LAKE COUNTY – When funding for local public access television cable systems was required by the 1984 Cable Franchise Policy and Communications Act, many envisioned a “global village” connecting communities throughout the world.

That dream has been realized in many communities across the country, where training and access to media technology have created a corps of students and volunteers producing programs on local issues and interests.

National interest in public access channels heated up recently when Comcast's Michigan operation announced it would move the public access channels to the digital spectrum, and tried to give every analog-only customer in the state a free digital set-top box for one year to ensure that public, educational and governmental (PEG) channels would be viewable on analog TV sets.

Local governments rebelled, complained to House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman John Dingell (D-Mich.) and finally got a federal judge to enjoin Comcast from proceeding.

Lake County's public access channel, Channel 8 on the Mediacom service, was created in 2001 by a city of Clearlake ordinance. It has never been funded with any steady source of income, and has been hampered by a lack of staff, as well as by a frequently-changing roster of staff and committee members.

When Channel 8 got started, Mediacom, which has held the county's exclusive cable franchises since 1998, contributed $30,000 to buy equipment.

Mediacom manager Shawn Swatosh said the choice of equipment was at the discretion of the PEG committee, but he believed they had bought personal computers and video recording equipment for producing programs.

Channel 8 at the time was housed on the Clearlake campus of Yuba College, but has since moved to a Clearlake city office shared with the permits department.

No one is sure today exactly what equipment Channel 8 has. Committee members said they have asked for inventories, but have not received them. A request for an inventory was on the agenda for the PEG Committee's Wednesday at Clearlake City Hall.

Channel 8 runs live Tuesday meetings of the county Board of Supervisors, with repeats on Sunday morning. Other regular programming includes Yuba College classes, a bulletin board for nonprofit groups and occasional locally-produced shows. It also has an online schedule at www.laketv8.com.

The Web site has a form for submitting events and a notice that the DVD hardware has problems, which means they haven't been accepting new submissions.

On Monday and Tuesday of last week, the station was showing a new video call screen, apparently an on-site application for making conference calls or allowing live broadcast.

The part-time manager is Jack Barker, who works four hours a week, from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. Wednesdays, updating the bulletin board, maintaining equipment and scheduling submitted material.

Lake County's Public-Education-Government (PEG) channel (Channel 8 on Mediacom) now will be administered by a new Joint Powers Authority (JPA) signed by the county and Clearlake.

Current JPA board members, responsible for allocating money to Channel 8's PEG board, are Ed Robey, District 1 County Supervisor and current chairman of the Board of Supervisors; Joyce Overton, Clearlake City Council; and Shawn Swatosh, Mediacom manager for Lake County. They must appoint two new public members to the JPA board.

Bob Malley, a longtime Clearlake City Council member, former mayor, and a former member of the PEG committee, was an early applicant for one of the public seats on the JPA.

“The old city advisory committee will simply cease to exist, and be replaced by the new JPA advisory committee,” said Robey.

He added, the question is whether the new JPA board will have an advisory committee: “It seems to me that we should have an advisory committee, with five or seven members, and invite anyone who is interested to apply.”

Current PEG committee members besides Robey, Overton and Swatosh are Byron Bell, dean of the Yuba College Clearlake campus; Barbara Christwitz, a tutoring center specialist at Yuba College; Hiram J. Dukes, video producer at California Oakey Productions in Cobb; and Dante d'Amicis, an occasional producer. Another member, appointed by the Konocti Unified School District, has never attended meetings. Minutes of the committee meetings indicate Bell intends to resign. A city ordinance establishes a seven-member committee.

For 2007, the county collected fees of $281,264.30 on Mediacom's total revenues of $5,625,285.91. Their contribution to the Channel 8 budget for 2007-08 is scheduled at $2,000, to cover the costs of broadcasting meetings of the board of supervisors.

Swatosh said the county has a total of 12,000 to 14,000 subscribers, and has continued to pay franchise fees to Lakeport despite the city's expired franchise. Lakeport City Manager Jerry Gilham said those fees amount to about $40,000 a year. Clearlake City Manager Dale Neiman said that city receives $120,000 a year from franchise fees.

The city of Clearlake reports that the 2007-08 budget for Channel 8 totals $11,400 in income, which includes $5,400 from Yuba College, and $2,000 each from the cities of Lakeport and Clearlake and Lake County. The beginning fund balance is $1,879.

Expenses are given as $13,261, including $5,661 for salary and benefits for the part-time station manager.

Gillham came here from Gresham, Oregon, where PEG Channel 21 is part of MetroEast Community Media, which serves approximately 180,000 households in Portland and the East Metro communities of Gresham, Troutdale, Fairview, Wood Village and unincorporated Multnomah County East.

He calls himself “a big proponent of public TV” and said recently he's not sure why Lakeport's City Council opted out of the new Joint Powers Authority formed by Lake County and the city of Clearlake: “I've only been here 7 months.”

Gillham said he believes Lakeport Council members “didn't feel confident the city would actually receive a benefit of equal magnitude to other two members,” the city of Clearlake and Lake County.

The JPA contract stipulated each member would pay one-third of the Channel 8 operating expenses. Gillham said Lakeport officials felt that was too vague and open-ended and “we're $1 million shy in the general fund now.”

He added he believes the city would support the concept of public access.

Dale Neiman, Clearlake's city administrator since February 2007, said he has been through the franchise process twice

.In 1986-87,while he was city manager in Fortuna, with a population of 11,000, the process involved five cooperating cities.

“We hired a franchise consultant, which really helped,” he said.

The process involved getting rate approvals and control of the channel lineup, Neiman said.

Tomorrow: Experts explain challenges of new franchise laws.

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

{mos_sb_discuss:2}

On a 3-2 vote, with Supervisors Rob Brown and Jeff Smith in the minority, the board decided – at least for now – not to allow developer Mark Mitchell to move forward with his Eachus View Estates subdivision, which would have been located at located at 3453, 3565, 3585 and 3595 Hill Road in Lakeport.

The Planning Commission approved the project at its Sept. 27, 2007 meeting, a decision appealed to the board by Johnnie Lee, Brad Peters and Harry Whitlock, who own neighboring properties.

The board first heard the matter at its Jan. 15 meeting.

Mitchell's plan calls for subdividing a 90-acre parcel zoned for agriculture into four residential parcels ranging in size between 2.13 and 3 acres, each with building envelopes, and one agricultural parcel of 76.15 acres.

Both the Sierra Club Lake Group and the Lake County Farm Bureau Board of Directors had issued objections to the plan over insufficient agricultural buffers and conversion of agricultural land.

Supervisors Denise Rushing asked Community Development Director Rick Coel about Lakeport's urban growth boundary. There isn't one technically, said Coel, although the General Plan update will place it along Highway 29.

Mitchell argued to the board that rezoning a portion of the property from agriculture to suburban residential reserve would actually make it consistent with the General Plan.

He also argued for his project based on past precedent, noting that there are about 60 smaller parcels along Hill Road that have been split over the years.

Mitchell said he was only asking to be able to do with his property what the General Plan would allow. If that's not acceptable, Mitchell said the board needed to explain to all of the property owners in the area why their land was being down-zoned.

Coel told the board that the Lakeport Area Plan “doesn't have a very clear set of policies” when it comes to rezoning. Instead, he said planning staff base rezoning on other issues – such as mitigating negative impacts, and putting building envelopes or buffers around homes.

He said his department supported Mitchell's plan because the General Plan called for the densities he was proposing. Had Mitchell sought a General Plan Amendment to rezone agricultural land in areas where the General Plan specifically maintained agriculture, “we would have very serious concerns about it.”

Several people spoke in favor of Mitchell's project, including Tom Powers, who said it's consistent with planning in the area. “I would encourage you not to change direction at this point in time.”

Other neighbors in the Hill Road area expressed their concerns that if Mitchell's proposal was halted they, too, would be unable to split up their parcels further.

Johnnie Lee, one of the appellants, argued that the project was clearly outside the area's urban growth boundaries, in an area the county considers prime agricultural land. He said it was a “naive” idea to think that Eachus View Estates would not set future precedents.

Melissa Fulton, who owns about 19 acres in the area, spoke favorably of the plan, saying the supervisors should be consistent with the Planning Commission. She added that she believed it was Mitchell's right as the property owner to develop the land as he wanted.

At the Jan. 15 hearing Mitchell had stated his concerns that his project was being targeted for criticism because he is a partner in the proposal to build Cristallago, a massive subdivision that also would be located north of Lakeport.

Clearlake Oaks resident Chuck Lamb, addressing those comments at Tuesday's meeting, called Mitchell's assertion about prejudice because of Cristallago “unfounded,” stating that anyone attempting to build a subdivision on prime agricultural soils would face the same opposition.

Lamb said Mitchell “chose to gamble” that he could convince the board to rezone the property. He added that rezoning is a privilege, not a right.

Infill should be emphasized before allowing subdivisions on agricultural land, said Lamb. He urged the board not to “whittle away” at agricultural lands, but to keep Lake County's heritage strong.

Organic farmer Steve DeVoto, who also is a member of the Lake County Farm Bureau Board of Directors, said the board “overwhelmingly” supported the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision.

“Let's be clear about this – all of this land is prime ag land,” said DeVoto.

While Mitchell at once point argued that his project should be allowed based on past precedent, Sierra Club Lake Group Chair Victoria Brandon said it wouldn't be good public policy to let past, bad decisions affect today's.

Rather, Brandon emphasized the need to make plans based on what benefits the community, not just an applicant.

“The really important issue is not this project, it is the precedent it is setting countywide,” she said, adding that the subdivision would be “an advance shot across the bow of urban boundaries.”

Toward the end of the hearing – which stretched over a little more than two hours – Mitchell went to the podium for the third and final time to address a comment made by Supervisor Anthony Farrington about the fact that Mitchell hadn't come to speak to him about Eachus View Estates.

“I didn't think this project would be so controversial,” said Mitchell, adding that if he had believed that, he would have spoken to Farrinton two years ago.

Replied Farrington, “I would have been able to tell you this would have happened.”

As the board began to deliberate on the matter, Board Chair Ed Robey said that in light of inconsistent policies, a desire to manage growth in an orderly way, and achieve long-term public benefit, he was reluctant to approve Mitchell's plan at this point. “Right now I don't think it's the right time to do it.”

Rushing agreed with Robey's take, saying she didn't believe there is a pressing need for more buildable lots.

“This looks a lot like sprawl,” she said. “It's not needed today.”

Supervisor Jeff Smith said he was torn. He cited inadequate agricultural buffers, but added, “This particular project is not that far-fetched from everything else around it and what the General Plan on its face says.”

Supervisor Rob Brown also held that the project was consistent with the General Plan. “One more lot is not going to make that much of a difference.”

Farrington, in whose district the land is located, said the county shouldn't entirely shut the door on Mitchell's plan, but said for him the timing was crucial. The county's General Plan Agricultural Element Committee hasn't reported its work back to the board, and that could prove significant in cases like this one.

“This is a hard call and timing is the issue,” said Farrington.

He concluded he didn't support Mitchell's application at this time, and moved to grant the appeal of the Planning Commission decision, which the board approved 3-2.

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

{mos_sb_discuss:3}

County Administrator Kelly Cox has prepared the review, which looks at all the county's departments and makes adjustments to keep the county's $196 million budget on track.

Cox, who has spent decades keeping the county's books balanced, says the county has a very strong budgetary position, with its budget still in balance.

However, he pointed to several factors which make it necessary to make line item adjustments.

The most significant budgetary shortfall, Cox said, is being felt by the county's Mental Health Department.

Since last July 1, the state has delayed issuing Medi-Cal reimbursement payments to Lake and other counties, claiming its computer system isn't working, said Cox. “It's a big problem.”

The county had to loan Mental Health $1.4 million to keep going, which the department is unable to repay without the state's reimbursements, said Cox.

“It's the single-biggest issue that we're dealing with right now,” he said.

The economic downturn also is causing county budgetary repercussions, especially in areas tied to the housing market and construction.

Cox said the county's construction permit revenue is running 20 percent below where it was at this time last year.

“Building and planning permits, zoning, recorder's office recording fees when property changes – all of those are down,” said Cox.

He added, “These are the kinds of things that happen in a recession,” and is beyond what can be controlled at a local level.

Cox said his other concerns revolve around what the state is going to do next.

One state proposal that has him worried is a suggestion to withhold payments to counties for other programs for a period of five months so that the state can use that money in the short term. Some of the money that could be withheld comes from the gas tax, which goes for county road maintenance.

Withholding that money, he said, will put counties into the position of drawing down their financial reserves and or having to borrow money.

“In effect the state is forcing us to do what they can't do anymore, because they've borrowed so much,” said Cox.

He also doesn't trust that the state will make good its promise to catch up on those five months of payments it proposes to withhold. “They've done this kind of thing before and we'll never catch up.”

There are also the 10-percent, across-the-board reductions in state general fund programs that Cox estimated could hit county health and law enforcement services. While it's a significant cut, Cox added that he things the county can handle it.

Cox said the state needs to deal with its budget deficiencies – an estimated $3.3 billion this year and $14.5 billion next year – because delaying has put the state in its current condition.

“They have some things they need to be doing immediately,” he said. “We're always worried about how it's going to impact us.”

One of the first things the state could do, he said, is pass a balanced budget on time, as counties are required to do.

Cox emphasized that the county's budget is still in balance and there are some pluses, including higher-than-anticipated property tax revenue and no danger of staff job cuts.

The line item adjustments the board will consider Tuesday won't reduce the county's reserve or contingency budgets, which would be a concern for him.

“The county is still in a pretty strong financial position,” he said.

With this year's midyear budget review complete, Cox said he's already looking at next year's budget, which takes months of preparation before it's approved in the summer.

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

{mos_sb_discuss:2}

The council will meet Feb. 5, starting out with a 5 p.m. workshop with staff on the city's sewer ordinance before beginning the regular council meeting at 6 p.m.

At its last meeting on Jan. 15, the council approved a 2.5-percent rate increase as part of a cost of living increase the company is entitled to in its contract for the city's universal garbage collection, which has been in effect since January 2004.

The council also discussed its franchise garbage agreement with Lakeport Disposal, and looked at several ongoing, unresolved issues with the contract.

Primary among them is that the company has asked for delays in paying its full franchise fee to the city – about 10 percent of its revenues – citing financial hardships and market downturns.

The council asked for its negotiators and Lakeport Disposal to return to the Feb. 5 meeting with resolutions to the issues.

City Manager Jerry Gillham's report to the council said the negotiating team met with Lakeport Disposal on Jan. 24 and appeared to come to an agreement that the company will begin paying the full franchise fee in January, 2010.

However, Gillham suggested there was some “communication disconnect.” While Gillham says in his report that he believes an agreement was reached, he said that Mayor Pro-Tem Ron Bertsch – a member of the city's negotiating team – doesn't believe that the meeting actually resulted in an agreement but rather “an outline of what Lakeport Disposal was willing to live with.”

The result is that the council must decide how to move forward in light of the confusion about whether or not an agreement was reached.

In other business city Utilities Superintendent Mark Brannigan will introduce Ordinance 872, the City of Lakeport Municipal Sewer District, Sewer use and Pretreatment Ordinance, along with enabling resolutions to set fees.

The ordinance modernizes the city's 30-year-old chapter in its municipal code regarding the operation of sewer systems, as required by state and federal legislation.

Staff is asking the council to accept the ordinance and set a public hearing on it at the March 4 meeting.

Under consent agenda items, the staff will present a report regarding the status of the Clear Lake Foundation, adoption of a salary schedule for Lakeport Police officers that becomes effective Jan. 1 and adoption of a resolution adopting the National Incident Management Systems.

In closed session, the council will discuss labor negotiations with the Lakeport Employees Association and Lakeport Police Officers Association, and will hold a conference with real property negotiators on the Green Ranch.

To see city documents and staff reports that are on the Tuesday agenda, visit the city's Web site at www.cityoflakeport.com/departments/docs.aspx?deptID=43&catID=35.

The meeting will be held in the council chambers at Lakeport City Hall, 225 Park St.

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

{mos_sb_discuss:3}

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN UPDATED WITH ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE SUPERVISORIAL ELECTION DATES. MISTAKENLY TRANSPOSED NUMBERS IN THE AMOUNT OF MEETINGS MR. STARK HAS ATTENDED HAVE BEEN CORRECTED.

COBB – Robert Stark says he's ready to take on Rob Brown this year in the race for the District 5 supervisorial seat.

Stark, a Lake County resident since 1974, said he has been thinking about running for supervisor for a long time. “I've always thought about it.”

Until recently he said he always had something else to do, such as raising his family. He and wife, Brenda, have three children and four grandchildren.

However, at age 61, Stark said now is the time to do it.

Late last year, Stark began to prepare for the race, taking out the notice of intention paperwork – called a Form 501 – that allows a candidate to begin raising funds for a campaign, according to Registrar of Voters Diane Fridley.

The Form 501 is one of the first steps in running for supervisor, said Fridley. Stark was the first to begin filing paperwork for the District 5 race.

Then, early in January, Brown announced his plans to seek a third term as supervisor, and the campaign field began to form.

Stark grew up in New Jersey and served in the Marine Corps from 1966 to 1968, but did not see combat in Vietnam.

He holds an associate's degree in horticulture; he also majored in power mechanics, and has advanced water treatment plant operation accreditations.

Stark has variously worked as an insurance underwriter, a farmer, operated an auto repair and welding shop, and worked in all phases of the construction trade before he joined the Cobb Mutual Water Co. in 1983. A year later, he took the water district's manager job.

Among his issues, “Water is my No. 1, of course,” he said.

Maintaining an agricultural base in Kelseyville is his No. 2 issue, but wise commercial and residential development also are important, Stark said.

Stark said he's also concerned about seniors and disabled, who he feels are “diminished in Lake County,” and don't receive the attention they need.

Among his other issues, “I believe that there's disconnect between the county and the public and the private sector,” he said.

When people go to the county to ask questions, he said they often get different answers from different people and departments.

Stark hosted a forum for area water districts and managers on Nov. 30 in an effort to create better communication among them.

Likewise, he said he would like to help build better communications between the community and county leaders and staff.

“If we were able to establish a better level of communications between public and private sectors and the County of Lake then I think we would be better off,” he said. “We would have far less frustration and angst and excuse-making and blaming and all the other things that go along with the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing.”

He suggested that better communications within the county government itself would benefit everyone. “If government is ever going to work reasonably well, then there has to be a way for it to internally communicate with itself.”

Stark said he's been to about 85 percent of the Board of Supervisors meetings since 2005, and he sees these issues often cited.

For his own district he's written an operations manual; he suggested similar guidelines would benefit the county, along with interdepartmental meetings.

Likewise, he emphasized the importance of the county's leadership being receptive to peoples' opinions and concerns, whether they're expressed directly to staff or at public meetings.

County residents should have a reasonable expectation of being treated politely and with respect, Stark said. “I've seen people dismissed and patronized and I don't like it.”

He added, “Government is responsible to the people.”

Regarding water, Stark said, “The biggest water issue is for us to ascertain just how much water there is.”

He suggests highly technical groundwater studies are needed to assist the county in charting its course.

In addition, the water managers who met on Nov. 30 are putting together five years of nitrate test results, he said. Nitrates are contaminants caused by many different things – from organic materials filtering into a well to failing septic tanks.

That information would be important to the county, especially planners, when considering development plans, Stark suggested.

The work of setting up a supervisorial campaign is just getting under way, said Stark. “We're still setting up. We're getting signatures for our in-lieu of petition.”

The period to gather signatures in lieu of paying the fee to run for supervisor – about $600 – began Dec. 28 and ends Feb. 21, according to Fridley. The nomination period, during which candidates must officially file to run, begins Feb. 11 and ends March 7.

The primary election for the supervisorial race will take place in June. If one of the candidates wins by 51 percent or more, the election will be settled then; otherwise, the race moves to a final vote in November.

Stark said fundraising is one of the hardest things to do.

However, he's looking forward to the campaign, especially pounding the pavement and shaking hands. He plans to step up his work later this month.

“After the presidential primary, people will be freed up a bit,” he said.

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

{mos_sb_discuss:2}

On Jan. 15 the board took lengthy public testimony on developer Mark Mitchell's Eachus View Estates subdivision.

On Sept. 27, 2007, the Planning Commission approved Mitchell's proposal to subdivide a 90-acre parcel zoned for agricultural into four residential parcels ranging in size between 2.13 and 3 acres, each with building envelopes, and one agricultural parcel of 76.15 acres. The property in question is located at 3453, 3565, 3585 and 3595 Hill Road in Lakeport.

Neighbors Johnnie Lee, Brad Peters and Harry Whitlock appealed the decision, which sent the subdivision to the Board of Supervisors.

Both the Lake County Farm Bureau and Sierra Club Lake Group have come out against the project, citing concerns about rezoning agricultural land for subdivisions, protection of prime soils and insufficient agricultural buffers, among other things.

Sierra Club Chair Victoria Brandon also pointed to important biological resources on the land, such as Eachus Lake, a large vernal pool.

Mitchell contended that the land has not been used for any significant agricultural use and that it isn't likely to be farmed actively in the future.

Eachus View Estates would be located within the district of Supervisor Anthony Farrington, who was absent from the Jan. 15 meeting due to a family health emergency. The board held off on a decision because they were concerned that if they voted it might end in a tie.

The board will continue the public hearing at 9:45 a.m. Tuesday, Feb. 5. The meeting will be televised on TV Channel 8.

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

{mos_sb_discuss:3}