CLEARLAKE, Calif. – The Clearlake City Council last Thursday gave its approval to a second and final reading of an ordinance to place a sales tax measure before the voters in November.
Councilwoman Jeri Spittler acted against the majority of the council by casting the only dissenting vote on the item.
“I can't believe you are doing this again,” Councilman Joey Luiz said to Spittler. “That you would go against what (the council) is trying to accomplish.”
Passage of the ordinance will place “Measure R” on the November ballot as a specific transaction and use sales tax, proposed at a half-cent.
A successful initiative would generate an estimated $760,000 annually for use in citywide clean up and improvement.
Similar initiatives have been presented to the voters in recent elections, the most previous being Measure H, which showed majority support but fell 177 votes short of gaining the two-thirds vote it needed to pass as a specific tax.
After the narrow defeat of Measure H last November, the council held several public discussions, including a town hall meeting, in which it attempted to identify the public's will regarding if and how the council should proceed with presentation of a new sales tax initiative.
Discussions resulted in the identification of public support for continuing efforts to secure sales tax revenues to improve the city. However, results also showed a public desire to change the initiative.
Mayor Denise Loustalot had said early in the series of discussions that, regardless of how it proceeds, she wanted to ensure individual members of the council would uphold the decisions made by the whole.
Spittler had actively opposed Measure H, and had placed a “No on H” sign in the window of her business on Lakeshore Drive, the city's main thoroughfare.
Measure H had sought a one-percent specific sales tax for road improvements (75 percent) and code enforcement/animal control (25 percent).
Spittler had taken particular issue with which roads would benefit from the sales tax. Continued discussions led to identification of a public desire to remove the road component and reduce the sales tax to a half-cent. Public input also placed higher priority on code enforcement and crime suppression.
Mike Vandiver, who campaigned for the passage of the Measure H, said during the March 13 community meeting that code enforcement is the priority and splitting the tax would allow time to then develop a better plan for the roads.
Luiz and Councilwoman Joyce Overton had agreed with Vandiver's assessment.
“My research shows, (constituents) want code enforcement,” Overton said on March 13. “Not just code enforcement, they want a task force. They want to be safe.”
Spittler first took issue with the term “task force” when it was introduced as reconciliation to presenting the initiative as a general tax in relation to a Measure P, which currently requires 63-percent of the general fund be directly allocated to the police department.
Formation of a task force was to provide compliance with Measure P while providing a means to fund the services for which the tax was intended.
Several members of the public urged the council against seeking a general tax throughout the continued discussions.
Vice Mayor Gina Fortino Dickson had suggested doing so because the council's option to place a general tax is limited and the next opportunity would not return for two years. A general tax, which could be passed with a simple majority vote, can only be placed on a ballot that includes council member elections.
During the council's May 22 discussion on the sales tax measure, after it was decided that a general tax would not be sought, Spittler – raising the issue of the tax going to fund a task force under the police department – questioned why the city would not specify funds will pay the salary of one officer.
Fortino Dickson had responded during that discussion, saying she saw no point in specifying funds for a “police officer” when one of the reasons cited for not pursuing a general tax is because allocation requirements of Measure P.
She said needs of the program are likely to change and while the need for a police officer may exist in the beginning, program needs may change.
Fortino Dickson also had said the proposal should be written in such a way that allows for best operation in compliance with a voter-approved expenditure plan.
While the requirement for direct allocation to the police department has been eliminated with the proposal of a specific tax, the team concept remains; however, it is now identified as the Problem Oriented Solving Team (POST) in the new measure. POST is to address code enforcement, animal control and crime reduction.
Projected costs; sunset clause added
City Manager Joan Phillipe said that in the first several years the measure is in place, costs in some areas may be higher than in future years as equipment, contracts, achievements and targets are realized. The city would anticipate revenues about six months after implementation.
The expenditure plan for the POST in 2015-16 allocates anticipated revenues as follows: team personnel, $240,000; animal control, $142,000; training, $15,000; materials/supplies/vehicle(s), $60,000; contract services (towing), $40,000; abatement, $100,000; and contingency for cost allocation and other potential costs (i.e. legal expenses, noticing, community clean up day), $163,000.
Phillipe said the allocation for abatement would act as “seed money.”
Abatement expenses would be placed on the property tax rolls, she said, and ultimately returned to the city.
A 10-year sunset clause is added to the new initiative and will require review after five years to determine if the tax should be lowered to a quarter cent.
At the May 22 meeting, District 2 Supervisor Jeff Smith had suggested review after five years with the possibility of lowering the tax in response to Spittler when she suggested the sunset clause be set at five years and that it be proposed at a quarter cent.
Additionally, the new proposal requires the formation of an oversight committee for annual review of expenditures.
Throughout the series of discussions both Spittler and Overton said they opposed a general tax; however, the latter said on Feb. 27 – after the council voted 3-2 to seek a general tax in the June election – that she would uphold the council's decision and do what she could to support the effort.
Prior to open discussion on July 10, before the ordinance had its first reading, Overton said she did not think the community wanted to be subjected to another tax proposal.
However, after hearing public comments, which included those requesting another chance to pass it, she said she could support another initiative if there were increased participation from the council and the public to educate the voters about the proposal.
Spittler, who was not present for the July 10 meeting, has adamantly opposed a general tax. However, at no point during the discussions did she say directly that she would not support a specific tax.
Luiz said the council has made every effort to address Spittler's concerns and voiced his frustration with her opposition to the council.
“In Measure H, it was the roads,” he said.
“I am not going to endorse it. I'm just not comfortable putting a tax out there when (the voters) already said no twice,” Spittler said. “If this is what you want to do, this is your decision. You have your decision; you have yours and I have mine.”
Loustalot said the proposal has been changed to please the public.
Fortino Dickson voiced a need for unity and participation among members of the council. She requested clarification regarding what actions each of them may take as members of the council in relation to the ballot campaign.
City Attorney Ryan Jones said he will provide a short presentation regarding the appropriate actions of members of the council in promoting the initiative.
An impartial analysis by the city attorney is due by Aug. 7 as are arguments for and against the proposed measure. Rebuttal arguments are due by Aug. 18.
Email Denise Rockenstein at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .