or by delivery by the retailer to a carrier for shipment to a consignee at such point. For the purposes of this paragraph, delivery to a point outside the City shall be satisfied:

(a) With respect to vehicles (other than commercial vehicles) subject to registration pursuant to Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 4000) of Division 3 of the Vehicle Code, aircraft licensed in compliance with Section 21411 of the Public Utilities Code, and undocumented vessels registered under Division 3.5 (commencing with Section 9840) of the Vehicle Code by registration to an out-of-City address and by a declaration under penalty of perjury, signed by the buyer, stating that such address is, in fact, his or her principal place of residence; and

(b) With respect to commercial vehicles, by registration to a place of business out-of-City and declaration under penalty of perjury, signed by the buyer, that the vehicle will be operated from that address.

3. The sale of tangible personal property if the seller is obligated to furnish the property for a fixed price pursuant to a contract entered into prior to the operative date of this Ordinance.

4. A lease of tangible personal property which is a continuing sale of such property, for any period of time for which the lessor is obligated to lease the property for an amount fixed by the lease prior to the operative date of this Ordinance.

5. For the purposes of subparagraphs (3) and (4) of this section, the sale or lease of tangible personal property shall be deemed not to be obligated pursuant to a contract or lease for any period of time for which any party to the contract or lease has the unconditional right to terminate the contract or lease upon notice, whether or not such right is exercised.

c. There are exempted from the use tax imposed by this Ordinance, the storage, use or other consumption in this City of tangible personal property:

1. The gross receipts from the sale of which have been subject to a transactions tax under any state-administered transactions and use tax ordinance.

2. Other than fuel or petroleum products purchased by operators of aircraft and used or consumed by such operators directly and exclusively in the use of such aircraft as common carriers of persons or property for hire or compensation under a certificate of public convenience and necessity issued pursuant to the laws of this State, the United States, or any foreign government. This exemption is in addition to the exemptions provided in Sections 6366 and 6366.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code of the State of California.

3. If the purchaser is obligated to purchase the property for a fixed price pursuant to a contract entered into prior to the operative date of this Ordinance.

4. If the possession of, or the exercise of any right or power over, the tangible personal property arises under a lease which is a continuing purchase of such property for any period of time for which the lessee is obligated to lease the property for an amount fixed by a lease prior to the operative date of this Ordinance.

5. For the purposes of subparagraphs (3) and (4) of this section, storage, use, or other consumption, or possession of, or exercise of any right or power over, tangible personal property shall be deemed not to be obligated pursuant to a contract or lease for any period of time for which any party to the contract or lease has the unconditional right to terminate the contract or lease upon notice, whether or not such right is exercised.

6. Except as provided in subparagraph (7), a retailer engaged in business in the City shall not be required to collect use tax from the purchaser of tangible personal property, unless the retailer ships or delivers the property into the City or participates within the City in making the sale of the property, including, but not limited to, soliciting or receiving the order, either directly or indirectly, at a place of business of the retailer in the City or through any representative, agent, canvasser, solicitor, subsidiary, or person in the City under the authority of the retailer.

7. “A retailer engaged in business in the City” shall also include any retailer of any of the following: vehicles subject to registration pursuant to Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 4000) of Division 3 of the Vehicle Code, aircraft licensed in compliance with Section 21411 of the Public Utilities Code, or undocumented vessels registered under Division 3.5 (commencing with Section 9840) of the Vehicle Code. That retailer shall be required to collect use tax from any purchaser who registers or licenses the vehicle, vessel, or aircraft at an address in the City.

d. Any person subject to use tax under this Ordinance may credit against that tax any transactions tax or reimbursement for transactions tax paid to a district imposing, or retailer liable for a transactions tax pursuant to Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code with respect to the sale to the person of the property the storage, use or other consumption of which is subject to the use tax.

3-7.12 Use of Proceeds. Proceeds of the City of Clearlake Road Maintenance and Code Enforcement Transactions and Use Tax shall be deposited in a special fund separate from the General Fund and may only be used for maintenance and repair of streets, roads, bridges, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities, for purchase of equipment and other directly related expenditures or for code enforcement pursuant to the City of Clearlake Road Maintenance and Code Enforcement Transactions and Use Tax Expenditure Plan, which is attached to this Ordinance as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference, and for administration and legal actions related thereto.

3-7.13 Maintenance of Effort. The City, by the enactment of this Ordinance, intends the additional funds provided by this Transactions and Use Tax will supplement existing local revenues being used for transportation and code enforcement purposes. The City shall maintain their existing commitment of local funds for street maintenance and code enforcement purposes pursuant to this Ordinance.

3-7.14 Collection and Allocation of Funds. The City shall administer the City of Clearlake Road Maintenance and Code Enforcement Transactions and Use Tax Expenditure Plan consistent with the authority cited herein, and shall allocate proceeds of the Road Maintenance and Code Enforcement Transactions and Use Tax solely for those purposes.

3-7.15 Administrative Costs. The City shall expend only that amount of the funds generated from the Transactions and Use Tax for audit, administrative expenses, and other services that are necessary and reasonable to carry out its responsibilities.

3-7.16 Adoption of Amendments to State Law. All amendments subsequent to the effective date of this Ordinance to Part 1 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code relating to sales and use taxes and which are not inconsistent with Part 1.6 and Part 1.7 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, and all amendments to Part 1.6 and Part 1.7 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, shall automatically become a part of this Ordinance, provided however, that no such amendment shall operate so as to affect the rate of tax imposed by this Ordinance.

3-7.17 Enjoining Collection Prohibited. No injunction or writ of mandate or other legal or equitable process shall issue in any suit, action or proceeding in any court against the State or the City, or against any officer of the State or the City, to prevent or enjoin the collection under this Ordinance, or Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, of any tax or any amount of tax required to be collected.”

Section 2. Expenditure Plan and Amendments Thereto. The City of Clearlake Road Maintenance and Code Enforcement Transactions and Use Tax Expenditure Plan (“Expenditure Plan”), attached to this Ordinance as Exhibit A and incorporated into this Ordinance by this reference, is hereby adopted by the City Council. The City shall only expend the revenues generated by the transactions and use tax approved by the adoption of this Ordinance in accordance with the Expenditure Plan. The Expenditure Plan may be amended through an ordinance duly adopted by the City Council following a noticed public hearing. The City may annually review and amend the Expenditure Plan pursuant to this section, to provide for the use of additional federal, state and local funds, to account for unexpected revenues, or to take into consideration unforeseen circumstances. The City shall undertake any and all applicable environmental review required prior to undertaking any specific project pursuant to the Expenditure Plan.

Section 3. Publication. The City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be published in accordance with the requirements of Section 36933 of the California Government Code.

Section 4. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, work or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid and/or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the remaining portions of the Ordinance. The City Council declares that it would have passed and adopted this Ordinance and each of the provisions thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more such provisions be declared invalid and/or unconstitutional.

Section 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance relates to the levying and collecting of transactions and use taxes and shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council, but shall not become operative until approved by at least two-thirds (2/3) of the voters voting on the issue at the November 5, 2013 General District Election. If approved by at least 2/3 of the voters, the City of Clearlake transactions and use tax shall become operative on the operative date as defined in Section 1 of this Ordinance.

Section 7. California Environmental Quality Act. The City Council finds that the adoption of this Ordinance and the City of Clearlake Road Maintenance and Code Enforcement Transactions and Use Tax Expenditure Plan (“Expenditure Plan”) adopted as part of this Ordinance, which provides for the repair and maintenance of streets and roads and code enforcement in the City of Clearlake, does not qualify as a "project" under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to California Code of Regulations Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15378(b)(4), which provides that a project for purposes of CEQA does not include “[t]he creation of government funding mechanisms or other government fiscal activities, which do not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment.” Here, the adoption of this Ordinance and the Expenditure Plan falls within the funding mechanism exclusion because it does not constitute a binding commitment to construct the projects set forth in the Expenditure Plan. Further, as ordained in Section 2 of this Ordinance, the City shall undertake any and all applicable environmental review required prior to undertaking any specific project pursuant to the Expenditure Plan.

INTRODUCED by the City Council of the City of Clearlake at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 25th day of July, 2013 and PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council at a regular meeting of the City Council on the t__ day of Augut, 2012 2013 byfollowing vote:

AYES: Vice Mayor Loustalot, Council Members Luiz, Fortino Dickson, and Overton

NOES: Mayor Spittler

ABSENT OR NOT VOTING: None

_________________________________
Jeri Spittler, Mayor

ATTEST:


_________________________________
Melissa Swanson, City Clerk

City of Clearlake

Road Maintenance and Code Enforcement Transactions And Use Tax Expenditure Plan

For Anticipated One (1%) Percent

Transactions and use tax Revenue

The one (1%) percent transactions and use tax passed by the City of Clearlake voters will be dedicated to specific uses—road maintenance and code enforcement. The funds cannot and will not be used for any other purpose. Seventy-five percent (75%) of the revenues generated by the new tax will be allocated to road maintenance with the remaining twenty-five percent (25%) allocated to code enforcement.

ROAD MAINTENANCE

The City of Clearlake’s maintained Street system consists of approximately 112 miles of streets and is composed of:

Asphalt Paved Streets 63 Miles

Unpaved Gravel or Dirt Streets 49 Miles

The majority of the Street system was constructed to the standards and conditions of the 1930’s and 1940’s era and is unable to meet today’s traffic demands. A pavement management study was recently completed for the City of Clearlake’s Streets System. The report, which was prepared by Nichols Consulting Engineers, cited that Clearlake’s streets have one of the lowest pavement condition rating of any city that they had evaluated. The average pavement condition rating for the City’s streets was 38 on a 100-point scale. That is well below an F grade, which we all understand is unacceptable.

The report further indicates that the City currently has a total deferred maintenance need of $17,000,000. What that means is the City needs to spend $17,000,000 in 2012, for the reconstruction and rehabilitation of its streets system, to bring it up to acceptable standards. The City is currently expending approximately $40,000 annually for repair and maintenance of its streets. At that funding level, the City can only patch the chuckholes and re-grade the gravel roads. Current funding does not allow for any major street repair or reconstruction. If the City’s maintenance level remains the same, the pavement condition rating of 38, which is very poor, will drop even lower in the future. Under that scenario most of the City’s paved streets will have totally failed, and require their total reconstruction.

The Nichols Consulting Engineers Pavement Management Study recommends that if the City of Clearlake budgets $1,050,000 annually over the next five (5) years for asphalt pavement work, it would improve the City’s overall pavement condition rating (PCI) from 38 up to 60. The City’s deferred maintenance backlog would be reduced from $17,000,000 to $12,300,00. In addition to the need to improve the asphalt surfacing of the City’s streets, there is also a need to maintain and improve storm drainage, and sidewalks that are an integral part of the street.

The needed improvements and maintenance on the City of Clearlake’s Street System far exceed the available revenues for these activities. While the City remains committed to continue efforts to obtain all possible Federal and State funding for street improvements, it is apparent that without the three-quarter percent (3/4%) transactions and use tax revenue the City will be unable to accomplish its task to maintain the Street System at a level to adequately serve the traveling public. It estimated that a three-quarter percent (3/4%) special road transactions and use tax will produce $1,050,000 in revenues annually.

State law requires the City to prepare and adopt an expenditure plan describing the specific projects for which the revenues from the tax may be expended. This plan is also intended to be updated annually, and at the end of five years. The City’s Five-Year Plan is a simple one as it proposes to utilize the three-quarter percent (3/4%) transactions and use tax exclusively for street maintenance and rehabilitation purposes. It would follow the recommendations of the City’s Public Works Director and City’s Pavement Management Program. The City of Clearlake’s Department of Public Works only has one goal, and that is to provide the City’s traveling public with the best and most efficient road maintenance possible given the existing facilities and the available transactions and use tax funds.

The City of Clearlake has prepared a Road Maintenance Transactions and Use Tax Expenditure Plan for the next five (5) years beginning in 2014 and going through 2019. The initial years are proposed to be devoted to the rehabilitation of the major arterial and collector streets within the City of Clearlake, along with a major effort to repair, patch, and re-pave the local residential streets, as well as the re-grading of the unimproved streets that are currently maintained by the City. In addition, the City would set aside up to five percent (5%) of the approved three-quarter percent (3/4%) special transactions and use tax, annually, to provide matching funds for Federal and State grants related to street improvement and rehabilitation projects. In addition, up to five percent (5%) of the special transactions and use tax would be set aside to purchase equipment used in the maintenance of the City’s street system.

The initial Five-year Expenditure Program for the City of Clearlake road maintenance will include three primary elements:

  • Seasonal Maintenance (by purpose of frequency)

  • Planned Maintenance (by purpose of location)

  • Special Maintenance

Seasonal Maintenance will consist of enhanced maintenance activities applicable to seasonal demands on a system wide basis and include such typical tasks as:

  • pothole and surface repairs

  • pavement dig outs and asphalt blankets

  • culvert replacements/improvements

  • crack filling

  • graveling and associated grading on existing unpaved roads maintained by the City

  • shoulder restoration

  • re-striping, painting and installation of pavement reflector markings

  • maintenance of street signs

Planned Maintenance will consist of scheduled projects directed at preventative and protective maintenance measures on the City’s currently maintained street system to avoid deterioration. Typical examples would be:

  • pavement grinding removal and replacement

  • asphalt pavement overlay and rehabilitation projects

  • chip seals and other surface treatments

  • rock rip-rap protection

  • bridge deck and railing replacement

  • sidewalk restoration

Special Maintenance will consist of specifically assigned activities such as:

  • maintenance equipment lease, rental, or purchase

  • sidewalk and bicycle facilities

  • bridge replacement/rehabilitation

The Expenditure Program will be a “living document” that will be modified as necessary to provide the desired results. Using the City’s Pavement Management Plan, the Public Works Director will develop the annual maintenance/rehabilitation plan which would be approved by the Clearlake City Council. The annual review and evaluation process will entail inviting the public to participate in open discussion and evaluation of any modifications that may be appropriate.

The first several years of the 5-year maintenance program will be dedicated to improving major arterial and collector streets. Failed areas of the street surface will be removed by grinding, and replacing the failed areas, with new asphalt concrete to provide a smooth street surface and prepare the street for an asphalt concrete overlay. The City would make a major effort to patch potholes, and repair pavement failures on its local and residential streets, thus raising the overall quality of the City street maintenance.

Annual Expenditure Program

2014-2019

Activity

Estimated Expenditure (in % of tax proceeds)

Citywide Seasonal Road Maintenance

  • Pothole and surface repair

  • Pavement dig outs & minor asphalt blankets

  • Drainage repairs/replacement

  • Minor chip seals

  • Crack filling

  • Graveling/grading City maintained unpaved roads

  • Shoulder restoration

15%

Planned Maintenance

  • Pavement grinding, removal & replacement

  • Asphalt pavement overlay and rehabilitation

  • Chip seals and other surface treatments

75%

Maintenance Equipment

  • Specialized equipment rental, lease, purchase

  • Specialized equipment repair

5%

Matching Grant Funding

  • Grant matching funds for street improvement projects

5%

Total

100%

(Approx. $1,050,000)

CODE ENFORCEMENT

Beginning with Fiscal Year Budget 2010-2011, the City disbanded code enforcement and significant reduced the amount of money budgeted for animal code control and laid off employees due to severe budget constraints. Since that time there has been a tremendous “backslide” in code violations that affects the health and safety of the community.

As a result of elimination of code enforcement, the city has seen a dramatic decline in upkeep of properties resulting in increased complaints about health and safety issues on properties including buildings that are not fit for habitation, fire hazards, vermin, stench, lack of sanitary facilities, illegal construction in rights-of-way, increased feral animal population, abandoned and inoperative vehicles and other conditions that effect the public health, safety and welfare, as well as the enjoyment, use and value of private property.

The Clearlake City Council has determined that code enforcement is a top priority and that one-fourth of the monies generated from this transaction and use tax will be used to re-establish code enforcement in the City.

Because there has been no code enforcement for several years, reinstatement of the program will require hiring staff, training to assure compliance with state and local laws that relate to property rights and the City’s right to enforce property clean-up, addressing public health issues as a priority and taking an inventory of properties that are non-compliant with nuisance and health and safety regulations.

The following budget reflects the first year activities. The amount of funds generated annually will fluctuate depending on the economy. The budget will be revised annually to reflect the income and success of the code enforcement program.

Annual Expenditure Program

Activity

Estimated Expenditure

Staffing

$230,000

Supplies and Materials

7,000

Training

5,000

Contract Services (including towing)

40,000

Abatement of Properties

75,000

TOTAL

$357,000

LAKEPORT, Calif. – The Board of Supervisors this week will discuss a proposal to form a group to develop a sales tax measure – similar to one that went before voters last fall – to raise funds to benefit Clear Lake.

The meeting will begin at 9 a.m. Tuesday, Aug. 13, in the board chambers on the first floor of the Lake County Courthouse, 255 N. Forbes St., Lakeport. It will be broadcast live on TV8.

In an item timed for 10:20 a.m., the board will consider a request from Supervisor Anthony Farrington to form an advisory group to develop a plan to put a sales tax measure to benefit the lake on the June 2014 general election ballot.

Last year, the board placed Measure E on the November ballot. The half-cent sales tax measure for the unincorporated portion of the county would have raised an estimated $2.4 million annually for lake-related projects, including abatement of lake weeds and algae, and invasive mussels prevention efforts. However, it narrowly missed getting the needed 66 percent to pass.

Farrington, in a report to the board for Tuesday's meeting, noted that the measure did well considering its supporters had only eight weeks to rally support for it.

He's asking his board colleagues to consider forming an advisory board that would include representatives from other local governments and organizations.

That group, as envisioned by Farrington, would use Measure E as a starting point to develop an ordinance that, among other things, would develop adequate funding to address lake weeds and algae, invasive mussel prevention, wetland restoration, water quality and more.

By starting now, the campaign would have 10 months to prepare, rather than the eight weeks it did last year.

In other business on Tuesday, at 9:45 a.m. the board will hear a presentation on the Upper Lake School and Community Partnership Education Children and Family Center Plan, and consider options for county involvement in the Children and Family Center.

The full agenda follows.

TIMED ITEMS

9 a.m., A-1 to A-4: Approval of consent agenda, which includes items that are expected to be routine and noncontroversial, and will be acted upon by the board at one time without discussion; presentation of animals available for adoption at Lake County Animal Care and Control; consideration of items not appearing on the posted agenda, and contract change orders for current construction projects.

9:05 a.m.: Citizen's input. Any person may speak for three minutes about any subject of concern, provided that it is within the jurisdiction of the Board of Supervisors and is not already on the agenda. Prior to this time, speakers must fill out a slip giving name, address and subject (available in the clerk of the board’s office, first floor, courthouse).

9:15 a.m., A-5: Public hearing, consideration of appeal (AB 13-02) of the Lake County Planning Commission’s decision to deny the major use permit (UP 12-04) to allow retreat operation; and to deny minor use permit (MUP 12-22) to allow reduction in “WW” (Waterway Combining District) rear yard setback requirements; appellant is Andrzej Skwira; site located at 16235 Roberts Road, Middletown (APN 013-054-07).

9:45 a.m., A-6: (a) Presentation of Upper Lake School and Community Partnership Education Children and Family Center Plan; and (b) consideration of options for county involvement in the Children and Family Center.

10 a.m., A-7: Presentation of 2012 Crop Report.

10:10 a.m., A-8: Consideration of bid award for Landfill Gas Collection and Control (Bid 13-11).

10:20 a.m., A-9: Consideration of the formation of an advisory group to develop a plan and provide recommendations regarding the placement of a sales tax proposal in the June 2014 general election.

NONTIMED ITEMS

A-10: Supervisors’ weekly calendar, travel and reports.

A-11: Advanced from Aug. 6: Consideration of proposed ordinance which provides for a 1-percent fee on the cable operator’s gross revenue collected with the unincorporated areas of the county to provide funding for operations of the PEG channel; second reading.

A-12: Carried over from Aug. 6: Consideration of request to (a) waive the normal bidding process; (b) approve agreements between the county of Lake and Netsmart Technologies Inc. and Geneva Software Co. for systems software upgrade.

CLOSED SESSION

A-13: 1.Conference with labor negotiator: (a) county negotiators: A. Grant, L. Guintivano, S. Harry, M. Perry, A. Flora and C. Shaver; and (b) employee organizations: Deputy District Attorney's Association, Lake County Deputy Sheriff's Association, Lake County Correctional Officers Association, Lake County Employees Association and Lake County Safety Employees Association.

A-13: 2. Conference with real property negotiator, (a) property located at: 3980 Gard St., Kelseyville (APN 024-081-01); (b) negotiating parties for county: Supervisor Rob Brown, Child Support Services Director Gail Woodworth, County Administrative Officer Matt Perry and Deputy County Administrative Officer Alan Flora; for seller, Kelseyville Unified School District representatives; (c) under negotiation, lease terms.

A-13: 3. Conference with legal counsel: Existing litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1): City of Lakeport v. County of Lake, et al.

CONSENT AGENDA

C-1: (a) Approve minutes of the Board of Supervisors meeting held on Aug. 6; and (b) approve amended minutes of the Board of Supervisors meeting held on April 23, 2013.

C-2: Adopt resolution modifying the amount of matching funds for the United States Department of Agriculture’s Rural Development Community Facilities Program Grant for computer equipment, audiovisual materials and books at the Redbud Library.

C-3: Adopt resolution approving submission of application for Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) ($109,917) for fiscal year 2013 and authorize the chair to sign grant assurances.

C-4: Adopt resolution approving submission of application for Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) ($138,135, with 50 percent county match) for fiscal year 2013, and authorize the chair to sign grant assurances.

C-5: Approve agreement between county of Lake and Davis Guest Home for FY 2013 residential support services, maximum amount of $20,000, and authorize the chair to sign.

C-6: Approve agreement between county of Lake and Women’s Recovery Services, for FY 2013-14 residential addiction services (AODS), maximum amount of $40,000, and authorize the chair to sign.

C-7: (a) Approve Budget Transfer B-007 for BU 1671 - Buildings & Grounds in the amount of $25,000 from Object Code 18.00 – Building Maintenance to Object Code 61.60 - Current Buildings & Improvements, for the repair of the wheelchair lift at the Lower Lake Museum, and authorize the chair to sign; and (b) authorize the Public Services director/assistant purchasing agent to issue a purchase order to Dream Ride Elevator, in the amount of $25,000, for wheelchair lift repair.

C-8: Approve third amendment to lease agreement between the county of Lake and New Cingular Wireless PCS LLC, extending the term for three consecutive five year periods and adjusting the rent, and authorize the chair to sign the lease agreement and the memorandum of the third amendment to the lease agreement.

C-9: Approve Easement Deed to Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) for a portion of APN 010-153-52 , 7175 South Center Drive, Clearlake, for a service extension to St. Helena Hospital Clear Lake (Adventist Health), and authorize the chair to sign.

LAKE COUNTY LOCAL BOARD OF EQUALIZATION

C-10: (a) Accept stipulation change in assessment for Westwind MH Resort, LLC A CA LLC (APN 009-018-180-000) for a change in the value of Land from $33,291 to $25,000, for the 2011 tax year; (b) accept stipulation change in assessment for Westwind MH Resort, LLC A CA LLC (APN 009-018-210-000) for a change in the value of Land from $585,951 to $525,000, and improvements from $1,078,682 to $940,000, for a change in total value from $1,664,633 to $1,465,000, for the 2011 tax year; and (c) accept stipulation change in assessment for Westwind MH Resort, LLC A CA LLC (APN 043-320-050-000) for a change in the value of Land from $160,914 to $135,000, and improvements from $27,743 to $25,000, for a change in total value from $188,657 to $160,000, for the 2011 tax year.

LAKE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS

C-11: Approve bid document for Bid #SD 13-16 for biosolids sludge removal at the Southeast Regional Wastewater Treatment Plan, and authorize the Special Districts Administrator/assistant purchasing agent to advertise for bids.

Email Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . Follow her on Twitter, @ERLarson, or Lake County News, @LakeCoNews.

CLEARLAKE, Calif. – The Clearlake City Council gave its final approval on Thursday evening to a proposal to put a 1-percent sales tax measure before city voters this November.

The 4-1 vote – with Mayor Jeri Spittler the lone dissenting vote – approved placing the measure before voters a year after Measure G, also a 1-percent sales tax measure, narrowly missed receiving the 66-percent supermajority it needed.

Like Measure G, the new sales tax measure would raise an estimated $1.4 million annually, with 75 percent – or $1,050,000 – to go for road maintenance and the remaining 25 percent, or $357,000, to be used for reestablishing code enforcements services, city officials reported.

The city said the state Board of Equalization would administer the funds, and would require that the money raised by the measure only be spent as specified in the spending plan.

The spending plan for the measure states that the city has an estimated $17 million in deferred maintenance for its streets, which currently have a pavement rating of 38, which is in the poor category.

Clearlake is spending a total of $40,000 annually for street maintenance and repair. The spending plan explains that, “At that funding level, the City can only patch the chuckholes and re-grade the gravel roads. Current funding does not allow for any major street repair or reconstruction.”

On Friday, Clearlake City Clerk Melissa Swanson submitted a letter and several documents to the Lake County Board of Supervisors, asking that the board authorize consolidating election services for the city for the Nov. 5 general district election.

The request, Swanson noted, is for the purpose of submitting the measure to voters, as well as authorizing Registrar of Voters Diane Fridley to prepare the official canvass of votes cast.

Along with a letter, Swanson sent the county the city's spending plan for revenue from the measure, as well as the ordinance placing the measure on the November ballot and the city's resolution to seek the election consolidation.

The deadline for submitting the documents was Friday, according to city officials.

Email Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . Follow her on Twitter, @ERLarson, or Lake County News, @LakeCoNews.

LCNews

Award winning journalism on the shores of Clear Lake. 

 

Search