LAKE COUNTY >> For the third time, a measure for a half-cent sales tax to save the lake appears to have fallen short of passing by just a few hundred votes. The disappointment, coupled with results nearly identical to the past two attempts, is enough for its proponents to seriously question whether they”ll make the effort for a fourth.
In Tuesday”s preliminary results, Measure S garnered 63 percent of votes in its favor. Albeit a majority, the special tax, which only allows the funds it collects to be used for lake-related programs, needs 66.7 percent approval to go into effect.
Another 448 votes would secure the small margin that has been the downfall of similar measures E and L. But unless the 5,536 ballots that still need to be counted significantly diverge from the percentage trends set by the preliminary 12,593 votes, the uncounted ballots are unlikely to close the gap.
In 2012, Measure E also received 63 percent approval, while Measure L on the June 3 ballot pulled a little closer with 65.2 percent of votes.
While some blame the poor election turnout and the public”s lack of concern for Clear Lake, others provide some constructive ideas on how the measure and its campaign could have been adjusted to improve its chances.
Some supporters feel the measure was nearly flawless and that adjustments to its content wouldn”t have made any difference.
“I think the measure was very well done and very clear that the money would be used for the lake,” Save the Lake Committee Treasurer and realtor Anita McKee said. “I don”t understand why people don”t get the urgency of this and I”m very disappointed and sad that people don”t care enough about this lake.”
“It seems like there”s a set of people out there that are opposed to taxes and have a certain distrust for government,” Save the Lake Chair and realtor Scott Knickmeyer said. “I don”t think that will ever change, so we”ll have to look at other options.”
After the preliminary results were in, Knickmeyer said he talked to some supporters about what changes might have improved the measure”s chances, but concluded that Measure S “was a solid proposal and no big changes to it would have made a difference.”
District 4 Supervisor Anthony Farrington holds a similar view of the outcome.
“I don”t think from a tactical or strategic standpoint there”s anything you can do to reach some people,” he said. “Some people just have different priorities and values and you can only try to get people to understand how important the lake is to the entire county, not just to those who use it.”
“I think that two-thirds is just a really difficult number to reach,” Director of Water Resources Scott De Leon added. “The outreach was really good for both Measure L and Measure S; the Save the Lake Committee did an outstanding job and I just think the notion that the government isn”t going to spend the money correctly is difficult to overcome.”
Jim Steele, who”s tentatively won the seat of supervisor for District 3, had more constructive criticism to offer, however.
“I think one thing that”s missing in the county”s repertoire is a good list of projects and management schemes,” Steele said. “That way, if there”s a future attempt for a Measure S-style proposal, we can lay those options on the table and people can really see where the money is going to go.”
Steele suggested that bringing more expertise to the table and including greater participation in decision making could secure the trust needed for the tax.
“If there”s citizens that think they know what”s best for the lake, they should certainly step up,” he added. “If they have the interest, we want them to be engaged and they”ll become the piston that helps drive the engine.”
Steele said he didn”t support the first campaign because Measure E hadn”t outlined plans for the projects that the tax would have funded.
“When the second one (Measure L) came along, I realized they weren”t going to be able to develop the plans until they got the funds because of a lack of staff. But I realized we did have the immediate problem of the Quagga mussel and not being able to fund the Middle Creek Restoration Project, so I decided to back L,” he said. “When Measure S came along, I became much more aggressive in the campaign and gave presentations.
“But the criticism was always there in the background; we don”t know how the money is going to be spent and that”s a fair point. For the next one, our plans have to be on the table,” he added.
De Leon feels the flexibility allowed for in the initiative was necessary for the tax monies to benefit the lake in the long-term.
“The measure had to have some flexibility in it to be tailored year-to-year changes in the lake and technologies and with that flexibility is the trade off that people claim there isn”t a plan,” De Leon said. “It”s kind of a no-win situation.”
Clear Lake”s murky future
While effort may always be given toward solving the lake”s issues, questioning whether a similar special tax on another ballot will be pursued is a bit overwhelming for proponents after Tuesday”s disappointment.
“At this time, I”m not sure that putting a measure before the voters for a fourth time would do any good and I”m currently not considering doing that,” Farrington said. “We may look at other measures, but not in the same form as this sales tax.”
One option is going back to the state and federal representatives and trying to attract their support on Clear Lake, Farrington said. With new leadership elected to state and federal governments, Farrington hopes the county can present a solid case for the county”s dire need for outside help since its three tries at the local level have failed.
Knickmeyer and McKee agree that a fourth try for a sales tax is unlikely and said the Save the Lake Committee will be looking at different approaches to secure the protection and restoration of Clear Lake.
Another option that”s gained some support is requesting the state to amend the constitution so that environment-related special taxes require a lower supermajority for approval. An amendment for voting in local school bond acts from two-thirds to 55 percent of votes cast was successful in 2000 under Proposition 39, but that doesn”t mean a similar change for Measure S-type taxes would be an easy feat.
Farrington calls the current system, which requires 50 percent approval for a general tax that can be spent on anything and two-thirds approval for a special tax that has to be spent on specific projects, “totally dysfunctional and not a fiscally conservative approach.”
Farrington expects the amendment could take a couple years, but on its way to approval he cautions it would have to fight through special interest groups.
If the county did try for a fourth sales tax measure, Betsy Cawn of the Essential Public Information Center urges the county to look toward the Napa River Restoration and Flood Control Damage Reduction project, which successfully passed its sales tax for flood prevention projects with a supermajority in 1998.
Napa County had put its tax before voters in 1976 and 1977, but failed to make the cut. It was only after a more than 400-person community coalition was formed and spent two years working on its tax proposal that it was able to pass its measure, according to the Napa County website.
On the other hand, the Save the Lake Committee for Measure S consisted of less than 25 people and invitations to participate in the making of the measure was only by word-of-mouth, according to Knickmeyer.
“While responsibility for management, protection and productivity of Clear Lake itself falls under the county”s jurisdiction, it is long-known and well understood that the county government cannot do its job in isolation from the public it serves,” Cawn said.
Until the next chance to vote for Clear Lake-related project funding though, De Leon and the Lake County Watershed Protection District will be at work trying to pull together funding and local matches for grants to save the lake, he said.
