Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Watershed Tax Survey topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lake County supervisor asks whether county authorized survey urging property tax increase for watershed management
Summary
During public comment at a Lake County Board of Supervisors meeting, Supervisor Patrick Bridal said he received an unsolicited survey from an organization in Fairfield that urged voters to approve a property-tax increase for watershed management and asked whether the board had approved or paid for the mailing.
Get email alerts on the Watershed Tax Survey topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
At a Lake County Board of Supervisors meeting during the public comment period, Supervisor Patrick Bridal said he received an unsolicited survey from an organization in Fairfield that appeared to urge voters to support a property tax increase to fund watershed management and asked whether the county had approved or paid for it.
Bridal told the board he lives in Lucerne and identified himself as Supervisor, District 3. “The survey is propaganda,” he said, and asked three questions: did the board of supervisors know about the survey going out, how much the survey cost and who approved it.
The exchange occurred during the public-input item. Meeting staff reminded speakers they would be given three minutes and said there would not be a back-and-forth during public comment; staff also offered to connect the speaker with a supervisor or county staff to follow up on the concern.
The transcript does not record an immediate response from county officials about whether the county authorized or funded the mailing, nor does it identify the Fairfield sender beyond Bridal’s description as “an outfit down in Fairfield.” The transcript also does not list any formal action or vote on the matter during the meeting.
Bridal’s remarks raised questions about transparency and county involvement in outreach related to ballot measures or tax proposals. He said he would welcome further conversation with supervisors or staff. The record shows staff offered follow-up but no timeline or next steps were recorded in the meeting transcript.
No county ordinances, statutes, resolutions or staff reports were cited in the public comment included in the transcript provided.

