The Clearlake court division, located on South Center Drive, houses Judge Stephen Hedstrom’s Department 4 courtroom as well as a Lake County Sheriff’s substation.

Clearlake Police and Lake County Fire Protection District firefighters were called to the scene at about 3:30 p.m., according to Fire Chief Willie Sapeta.

Sapeta said firefighters and police stood by at a nearby bus yard next to Yuba College’s Clear Lake Campus on Dam Road Extension, just around the corner from the courthouse, as the building was cleared.

The threat was unfounded and emergency personnel were released from the scene at 4 p.m., Sapeta said.

Additional information about the threat itself was not immediately available Thursday.

E-mail Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . Follow Lake County News on Twitter at http://twitter.com/LakeCoNews, on Tumblr at www.lakeconews.tumblr.com, on Google+, on Facebook at www.facebook.com/pages/Lake-County-News/143156775604?ref=mf and on YouTube at www.youtube.com/user/LakeCoNews .

“Basically the decision has ended redevelopment in California,” Lakeport Community Development and Redevelopment Director Richard Knoll said Thursday.

“We were certainly hoping this would not be the result,” said Lake County Administrative Officer Kelly Cox, who added that he and his staff were in shock over the decision. “This is the worst case scenario.”

It’s also left local officials trying to sort out an uncertain future, and what will happen to important redevelopment-owned properties in the cities of Lakeport and Clearlake, as well as along the county’s Northshore.

Cox said he and his staff are working through the decision and reviewing the legislation to understand what’s in store for Lake County.

“We’ve got a lot of work to do now, and we have to do it quickly,” he said.

It’s the same in Lakeport. “I think from our perspective making our way through this opinion and what it means to us will be our focus over the next few days,” said Knoll.

At stake are projects like the Lucerne Hotel – proposed to be a college campus – and Clearlake Oaks’ new senior center, parks in Clearlake Oaks and Lucerne, and downtown improvement projects in Lakeport and Clearlake.

Interim Clearlake City Administrator Joan Phillipe said she found the court’s decision “extremely disappointing.”

“Redevelopment has been an asset for this city,” she said, adding that the expectation was that the city would continue using redevelopment.

Gov. Jerry Brown, who started out his term earlier this year by announcing that he wanted to abolish redevelopment completely, welcomed the decision.

“Today’s ruling by the California Supreme Court validates a key component of the state budget and guarantees more than a billion dollars of ongoing funding for schools and public safety,” he said in a statement issued by his office.

“Now he’s got exactly what he wanted,” Cox said of Brown.

The California Redevelopment Association, which was the lead plaintiff on the lawsuit against the state over redevelopment bills passed as part of the state budget process this summer, called the decision the “devastating.”

The association, along with another plaintiff in the case, the League of Cities, reported in the wake of the decision that they were calling on the state Legislature to convene “to fix this worst case outcome.”

“Redevelopment is indispensable to cities to spur economic development, create jobs and improve communities,” said League of California Cities Chris McKenzie.

Interpreting the legislation

In July 2011, the California Redevelopment Association, League of California Cities, and the cities of San Jose and Union City filed California Redevelopment Agency v. Matosantos to challenge the constitutionality of ABX1 26 and ABX1 27.

ABX1 26 eliminates redevelopment; at the same time, the Legislature passed AB1X 27, which allows agencies to continue to operate if they paid a total of $1.7 billion in this fiscal year and $400 million to schools and special districts in subsequent years.

The California Redevelopment Association argued that both bills violated 2004’s Proposition 1A, which protects local government revenues; Proposition 22, passed in November 2010, which prevents the state from borrowing from local governments; and Article 16 Section 16 of the California Constitution, which explains tax increment revenue, the amount of increased property tax value due to redevelopment activities.

The state Supreme Court’s 83-page decision, which can be viewed below, upholds AB1X 26, noting that the Legislature "may, but need not, authorize redevelopment agencies."

At the same time, a majority of the court ruled that ABX1 27 was unconstitutional, finding that it violated a subdivision of Article XIII of the California Constitution, which had been added to the constitution by Proposition 22, meant to stop the state from borrowing from local governments.

Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, writing for the dissenting justices, disagreed with the majority’s conclusion that AB1X 27 is unconstitutional.

“The language of Proposition 22 constrains the Legislature from requiring ‘a community redevelopment agency’ from making certain allocations of its tax increment, either ‘directly or indirectly,’ she wrote. “Proposition 22 does not address a local ‘legislative body’ nor does it address in any respect the use of otherwise unrelated local revenue to pay a ‘levy’ on tax increment funds.”

The California Redevelopment Association said immediate legislative action is needed, and it’s calling on members, local governments and redevelopment allies to contact legislators to revive redevelopment. Its board of directors and staff also have begun implementing an aggressive plan to restore redevelopment.

“CRA is ready and willing to engage in immediate dialogue with Legislators and the governor on a meaningful ‘fix’ to this problem,” said Jim Kennedy, the association’s interim executive director. “We have ideas for ways to restore redevelopment while also providing the state budgetary relief in a manner that doesn’t violate Prop 22. Time is of the essence, and the future of California’s economy is at stake. We hope legislators will do the right thing, for the sake of our future.”

The association said that lawmakers made clear that the legislative vote was intended only to extract revenues from redevelopment agencies, not abolish them altogether.

“[T]his bill is the fair and right choice because it does not in fact eliminate redevelopment but it reduces its size,” they quoted Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg as saying at the time.

Assemblyman Wes Chesbro’s office did not respond to request for comment from Lake County News on Thursday.

However, during an interview with Lake County News at the Lucerne Hotel in August, Chesbro said that while the governor had wanted to completely abolish redevelopment, “We said no,” he said of the Legislature.

He said redevelopment has been useful, but also has been abused, and that it was siphoning money from the state budget, schools and special districts which, during the financial hard times, was difficult to justify.

Rather than do away with it completely, Chesbro said the Legislature devised the compromise – requiring the annual payments – to keep redevelopment.

It was just one of many hard votes that had to be taken in the state budget process, he said.

Cox said he took his concerns about redevelopment’s future to both Chesbro and state Sen. Noreen Evans before the Supreme Court decision was reached, and felt they were receptive.

Local prospects appear grim

Redevelopment projects around the county and the state stopped in their tracks over the summer, with a stay resulting from the California Redevelopment Association’s lawsuit.

In Clearlake, Phillipe said there is nothing currently in the works, although they had been trying to move forward on some low-income housing projects.

Knoll said Lakeport has a number of projects – including one to improve the downtown area’s streets and sidewalks, and the facade improvement program – either under way or being contemplated.

In Lucerne, the renovation of the Lucerne Hotel – which had progressed rapidly since the Lake County Redevelopment Agency purchased it in 2010 – also ground to a halt due to the stay on work.

That put a serious wrinkle in the county’s effort to work out a partnership agreement with Southern California-based Marymount College, which is considering having a college campus at the 1920s-era building, known to the community as “The Castle.”

“My main concern right now is what’s going to happen with the Castle,” Cox said.

This fall the Board of Supervisors, at Cox’s suggestion, had agreed to support the county moving forward in a partnership with Marymount College in the event that redevelopment no longer existed.

“Hopefully there is still a way we can work it out,” he said.

Other significant assets include the land on which the new Clearlake Oaks senior center is slated to be built, a project years in the making, along with Holiday Harbor in Nice and Clarks Island in Clearlake Oaks, Cox said.

Then there is the Lucerne Promenade, composed of lakeside properties the county and the redevelopment agency has purchased. Cox said those have been used to develop the town’s parks, with some of those redevelopment-owned parcels in the midst of developed park areas.

What would happen to those properties is one of the unknowns that Cox believes will have to be cleared up through new legislation.

“Every asset that the agency owns now is going to be impacted by this,” said Cox.

Unless there is subsequent legislation, Cox said all of the agency’s Northshore assets are in jeopardy, as the legislation calls for agency assets to be disposed of at fair market value.

He said the legislation also provides for an oversight committee composed of representatives from the county, the Lake County schools superintendent, the largest special district in the redevelopment area and community colleges to oversee how the assets are disposed of as the agency phases out.

He said the legislation doesn’t make clear just how much latitude that committee has in its decision making.

There are still “enforceable obligations,” such as bond payments, that will need to continue, said Cox. But redevelopment funds now largely will be dispersed back to other taxing agencies, such as schools.

He said he and his staff have further analysis to do in order to determine just exactly what will happen with agency assets when the agency ends in February 2012.

Knoll said the city of Lakeport is not in a position to lose assets such as parks. “We put our funding primarily in projects.”

Clearlake potentially has a few property assets that could be of issue, said Phillipe, and she’ll be discussing them with the Clearlake City Council at the council’s next meeting in January.

Possibly among those fixed assets are the city’s corporation yard and Clearlake City Hall. Phillipe said she is working to ascertain how much, if any, redevelopment money was spent to develop those properties.

Phillipe said the successor agency – which will be responsible for paying outstanding indebtedness incurred by the agency – will have to make the final determination regarding the disposition of any city redevelopment agency-owned assets.

The Lake County Redevelopment Agency, which just marked its 10th year, has brought “dramatic improvement” to the Northshore at an incredibly rapid pace, said Cox.

“I’m very thankful for what we’ve achieved in the time the agency has existed,” he said.

He said there is still much to do, and he felt it was sad to be stopped only 10 years into the plan’s 30-year implementation.

Cox said he didn’t find it appropriate when some agencies attempted to transfer funds and assets to keep them from the state, adding that he believes local governments need to participate to a reasonable extent in helping to address the state’s budget problems. “We all are in this together.

He added, however, that eliminating redevelopment isn’t reasonable.

Knoll, who like Phillipe also called the California Supreme Court decision “disappointing,” pointed out that Redevelopment has been active in California for more than 50 years, with 400 agencies – big and small – doing significant amounts of projects and putting people to work.

“That all ends today with decision,” he said.

John Jensen contributed to this report.

E-mail Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . Follow Lake County News on Twitter at http://twitter.com/LakeCoNews, on Tumblr at www.lakeconews.tumblr.com, on Google+, on Facebook at www.facebook.com/pages/Lake-County-News/143156775604?ref=mf and on YouTube at www.youtube.com/user/LakeCoNews .

122911 Cal. Redevelopment Assoc. v. Matosantos

Earlier this month, the Judicial Council of California endorsed several cost-cutting measures for court construction while affirming its commitment to much-needed improvements in the judicial branch’s statewide infrastructure.

The council approved recommendations from the 25-member Court Facilities Working Group to cancel two construction projects in Alpine and Sierra counties – estimated to save more than $50 million – and to look for ways to save money on the other 39 projects on the drawing board that are funded under SB 1407.

Those fiscal measures are necessary because the state Legislature has borrowed or redirected more than $500 million from the SB 1407 fund – specifically created to support courthouse construction – into the state general fund or to court operations this fiscal year, state judicial officials reported.

The Judicial Council said that more than $1.1 billion in courthouse construction funds has been borrowed, redirected or swept into the general fund since 2009.

The Judicial Council also cleared the way for 33 projects to proceed without any delays, while six will have a short-term delay of a few months, until the start of the next fiscal year when court-collected revenue should again be available to allow them to go forward, the council reported.

Among the projects to see a minor delay is a new $55 million, 50,000-square-foot courthouse to be built at 675 Lakeport Blvd. in Lakeport.

Teresa Ruano, a spokesperson for the Administrative Office of the Courts, said the Lakeport courthouse is in the first phase of architectural design, or the preliminary plans phase, which she said isn’t scheduled for completion until the last quarter of this fiscal year, or the spring of 2012.

Once the plans are completed, she said there will be a slight delay of a few months until the new fiscal year starts in July 2012.The next phase, working drawings, is the last phase before construction.

Mary Smith, chief executive officer of the Lake County Superior Court, told Lake County News that the project is continuing to move forward, and that court officials are optimistic that it will stay on track, despite the planned delay.

“A couple months’ delay is not a bad thing, all things considered,” she said.

Ruano explained that the Judicial Council’s actions included a 4-percent cut to all projects, of which 2 percent is in construction costs, with 2 percent to come from savings to be achieved in an owner-controlled insurance program. Those cuts are estimated to save $160 million statewide.

The council also announced the formation of a courthouse cost reduction subcommittee, to be chaired by Justice Jeffrey Johnson, associate justice of the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District in Los Angeles.

The subcommittee will review all new courthouse projects for ways to further reduce costs without compromising safety or security, officials reported.

“All of the projects will be looked at by this cost reduction subcommittee,” including Lake’s, said Ruano.

She said she believes the subcommittee will look for cuts early in the design process, noting that it gets more expensive to make changes the further the process proceeds.

Also at its meeting this month, the council discussed cuts to repair funding – $30 million this year, down by 40 percent – needed to keep 500 buildings maintained statewide.

Many of those buildings suffer from deferred maintenance, “a legacy of neglect reaching back years before they were transferred to the state,” the Judicial Council reported.

The council directed the Administrative Office of the Courts to seek additional funding through the Legislature for courthouse operations and maintenance, as well as to pursue legislative measures that would give the judicial branch greater flexibility in allocating funds among various facility needs, officials reported.

The Alliance of California Judges has been highly critical of the state judicial branch’s handling of its finances, in particular the California Court Case Management System, which would link court records statewide and is estimated could cost into the billions to implement.

The group also has questioned what it called “the exorbitant costs of courthouse construction and maintenance.”

In a Dec. 16 message to its members, the directors of the group indicated they were pleased that the cost-cutting committee had been formed, one of some “common sense actions” they commended the Judicial Council for taking.

E-mail Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . Follow Lake County News on Twitter at http://twitter.com/LakeCoNews, on Tumblr at www.lakeconews.tumblr.com, on Google+, on Facebook at www.facebook.com/pages/Lake-County-News/143156775604?ref=mf and on YouTube at www.youtube.com/user/LakeCoNews .

During the early morning hours on Wednesday Officer Mike Ray and Officer Bradlee Middletown responded to the Clearlake Apartments for a report of a stabbing victim, according to a report from Clearlake Police.

The report said officers were advised that two other subjects involved had fled the scene prior to their arrival.

When officers arrived they located a male, identified as 24-year-old Clearlake resident David Almond, who had numerous lacerations on his buttocks and legs and wounds to his face and head, police said.

Almond was uncooperative in the investigation and would not provide law enforcement with any information or assistance with the investigation, according to the report.

Clearlake Police said Almond initially was transported by medical staff to St. Helena Hospital Clearlake and later transported to Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital for treatment of his injuries. Almond was listed to be in stable condition on Wednesday afternoon.

Police said witnesses in the case were located and interviewed, and it was determined that Almond did not live in the apartment where police had located him.

Through their investigation the officers determined the apartment belonged to Clearlake residents Gary Selsar, 21, and his brother Zachary Moore, 24, and Selsar’s girlfriend. Police said Selsar and Moore were identified as the two subjects who left the residence prior to police arrival.

Detectives Tim Alvarado and Ryan Peterson later were called in to assist with the investigation, and police said Selsar and Moore contacted the Clearlake Police Department for interview.

As a result of the investigation and interviews it was determined that Almond allegedly had gone to the apartment to confront Selsar, according to the police report.

Almond allegedly entered the apartment and attacked Selsar with a baseball bat while he was sleeping, police said. Moore awoke to the commotion and assisted Selsar with defending himself against Almond.

As a result of the altercation, Almond sustained numerous injuries and Selsar and Moore fled the scene to get away from Almond and any other potential threats, police reported.

The weapons involved were later recovered as evidence in regard to this case. In addition, police said both Moore and Selsar were released without charges at this time.

Based on the investigation, it is believed that Almond entered the residence armed with a metal bat to attack Selsar, according to police. Subsequently, Moore came to the assistance of Selsar to defend against the attack from Almond where he sustained his injuries.

The Clearlake Police statement indicated the case will be sent to the Lake County District Attorney’s Office for review and possible charges.

Anyone with information about this case is asked to contact the Clearlake Police Department’s Investigation Unit at 707-994-8251.

Follow Lake County News on Twitter at http://twitter.com/LakeCoNews, on Tumblr at www.lakeconews.tumblr.com, on Google+, on Facebook at www.facebook.com/pages/Lake-County-News/143156775604?ref=mf and on YouTube at www.youtube.com/user/LakeCoNews .

These new “vet courts” are the result of planning and collaboration between local veterans services advocates, the California Department of Veterans Affairs (CalVet), and Superior Court judges.

Over the past year, CalVet has worked with individual counties to help set up these vet courts, which take a veteran’s psychological and physical issues into account when that individual has broken the law.

“Riverside and El Dorado counties are the most recent counties that have committed to helping our veterans in this manner,” said CalVet Secretary, Peter Gravett. “There are now 15 counties that have vet courts or something similar. Our goal is to have Vet Courts in at least 20 counties by this summer, while still pushing to open more.”

Vet courts are designed to focus on the specialized needs of veterans who may be suffering from service-related disabilities or illnesses.

Due to the complexities of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), traumatic brain injury, and military sexual trauma, men and women who have served their country in a war zone often go for months, or even years, before any trauma manifests itself.

Many veterans are finding themselves in trouble with local law enforcement after making poor decisions that may have been the result of issues like PTSD.

Vet courts work to offer veterans the help they need while providing them a path to avoid the pitfalls that keep them in the criminal justice system or on the streets.

Most veterans will be eligible for these treatment courts, unless their crimes involve capitol offenses or sexual assault. While this program has stricter requirements than the typical courts, many of these vet courts offer probation in place of imprisonment and the potential to have charges reduced or dropped if veterans complete the programs designated for them.

For more information about vet courts, contact This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..