CLEARLAKE, Calif. – The Clearlake City Council has approved a lengthy and detailed response to the Lake County Civil Grand Jury’s report on issues the city has raised with the Treasurer-Tax Collector’s Office and its handling of tax-defaulted property sales.

In its June 29 report, the grand jury leveled criticisms at the city that included alleging that the city was using incorrect information as the basis of its complaint that thousands of properties totaling millions in unpaid taxes hadn’t been put up for tax sale.

The grand jury also faulted the city for what it claimed were “inappropriate” criticisms of Treasurer-Tax Collector Barbara Ringen’s job performance.

At the council’s July 16 meeting, staff and council members discussed the nine-page response letter being sent to the grand jury. The response letter is just one page shorter than the grand jury’s report.

City Manager Alan Flora said the information the city used in addressing the tax-defaulted property matter came from the county, specifically, the Treasurer-Tax Collector’s Office.

“At this time we have no reason to doubt any of that data,” he said.

In order to let members of the public judge the matter for themselves, Flora said city staff had posted the information the city received from the county on its website. The data can be found on a new page, “Tax Defaulted Properties Information.”

A 2019 map on the site shows thousands of tax-defaulted properties, highlighted in pink, throughout the city.

Mayor Russell Cremer and Vice Mayor Dirk Slooten assisted staff with writing the response letter.

“I felt that we had no choice but to give this long, very detailed responses to the grand jury,” Cremer said, adding that the grand jury report’s many inaccuracies required a strong response.

Slooten said the report was wrong and the information the city used came directly from the county. “There’s no doubt in my mind that our data is correct.”

With regard to the data, the letter explains its source and how it was used. The city pointed out that the grand jury used “inaccurate assumptions to artificially reduce the real numbers” of tax-defaulted properties, including not considering properties without proper road access or utilities.

The response letter added that neither the grand nor the tax collector have the authority to allow certain property owners to be removed from the tax default list based on physical attributes of properties, and doing so is contrary to state law and the charge of the Tax Collector’s Office.

Regarding the grand jury’s criticisms about the city’s statements about Ringen’s job performance, the letter stated, “While it gives the City no pleasure in saying it, the assertion by the Grand Jury that allegations of negligence were inappropriate or that we have no real understanding of the on-going management of the Tax Collector’s Office we believe these claims are accurate and further it is even documented by the Board of Supervisors. The Board has established an ad hoc committee to provide additional support and oversight of the Treasurer Tax Collector’s Office due to a lack of performance. Additionally, the 2019 letter only came after attempts by the ad hoc and City representatives to discuss these issues with the Tax Collector.”

The letter said a meeting between ad hoc committee members Supervisor Bruno Sabatier, Supervisor Moke Simon, County Administrative Officer Carol Hutchinson, Ringen and Flora was scheduled on Oct. 25, 2019. Ringen chose not to attend.

“The Tax Collector’s refusal to engage with the City, or even the Board’s ad hoc committee, necessitated a different approach to resolution of the problem,” the letter stated.

The letter went on to list, in detail, responses to the grand jury’s recommendations and findings.

Councilwoman Joyce Overton agreed with the letter and said it was important that people understand where the information came from.

Slooten moved to approve the response, which was seconded by Councilman Russ Perdock. The council voted 4-0 to pass the motion, with Councilman Phil Harris absent.

The city’s full response letter is published below.

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.


July 16, 2020

Lake County Civil Grand Jury
PO Box 1078
Kelseyville, CA 95451

Dear Grand Jurors:

RE: RESPONSE TO THE 2019-2020 LAKE COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT “TAX DEFAULT AUCTIONS”

The Lake County Civil Grand Jury released a report on Tax Default Auctions as part of its 2019-2020 report. This Grand Jury’s recommendations “required” the Clearlake City Council respond to recommendation #4 (R4), However, it should be noted that the City of Clearlake believes much of the report is flawed as it is clearly based on inaccurate assumptions and parsing of the information available, and therefore the City will respond in entirety to the discussion and analysis as well as all findings and recommendations.

The Grand Jury separated its discussion and analysis of the issue into four sections, so we will organize our responses likewise.

1). The default property situation – The Grand Jury states that the information provided by the City in its 2019 letter are not accurate, and further that the data is obtained by a singular secondary source. The City of Clearlake obtained information on the City’s tax delinquent and defaulted properties from the Assistant Treasurer/Tax Collector for the County of Lake. This source was listed in the 2019 letter. Information about tax delinquent and tax defaulted properties in the entire County was received later through the County Administrator’s Office. The information was provided from the central county system and there is no known reason to question the data or to be concerned for its veracity that the City is aware of. If the Grand Jury is aware of some deficiencies in the County’s tax database, they should provide some basis for this claim and share the “correct” raw data they refer to. The City has placed the original files
obtained from the County on its website so that anyone can review and verify the data for themselves. The City is very open about the source of its data. We welcome the County Tax Collector providing corrected data if necessary.

a). The report notes that the numbers are moving targets; we agree that the numbers are updated as often as daily based on property owner payments. The City never asserted that the numbers specified in the 2019 letter were indefinitely accurate, only that these were the numbers accurate at the time of the drafting of the letter. These numbers are a true reflection of the scope of the problem. This section of the report is one example of language that is lazy and confusing. The Grand Jury mentions “understanding some assumptions” and achieving a “broad based understanding,” but there is not enough description to understand what this means. The report does state that the quantities and dollar values have been “corroborated from multiple independent sources.” Frankly, such independent sources do not exist. However, if you refer to the sources of data the Grand Jury reviewed, they are both from the Tax Collector’s Office. While we agree this should be the ideal source of the date, it is neither multiple nor an independent source. This is the beginning of the overarching theme of the report which appears that the Grand Jury made a decision on the issue and drafted a report that supported this argument without spending the time and effort necessary to base this decision on facts.

b). This section alleges that the number of 12,500 tax default properties referenced in the 2019 letter is not accurate. The City acknowledges that the language used in the initial letter could be misleading. The City’s intent in referencing this number is to emphasize the scope of the tax delinquent properties. The City is interpreting tax delinquent properties to be those with any type of late property tax payments. A property is currently considered “in default” if it has remained delinquent for five years or more. It is important to note that the five-year timeline is not a hard line and many properties with the County should really be considered in default if they have been delinquent for three years or more. The state law governing tax default property sales sets the five-year timeline for residential properties while non-residential properties are authorized for sale after being delinquent for three years. Additionally, properties with abatement liens or other residential properties can be sold after three years of delinquency at the request of a taxing agency, such as the City. The number of tax delinquent properties in Lake County at the time the data was received was 12,500 properties. With the notice of an auction in May (although the Tax Collector decided to delay this auction indefinitely) additional payoffs were received and a more current delinquency number is 11,651. While this number is slightly less than what was reported initially based on information provided at that time, it still supports City’s assertion of the serious scope of this problem.

Perhaps most troubling is the discussion which follows in that the Grand Jury describes “there are two ways to look at the actual number.” The Grand Jury goes on to describe one method is to only consider properties in default which “do not have specific addresses, or accessibility, or existing services such as water hookups.” This method is used to create a smaller number of defaulted properties which is then used as a more “accurate” number throughout the remainder of the report. While we acknowledge that many of these properties without proper road access or utilities will be hard to sell and are difficult to develop, they are nonetheless still in tax default. These property owners are not absolved of responsibility to pay their taxes, nor is the Tax Collector absolved of responsibility to sell them. Not only is it inaccurate, it is irresponsible and contradictory to the Grand Jury’s mission to present this as an argument to artificially reduce the number of defaulted parcels and by extension, the scope of the problem. Further, while many properties do not currently have access to utilities, the scope of the problem is so large that many properties could be grouped together and sold to be developed into housing. Both Clearlake and Lake County desperately need additional quality housing and it’s a primary goal of the state to develop. Even the Grand Jury has recommended that tax defaulted properties be explored to develop housing in this year’s report entitled, “Assessing the Homelessness in Lake County”. Why wouldn’t we take advantage of this opportunity to turn a
longstanding problem into a benefit for the entire community?

c). We agree that when you artificially and arbitrarily reduce the number of defaulted properties based on their physical attributes rather than the requirements of state law (which is based on whether the property taxes are paid) the “amount owed” would be reduced. We know from reviewing actual data from the Tax Collector that this number is over $18 million. It is also misleading to remove “costs, penalties and interest” from this total, as it is an actual debt on the tax bill and the only motivation in removing this from the total number can be to artificially reduce the scale of the problem.

d). Again, the Grand Jury uses inaccurate assumptions to artificially reduce the real numbers. Neither the Grand Jury nor the Tax Collector have the authority to allow certain property owners to be removed from the tax default list based on physical attributes of their property. And, to do so is contrary to state law and the charge of the Tax Collector’s office.

e). We believe the recent trend in more property owners not paying taxes is due to the lack of regular tax sales and a history of inaction and negligence from the Tax Collectors Office. This has created an uptick in new default properties each year. If there is no threat of a tax sale, there is little motivation of a delinquent property owner to pay his/her property taxes.

2). The job performance of the Treasurer/Tax Collector – While it gives the City no pleasure in saying it, the assertion by the Grand Jury that allegations of negligence were inappropriate or that we have no real understanding of the on-going management of the Tax Collector’s Office we believe these claims are accurate and further it is even documented by the Board of Supervisors. The Board has established an ad hoc committee to provide additional support and oversight of the Treasurer Tax Collector’s Office due to a lack of performance. Additionally, the 2019 letter only came after attempts by the ad hoc and City representatives to discuss these issues with the Tax Collector. In fact, a meeting between ad hoc committee members Supervisor Sabatier, Supervisor Simon, CAO Hutchinson, Tax Collector Ringen and City Manager Flora was scheduled on October 25, 2019. Attendees of the meeting were Supervisor Sabatier, CAO
Hutchinson and City Manager Flora. While this face to face meeting was scheduled at the City’s request, the Tax Collector chose to abscond from the meeting. The Tax Collector’s refusal to engage with the City, or even the Board’s ad hoc committee, necessitated a different approach to resolution of the problem.

a). We agree that the Tax Collector holds multiple responsibilities, many of which are critical to supporting revenues for local governments and special districts.

b). The City believes tax sales are fundamental to the responsibility of the County and the Tax Collector. It is one responsibility that has limited options for deferring or delegating authority to perform and is the basis for the entire collection of property taxes and the bundle of property rights in the United States. For the Grand Jury to assert that it is not a “primary or critical function” of the Tax Collector’s responsibilities is not based on facts and is irresponsible. Additionally, the Tax Collector has clearly defined responsibilities in state law which are not negotiable by the person holding the office or the Grand Jury, one of which is the mandate to hold auctions of tax defaulted properties. Further, the Tax Collector is the only official with the
authority to conduct said auctions.

c). While we agree that staffing levels could always be higher, it is our responsibility as local government agencies to provide certain services regardless of the level of staffing. Just because an agency may have less than ideal resources does not give that agency the ability or the option to not fulfill any of its core functions. To be effective in leadership of a critical office, one must be able to identify solutions to meet the obligation to the public and statutory responsibility of the office, regardless of the resources provided.

d). We are supportive of any additional staff being dedicated to addressing the historical and persistent backlog of tax delinquent and defaulted properties.

e). While we believe the argument here is based on conjecture and anecdote, an important point is made that even engaging in the process of noticing and preparing for a tax auction instigates a significant number of property owners into paying their back taxes and curing the default. If this was a regular effort of the Tax Collector, the number of delinquencies and defaulted properties would likely be greatly reduced.

3). The Teeter Plan – While we have no quarrel with the history of the Teeter Plan provided herein, we have no understanding of the basis for the following statement, “It is critical to note that these actions were on delinquent tax amounts and not on default tax amounts. Default properties/taxes were not intended to be part of the plan.” It is unclear what the Grand Jury is trying to say here, unless the “default” properties are not intended to be part of the Plan as it is expected they will be sold at tax auction. In Lake County both delinquent and defaulted properties are part of the Teeter Plan due to the historical lack of adequate tax sales. The Teeter Fund pays taxing entities all portions of the 1% ad valorem taxes owed if there is a delinquency. There is no bearing whether the property is considered “defaulted” or not. The Teeter Fund
makes up the difference of unpaid property taxes (from the 1% only, not bond measures or special taxes) whether a property is delinquent for 1 year or 50+ years.

a). We believe the Grand Jury’s assertion that 32% to 40% of property tax contributions to cities and special districts is coming from the Teeter Fund (a fund that pays the cities and special districts their total owed delinquent amount, even if all property owners do not pay the County) is a reflection of the dire situation that has been created by the actions, or inaction, of the Tax Collector’s Office. With regular tax sales the amount “owed” by the Teeter Fund would be reduced, freeing up funds to be distributed to the County General Fund. These discretionary dollars could be used to hire more deputies, build parks, pave roads or even hire more people in the Tax Collector’s Office to conduct regular tax auctions.

b). We agree with the Grand Jury’s statement of who manages the Teeter Fund, which is why in the 2019 letter to the Board of Supervisors the City requested the Board schedule a presentation on the Teeter Fund by the Auditor-Controller. In future years, the Grand Jury may consider interviewing the Auditor regarding the Teeter Fund in order to get a more accurate picture of how the fund operates.

c). The assertion of the Grand Jury that only cities and special districts benefit from the Teeter Fund is not based in fact. While the cities and special districts are beneficiaries of the Plan, the County also benefits. When the fees and penalties are collected due to payoffs or the tax sale process, the County gets to keep the fees, penalties and interest. Additionally, the 1% tax has already been paid by Teeter to the cities and special districts, so this funding is available for use by the County (as long as they meet the minimum funding requirement of the Teeter Fund). The excess proceeds are discretionary dollars that can be used for any lawful purpose as mentioned above (law enforcement personnel, building parks, paving roads, or hiring additional staff to serve the community). There is no wonder that some County departments may have been
“making noises” as many will benefit directly from additional revenue from tax sales via the Teeter Fund.

4. With regard to the floated concept of a lawsuit to try to attain certain specific goals – the discussion raised by the City’s focus on this issue has elevated the profile of the need for more tax sales. Unfortunately, up to this point the public discussion has had little impact on the Board of Supervisors or the Tax Collector resulting in action. The Grand Jury’s stated resignation that the goal of 1,000 properties being sold is impossible, sounds eerily similar to the excuses of the Tax Collector and some members of the Board of Supervisors. If as much effort was put into solving the problem and buckling down and doing the work required rather than dreaming up excuses and reasons why it can’t be done, the County would be making significant progress toward achieving the goal.

a). Based on the assumptions created by the Grand Jury, and our own understanding of the facts, the City concurs it is necessary to hire additional staff or consultant resources to adequately address the severe scope of the tax default problem.

b). This section of the report shows a lack of understanding of the process involved with sale of properties and sharing of proceeds. The only proceeds sent to special districts as the result of a tax auction are bond measures and special assessments levied. The proceeds from a sale which are from the 1% ad valorem are not distributed to the cities or special districts as the Teeter Fund has been paying the delinquency each year. The proceeds of the 1% (as well as fees, penalties and interest) go to the County. Property tax is a local tax and a portion is not sent to the state.

Conclusion of Discussion and Analysis

The City Council of Clearlake believes we are well informed on this issue and for the reasons outlined above we have confidence in the numbers provided us by the County. If the numbers provided are incorrect, we expect the County to provide updates. While we do not understand the underlying basis for comments such as “exaggerated effects of certain programs and possibilities created a belief in financial possibilities that could not, with proper vetting and understanding, be supported,” the scope of this problem is staggering and the impacts on our community are immense and far reaching. The City Council clearly understands the following:

The City has continued to receive its property tax revenue, via the Teeter Plan, for the thousands of delinquent and defaulted properties within the City, even though some of which have never paid taxes in the entire existence of the City (since 1980) and have never been offered at a tax auction. The City’s revenue loss is due to stagnation of these defaulted properties and the drain of existing resources for code enforcement, crime, persistent fires and the resulting lack of additional development due to properties often sitting in defaulted status for decades. Moreover, the excess blight impedes investors and developers from coming into the City, further compounding our revenue dilemma.

The direct revenue loss as a result of the many defaulted properties is a more serious problem for the County itself, and the many special districts and schools. The Teeter Fund only makes whole the revenue loss from the 1% ad valorem tax and not special assessments, bond measures, etc. Special taxes, which most local fire districts have in place, are not paid if an owner is delinquent (or in default). Similar owner payments towards school bond payments are not made whole by Teeter and are not received by the school district until a redemption of back taxes is made voluntarily or through a tax auction. Information on the scope of this problem has been requested of the County but has not yet been provided. However, from the numbers that
we do have access to, we know that approximately $8 million of total debt is owed to special districts, including our fire districts and schools.

Ironically, the County itself has the largest financial incentive to regular tax sales and eliminating the longterm backlog of delinquent and defaulted properties. As mentioned above, the Teeter Fund is maintained at a minimum level and any excess proceeds received from redemptions, through an auction or otherwise, benefits the County General Fund and can be used for any discretionary purpose. Based on the report on the Teeter Plan, which was presented to the Board of Supervisors by the County Auditor- Controller, even a small tax sale results in a large financial benefit to the County.

It is also important to note that the County General Fund is the only “taxing entity” that is NOT necessarily made whole by the Teeter Fund. The General Fund relies on the fees, penalties and interest from redemptions that exceed the Teeter Fund’s minimum level to make itself whole. Due to the higher level of delinquencies (and presumably defaults) in 2019 the total Teeter “debt” rose from $8.3 million in 2018, to $9.2 million. The County General Fund has to absorb this gap of $890,107. Additionally, over the past ten-years the General Fund has received an average of $2.1 million in transfers from Teeter (excess proceeds from redeemed properties not needed to meet the minimum Teeter reserve threshold), however in 2019 a transfer of only $889,594 was possible. Essentially this funding was lost due, at least in part, to a lack of a tax
auction in 2019. This can all be verified based on the information from the Auditor-Controller’s presentation on February 25, 2020 (also made available on the City’s webpage along with the other County provided data). Needless to say, it is confusing why the County does not believe there is a significant financial benefit to solving this problem, in addition to their statutory mandate to do so.

While we appreciate the Grand Jury’s stated goals of “accurately defining this situation” and not to “look to point blame”, unfortunately not enough effort was dedicated to this commitment in order to accurately define the situation and to achieve an accurate understanding of the facts. In spite of this, we are in agreement with many of the “findings” and “recommendations” of the Grand Jury.

Findings

• F1: There has been a sizable ‘backlog’ of property tax default parcels for a number of years. The City Council agrees with this finding.

• F2: The size of the above referenced backlog was stable at -4200 for most of that time but is now growing by -325 parcels/year. Based on information provided above we believe it is clear the backlog is substantially greater than 4,200, although we do agree the backlog is growing significantly due to the lack of recent tax sales, which adds to the immediate need to systematically address the problem.

• F3: The processing of default properties into the condition for auction has - by virtue of staffing limitations – been relegated to a ‘delay’ status in favor of completion of higher priority and greater fiscal impact items by the Treasurer/Tax Collector.

Regardless of staffing limitations the Tax Collector and Board of Supervisors need to make sure this mandate is addressed by the County. Additionally, we believe that there is no excuse for anyone labeling this issue as lower priority than other items or areas of responsibility. The information provided above clearly indicates the fiscal impact of the inaction on various agencies.

• F4: It would take two completely dedicated (meaning non-transferrable to other priorities at any time) and well-trained staff in the Treasurer’s/Tax Collector’s office to handle year-to-year growth of the number of default parcels and reduce the backlog. Cost to the county to accomplish this would be offset by the revenues from a -500/year tax auction with expected ‘withdrawals’ and final sales.

Regardless of the assumptions made by the Grand Jury in making this finding, the Council agrees that two additional staff focusing on this mandated task is important and critical in addressing the problem. We further encourage the County to utilize any other resources available to bring this backlog under control, including additional contracted work like other counties do.

• F5: Data was transferred from a staff position inside of the County Administration Office to a staff position inside of the City of Clearlake that was not properly vetted for accuracy, applicability to the over-riding issue, and not passed by the appropriate elected official ultimately responsible for that data.

As described previously, the Clearlake data was provided directly to the City Manager from the Assistant Tax Collector, with the entire County level information coming from the County Administrative Office. Whether the information is provided directly by the “elected official” (Treasurer/Tax Collector), one of her staff or another County employee, the information comes from the same County system. We are perplexed on how we can “vet for accuracy” this data. Additionally, we are unaware of any mandate or regulation that restricts the “elected official” from putting additional limits on access to public records to one position. Unless the Grand Jury or County provides some type of specifics about the veracity of the data they previously provided to the City, we believe the data provided was accurate and was provided by a legitimate and official source. We do not believe that the Tax Collector has the ability to make the determination she will be the only person or official to provide public information under her responsibility or purview.

• F6: The Teeter Plan has been utilized and managed by the Controller/Auditor and is making the expected contributions to the cities and special districts.

The Council agrees the Teeter Plan has been making the expected contributions to the cities and special districts, as managed by the Auditor-Controller, however minimum expected payments to the County General Fund have not been made in each year due, at least in part, to the lack of tax auctions by the Tax Collector.

• F7: A group of elected city officials issued written ‘claims’ against a county-wide elected official and distributed these claims to multiple governmental groups (both inside of Lake County and in Sacramento.) It occurred that there was a ‘leakage’ of these claims to the local process and social media without performing a reasonable set of fact checking nor any sourcing of second- and third party independent corroboration of the data and the assumptions upon which those claims were based.

The City Council of Clearlake sent various agencies some information and a request for investigation into the lack of actions of the Tax Collector. The information in the letters was based on information directly provided from the County, not a second or third hand source that should require verification. Additionally, there was not a ‘leakage’ of the 2019 letters to the press. These are all public documents and should not be only accessible at the whims of the Tax Collector.

• F8: Communications between elected city officials and elected county officials are sometimes strained and occasionally non-existent.

The Council agrees communications are sometimes strained between groups of local officials as we all have different positions and interests in some topics. We can only speak to communication between the City of Clearlake officials and County officials. Communication between the Council members and our staff, with the Board of Supervisors, County Administrative Office and most departments is extremely high and very regular. The only real communication problem we have experienced over the past year has been with the Tax Collector’s Office. The Tax Collector has not made herself available for meetings and has been hesitant to respond to requests for information without influence from either the County Administrator or members of the Board of Supervisors. As the Council and our City Manager have shared on multiple occasions that we are ready to meet and discuss the issue and provide resources available to us to support the successful implementation of a strategy to solve this backlog of defaulted properties. We remain committed to doing so, regardless of our disagreement on certain aspects of the situation. Unfortunately, at this point not enough attention or resources has been granted to this issue by the Board of Supervisors or the Tax Collector and the City is committed to ensuring the County’s mandated responsibility to conduct regular tax sales is adhered to.

Recommendations:

• R1: County Administrative Office review and enact enhanced controls over data dissemination to departments not normally utilizing such data and to any non-county public or private entities.

The Council understands that the implementation of this recommendation will be the decision of the County Administrator and the Board of Supervisors, however it is troubling that the Grand Jury as a group tasked with oversight of local government agencies, would recommend the enactment of thresholds on release of public records that appear to be contrary to state law. We recommend review of the California Public Records Act.
( https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?division=7.&chapter=3.5.&lawCode=GOV&title=1.&article=1 . )

• R2: Two dedicated and trained staff members should be added to the Treasurer/Tax Collector office to focus exclusively on the tax default auction process. This will stop expansion of those default quantities and – over time- reduce the backlog. This is in full recognition of current ‘open’ positions in the department but is in addition to those positions.

The City Councils is supportive of any additional resources provided to address the backlog and expansion of defaulted properties within the City and larger County. Our only concern with this recommendation is we do not believe the history of inaction by the Tax Collector is solely based on a lack of staffing in the office, but a negligence in addressing the issue. The Board of Supervisors may consider placing additional staff under the leadership of a different department head, such as the County Administrator, in order to ensure they are focused entirely on the tax auctions.

• R3: All elected city officials and elected county officials should exercise extreme prudence in making disparaging claims (be they in public or to other governmental agencies) against the performance or motivation of any other elected official. If such claims are to be made, multiple/independent verification of information/data supporting such claims should be fully explored.

As elected officials the City Council is certainly sensitive to this issue. However, we believe in accountability. We are all accustomed to criticism of decisions we make, and the Council does not take lightly the decision to focus attention on the Board of Supervisors’ and Tax Collector’s attention to this issue. We believe that there has been a negligence of duty related to this issue and unfortunately the normal methods of collaboration have not worked to resolve this long-standing issue. This is the reason the issue was raised in a more public way. It should be noted however that neither the Tax Collector or the Board of Supervisors have been “disparaged” by our actions or correspondence. All of the City’s actions and commentary are rooted in facts. We do believe it is critical to hold elected officials responsible for their track record and in the case of regular tax auctions the County has fallen very short and deserves criticism and attention paid to this issue. In the case of the information used, as has been mentioned multiple times above, the information all came directly from the County and we have no reason to believe the data is inaccurate.

• R4: A regular and scheduled meeting of representative of the Clearlake (elected) city council, representatives of the (elected) Lakeport city council, and representatives of the (elected) Lake County Board of Supervisors should be instituted. The purpose of this meeting will be to bring matters of mutual concern to light and explore proactive and cooperative means of addressing these concerns.

The three elected bodies have conducted an annual joint meeting the previous two years. The intent of this meeting has been focused on economic development discussion, but the Clearlake City Council is certainly willing to discuss a wider range of topics of “mutual concern”.

In conclusion, the Council would also like to point out that the current year’s report appears to conflict significantly with the Grand Jury’s report from 2016-17, “Has Anybody Seen a Tax Lien Sale Recently?”. In the earlier report the Grand Jury was critical of the lack of regular tax auctions and stressed the following key points:

• Municipalities depend on local tax monies to finance the operation of their government.
• When a local municipality has adequate funds to operate, they can create an atmosphere that make people desire to live in their city.
• When improvements are made to either private residences or commercial buildings, the property tax revenues will increase.
• When property owners stop paying taxes due on their property or vacate their properties without paying taxes, the municipality will lose valuable tax monies. The loss of those types of tax monies will affect the municipality’s ability to fund their operations.
• When a tax lien property sells, it is hoped that the new owners of said property will invest in them, increasing their value and generating more tax revenue.
• A property is eligible for a tax sale when property taxes have been delinquent for five consecutive years. Vacant houses or lots can deteriorate to such an extent that the values of surrounding properties are negatively affected.

It is difficult to understand how the perspective of the Grand Jury can change so much from what is directly quoted above, to the 2019-2020 report where tax sales are not to be considered a high priority of the Tax Collector’s Office. The blight within Lake County and Clearlake is a result, in part, of the County’s failure to have regular tax auctions. The City Council wants positive investment in our City, and we need the County’s help in taking this matter seriously and allocating resources to cure the massive backlog.

The 2016-17 Grand Jury’s ultimate recommendation was that the County conduct annual tax sales. In this years’ report the Grand Jury recommends two additional staff be hired to conduct tax auctions. We agree.

Sincerely,

Russell Cremer, Mayor
Phil Harris, Councilmember
Dirk Slooten, Vice Mayor
Russell Perdock, Councilmember
Joyce Overton, Councilmember

CC: Honorable Michael S. Lunas, Presiding Judge of the Lake County Superior Court - 255 N. Forbes Street,
Lakeport, CA 95453
Lake County Treasurer/Tax Collector – 255 N. Forbes Street, Lakeport, CA 95453
Lake County Board of Supervisors – 255 N. Forbes Street, Lakeport, CA 95453