LAKEPORT, Calif. – On Tuesday night the Lakeport City Council faced an unhappy crowd of dozens of city residents who came to lodge their protests over the city’s proposal to double water and sewer rates over the next five years.
In the end, after a public hearing that lasted nearly three and a half hours, council members decided to hold off on making a decision, choosing to continue the matter for two weeks while the council weighs the matter further.
City officials said more than 650 protests were filed in response to the rate hike proposal, with 300 of the protests submitted at the start of Tuesday night’s meeting. The invalid rate of the protests – which must be lodged by either a property owner or tenant in the city limits – was running at about 20 percent.
A total of 1,215 protests – 50 percent plus one – are needed to stop the hike from going forward, city administrative staff said Tuesday. However, no more protests will be taken, as the council closed public comment Tuesday night.
City officials say the rate increases are necessary to carry out 10 water and sewer projects, and meet state regulatory requirements.
Before taking public input, Utilities Director Mark Brannigan went over the city’s timeline for considering its rates, which began in July 2009. He said the city has seen a loss of revenue but also an increase in inflation during the recession.
In October 2009 the city held a public workshop to warn that a crisis was brewing, with three to five years in reserve accounts left. Brannigan said the council later approved conducting a rate analysis.
In February 2011, staff received permission to form a stakeholder committee of city residents and businesses in order to solicit information and get feedback on rate increases. After months of seeking applicants they received only one potential volunteer from out of the city, said Brannigan.
This past July, staff presented a consultant’s rate study to the council, which then gave the go ahead for the Proposition 218 notice to hold a public hearing on increasing the rates, he said.
“It's been a long road to get to where we are today,” Brannigan said.
He showed pictures of the city’s weakening water and sewer infrastructure, including the Scotts Creek wells, now in the middle of the creek after the bank began rapidly eroding from the 1998 floods; a sewer treatment pond with a failing concrete lining; a culvert that passes under Highway 29 that, should it fail, will leave the city with no means of redirecting sewage to the treatment plant; military surplus equipment the city has had since the 1980s, including a 1960s-era standby generator, a 1950s air compressor that’s used for jackhammers, a 1960s forklift and a donated mechanic shop that’s now looking warn; and a storage tank with failing interior paint.
Brannigan said a survey of residential water rates around Lake County showed that Lakeport currently is charging an average of $28.25 per month for a single family dwelling, making it one of the least expensive water providers. He said the city also has the highest certified water treatment plant in the county.
On the sewer side, rates are among the highest in the county, which Brannigan said is a result of a 2007 sewer spill that required $3 million in updates to Lakeport’s system.
Finance Director Dan Buffalo told the packed gallery that civic engagement in the process was important.
He said water and sewer rate operations costs were trending upwards. The city had left many vacant positions unfilled to keep costs low. Buffalo also briefly went over the rate increases and how they would rise over the coming five years.
Brannigan, finishing up the staff presentation, told the group, “We know it’s getting expensive. We know disposable income is getting harder and harder to hold onto.”
Tough decisions, challenging times
About two dozen people addressed the council during just over two hours of public input on Tuesday.
They told the council that the proposed increases were far too high and would stretch their resources, in some cases, to the breaking point. There also were complaints about not receiving notices.
Bob Bridges told the council that the public hearing notice was defective and misleading.
He also warned of unintended consequences. “You’re going to devalue all of our properties.”
Bridges brought with him pictures of 54 vacant commercial properties, and said he had spoken to one downtown business that pays $10,000 annually in bed tax but is facing closure over the increased rates.
“This is not the time to be doing this,” he said of the rates.
He referenced a decision this week by the Sonoma City Council, which rejected a rate increase on residents.
Sarah Ryan, Big Valley Rancheria’s environmental director, said the tribe did a study in 2010 that looked at sanitary overflows between 2003 and 2010. The city’s system was responsible for 6.6 million gallons of treated effluent or raw sewage going into watercourses during that time period, she said.
Ryan said the tribe would like to see the city improve its sewer system, and she suggested the city take on water quality projects along Clear Lake. “It’s all about protecting our people and protecting our environment, so I wish you luck.”
Brad Barnwell told the council he had watched that morning’s Board of Supervisors meeting, in which the board discussed its own water projects in the Lakeport area as well as the city’s plans for a water main loop project down S. Main Street. The supervisors approved sending a letter to the city outlining concerns and seeking a meeting.
Barnwell said that the proposed rates should be adjusted, since the county is raising issues with the loop project.
When the discussion came back to the council, Councilman Tom Engstrom asked about how much was to be spent on the 10 sewer and water projects the city is proposing. City Engineer Scott Harter said about $6.9 million.
Engstrom asked Brannigan about the Board of Supervisors meeting earlier in the day, with Brannigan giving him a brief rundown of the discussion.
“They’re going to do everything they can to stonewall this project,” said Engstrom, adding, “It’s all politics.”
Engstrom asked Brannigan if some of the projects – like new water meters – are necessary. The meters are a best practice, but the city doesn’t need them to meet regulatory requirements. The loop system, however, is a need, Brannigan said.
“I have a lot of concern about things that have come up here tonight,” said Engstrom.
Not replacing water meters or the water main loop would only save a total of about $2 per month per bill, which Engstrom said wouldn’t make a big difference.
Councilman Bob Rumfelt told community members that the problems for the sewer and water systems have been getting worse for years.
“We need more money. That's the bottom line,” he said.
Councilman Roy Parmentier told community members that the city’s water and sewer facilities were theirs. While the council didn’t want to raise rates, if they didn’t, the city wouldn’t be able to pursue capital projects or meet regulatory requirements.
As it is, the city’s water enterprise funds can’t meet their bond obligations, he said. “A rate adjustment is necessary.”
Parmentier suggested the city could take $1.7 million from a downtown improvement project and loan it to the water and sewer system.
The idea earned Parmentier some applause. “That’s the last thing I thought I would hear tonight,” he said.
Buffalo said Parmentier was right about possibly using the funds for the system upgrades.
Engstrom asked what would happen if the city reduces the water and sewer projects by $1 million. Buffalo said it’s possible that by scaling back the projects the city could become less competitive for grant funding.
Mayor Stacey Mattina said she hated spending her money or others’ money, but wanted to do what was best for the city today and 40 years in the future.
“Nobody wanted to raise the rates,” she said.
Added Council member Suzanne Lyons, “I think there is nothing more basic to life than water,” and without clean water the city would have a mess.
Mattina said she was willing to hold off on a decision in order to consider everything the council members had heard that night.
“I can support that,” said Engstrom.
Engstrom moved to direct staff to tabulate the protests, verify them and bring them back at the next meeting for the continued discussion. The council approved the motion 5-0.
Email Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .