Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Hydrant Utilities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents and fire district push back as Clear Lake advances hydrant and utility ordinances
Summary
Residents and local water and fire-district officials told the City Council the proposed hydrant and utilities ordinances exceed city authority and raised procedural and fiscal concerns; the consent agenda passed despite objections and a city attorney response that notice was proper.
Tina Wallace, representing Highlands Water Company, urged the Clear Lake City Council to remove or continue two consent items she said were procedurally flawed and substantively improper. "The City has not complied with the Brown Act," Wallace said, arguing inconsistent agendas for the Nov. 21 meeting had misled the public about when and how to comment and asking the council to restart the process and consult affected mutual water companies.
Kirsten Priebe, president of the board for Conoco County Water District, read a statement from general manager Frank Costner saying the district—"not the City Of Clear Lake"—is responsible for the district's fire hydrants and does annual flow testing and flushing. The statement described fire-flow testing as labor intensive, estimating costs "anywhere from 12 to 20,000," and warned flushing volumes could damage private property if storm drainage is inadequate.
Lake County Fire Chief Willie Cepeda told the council the district had been given little time to review changes and said overlapping reporting and a proposed city fee split could reduce the district's resources. "The district still has some concerns with the second reading of the ordinance," Cepeda said, citing lack of meaningful coordination with the city and the ordinance's potential effect on district operations.
City Attorney Pucci told the council his office had reviewed the public objections and concluded the items were properly noticed and agendized; he also said his office has formally responded to the Brown Act complaint on record. After public comment, the council approved the consent agenda, including the contested items, by unanimous vote.
What happens next: Council members and staff did not vote to delay the second reading or to remove the ordinances after the comments. Members of Highlands Water Company and the fire district urged further consultation, and the city's official response to the Brown Act letter remains part of the public record.
