CLEARLAKE, Calif. – Following a Thursday night public hearing, the Clearlake City Council approved the first reading of an ordinance that would put a new sales tax measure for roads and code enforcement on this November's ballot.
The one-percent sales tax, identical in form to last year's failed Measure G, would raise an estimated $1.4 million annually, with $1,050,000 to go to road maintenance and $357,000 to code enforcement services, according to City Manager Joan Phillipe's report to the council. The state Board of Equalization would administer the funds.
It would need to pass by a 66 percent supermajority, which would then allow for the road and code enforcement uses to be locked in, with the money not to be put to other uses.
At the council's June 27 meeting council members discussed the concept and directed staff to move forward on bringing back a new sales tax measure.
On Thursday night, in addition to deciding whether to approve the measure, the main question was when to schedule its appearance on the ballot.
Phillipe said there was the potential for Lake County Fire Protection District Board seats to be placed on the fall ballot, which would make it a consolidated election, however there had been no filings for any of the available five seats as of Thursday.
The Konocti County Water District has three seats up for reelection this fall, said Phillipe, but the three incumbents are all seeking reelection with no challengers so far. If none of the incumbents are opposed, she said there won't be an election.
If no other matters are scheduled to go on the November ballot, it would end up being a special election, Phillipe said.
While Phillipe said she didn't yet have an exact cost for a special election, she said the Lake County Registrar of Voters Office estimated the special election could cost the city nearly $28,000. She didn't have the cost available for a consolidated election.
The public comment on the proposed measure was nearly unanimous in support of putting it before voters, with the main point of difference being whether to pay for a special election.
There also was a concern that the fall schedule would not give enough time to educate the public about why the sales tax measure is needed.
Carl Webb, a city resident and proponent of the sales tax measure, said it's a start in the right direction for the city's failing pavement.
He said it's estimated that the city needs $17 million to bring its streets up to good condition. In five years of collecting the tax, the city would have about $5 million.
“We have to start somewhere. We're never going to have enough money to do all the roads in the city,” Webb said.
By becoming a “self help” city – the term for cities that establish their own sales tax measures – it could help generate grant funds for Clearlake, Webb said.
It won't solve all of the city's problems, but it will be a good start, said Webb, pointing out that Measure G only failed by 154 votes.
“The damage to your tires outweigh what you're going to spend on the sales tax,” Webb said.
He and other proponents of the tax pointed out that by going on the November ballot, Clearlake's measure would not be competing with other sales tax measures, unlike Measure G, which was on the ballot at the same time as a county measure for lake improvements, which also failed. Webb and other speakers suggested there could be more sales tax proposals by next June's ballot.
During the meeting questions arose about what roads would be repaired, whether the gravel roads would be paved and why the city had not taken responsibility for upgrading the many unpaved city roads.
In response to the historical questions relating to the streets, Caroline Chavez, who was on Clearlake's incorporation committee more than 30 years ago, told the council, “We only accepted the roads that were accepted by the county.”
Chavez – who works as the county's Public Services director – pointed out that road funding is complex. “We have a finite amount of money. It's not getting any better.”
She agreed with Webb that it was best to move sooner rather than later on the measure. “We don't need very many people to make this pass.”
Chuck Leonard, a former city councilman, addressed concerns by some that there could be an accountability issue. He said the city doesn't have discretion on how the funds will be used, with the state to audit the money the measure generates.
Leonard said there are “dire consequences” for using the money for anything other than roads and code enforcement if the measure is approved.
“I agree that we need to put this on the November ballot,” said Council member Joyce Overton, explaining that the city could lose half a million dollars by June if it waits.
She said the city would “definitely be accountable” regarding how it spent the money.
The condition of the roads, she said, causes her to spend as much as $500 a year on vehicle maintenance and tires.
Council member Gina Fortino Dickson said it now costs $4 per square foot for paving. While new pavement is very expensive, it isn't meant to last a lifetime and needs constant maintenance, she added.
She believed that, if a good plan is in place, there is enough time to educate the public and gather support for a November vote.
Vice Mayor Denise Loustalot said she felt the measure would fail if it waited until June, and a failure won't save the city any money.
Councilman Joey Luiz said he wanted to be ready for next spring's construction season – “right when we need it” – so he supported a November ballot measure.
“If we wait until June, when will we see that money? Oh, when we can do very little with it,” he said.
He criticized the campaign supporting Measure G for not doing a better job of promoting it but thinks the new effort will be better.
“It's worth the cost,” he added.
Mayor Jeri Spittler had issues with the measure. While she said the city needed the sales tax, she had concerns about low voter turnout and the need for more time to educate voters.
She also didn't support spending money for a special election in the event no other elections appear on the November ballot.
Earlier during the meeting, Phillipe had noted that the funds to pay for a special election would come from reserves. Referencing that statement, Spittler asked why they hadn't hired a code enforcement officer if they had reserves.
Loustalot agreed that money was a concern. “That is a big deal. I completely agree.”
However, she pointed out that hiring a code enforcement officer from reserves wasn't sustainable, while the sales tax measure would give the city a foundation to have a sustainable income for a code enforcement officer.
Phillipe said the city has $185,000 in reserves, which are meant for one-time expenses, not ongoing uses, such as paying for employee salaries.
Luiz said if they didn't put things on the ballot due to concerns about low voter turnout, they wouldn't vote on anything. He added that he felt people who vote are informed.
Overton moved to approve the measure's first reading, with Loustalot seconding.
The vote was 4-1, with Spittler voting no.
The measure will come back for its second and final reading at the council's meeting on Thursday, Aug. 8. That is one day before the deadline to have the measure submitted to the Lake County Registrar of Voters Office, according to Phillipe.
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.