On Tuesday the Board of Supervisors voted to send the city a letter to Lakeport stating if the funds aren't received by June 1 the county will terminate animal control for the city.

Doug Willardson of the County Administrative Office told the board that the county has provided Lakeport with animal control for the last 20 years. However, for the 2007-08 fiscal year, City Manager Jerry Gillham had refused to sign a contract with the county, said Willardson.

Gillham told Lake County News he refused to sign the new contract because it called for a 26-percent cost increase, from $53,964 to $71,867, from the previous fiscal year.

The city of Clearlake pays $207,324 per year, Willardson told Lake County News.

Willardson told the board that the increases were necessitated by the increase in costs for Animal Care and Control.

Gillham has been paying the county for services on a month-by-month basis at last year's rate, $4,497 monthly. But Willardson and county Chief Administrative Officer Kelly Cox said that, whether or not the city signed the contract, it still owed $5,989 a month.

Over the last 10 months, the city has amassed back payments of $14,920, and still hasn't paid for April, Willardson reported.

Board Chair Ed Robey asked if anyone in the audience was there to represent the city. No one was.

Gillham told Lake County News he didn't know about the meeting, which is why he didn't attend.

Willardson said the county has sent two letters to the city asking to rectify the back payments, but neither elicited a response.

Supervisor Anthony Farrington, in whose district Lakeport is located, said he has been in conversation with Gillham and Councilman Roy Parmentier about a number of issues, and wanted to hold off doing anything until the city and county had a chance to hold a joint meeting.

“We haven't afforded them an opportunity and they have some concerns about this contract,” said Farrington, adding that waiting to take action was in the best interests of keeping a “positive relationship” with Lakeport.

Other board members expressed puzzlement and pointed to a breakdown in communications between the two governing agencies.

“My first reaction when I read this is, what the heck is this?” said Supervisor Denise Rushing.

She added that she didn't know if delaying was the right thing to do, but said, “The relationship isn't totally working.” Like Farrington, she suggested having a joint meeting to get “everything out on the table.”

Farrington said the need to meet later that day over a traffic impact fee study had trumped a joint meeting he had hoped to see take place.

Cox, however, said Willardson has been pursuing an answer from the city for months, and he suggested that simply replying to the county shouldn't require an act of the City Council.

“We're just at the end of our rope in not knowing what to do,” Cox said. The refusal to pay was taking money away from other services, liked Mental Health.

Supervisor Rob Brown agreed, pointing out that the owed money could provide mental health services to 18 children for a month.

He said he was offended that Gillham, who was two blocks away, wouldn't make any contact with the county over the issue.

Farrington said the city had made contact with him and he was trying to help work it out.

Brown, however, offered harsh criticism for Gillham and his interaction with the county and its employees.

“The thing that bothers me is we've had a really good relationship with the the city of Lakeport in years past,” he said. “Now, all of a sudden, there's some kind of strained relationship. And I don't think it's with the City Council or the city attorney. I think we've had a good relationship with them and we continue to have. But for some reason or another the city manager – there's a disconnect there.

“And I've actually had discussions with him about this, and I've heard his comment about not being able to cooperate with some county employees, department heads, only to find out he'd never even met them, never even talked to them on the phone,” Brown added.

Brown said he did believe the joint meeting needed to happen, because he didn't feel the City Council was fully aware of the situation.

Supervisor Jeff Smith said the amount of money the county has spent on its new shelter building isn't being reflected in the current payments from Lakeport and Clearlake. He said the cities are getting a good deal for the services they're receiving.

If Lakeport didn't pay its bill, Smith wondered aloud if the county should drop off on the City Hall steps all the dogs from Lakeport that they've picked up.

Cox said it's the city's choice if it wants to eventually pursue providing its own animal control services. “I don't think the county has a burning desire to provide animal control services to Lakeport,” he said.

However, if the county will no longer need to provide the services, adjustments need to be made to Animal Care and Control's budget.

Farrington once again asked for a delay. “Putting this off for two or three weeks, I don't think is a financial hardship.”

He added that the City Council is aware of the situation. “I committed to them to get a joint discussion put together,” he said, adding that the animal control issue would be on that agenda.

Brown said he wasn't willing to negotiate a bill the city clearly owes.

Farrington suggested there could be some larger bills the county owes the city. Brown said he'd like to know what those were.

Brown moved to send the city the letter requesting payment by June or else services would be terminated. The board voted 4-1 to do so, with Farrington voting no.

Gillham told Lake County News that he has been discussing his concerns with animal control costs with Farrington, as well as a joint meeting.

He said that he isn't planning on writing the county a check for the outstanding $14,920. Rather, he wants to have a joint meeting. “We'll wait and talk to them about it.”

Regarding Brown's comments about him, Gillham said, “I guess I live in a different world. I'm trying to balance the budget and do the best I can at managing a city without taking shots at anybody.”

E-mail Elizabeth Larson at This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it .

Discuss this article on the forums. (0 posts)

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (2)

Subscribe to this comment's feed