LAKEPORT – A midyear budget review session Lakeport officials held Tuesday night finds the city in a deficit spending position, with leaders looking for ways to begin making cuts.

The Lakeport City Council held an hour-long session to look at their budget situation before their regular meeting Tuesday evening.

City Finance Director Janet Tavernier led the council through the initial part of the review, showing them numbers and explaining the different fund balances.

The city's general fund balance on Jan. 31 was $758,236. Total general fund expenditures are $2,508,899, with general fund revenue at $2,312,412.

The bottom line wasn't good. “We have spent more than we brought in by $196,487,” she said.

The redevelopment agency has expenditures of $1,033,990, with $1,406,200 in revenue. With other balances worked in, redevelopment's balance as of Jan. 31 was just over $1.4 million.

Several factors are at work behind the city's current financial situation.

Tavernier said that the city's property taxes are where they were anticipated to be. Sales tax for the first part of the year is down by 5 percent, but that's where the state Board of Equalization had predicted sales tax revenues would be as a result of the economic downturn.

By fiscal year's end this coming June, sales tax is expected to show more softening, with sales tax revenues expected to be down by a total of 12 percent, Tavernier said.

She said the city has collected 60 percent of its property tax, and they expect to have collected at least 95 percent of property taxes by June 30, which is in line with what's budgeted.

“It's still a work in progress,” she said of the budget.

Franchise fees are where the city expected, and property leases appear OK, while interest earnings are down due to dropping interest rates, said Tavernier. Building permits are down, as are enforcement fines.

Some grant funding isn't coming in, said Tavernier, although the city on Tuesday received a $50,000 COPS grant – which is for law enforcement purposes – and expects to get the other half by the end of the year.

During the city's budgeting process last year, a $400,000 line of credit was included in the budget as a revenue source in order to cover a gap between spending and expenditures. That line of credit was a topic of considerable concern during the review.

Mayor Ron Bertsch asked how they would actually take out the line of credit if they needed it.

Tavernier replied that they would need to vote to amend the budget.

The line of credit, she emphasized, doesn't currently exist other than the line item in the budget. “We don't have a line of credit at any bank,” she said. Such a line of credit would have to be set up with the council's approval.

Bertsch said he wanted to see the line of credit removed from the budget. Councilman Bob Rumfelt asked why Bertsch wanted to do that. Bertsch replied that he was concerned that the money might be spent, putting the city into deeper debt. He said he wasn't sure that anyone actually wanted to borrow that money to keep the city going.

“What I would like to do is stop it before it happens,” he said.

Tavernier said she can't remove it from the budget unless the council votes to take that action.

Interim City Manager Kevin Burke noted that when City Manager Jerry Gillham – currently on medical leave with the Oregon National Guard, after a trip last year to Iraq – did the budget last year, his rationale in including the line item was to give the city an option, with the hope that it wouldn't need to be used.

“So much has happened since then that we haven't expected,” said Burke, referring to the state of the economy.

Bertsch asked if it's expected to get worse. “That is the prediction,” Burke replied.

The mayor said he wants to take the line of credit out of the budget so city staff knows not to spend it.

If the line of credit was removed, Burke said they would then need to go in and cut $400,000 out of the city's expenses. He said some savings already have been achieved through the city's furlough program for staff. Staff were put on a two-week furlough in December and early January during the holidays, when Lakeport City Hall was closed for two weeks, as Lake County News has reported.

Council member Suzanne Lyons suggested that the council look through the entire budget and see how it stands in order to decide what action to take.

“If we don't have that cushion, we better start making cuts right now,” said Councilman Roy Parmentier.

Tavernier said the city has received some money from the Channel Cats and Lakeport Unified School District that wasn't anticipated. The city also received $80,900 in insurance rebates, although she needs to adjust all department budgets for insurance and didn't know how much surplus the money would end up being.

Departments working to keep expenses down

Overall, the city's general fund expenditures are at 37.9 percent, said Tavernier.

In the City Council's budget department, 84.3 percent of funds have been spent, including more than $38,000 in legal fees, some of it relating to the Vista Point Shopping Center lawsuit against the city, in which developer Barry Johnson has sued saying the city breached an exclusive negotiating contract with him for the land. The city said that agreement had expired long before the last bids for the property were taken. The legal fees in that case account for nearly $22,000 in funds that were not budgeted.

Councilman Jim Irwin asked Tavernier to prepare a list of changes to the budget that the council eventually could take action on, including removal of the line of credit.

Burke suggested the council could use Measure I sales tax revenues and sale of city property to the redevelopment agency to cover the gap. A project on Martin Street also will be removed from both the revenue and expense sides.

City Engineer Scott Harter said the city could stand to receive a $33,000 grant from the state to reimburse the city for some of the costs to renovate the Westshore Pool if an Americans with Disabilities Act project is signed off on by a state inspector.

Irwin asked Public Works Director Doug Grider why his department's operating expenses were so low – 27.3 percent overall.

Grider said they weren't spending money on items unless they were really needed.

He added, “We're just not doing some things.”

That means deferring maintenance of some city facilities, which Grider noted “someday may catch up with us.”

Burke reported that he's working with the county on a new animal control contract in the hope that the county can take animal control services back from the city. Lakeport Police is covering animal control duties this fiscal year, which was done in an attempt to lower costs.

Irwin asked fellow council members to look at “big picture policy” regarding the general fund.

This year's budget was balanced based on the line of credit, but Irwin said he could see change will need to be made in order to balance the budget going forward, especially with revenues expected to be down again, such as property taxes, which should be down next year due to reassessments.

He said the council needed to talk about where they are going to make the cuts – and if they're willing to make those cuts in the first place.

Before he digs into the budget to look for places to cut, Irwin said the council needed to provide a clear policy direction on how it would address its budget shortfall, which he expected to grow to $500,000 – out of a $4 million budget – due to the estimated 12 percent shortfall in property taxes.

Irwin said the council needed to face up to the situation, and spending reductions were the only option he sees.

Rumfelt said he felt if they went through the budget and made some spending adjustments, coupled with plans to offer a “golden handshake” retirement plan to some employees, that they could find savings in that $500,000 range Irwin mentioned.

“Everybody is behind the eight ball,” Rumfelt said, with governments around the state talking about cutting services and raising taxes. The golden handshake option itself will mean reduced services.

The council will hold a special meeting beginning at 6 p.m. on Tuesday, Feb. 24, to continue the discussion on how to address balancing the city budget.

E-mail Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

{mos_sb_discuss:3}

LAKEPORT – The Board of Supervisors received an update on Tuesday about the state's proposed new rules for septic tanks, and how those measure might impact Lake County.

Environmental Health Director Ray Ruminski gave the board the update.

The state's proposed regulations arise from AB 885, passed by the state Legislature around 10 years ago, Ruminski explained.

They would require inspection of septic tanks once every five years, as well as inspections of water wells on properties where septic tanks also are present, he said.

The county's septic tank program goes back to around 1960, said Ruminski. In 1985, local regulations were revised and updated.

The State Water Resources Control Board's proposals include legitimate suggestions, such as having an effluent filter on a septic tank, which the county's program already requires, Ruminski said.

There are other proposals that are easy to adjust to, including a different formula for sizing a leach line trench, said Ruminski.

However, some things are “deal breakers,” said Ruminski.

For example, there is no consideration for existing residential lots that aren't yet developed, he said. The new regulations have a sizing criteria based on a square footage formula which would result in making small lots undevelopable or requiring expensive supplemental systems.

Most of the regulations, he noted, are for construction of new systems.

The tests of existing septic systems once every five years, as well as the new tests for water wells on properties where septic tanks are located, would be retroactive for existing systems. “We think those two things are unworkable and unnecessary,” Ruminski said.

The good thing is that since the regulations have been out for public comment the water board has indicated the proposed regulations are under revision.

“They're willing to change direction and come back with something that is workable and lines up more with the real world,” said Ruminski, adding that he's planning to write a letter to the board pointing out the unworkable and unnecessary aspects of the proposed regulations.

Ruminski said there is interest in introducing a bill in the state Legislature this year to repeal AB 885 or give specific directions to the State Water Resources Control Board about the septic tank issue.

Board Chair Denise Rushing said that, in looking at the rules, it appears that someone involved in building engineered septic systems was somehow involved in writing the rules. She said she doesn't know if that's actually the case, but she hopes the state board is listening to everyday people and their concerns.

Supervisor Jim Comstock said he attended a recent meeting in Santa Rosa where public input was taken on the regulations. He estimated about 1,200 people were present at that meeting.

He said he supports legislation to repeat the proposed regulations “100 percent.”

“It's time we say no, very emphatically,” he said.

Ruminski said his department has been following the development of the proposed regulations for 10 years.

He's a member of a group of environmental health directors from around the state. Ruminski said the group was very disappointed at how they were treated by the water board's staff.

Some of the water board staff are convinced that septic tanks automatically pollute groundwater to a degree.

“These people are nuts,” Supervisor Rob Brown said of the water board. “They're totally out of touch with reality.”

He asked if a handout of questions gathered at public hearings around the state – which the water board provided a the Santa Rosa hearing – was real or “canned” questions. Ruminski said he accepted that the questions were real because he considered Water Board Chair Tam Dudoc to be credible.

“The state board sees this as a water quality issue,” said Ruminski.

While that view is perfectly legitimate, the people on the receiving end see it as a land use and planning issue, Ruminski said.

Supervisor Anthony Farrington said he believed the board and staff were on the same page on the issue, and all wanted more local control.

He said the state's estimates for enforcement costs are zero, but the Regional Council of Rural Counties estimates $1.4 billion statewide to enforce the rules.

Farrington said there is really no way to enforce the rules or to know who has both wells and septic tanks, and collecting the information would be a nightmare.

Rushing added that the regulations also don't address parcel sizes when requiring tests for water wells that are on the same property as a septic tank. She said some parcels could be hundreds of acres in size.

Ruminski said that the proposed rules also don't consider how close a septic tank is to a neighbor's property, the depth of the tank or soil types.

“This would be a big collection of bad data at some expense,” he said.

Supervisor Jeff Smith agreed that the proposed rules are “totally ridiculous.” He suggested they need to continue hammering on the proposal in order to make sure it dies.

Rushing asked how much the tests for septic tanks, that must take place once every five years, costs. Ruminski said a draft environmental impact report on the regulations estimated $325 per test. Rushing pointed out that the number didn't include many other costs.

Rushing asked about how much “good” – or accurate – data was being collected by Environmental Health. Ruminski said after issuing permits, Environmental Health doesn't have ongoing contacts with property owners. The data they have is that there is a permit, the size of the structure that the septic tanks serves and the location.

Kelseyville resident Anna Ravenwoode said she thinks everyone is concerned about the regulations.

Ravenwoode, who has interacted with the board, said she perceives them as open to the public.

She said she supported local implementation of the rules. The state's Region 5, which includes Lake County, stretches across 50 percent of the state. “It's obvious they won't be tailored to Lake County in particular.”

Ravenwoode said she supports people maintaining septic tanks for the purposes of maintaining property values and to keep groundwater clean. She added that she thinks the issue is ultimately a water quality issue, pointing to wells in San Joaquin County that have had to be closed due to pollution.

Ruminski noted that present rules require a vertical separation of 5 feet between a septic system and the water table, while mechanical treatment plants have a requirement for 2 feet of separation.

Spring Valley resident Monte Winters said the proposed rules are a concern in his area.

“We have nothing but septic tanks in Spring Valley, and we have no choice,” he said, noting the parcel density in the area allows six septic tanks within an acre.

Winter said they're concerned about the effect of septic systems on surface water. “As Spring Valley fills out, we may have a problem we can't afford to fix.”

The board thanked Ruminski for staying on top of the issue. Rushing asked him to let the board know about any dramatic changes to the proposed regulations.

E-mail Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

{mos_sb_discuss:3}

LAKEPORT – Following a lengthy discussion Tuesday evening, the Lakeport City Council decided to strike a suggestion in its redevelopment implementation plan that the waterfront development plan be extended to the Lakeport Lagoons area.

 

The council also decided against including a goal in the implementation plan that included a proposed amendment to add eminent domain to the city's formal redevelopment plan.

Redevelopment Agency Director Richard Knoll took the 25-page implementation plan's update to the council, where it was the topic of extensive council discussion and a public hearing, all of which lasted about an hour and 15 minutes.

Knoll explained that redevelopment agencies are required to adopt implementation plans every five years, following a public hearing.

His report to the council noted that the implementation plan must contain a redevelopment agency's specific goals and objectives for its project area, specific programs and estimated expenditures proposed to be made during the next five years, and an explanation of how these will eliminate blight within the project area and implement the low- and moderate-income housing requirements.

Council members brought up a concern about adding a new area to the waterfront development plan. Originally, the plan had ended at C Street, but that was extended down to the Lakeport Lagoons. Knoll said it was only a staff suggestion.

“This plan proposes to implement an effort to look at these areas and consider looking at them for waterfront planning purposes,” he said, adding that the plan doesn't mandate that it occur.

He explained that there is a distinction between the implementation plan and the redevelopment plan itself.

Changing the formal redevelopment plan wasn't on the table, Knoll emphasized.

If the implementation plan was authorized, would that authorize eminent domain? asked Council member Suzanne Lyons.

The question arose from one of the implementation plan's goals – a proposed amendment to the redevelopment plan to add eminent domain.

Knoll's response to Lyons' question was no. “That requires an amendment to the redevelopment plan,” he said.

While the implementation plan can propose such an amendment, that's a different matter than changing the actual plan. Knoll explained that amending the plan would require public input and participation, a California Environmental Quality Act review, nine to 10 months of work, and significant funds to pay for the work of attorneys and consultants.

City resident Verna Schaffer said she is concerned about the city's use of eminent domain, and said there should be some restrictions on it. She said many residential areas of Lakeport can be considered blight.

She also questioned the addition of the Lakeport Lagoons, a residential area, to the waterfront plan. Because they're private properties, she said they should be left out of the waterfront redevelopment plan.

Schaffer's husband, David Marantette, said the Supreme Court “set a boogeyman loose on the land” when it allowed for eminent domain.

He was concerned about the way the plan's language had changed to add the Lakeport Lagoons area. “That is all houses, private homes.”

Two or three councils from now, the decision may be made to do something since it was left in the proposal. He asked the current council to restore the original language.

“Words have meanings, and we would like the specific meaning to not include those areas under eminent domain,” he said.

Marie Edmundson, a neighbor of Marantette's and Schaffer's, asked why the additional area was added.

Knoll replied that it was prepared by city staff, has been subject to public input, and over the last several months went through 20 different versions and was refined to the one he was presenting.

“We simply took the waterfront area and included it within that particular item of the implementation plan,” he said.

He emphasized that the implementation plan doesn't change the existing redevelopment plan, which covers 612 acres, the boundaries of which was adopted in 1999.

Mayor Ron Bertsch told Knoll that his understanding of residents' concerns was that they believed a walkway might be constructed in front of their homes as part of the waterfront development project. He said he didn't see the redevelopment agency going that way.

Knoll said no walkway is proposed. The waterfront development plan is a separate item that would be developed, the contents of which aren't included in the redevelopment implementation plan.

Edmundson said the city should take care of what it has now, rather that worry about growing.

Todd Falconer voiced his general concerns over redevelopment and where it's going.

“I see no point in developing a waterfront program here when we have real, existing problems in our community which don't seem to be addressed,” he said.

The top glaring example that he said came to mind is the Vista Point Shopping Center, which still has no roof over part of it, and which he considers blight. “If redevelopment is to exist, it should exist to fix problems like that,” he said, not to develop destination waterfront communities.

Lyons raised the issue about the proposed amendment for adding eminent domain to the city's redevelopment plan.

Knoll said the implementation plan itself is supposed to be broad in scope.

He said he wanted to put it into perspective, and said there was much more to it than the eminent domain item. Knoll referred to a Lake County News headline from Monday which had referred to that issue in the plan.

Eminent domain, he said, isn't a focus of the implementation plan, which also looks at business recruitment and retention, and many other items.

The five year implementation plan doesn't mandate eminent domain. He said the council had brought up the issue of adding eminent domain to the main redevelopment plan last year.

Knoll said the council can take that goal out of the implementation plan and it won't be pursued. He added that city staff is not advocating its use, and that it's a last resort when assembling property for projects. The preferred approach always is working with property owners in a mutually beneficial way.

“Redevelopment agencies do not take the issue of eminent domain or the use of eminent domain lightly,” said Knoll.

City Attorney Steve Brookes said the trend among governments is leading toward the restriction of using eminent domain. He said eminent domain is a political football, and the way citizens can deal with it is by voting for new council members or recalling current ones if they don't like how eminent domain is being used.

“Everyone needs to be educated about what it does and doesn't do,” he said. “We've used it once. We've negotiated every other time.”

The one time it was used, said Brookes, involved the purchase of the City of Lakeport Municipal Sewer District land, which resulted in a beneficial tax break for the seller.

Councilman Roy Parmentier asked that they amend the implementation plan's language and remove the extension of the land to Lakeport Lagoons area, which the council agreed to do.

Councilman Jim Irwin asked to remove the language suggesting the eminent domain amendment.

Parmentier disagreed with that, suggesting the city may need it to deal with the Willopoint resort, owned by developer Barry Johnson.

“If we don't have it, we'll have a tough row to hoe,” he said.

Parmentier asked if they can adopt a separate project area for Willopoint. Knoll said it's possible. However, there would be implications to do that, given that the property is within the current redevelopment project area.

Brookes suggested they get a special legal opinion on that issue. “My view is, the power is limited,” he said.

He noted that the city already has eminent domain capability, and might have to condemn properties to build streets. The power should be used judiciously.

Councilman Bob Rumfelt said he was ambivalent about it. “If it relieves some peoples' concerns I'd say do away with it.”

That, ultimately, was the consensus, as was rolling back the waterfront redevelopment plan to the C Street boundary, away from the Lakeport Lagoons.

The council directed Knoll to make the changes in the plan and bring it back to them at their March 3 meeting for final approval.

E-mail Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

{mos_sb_discuss:3}

LAKE COUNTY – As California moves into its third consecutive dry year, local officials plan to take action later this month to call for voluntary water conservation measures around the county. {sidebar id=123}

The dreaded “D” word – drought – has already been used to describe the water situation around the state.

Last summer, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger issued an executive order declaring a statewide drought.

Late last month, in response to the latest Sierra snowpack figures, state Department of Water Resources Director Lester Snow also sounded the alarm.

“We may be at the start of the worst California drought in modern history,” said Snow. “It’s imperative for Californians to conserve water immediately at home and in their businesses.”

Now, some local officials also are saying it's time to take measures in response to the dry year and its effects here in Lake County.

Tom Smythe, water resources engineer in the county's Water Resources Division, said they measure 15 area wells on a monthly basis. On Feb. 3, during their measurements, they decided things were looking bad enough that something had to be done.

He said Water Resources and Special Districts will go to the Board of Supervisors on Feb. 24 with the request that water conservation measures be taken in county-operated districts, and that a call be put out to other water purveyors to also observe conservation.

Special Districts Administrator Mark Dellinger said when Gov. Schwarzenegger declared a drought emergency last June, Special Districts responded by sending notices to all of its water customers.

Since then, the situation and the data suggest that the situation has gotten a lot worse, Dellinger said.

With the county primarily dependent on rain, and rain being in short supply so far this year, Smythe said the effects are starting to be felt. “It's pretty dismal.”

Even with the rain of recent days, it would take weeks, perhaps a few months, of steady rain to get the area's streams and the lake recharged to where they need to be, officials suggested.

“If we don't get significant rainfall by the end of April, we're going to need to do a lot more,” said Dellinger. “And I hope we don't have to go to mandatory measures.”

The county's conservation measures would only directly affect customers of county-run districts, said Smythe. The county can't dictate to people on private wells or in privately owned districts, but they can make an appeal for conservation to everyone.

Darin McCosker, general manager, Clearlake Oaks County Water District, said the county hasn't come to his district yet with a request for conservation.

“But I'm keenly interested, and we'll probably adopt some kind of measure that's amicable to our board an our customers that's in support of conservation,” he said.

Frank Toney, a board member for the Clearlake Oaks district, actually brought up the conservation issue a few months ago, said McCosker.

The district, which takes its water directly from Clear Lake through the use of submersible pumps, hasn't had a supply problem so far, said McCosker.

“It could get to that point, though,” he said,

Some other water districts have centrifugal pumps which will have problems as the lake level goes down.

And just how low is it?

Smythe, when interviewed late last week, said that Clear Lake was at 1.20 feet Rumsey, the lowest lake level since 1991. After a weekend of rain, the lake climbed to a high of 1.71 feet Rumsey Monday night, according to a US Geological Survey stream gauge, which can be found at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/ca/nwis/uv?11450000.

If rain doesn't continue, the lake could drop to -2 feet Rumsey, said Smythe.

The record low for the lake was recorded in the drought year of 1977, when the lake level fell to -3.39 feet Rumsey, said Smythe.

In 1976, the year before that drought was peaking, “We actually had higher lake levels than we do now,” said Smythe.

Robert Stark, general manager of the Cobb Area County Water District, said he also hasn't yet received any formal request from the county to observe conservation measures.

However, the boards of directors for the three district he oversees – Cobb, Loch Lomond and Adams Springs – have said they want a letter crafted to their customers, which they'll consider in early March and then mail out by the end of that month, asking for conservation.

He said they'll put out postcard notices and reminders on the bills that go out every other month as well.

The boards also have asked him to what kind of enforcement measures – such as citations – they can take to make sure water isn't wasted.

Stark said recent rains have helped Cobb's water sources recover, but it's still not a great situation.

“At this point in time it is still basically at fall levels,” he said.

For February, the normal rate of water production for the district is 220 gallons a minute, said Stark. This year, it's at 125 gallons a minute.

The district also keeps statistics for the state Department of Water Resources on rainfall, said Stark.

Their average rainfall for this time of year should be 40 inches, not the 21 inches it recently measured. The average annual rainfall for Cobb is 65 inches, but for the past two years they've been in the 40-inch range, he said.

That, Stark said, is what they call a “drought normal.”

Smythe noted that in both 1976 and 1977, the county had about 12 inches of rainfall.

Stark said if the district can get 40 inches of rain in a season they should be able to get through the year with no major problems.

Cobb has had water meters since 1987. Stark said that first year of metering, water consumption in the district dropped from 79 million gallons to 59 million gallons.

Since then, they haven't reached the 60-million gallon mark again, despite having 300 more customers.

“That's how loose people were with water,” he said.

Stark added that metering should have been required by the state Legislature years ago.

Implications beyond Lake County

Lake County provides water not just for local residents but for water users and farmers in Yolo County.

Yolo Flood Control and Water Conservation District holds the rights to Clear Lake and Indian Valley Reservoir; the latter was built specifically for the district.

Clear Lake's level is extremely low, as is Indian Valley Reservoir's, which has led to a serious situation for the district, said Jennifer Reed, a program manager with Yolo Flood.

“It's pretty grim,” Reed said, noting that water levels are down from last year, which was a dry year as well.

As of Feb. 13, Clear Lake was at 1.25 feet Rumsey, down from 5.95 feet Rumsey on the same date in 2008, according to the district's records.

Indian Valley Reservoir, which has a total capacity of 300,000 acre feet, was at 19,816 acre feet on Feb. 13, down from the 107,244 acre feet it contained on Feb. 13, 2008, according to Yolo Flood.

“Compared to this same date last year, it's down 63 feet,” Reed said.

She added, “California is in a really critical water situation.”

The recent winter storms have been generous to the Sierra snowpack, said Reed. But places like Lake County don't have the snowpack as a water source.

Reed said the situation has led to Yolo Flood warning its water users of the thin times to come.

“We have told our water users that we do not expect to have an irrigation season this year,” she said.

While that could change between now and the growing season, as it stands now, the district just doesn't have any water for the water users and the 160,000 acres of farmland it serves, Reed said.

According to the 1978 Solano Decree, if Clear Lake reaches 7.56 feet Rumsey by May 1, Yolo Flood receives a 150,000-acre-foot allocation – or nearly 49 billion gallons. If the lake level at that time is 3.22 feet Rumsey or below, the district receives no water for the year.

At the same time, the Gopcevic Decree of 1920 prevents water being pumped out of Clear Lake if its level is 0 feet Rumsey or below, Smythe explained.

Last year, with Clear Lake hitting 6.67 fee Rumsey on May 1, Yolo Flood received 119,960 acre feet, or 80 percent of their allocation, as Lake County News has reported.

The lake level also will impact The Geysers effluent pipeline, said Dellinger. Lake water is used to supplement the treated wastewater pumped through the pipeline, which eventually is used for injection in the geothermal steamfields.

If the lake level doesn't hit 3.22 feet Rumsey by May 1, there will be no water taken from the lake for the pipeline for the next 12 months, Dellinger said.

He said Special Districts is working right now on a plan for how to deal with the worst-case scenario – that no water will be available for the pipeline.

Then there's the concern of the rate of evaporation on Clear Lake during the summer, which Dellinger said is estimated to be 3 feet. That could put the lake at -2 feet Rumsey at the end of the irrigation season.

“I've never seen a situation like this,” said Dellinger, noting he wasn't working for the county during the 1977 drought year.

Smythe recalled that, in February of 1991, the lake was at .47 feet Rumsey, and things looked grim.

Then the “March miracle” happened.

In early March, it began raining, and kept raining. Smythe said the lake rose 3 feet that March.

E-mail Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

{mos_sb_discuss:2}

LAKE COUNTY – The Lake County Board of Education has formed a task force to explore the feasibility of school district consolidation, in response to a resolution passed earlier this month by the Lake County Board of Supervisors.

Lake County Superintendent of Schools Dave Geck said the board of education established the feasibility task force on Feb. 11.

The resolution states notes, “the question has been raised whether it would be of benefit to our children and all of our citizens if any of the seven schools districts in Lake County were unified with one or more existing districts, thereby ostensibly reducing certain administrative costs and freeing those monies for other educational purposes.”

The document goes on to state that, thus far, “there is little information to indicate whether such a proposal is feasible, both as to cost savings and as to the effect on existing schools programs, and it therefore appears premature to initiate a process for unification until more information is obtained ...”

The feasibility task force will be charged with collecting the information that will help the Lake County Board of Education determine whether the school district consolidation proposal has the potential to create the cost savings that will result in improved educational programs for our students.

The membership on the task force will be broad based, with each of the five county board members appointing a person from their district and the county superintendent appointing an additional three to five persons as at-large members of the task force. Task force members will need to be unbiased and objective as they review the information collected.

At team of distinguished citizens will facilitate the collection of information for the task force. Dr. William Cornelison, retired county superintendent of schools; Tricia Mohl, retired Lake County Office of Education business manager; Wally Holbrook, former superintendent for the Kelseyville Unified School District; and Cameron Reeves, retired county counsel, have agreed to facilitate the work of the Task Force, Geck said.

Geck indicated that once all the members of the task force are seated the task force will meet to establish their work plan and begin the process of data collection.

The task force will review the history of previous reorganization efforts in Lake County. They will also examine the operations of comparison districts of similar geographic size, population density and demographics.

The fiscal analysis of any reorganization proposal will be high priority with data relating to both cost savings and the impact on revenues being closely examined.

The process of collecting information will provide opportunities for input from the community, Geck said.

For information about membership on the task force, contact the Lake County Office of Education, 262-4100.

{mos_sb_discuss:2}

LAKEPORT – The city of Lakeport is taking applications from interested city residents who wish to serve on the newly formed Measure J Committee.

The council discussed the committee's formation at its Feb. 3 meeting, at which time Mayor Ron Bertsch asked Council member Suzanne Lyons to head up the effort.

Measure J is an advisory measure for Measure I, a half-cent sales tax approved by city voters in November of 2004.

Measure I brings in about $750,000 a year, according to Bertsch.

He said that Measure I has brought in $1,961,216.98 since 2005. Of that amount, $1,025,300.82 has been spent on roads and $249,827.37 has been spent on the Westshore Pool renovation.

The language of Measure J calls for using Measure J funds to “fund repair and maintenance of city streets, park and community service facilities, and expand public services and programs.”

Any citizen living within the city limits who wants to serve on the committee may pick up an application at Lakeport City Hall, 225 Park St., telephone 263-5615.

Each council member will appoint one member to the committee. If there is significant interest from the public, Bertsch said the committee may include more than five members.

{mos_sb_discuss:2}