LAKEPORT, Calif. – The Lakeport City Council voted during a special Tuesday evening meeting to approve a resolution to submit an application to the Lake Local Agency Formation Commission to annex 136 acres along South Main Street.
The south Lakeport annexation area has been a point of contention between the city and the county of Lake for nearly a decade.
The 50-parcel area is estimated to be the unincorporated county’s most lucrative commercial corridor, and therefore the county has been loathe to part with it.
About 20 people attended the special meeting, among them District 4 Supervisor Tina Scott and District 1 Supervisor Moke Simon, both of whom asked the council not to approve the resolution, and the council heard from business and property owners that both favored it and those that didn’t.
The area has been in the city’s proposed sphere of influence since the early 1980s.
Community Development Director Kevin Ingram said the city already provides wastewater treatment for the area, and plans include installing a water main throughout the annexation area in 2021 in conjunction with the South Main Street improvement project.
Ingram said the city and county entered into preannexation agreements in 1997, 2001 and 2002, which the city maintains remain valid.
The 1997 agreement in particular was raised repeatedly throughout the meeting as a key supporting document in the city’s plans. It can be found on page 118 of the staff report below. It calls for the city to pay the county $210,000 in tax revenue over seven years to offset the loss of the sales tax.
Ingram said the city’s general plan anticipates the south Lakeport area’s annexation, and so the city updated its sphere of influence and adopted prezoning predesignations for south Lakeport in 2015 in preparation for annexation.
“The timing is critical for moving forward with getting annexation completed,” Ingram said, noting the water project needs to get done. He said the city already is in the process of looping its existing water system.
Ingram said benefits for property owners in the annexation area include no property tax increases, enhanced police services, the ability to connect to the city’s water system, installation of fire hydrants to improve fire safety, continuation of cost-effective sewer service by the city, faster building permit turnaround and the ability to take part in Lakeport elections.
He said current city residents also will benefit with increased water reliability and a reduction in maintenance costs.
The action requested of the council on Tuesday – approval of the resolution to apply for annexation to the Lake Local Agency Formation Commission, or LAFCo – was the first of a two-step process. The second step – annexation approval – is up to LAFCo, he said.
It’s anticipated that LAFCo will begin a review process that will last through the end of the year. Ingram said the matter likely won’t be on a LAFCo agenda until early 2020.
A fiscal analysis completed for the city by Applied Development Economics Inc. said the county would have an $8,500 annual deficit following the annexation, which would be covered by the $210,000 in tax sharing payments, Ingram said.
Council hears from supervisors, property owners
During public comment, Supervisor Scott told the council, “This is a very charged topic as you know.”
She said she thinks constituents are best served when the city and county governments communicate and partner.
Referring to the 1997 preannexation agreement, Scott said it’s the county’s position that it’s not valid due to material changes in the intervening years.
While the city is proposing to pay $210,000 over seven years, Scott said that’s a fraction of the $450,000 to $500,000 in annual sales tax losses the county would experience.
“We need to reset. Vote no on this resolution,” she said.
Scott Lotter, president and owner of the Lakeport Cinema 5 and Lakeport Auto Movies, the drive-in next door, told the council, “This is long overdue.”
Lotter said that, 23 years ago when his company proposed to build the cinema, there was talk of the annexation. Since then, he said the county has drug its feet on the matter.
“The biggest thing for us is the water,” he said, explaining that he spends a small fortune – thousands of dollars a month – on services including water testing and filtration because of water quality issues with the property’s wells. The costs have hampered more developing, remodeling, renovation and landscaping.
A reliable source of water changes the economic game, Lotter said, adding that his stock and trade is popcorn and sodas.
Supervisor Simon said the city’s annexation application suggests the parties have agreed, when they haven’t.
Referring to the 1997 agreement, Simon said, “The agreement is no foundation at all at this point.”
He asked that the city and county work together for Lakeport residents, adding that they have some real opportunities to benefit everyone. “And the resolution before you isn't the answer.”
Business owner Paul Racine said he presented a survey of property owners to city and county officials in March of 2012 that showed a majority didn’t support annexation. Racine said the information remains basically the same today.
Michael Green, a city planning commissioner, supported the resolution, saying he wanted to get the matter on the table.
Besides input from property owners, Green said there was another key metric – what the vision is for the city of Lakeport. “So far the city has no influence in its own sphere of influence.”
He added, “I would ask that if you support the idea of community identity, if you support the idea of local control, you advance this to the next step.”
Advancing the annexation gets everyone to the table, he said. If it doesn’t fly, at least there will have been an informed debate instead of relying on 20-year-old debates.
Beyond services, Green urged them to consider what the council’s desire is, such as creating a brighter future for the city and growing into the space that the city has the chance to grow into.
“The resolution doesn't bind you to any particular course of action,” he said.
Justin Hamaker, manager of Lakeport Cinema 5, also is a state-certified water treatment operator and told the council about the water issues the theater and drive-in have had with their wells, which have high mineral content. The water quality means they have to spend more money on replacing and fixing equipment.
Business owner Nancy Ruzicka said she is against annexation, telling the council she is concerned about the city taking care of the land it already has, and wanting them to support Main Street merchants.
Council agrees on need, willing to continue negotiations
Councilman Kenny Parlet said he thinks the city and county need to work together but felt the sphere of influence is where the city needs to grow.
“We need to do it and we need to do it now,” he said.
Parlet said he also had concerns about the 1997 agreement. He said he resented the fact that the sales tax money the county gets from south Lakeport doesn’t go back into the area, but at the same time said a tax sharing agreement that's more amenable to Lake County is something he thinks is a necessity.
City Manager Margaret Silveira said the city can continue moving forward with its annexation application while also continuing the conversation with the county.
Mayor Tim Barnes asked how long the city and county have been meeting. Silveira said for years the city tried to get the county to the table. Once they did sit down to talk, they’ve had two meetings. While she said she wanted to continue talking to the county, she held that the 1997 agreement allows the city to move forward.
Councilwoman Stacey Mattina said the city has been offering the county a better tax share agreement for about eight years. “The county has not been willing to look at any of those offers.”
She said the only way to advance the city’s plans is to move forward with this agreement.
“A city's single greatest right is to grow,” she said, adding that the best tool for economic development is annexation, and that the annexation offers a boost to the entire county. “It should be a really, really exciting time for everybody.”
Councilwoman Mireya Turner, who formerly worked in the County Administrative Office, said she could attest to the continual start and stop on the matter.
Turner said the fire suppression benefits are important to her, and she also noted the issues with the two jurisdictions being involved in the wastewater system. She said she was comfortable moving forward and continuing negotiations.
Councilman George Spurr said fire safety is the most important issue for him. He also was OK with offering the county a better tax revenue share and said it’s LAFCo’s job to figure out if the agreements are legal or not.
Parlet said he felt Scott and Simon had brought a different climate to the discussion, noting more animosity with the county previously.
He asked City Attorney Davie Ruderman if he saw any issues with the 1997 agreement. Ruderman said that, in his assessment, it’s a valid agreement.
Mattina moved to approve the resolution, with Turner seconding and the council voting 5-0.
Also on Tuesday, the council unanimously approved a resolution declaring the council’s intent to form an underground utility district along 11th Street and North Main Street, and set a Sept. 3 public hearing.
Silveira said the district’s formation is to help protect more than $4,000 of the nearly $1 million in Rural 20 undergrounding funds the city has accumulated and which the California Public Utilities Commission wants to divert to a project in Live Oak.
After the 76-minute meeting, there are cordial discussions between Scott, Simon, council members and staff, who continued to indicate a desire to have further discussions regarding annexation.
Email Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Follow her on Twitter, @ERLarson, or Lake County News, @LakeCoNews.
081319 Lakeport City Council special meeting agenda packet by LakeCoNews on Scribd