LAKEPORT — The Lake County Board of Supervisors (BOS) Tuesday discussed a resolution that would deny City of Lakeport officials applying for an encroachment permit.
The matter is related to an ongoing rift between the county and city officials about providing water service to residences and businesses in South Lakeport.
District 4 Supervisor Anthony Farrington put the resolution on the agenda, which he called a “hard item to bring before the board.” In a memorandum, Farrington stated some of the issues between the city and county with providing water to property owners outside the City of Lakeport”s jurisdiction.
The BOS approved the execution of a feasibility study on April 3 to look into options to providing water to area property owners. Farrington stated one of the options discussed during the meeting was to tie-in to Lakeport”s water system.
“City staff affirmed that this was not an option,” he stated.
He stated city staff accepted a staff report regarding the issue on April 17, which prompted the city council to direct staff “to prepare a resolution officially enacting a City policy that would prohibit the provision of water service outside of the City”s boundaries.”
Farrington said he was “troubled” with the city”s lack of communication with discussing the project.
He stated in the memorandum that city staff are moving forward with installing a water main along South Main Street and Soda Bay Road in an effort to construct a looped water system, which would connect to an existing main along Parallel Drive.
“This project would be within the county jurisdiction, but would not allow property owners to connect to the water line for much needed water service,” he stated.
He said the project required an encroachment permit for any proposed work within the county right-of-way and requested the supervisors consider and adopt a resolution directing county staff to not issue a permit for the project as proposed.
Lakeport City Manager Margaret Silveira said the county should not act prematurely on the project.
District 3 Supervisor Denise Rushing asked County Counsel Anita Grant if the county had authority to deny a permit for the project. Grant said Public Works Director Scott De Leon had the authority to deny the permit, not the supervisors.
“If you”re giving direction (to staff) in terms of a requirement, you can do that,” Grant said. “Maybe give direction to Public Works to eliminate certain possibilities while not eliminating others.”
Silveira said city officials plan to provide water for area property owners.
“They just need to go through the process to become part of the city,” she said.
BOS Chair Rob Brown said annexation was not on the agenda.
“I know the matters are tied together but they have to be separate for this part of the agenda,” Brown said.
Brown said an alternative way to get an agreement should be found.
“I think this will do more damage than good,” he said.
District 2 Supervisor Jeff Smith said common sense was lacking on the project.
“The availability is there, the water is there,” he said. “The chance to serve others and expand the system makes common sense to do so.”
Smith suggested removing annexation from the process.
“We want you to run a water line there, we just want you to serve the people that it runs by,” Smith said. “Let”s use common sense, get something done and help each other out. Let”s take annexation out and treat it as a separate issue. It”s so simple.”
Silveira said city officials might be open to discussing options other than annexation of the area, depending on the proposal.
“Most cities in California have a position not to serve outside the city limits for many reasons,” she said. “Today is a perfect example of that.”
Smith brought up the county”s working relationship with the City of Clearlake. He said Special Districts operates three sewage systems within the city”s limits as an example of an outside jurisdiction running a system.
“There have been no problems there,” he said. “It can be worked out no matter what.”
Silveira said city and county officials do have a good working relationship.
The BOS came to consensus that no action was needed on the resolution.
Kevin N. Hume can be reached at kevin.n.hume@gmail.com or call directly 263-5636 ext. 14. Follow on Twitter: @KevinNHume.
