Lakeport City Council Agenda Packet

AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING OF THE LAKEPORT CITY COUNCIL

(ALSO MEETS AS THE CITY OF LAKEPORT MUNICIPAL SEWER DISTRICT, THE LAKEPORT INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, THE MUNICIPAL FINANCING AGENCY OF LAKEPORT and THE SUCCESSOR
AGENCY TO THE FORMER LAKEPORT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY)
Tuesday, March 17, 2020
City Council Chambers, 225 Park Street, Lakeport, California 95453
Any person may speak for three (3) minutes on any agenda item; however, total public input per item is not to exceed 15 minutes, extended at the discretion of the
City Council. This rule does not apply to public hearings. Non-timed items may be taken up at any unspecified time.
I. CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL: 6:00 p.m.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA/ URGENCY ITEMS: Move to accept agenda as posted, or move to add or delete items.
To add item, Council is required to make a majority decision that an urgency
exists (as defined in the Brown Act) and a 2/3rds determination that the need to
take action arose subsequent to the Agenda being posted.
IV. CONSENT AGENDA: The following Consent Agenda items are expected to be routine and noncontroversial. They will be acted upon by
the Council at one time without any discussion. Any Council Member may request that any item be removed from
the Consent Agenda for discussion under the regular Agenda. Removed items will be considered following the
Consent Calendar portion of this agenda.
A. Ordinances: Waive reading except by title, of any ordinances under consideration at this
meeting for either introduction or passage per Government Code Section 36934.
B. Minutes: Approve minutes of the City Council of the regular meeting of March 3, 2020.
C. Renew Emergency Resolution: Confirm the continuing existence of a local emergency for the Mendocino
Mendocino Complex Fire Complex Fire.
D. Renew Emergency Resolution: February Confirm the continuing existence of a local emergency for the February 2019
2019 Storms Storms.
E. Renew Emergency Resolution: PG&E Confirm the continuing existence of a local emergency for the October 2019
Public Safety Power Shutoffs (PSPS) PSPS.
F. Application 2020-011: Approve Application 2020-011, with staff recommendations, for the 2020 Child
Festival to be held in Library Park April 18, 2020.
G. FY 2018-19 Comprehensive Annual Receive and file the communication letter and CAFR for year ended June 30,
Financial Report (CAFR): 2019.
H. AB 1600 Report: Adopt the proposed resolution to reaffirm the necessity of AB 1600 development
impact fees.
I. Ordinance Introduction: Introduce the proposed amendments and revisions to the Lakeport Municipal
Code adopting the 2019 California Building Code and removing references to
obsolete building codes and schedule a public hearing for April 7, 2020.
V. PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS/REQUESTS:
A. Public Input: Any person may speak for 3 minutes about any subject within the authority of the City Council, provided that the
subject is not already on tonight’s agenda. Persons wishing to address the City Council are required to complete a
Citizen’s Input form and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting being called to order. While not required,
please state your name and address for the record. NOTE: Per Government Code §54954.3(a), the City Council
cannot take action or express a consensus of approval or disapproval on any public comments regarding matters
which do not appear on the printed agenda.
VI. COUNCIL BUSINESS:
A. Assistant City Manager
1. Broadband Master Plan Adopt the Lake County Master Broadband Plan as prepared by the Upstate
California Connect Consortium and CSU Chico, Geographical Information Center.
B. Public Works Director
1. SB 1 Project List Adopt the proposed resolution approving the City of Lakeport SB 1 Project List
for fiscal year 2020-21 and direct staff to submit to the California Transportation
Commission.
City Council Agenda of March 17, 2020 Page 2
VII. CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS:

A. Miscellaneous Reports, if any:
VIII. ADJOURNMENT:
Materials related to an item on this Agenda submitted to the Council after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office at 225
Park Street, Lakeport, California, during normal business hours. Such documents are also available on the City of Lakeport’s website, www.cityoflakeport.com, subject to
staff’s ability to post the documents before the meeting.
The City of Lakeport, in complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), requests individuals who require special accommodations to access, attend and/or
participate in the City meeting due to disability, to please contact the City Clerk’s Office, (707) 263-5615, 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting to ensure reasonable
accommodations are provided.
_______________________________________
Hilary Britton, Deputy City Clerk
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE LAKEPORT CITY COUNCIL
(ALSO MEETS AS THE CITY OF LAKEPORT MUNICIPAL SEWER DISTRICT, THE LAKEPORT INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, THE
MUNICIPAL FINANCING AGENCY OF LAKEPORT and THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE FORMER LAKEPORT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY)
Tuesday, March 3, 2020
City Council Chambers, 225 Park Street, Lakeport, California 95453
I. CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL: Mayor Spurr called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. with Council Members
Mattina, Parlet, and Turner present. Council Member Barnes was absent.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Assistant City Manager Ingram.
III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA/ URGENCY ITEMS: A motion was made by Council Member Parlet, seconded by Council Member
Mattina, and unanimously carried by voice vote, with Council Member Barnes
absent, to accept the agenda as posted.
IV. CONSENT AGENDA:
A. Ordinances: Waive reading except by title, of any ordinances under consideration at this
meeting for either introduction or passage per Government Code Section 36934.
B. Minutes: Approve minutes of the City Council of the regular meeting of February 18, 2020,
and the special meeting of February 24, 2020.
C. Renew Emergency Resolution: Confirm the continuing existence of a local emergency for the Mendocino
Mendocino Complex Fire Complex Fire.
D. Renew Emergency Resolution: February Confirm the continuing existence of a local emergency for the February 2019
2019 Storms Storms.
E. Renew Emergency Resolution: PG&E Confirm the continuing existence of a local emergency for the October 2019
Public Safety Power Shutoffs (PSPS) PSPS.
F. Application 2020-005: Approve Application 2020-005, with staff recommendations, for the 2020
Memorial Day Parade to be held on Main Street.
G. Application 2020-006: Approve application 2020-006, with staff recommendations, for the 2020 July
Fourth Arts & Crafts Fair event on Park Street and Library Park.
H. Application 2020-007: Approve application 2020-007, with staff recommendations, for the 2020 Taste
of Lake County event on Main Street.
I. Application 2020-008: Approve application 2020-008, with staff recommendations, for the 2020
Pumpkin and Dia de Los Muertos event on Main Street.
J. Application 2020-009: Approve application 2020-009, with staff recommendations, for the 2020 Trick or
Treat Main Street event.
K. Application 2020-010: Approve application 2020-010, with staff recommendations, for the 2020 Dickens
Faire event on Main Street.
L. Conflict of Interest Code: Adopt a resolution amending and adopting an updated Conflict of Interest Code.
M. Retention Schedule: Adopt the proposed resolution adopting a records retention schedule, and
authorizing destruction of certain City records and rescinding Resolution No.
2712 (2019).
N. Out of State Travel: Authorize Out-of-State Travel for two (2) staff members from the Utilities
Division to attend the California Rural Water Association (CRWA) Expo in Lake
Tahoe, Nevada.
Vote on Consent Agenda: A motion was made by Council Member Parlet, seconded by Council Member
Mattina, and unanimously carried by voice vote, with Council Member Barnes
absent, to adopt the Consent Agenda, items A-N.
V. PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS/REQUESTS:
A. Public Input: There was no public input.
City Council Minutes of March 3, 2020 Page 2
B. Presentation: Public Health Officer Dr. Gary Pace, MD, MPH, gave a short update regarding
preparations/planning undertaken by officials to address the Coronavirus in Lake
County.
Highlights from the update include:
• County Health officials are communicating with State and Federal

officials daily.
• What individuals can do: wash hands, cover mouth/nose, don't touch
face, stay away from large gatherings (>1000) or those who are ill.
• Employers: Encourage teleconferencing, encourage employees to stay

home when sick, allow parents sick time to care for children.
• Masks: N95 supplies are limited, and generally unnecessary. Those with
symptoms should instead wear surgical masks if they must go out in
public while ill.
• Resources: The Health Department will give weekly updates to the

Board of Supervisors, as well as distribute press releases with updates.
The CDC website is also a good resource.
VI. CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS:
A. Miscellaneous Reports, if any: City Manager Silveira reported that the Prop 68 Grant awarded, and thanked
Parks Foreman, Assistant City Manager Ingram and Associate Planner Chance for
putting the grant together. She also thanked Council Member Mattina for
reaching out to the consultant that shepherded the City through the process.
City Attorney Ruderman had no report.
Public Works Director Grider had no report.
Finance Director Walker had no report.
Chief Rasmussen reported that the Lakeport Police Department has signed an
agreement with the Willits Police Department for off-duty LPD officers to take
extra shifts (volunteer) to assist Willits. Willits will pay the officers.
Chief Rasmussen reminded the Council and public of the Town Hall meeting
scheduled for Thursday regarding public safety.
Assistant City Manager Ingram will be traveling to Monterey next week for a
workshop on retail recruiting to help spur development for our vacant shopping
center properties.
Council Member Turner will be attending the National League of Cities
Conference in DC next week.
Council Member Mattina had no report.
Council Member Parlet had no report.
Mayor Spurr had no report.
VII. ADJOURNMENT: Mayor Spurr adjourned the meeting at 6:35 p.m.
_______________________________________
George Spurr, Mayor
Attest: ___________________________
Hilary Britton, Deputy City Clerk
CITY OF LAKEPORT
City Council
City of Lakeport Municipal Sewer District
Lakeport Redevelopment Successor Agency
Lakeport Industrial Development Authority
Municipal Financing Agency of Lakeport
STAFF REPORT
RE: Continuation of Local Emergency Declaration – Mendocino MEETING DATE: 03/17/2020
Complex Fires
SUBMITTED BY: Margaret Silveira, City Manager
PURPOSE OF REPORT: Information only Discussion Action Item
WHAT IS BEING ASKED OF THE CITY COUNCIL/BOARD:

The City Council is being asked to review the need to continue the proclamation declaring a Local State
of Emergency due to conditions of extreme peril as a result of the River Fire, re-named along with the
Ranch Fire, the Mendocino Complex fire and provide direction.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
On July 28, 2018, the Director of Emergency Services for the City of Lakeport declared a local State of
Emergency in connection with the conditions of extreme peril to the safety of persons and property
within the city as a result of the River Fire, re-named the Mendocino Complex fire in combination with
the Ranch Fire. In accordance with the Emergency Services Act Section 8630(b) and Lakeport Municipal
Code section 2.28.130, the City Council ratified the declared emergency on July 30, 2018 under
Resolution 2679 (2018). Under Lakeport Municipal Code section 2.28.150, the City Council shall review,
at least every 14 days, the need for continuing the emergency declaration until the local emergency is
terminated.
The City Council, at a Special Meeting on August 13, 2018, continued the emergency declaration via
Resolution 2680 (2018). The City Council subsequently continued the emergency declaration on
August 21, 2018, September 18, 2018, October 2, 2018, October 16, 2018, November 6, 2018,
November 20, 2018, December 4, 2018, December 18, 2018, January 15, 2019, February 5, 2019,
February 19, 2019, March 5, 2019, March 19, 2019, April 2, 2019, April 16, 2019, May 7, 2019 May 21,
2019, June 4, 2019, June 18, 2019, July 16, 2019, August 6, 2019, September 3, 2019, September 17,
2019, October 1, 2019, October 22, 2019, November 5, 2019, November 19, 2019, December 3, 2019,
December 17, 2019, January 7, 2020, January 21, 2020, February 4, 2020, February 18, 2020, and
March 3, 2020. Since a need still exists for the declaration, Council is asked to review and continue the
declaration. Should the need continue, staff will return this item at the next regularly scheduled City
Council meeting.
OPTIONS:
Approve the need for the continuation of the proclamation declaring a Local State of Emergency due to
Mendocino Complex fire; or proclaim the termination of the Local State of Emergency
Meeting Date: 03/17/2020 Page 1 Agenda Item #IV.C.

FISCAL IMPACT:
None $ Budgeted Item? Yes No
Budget Adjustment Needed? Yes No If yes, amount of appropriation increase: $
Affected fund(s): General Fund Water OM Fund Sewer OM Fund Other:
Comments:
SUGGESTED MOTIONS: Move to confirm the continuing existence of a local emergency in the City of
Lakeport.
Attachments: 1. Resolution No. 2679 (2018)
Meeting Date: 03/17/2020 Page 2 Agenda Item #IV.C.

ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. 2679 (2018)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKEPORT RATIFYING THE

DIRECTOR OF EMERGENCY SERVICES’ PROCLAMATION OF A LOCAL EMERGENCY
IN THE CITY OF LAKEPORT
WHEREAS, Chapter 2.28 of the Lakeport Municipal Code, adopted as Ordinance

Number 832 of the City of Lakeport empowers the Director of Emergency Services to proclaim
the existence or threatened existence of a local emergency when the City of Lakeport is
affected or likely to be affected by a public calamity and the City Council is not in session,
subject to ratification by the City Council within seven (7) days; and
WHEREAS, conditions of extreme peril to the safety of persons and property have arisen
within this City as a result of a fire commencing on or about 1:01 p.m. on the 27th day of
JuneJuly, 2018, called the River Fire and later re-named the Mendocino Complex along with the
Ranch Fire, which commenced on or about 12:05 p.m. on the 27th day of July, 2018, at which
time the City Council of the City of Lakeport was not in session; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager, acting as the Director of Emergency Services of the City of
Lakeport, did proclaim the existence of a local emergency within the City on the 28th day of
July, 2018; and
WHEREAS, the Governor of the State of California proclaimed a state of emergency in

the Lake County as a result of the Mendocino Complex on the 28th day of July, 2018; and
WHEREAS, the City Council does hereby find that aforesaid conditions of extreme peril
did warrant and necessitate the proclamation of existence of a local emergency.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the City Council hereby
proclaims a local emergency due to the existence or threatened existence of conditions of
disaster or of extreme peril to the safety of persons and property within the City of Lakeport;
and
IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the Director of Emergency Services’

Proclamation of Existence of a Local Emergency is hereby ratified and confirmed; and
IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the local emergency shall be deemed to
continue to exist until its termination is proclaimed by the City Council of the City of Lakeport;
and
IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED AND ORDERED that during the existence of this local
emergency the powers, functions and duties of the Disaster Council of the City of Lakeport and
its Director of Emergency Services shall be those prescribed by state law, and by the ordinances
and resolutions of this City; and
1
ATTACHMENT 1
CITY OF LAKEPORT
City Council
STAFF REPORT
RE: Continuation of Local Emergency Declaration – February MEETING DATE: 03/17/2020
Storms

of Emergency due to conditions of extreme peril as a result of the February 2019 Storms and provide
direction.
On February 28, 2019, the Director of Emergency Services for the City of Lakeport declared a local State
of Emergency in connection with the conditions of extreme peril to the safety of persons and property
within the city as a result of the February 2019 storms. In accordance with the Emergency Services Act
Section 8630(b) and Lakeport Municipal Code section 2.28.130, the City Council ratified the declared
emergency on March 5, 2019, March 19, 2019, April 2, 2019, April 16, 2019, May 7, 2019, May 21, 2019,
June 4, 2019, June 18, 2019, July 16, 2019, August 6, 2019, September 3, September 17, 2019, October
1, 2019, October 22, 2019, November 5, 2019, November 19, 2019, December 3, 2019, December 17,
2019, January 7, 2020, January 21, 2020, February 4, 2020, February 18, 2020, and March 3, 2020 under
Resolution 2704 (2019). Under Lakeport Municipal Code section 2.28.150, the City Council shall review,
at least every 14 days, the need for continuing the emergency declaration until the local emergency is
terminated.
Since a need still exists for the declaration, Council is asked to review and continue the declaration.
Should the need continue, staff will return this item at the next regularly scheduled City Council
meeting.
OPTIONS:
the February 2019 storms; or proclaim the termination of the Local State of Emergency
FISCAL IMPACT:
Meeting Date: 03/17/2020 Page 1 Agenda Item #IV.D.

Comments:
Lakeport.
Meeting Date: 03/17/2020 Page 2 Agenda Item #IV.D.

ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
CITY OF LAKEPORT
City Council
STAFF REPORT
RE: Continuation of Local Emergency Declaration – Public Safety MEETING DATE: 03/17/2020
Power Shutoff (PSPS)

of Emergency due to electrical outages as a result of extreme fire weather conditions commencing on or
about 6:00 p.m. on the 26th day of October 2019, called the Public Safety Power Shutoff (PSPS) of October
2019
On October 26, 2019, the Director of Emergency Services for the City of Lakeport declared a local State
of Emergency in connection with the conditions of extreme peril to the safety of persons and property
within the city as a result of the October 2019 Public Safety Power Shutoffs (PSPS. In accordance with
the Emergency Services Act Section 8630(b) and Lakeport Municipal Code section 2.28.130, the City
Council ratified the declared emergency on October 31, 2019, under Resolution 2734 (2019). Under
Lakeport Municipal Code section 2.28.150, the City Council shall review, at least every 14 days, the need
for continuing the emergency declaration until the local emergency is terminated.
The City Council, at an emergency meeting on October 31, 2019, ratified the emergency declaration via
Resolution 2734 (2019). The City Council subsequently continued the emergency declaration on
November 5, 2019, November 19, 2019, December 3, 2019, December 17, 2019, January 7, 2020, January
21, 2020, February 4, 2020, February 18, 2020, and March 3, 2020.
Since a need still exists for the declaration, Council is asked to review and continue the declaration.
Should the need continue, staff will return this item at the next regularly scheduled City Council
meeting.
OPTIONS:
the October Public Safety Power Shutoff; or proclaim the termination of the Local State of Emergency.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Meeting Date: 03/17/2020 Page 1 Agenda Item #IV.E.

Comments:
Lakeport.
2. Emergency Proclamation
Meeting Date: 03/17/2020 Page 2 Agenda Item #IV.E.

2020-011
X 03/17/2020
From: incode@cityoflakeport.com
To: Hilary Britton
Subject: Receipt #R00126062
Date: Tuesday, February 25, 2020 3:27:21 PM
225 PARK STREET

LAKEPORT, CA 95453-4802
707-263-5615
----------------------------------------
DATE : 2/25/2020 3:22 PM
OPER : UB
TKBY : SD
TERM : 2
REC# : R00126062
APP APPLICATION FEE
LAKE COUNTY OFFICE OF ED - ADVOCACY WALK & CHILDREN'S FESTIVAL 15.00
APPLICATION FEE 15.00
Paid By:LAKE COUNTY OFFICE OF ED - ADVOCACY WALK & CHILDREN'S FESTIVAL

2-CHECK 15.00 REF:662353
From: Dale Stoebe
To: Hilary Britton
Subject: Re: Application 2020-011 - Child Festival & Advocacy Walk
Date: Wednesday, February 26, 2020 9:11:59 AM
Attachments: image002.png
Hilary,
We have no issues with this event.
Thank you,
Dale
On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 7:58 AM Hilary Britton <hbritton@cityoflakeport.com> wrote:
Hi all,
Please find attached application 2020-011 for the 2020 Child Festival and Advocacy Walk
for your review.
We would like to submit this for City Council approval at their meeting of 03/17/2020, so
please have your comments back to me by 03/07/2020.
Thank you for your input.
Hilary Britton
Deputy City Clerk/Records Supervisor
City of Lakeport
225 Park Street
Lakeport, CA 95453
(707) 263-5615 x102
hbritton@cityoflakeport.com
E-mail correspondence and attachments with the City of Lakeport may be subject to the California
Public Records Act, and as such may therefore be subject to public disclosure unless otherwise
exempt under the Act.
From: Wanda Gray
To: Hilary Britton
Cc: Lisa Davey-Bates
Subject: Re: Application 2020-011 - Child Festival & Advocacy Walk
Date: Wednesday, February 26, 2020 10:07:51 AM
No concerns from Transit! Thank you!
Wanda Gray
Director Regional Operations

Paratransit Services
Operators of Lake Transit
"Providing Quality Coordinated Transportation and community services since 1980"
Direct: (707) 994-3384 ext 5

Cell: (707)951-6403
Fax: (707) 994-3387
Email: WLG@paratransit.net
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.paratransit.net&d=DwIFAg&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=-
SIUPJ1f77PB9b9OKMFTYkEe1bpwLfQNWFAi_lfWrY8&m=av6pilb8fniV9ATIK_ZTpoJgLVwqUWX1d0QHHqe6F1o&s=JNBrpywxc58FLbkpz7q-JUiAxs1nx1SooR0KYnQVNZc&e=
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic mail transmission and any accompanying attachments contain information belonging to the sender which may be confidential and legally
privileged. This information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom this electronic mail transmission was sent as indicated above. If you are not the intended recipient, any
disclosure, copying, distribution, or action taken in reliance on the contents of the information contained in this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error,
please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies of this transmission and all
attachments. Thank you.
>>> Hilary Britton <hbritton@cityoflakeport.com> 2/26/2020 7:58 AM >>>

Hi all,
Please find attached application 2020-011 for the 2020 Child Festival and Advocacy Walk for your review.
We would like to submit this for City Council approval at their meeting of 03/17/2020, so please have your comments back to me by 03/07/2020.
Thank you for your input.
Hilary Britton
Deputy City Clerk/Records Supervisor
City of Lakeport
225 Park Street
Lakeport, CA 95453
(707) 263-5615 x102
hbritton@cityoflakeport.com<mailto:hbritton@cityoflakeport.com>
E-mail correspondence and attachments with the City of Lakeport may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and as such may therefore be subject to public disclosure unless otherwise
exempt under the Act.
[LikeUsonFacebook_small]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_pages_City-2Dof-
2DLakeport_110619388983178&d=DwIFAg&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=-
SIUPJ1f77PB9b9OKMFTYkEe1bpwLfQNWFAi_lfWrY8&m=av6pilb8fniV9ATIK_ZTpoJgLVwqUWX1d0QHHqe6F1o&s=FZ3QCsURAsZhU1ldvdoCDCOL3N1PL1nELj3waR3O0tY&e=>
[cid:image003.png@01CE73E5.20B215D0] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__cityoflakeport.com_&d=DwIFAg&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-
v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=-SIUPJ1f77PB9b9OKMFTYkEe1bpwLfQNWFAi_lfWrY8&m=av6pilb8fniV9ATIK_ZTpoJgLVwqUWX1d0QHHqe6F1o&s=ATptyTw7TmbpFv8v0FM-
edBxuGCNgp4LXn0olNeDulM&e=> [Register then vote - 75%] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
3A__registertovote.ca.gov_&d=DwIFAg&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=-
SIUPJ1f77PB9b9OKMFTYkEe1bpwLfQNWFAi_lfWrY8&m=av6pilb8fniV9ATIK_ZTpoJgLVwqUWX1d0QHHqe6F1o&s=occgLl8kmORvyVUc7cO52d7CbSUi9d5FGvTlVltjpjk&e=>
(Click button to register online)
From: Lori Price
To: Hilary Britton
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]Application 2020-011 - Child Festival & Advocacy Walk
Date: Friday, February 28, 2020 4:09:19 PM
Attachments: image002.png
Good afternoon Hilary,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I have reviewed the subject application and it does not
appear that it will impact County roads in any way. We have no comments or conditions to add to
this permit.

Have a wonderful weekend!

Lori Price
Secretary III
Lake County Department of Public Works
255 N. Forbes Street, Rm 309
Lakeport, CA 95453
(707) 263-2341
lorip@co.lake.ca.us

From: Hilary Britton [mailto:hbritton@cityoflakeport.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2020 7:58 AM
To: Dean Eichelmann <Dean.Eichelmann@lakecountyca.gov>; Cheryl Bennett
<Cheryl.Bennett@lakecountyca.gov>; Cynthia Ader <cader@cityoflakeport.com>; Dale Stoebe
<dstoebe@lakeportpolice.org>; Daniel Chance <dchance@cityoflakeport.com>; Doug Grider
<dgrider@cityoflakeport.com>; Executive Management
<executivemanagement@cityoflakeport.com>; Gerry Gonzalez <ggonzalez@lakeportpolice.org>;
Jim Kennedy <jkennedy@cityoflakeport.com>; Linda Sobieraj <lsobieraj@cityoflakeport.com>; 'Lisa
Davey-Bates' <ldaveybates@dbcteam.net>; Lori Price <Lori.Price@lakecountyca.gov>; Matt Hartzog
<mhartzog@cityoflakeport.com>; Michelle Humphrey <mhumphrey@cityoflakeport.com>; Mike
Sobieraj <msobieraj@lakeportpolice.org>; Pheakdey Preciado
<Pheakdey.Preciado@lakecountyca.gov>; Rebekah N. Dolby <Rebekah.Dolby@lakecountyca.gov>;
Ron Ladd <rladd@cityoflakeport.com>; records@lakecountyca.gov; Tina Rubin
<Tina.Rubin@lakecountyca.gov>; 'Wanda Gray' <WLG@paratransit.net>
Subject: [EXTERNAL]Application 2020-011 - Child Festival & Advocacy Walk

Hi all,

Please find attached application 2020-011 for the 2020 Child Festival and Advocacy Walk for your
review.

We would like to submit this for City Council approval at their meeting of 03/17/2020, so please
have your comments back to me by 03/07/2020.

CITY OF LAKEPORT
City Council
Lakeport Industrial Development Agency
STAFF REPORT
RE: Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR), Fiscal Year MEETING DATE: 03/17/2020
2018-19
SUBMITTED BY: Nicholas Walker, Finance Director

The City Council, City of Lakeport Municipal Sewer District and the Lakeport Redevelopment Successor Agency is
being asked to receive and file the City’s CAFR and Single Audit Report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2019.
Management is pleased to present the City’s CAFR for the year ended June 30, 2019. This document is the
official, audited financial report of the City and includes the audit report from the City’s external, independent
auditor, JJACPA. It was issued on March 2, 2020 and posted to the City’s website.
The information presented throughout the year has not been materially revised in the CAFR, and the auditor
recommended no significant changes to the City’s financial report. A letter in this regard from the City’s auditor
to the City Council is attached.
OPTIONS:
Receive and file the communication letter and CAFR for the fiscal year 2018-19.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Comments:
SUGGESTED MOTIONS:
Move to receive and file the communication letter and CAFR for year ended June 30, 2019.
Attachments: 1. Auditor Communications Letter to Those Charged with Governance

2. Lakeport CAFR, 2018-19
3. Lakeport Single Audit Report
Meeting Date: 03/17/2020 Page 1 Agenda Item #IV.G.

CITY OF LAKEPORT
COMMUNICATION WITH THOSE CHARGED WITH GOVERNANCE AND

COMMUNICATION OF INTERNAL CONTROL RELATED MATTERS
JUNE 30, 2019

March 2, 2020
City Council
City of Lakeport
Lakeport, California
We have audited the basic financial statements of the City of Lakeport (City) as of and for the year,
ended June 30, 2019, and have issued our report thereon dated March 2, 2020. Professional standards
require that we advise you of the following matters relating to our audit.
Our Responsibility in Relation to the Financial Statement Audit
As communicated in our engagement letter dated August 14, 2019, our responsibility, as described by
professional standards, is to form and express an opinion(s) about whether the financial statements that
have been prepared by management with your oversight are presented fairly, in all material
respects, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
Our audit of the financial statements does not relieve you or management of your respective
responsibilities.
Our responsibility, as prescribed by professional standards, is to plan and perform our audit to obtain
reasonable, rather than absolute, assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material
misstatement. An audit of financial statements includes consideration of internal control over financial
reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for
the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity’s internal control over financial
reporting. Accordingly, as part of our audit, we considered the internal control of the City solely for the
purpose of determining our audit procedures and not to provide any assurance concerning such internal
control.
We are also responsible for communicating significant matters related to the audit that are, in our
professional judgment, relevant to your responsibilities in overseeing the financial reporting process.
However, we are no required to design procedures for the purpose of identifying other matters to
communicate to you.
Planned Scope and Timing of the Audit
We conducted our audit consistent with the planned scope and timing we previously communicated to
you.
Compliance with All Ethics Requirements Regarding Independence
The engagement team, others in our firm, as appropriate, and our firm has complied with all relevant
ethical requirements regarding independence.
Qualitative Aspects of the Entity’s Significant Accounting Practices
Significant Accounting Policies
Management has the responsibility to select and use appropriate accounting policies. A summary of
the significant accounting policies adopted by the City is included in Note 1 to the financial
statements. There have been no initial selection of accounting policies and no changes in significant
accounting policies or their application during fiscal year ended June 30, 2019. No matters have come
to our attention that would require us, under professional standards, to inform you about (1) the
methods used to account for significant unusual transactions and (2) the effect of significant
accounting policies in controversial or emerging areas for which there is a lack of authoritative
guidance or consensus.
Significant Accounting Estimates
Accounting estimates are an integral part of the financial statements prepared by management and are
based on management’s current judgments. Those judgments are normally based on knowledge and
experience about past and current events and assumptions about future events. Certain accounting
estimates are particularly sensitive because of their significance to the financial statements and
because of the possibility that future events affecting them may differ markedly from management’s
current judgments.
The most sensitive accounting estimates affecting the financial statements are useful lives of capital
assets (“useful lives”) and pension plan liabilities.
Management’s estimate of the useful lives is based on experience with and observation of capital
assets, by category (e.g. infrastructure) as well as industry standards, when applicable (i.e. buildings).
Pension plan liabilities are valued based upon actuarial assumptions as developed by the City’s Plan
provider. These assumptions and estimates can result in material changes to liabilities and
corresponding deferred inflows and outflows on a year to year basis. We evaluated the key factors
and assumptions used to develop the useful lives and pension plan liabilities and determined that they
are reasonable in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole according to industry
standards.
Financial Statement Disclosures
Certain financial statement disclosures involve significant judgment and are particularly sensitive
because of their significance to financial statement users. The most sensitive disclosures affecting the
City’s financial statements relate to commitments and contingencies.
Significant Difficulties Encountered during the Audit
We encountered no significant difficulties in dealing with management relating to the performance of

the audit.
Uncorrected and Corrected Misstatements
For purposes of this communication, professional standards require us to accumulate all known and
likely misstatements identified during the audit, other than those that we believe are trivial, and
communicate them to the appropriate level of management. Further, professional standards require us
to also communicate the effect of uncorrected misstatements related to prior periods on the relevant
classes of transactions, account balances or disclosures, and the financial statements as a whole and
each applicable opinion unit. Management has corrected all identified misstatements.
In addition, professional standards require us to communicate to you all material, corrected

misstatements that were brought to the attention of management as a result of our audit procedures.
None of the misstatements identified by us as a result of our audit procedures and corrected by
management were material, either individually or in the aggregate, to the financial statements taken as a
whole or applicable opinion units.
Disagreements with Management
For purposes of this letter, professional standards define a disagreement with management as a matter,
whether or not resolved to our satisfaction, concerning a financial accounting, reporting, or auditing
matter, which could be significant to the City’s financial statements or the auditor’s report. No such
disagreements arose during the course of the audit.
Representations Requested from Management
We have requested certain written representations from management, which are included in the
attached letter dated March 2, 2020.
Management’s Consultations with Other Accountants
In some cases, management may decide to consult with other accountants about auditing and
accounting matters. Management informed us that, and to our knowledge, there were no consultations
with other accountants regarding auditing and accounting matters.
Other Significant Findings or Issues
In the normal course of our professional association with the City, we generally discuss a variety of
matters, including the application of accounting principles and auditing standards, operating and
regulatory conditions affecting the City, and operational plans and strategies that may affect the risks of
material misstatement. None of the matters discussed resulted in a condition to our retention as the
entity’s auditors.
Communication of Internal Control Related Matters
In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements, we considered the City’s internal
control over financial reporting (internal control) to determine the audit procedures that are appropriate
in the circumstances for the purpose of expressing our opinions on the financial statements, but not for
the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control. Accordingly, we
do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control.
A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow
management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or
detect and correct, misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a
combination of deficiencies, in internal control, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material
misstatement of the entity’s financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected on a
timely basis. A significant deficiency is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control
that is less severe than a material weakness, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged
with governance.
Our consideration of internal control was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph of this
section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control that might be material
weaknesses or significant deficiencies. Given these limitations, during our audit we did not identify any
deficiencies in internal control that we consider to be material weaknesses. However, material
weaknesses may exist that have not been identified.
This report is intended solely for the information and use of the City Council and management of the
City and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties.
Very truly yours,
]ÉáxÑ{ ] TÜv{?VcT
JOSEPH J ARCH, CPA
President/CEO
JJACPA, INC
––
COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL
FINANCIAL REPORT
CITY OF LAKEPORT, CALIFORNIA
FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2019

COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT

City of Lakeport, California
Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2019

Prepared By
Finance Department
City of Lakeport
This page intentionally left blank.
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
For the year ended June 30, 2019

Table of Contents

Page
INTRODUCTORY SECTION
Letter of Transmittal ............................................................................................................................................ i
Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting ................................................................. vii
List of Officials .................................................................................................................................................. viii
City Organizational Chart.................................................................................................................................... x

FINANCIAL SECTION
Independent Auditor’s Report .......................................................................................................................... 1
Management Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) (Required Supplementary Information) ............................ 3
Financial Highlights ...................................................................................................................................... 3
Overview of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report ...................................................................... 3
Governmental Activities............................................................................................................................ 12
Business‐type Activities ............................................................................................................................. 14
Financial Analysis of the Government’s Funds ........................................................................................ 17
Capital Assets ............................................................................................................................................ 18
Debt Administration .................................................................................................................................. 18
Economic Outlook ..................................................................................................................................... 18
Requests for Information .......................................................................................................................... 19
Government‐Wide Financial Statements ....................................................................................................... 21
Statement of Net Position ........................................................................................................................ 23
Statement of Activities .............................................................................................................................. 24
Fund Financial Statements .............................................................................................................................. 27
Balance Sheet ........................................................................................................................................... 28
Reconciliation of the Governmental Funds Balance Sheet
to the Statement of Net Position .......................................................................................... 30
Reconciliation of Fund Basis Balance Sheet to Government‐wide
Statement of Net Position ..................................................................................................... 31
Statement of Revenue, Expenditures, and Change in Fund Balances ................................................... 32
Reconciliation of Fund Basis Statements to Government‐wide
Statement of Activities .......................................................................................................... 33
Reconciliation of the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in
Fund Balances of Governmental Funds to the Statement of Activities ............................. 35
Statement of Revenue, Expenditures, and Change in Fund Balances – Budget and Actual
General and Major Special Revenue Funds ................................................................................ 36

Table of Contents, Continued

Page
Fund Financial Statements, Continued
Proprietary Funds ...................................................................................................................................... 39
Statement of Net Position .................................................................................................................. 40
Statement of Revenue, Expenses, and Changes in Net Position ..................................................... 41
Statement of Cash Flows .................................................................................................................... 42
Fiduciary Funds .......................................................................................................................................... 44
Statement of Fiduciary Net Position .................................................................................................. 45
Statement of Changes in Fiduciary Net Position .............................................................................. 46
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements Index .............................................................................................. 49
Note 1 ‐ Summary of Significant Accounting Policies ............................................................................. 50
Note 2 ‐ Cash and Investments ................................................................................................................ 64
Note 3 ‐ Accounts Receivable ................................................................................................................... 67
Note 4 – Loans, Notes Receivable, and Interfund Borrowing ................................................................ 68
Note 5 – Capital Assets ............................................................................................................................. 70
Note 6 – Long Term Liabilities .................................................................................................................. 72
Note 7 – Net Position/Fund Balances ...................................................................................................... 76
Note 8 – Interfund Transactions .............................................................................................................. 80
Note 9 – Risk Management ...................................................................................................................... 81
Note 10 – Public Employee Retirement Plan .......................................................................................... 83
Note 11 – Post Retirement Healthcare Benefits ..................................................................................... 90
Note 12 – Successor Agency Trust for Assets of Former Redevelopment Agency .............................. 94
Note 13 – New Accounting Pronouncements ......................................................................................... 97
Other Required Supplementary Information (RSI) ...................................................................................... 101
Schedule of Changes in the Net OPEB Liability and Related Ratios ..................................................... 102
Net OPEB Liability Schedule of Contributions ....................................................................................... 103
Schedule of Contributions, Pension ....................................................................................................... 104
Schedule of City’s Proportionate Share of Net Pension Liability ......................................................... 105
Combining Non‐Major Governmental Funds .............................................................................................. 106
Combining Balance Sheet ....................................................................................................................... 110
Combining Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance .............................. 114


Page
Non‐Major Governmental Fund Budget Comparisons ......................................................................... 118
Parkland Dedication Fund ................................................................................................................ 119
Gas Tax Fund (HUTA) ........................................................................................................................ 120
Prop 172 Public Safety Fund ............................................................................................................ 121
Lakeport Housing Fund .................................................................................................................... 122
BSCC Law Enforcement Subvention ................................................................................................ 123
CDBG Grant 2018 .............................................................................................................................. 124
Tenth Street Drainage Fund ............................................................................................................. 125
Lakeport Blvd Improvement Fund ................................................................................................... 126
South Main Street Improvement Fund ........................................................................................... 127
Parkside Traffic Mitigation Fund ...................................................................................................... 128
Parallel/Bevins Storm Water Maintenance Fund ........................................................................... 129
Lakeshore Storm Damage Repair .................................................................................................... 130
Storm Drainage Fund ........................................................................................................................ 131
Lakeshore Blvd HSIPL Fund .............................................................................................................. 132
CDBG Grant Program Income Fund ................................................................................................. 133
Safe Routes to School Fund ............................................................................................................. 134
HOME Grant Program Income Fund ............................................................................................... 135
Combining Fiduciary Funds ..................................................................................................................... 136
Combining Fiduciary Assets and Liabilities ...................................................................................... 137
Combining Fiduciary Changes in Assets and Liabilities .................................................................. 138

STATISTICAL SECTION
Statistical Section Index ................................................................................................................................. 139
Financial Trends ....................................................................................................................................... 140
Net Position by Component ............................................................................................................. 140
Changes in Net Position .................................................................................................................... 142
Fund Balances, Governmental Funds .............................................................................................. 146
Changes in Fund Balances, Governmental Funds .......................................................................... 148



Page
Revenue Capacity .................................................................................................................................... 150
Assessed Value and Actual Value of Taxable Property .................................................................. 150
Direct and Overlapping Tax Rates .................................................................................................... 151
Property Tax Collections and Levies ................................................................................................ 152
Principal Property Tax Payers ........................................................................................................... 153
Schedule of Top 25 Principal Sales Tax Remitters (listed alphabetically) ..................................... 154
Debt Capacity ........................................................................................................................................... 156
Ratios of Outstanding Debt by Type ................................................................................................ 156
Ratios of General Bonded Debt Outstanding ................................................................................. 158
Direct and Overlapping Debt ........................................................................................................... 159
Legal Debt Margin Information ....................................................................................................... 160
Demographic and Economic Information ............................................................................................. 162
Demographic and Economic Statistics ............................................................................................ 162
Principal Employers .......................................................................................................................... 163
Operating Indicators ............................................................................................................................... 164
Full‐time and Part‐time City Employees by Function ..................................................................... 164
Capital Asset Statistics by Function ................................................................................................. 165
Capital Asset Statistics by Fund ........................................................................................................ 166

Introductory Section

MEMORANDUM

DATE: March 2, 2020

TO: Citizens of the City of Lakeport
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and City Manager
FROM: City Manager Margaret Silveira
RE: Presentation of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report

California Government Code sections 25250 and 25253 require that every general‐purpose local government
publish within six months of the close of each fiscal year a complete set of audited financial statements. The
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) of the City of Lakeport (City) for the fiscal year ended June 30,
2019, is hereby published to fulfill that requirement.
Management assumes full responsibility for the completeness and reliability of the information contained in
this report, based upon a comprehensive framework of internal controls that are established for this purpose.
Because the cost of internal controls should not exceed anticipated benefits, the objective is to provide
reasonable, rather than absolute, assurance that the financial statements are free of any material
misstatements.
The City’s basic financial statements have been audited by JJACPA, Inc., an accounting firm fully licensed and
qualified to perform audits of local governments within the State of California. The financial statements
included in this report were audited in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and government
auditing standards. The independent auditors concluded that there was a reasonable basis for rendering an
unmodified (“clean”) opinion that the City’s basic financial statements for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2019
are fairly presented in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of
America. The independent auditor’s report is presented as the first component of the financial section of this
report.
As the City did expend over $750,000 of federal money during this reporting period, and will be required to
conduct a broader, federally mandated CFR 200 Uniform Guidance “Single Audit” designed to meet the special
needs of federal grantor agencies. This report will be provided by the independent auditor in a separate
document.
Management’s Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) immediately follows the report of the independent auditors
and provides a narrative introduction, overview and analysis of the basic financial statements. The MD&A was
designed to complement this letter of transmittal and should be read in conjunction with it.
City of Lakeport, California i
This report combines the financial statements of the City, the Successor Agency to the Lakeport
Redevelopment Agency (Successor Agency), and the City of Lakeport Municipal Sewer District (CLMSD) in
accordance with principles defining the governmental reporting entity adopted by the Governmental
Accounting Standards Board (GASB). The financial operations of the Successor Agency and CLMSD, though
legally separate from the City, are closely related to the City. The City Council members serve as the governing
board of the CLMSD, which is presented as a blended component unit in the financial statements. Component
units are legally separate entities for which the primary government is financially accountable. For a more
detailed overview of the City’s component units, see the Management Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) and
the Notes to the Basic Financial.
Profile of the Government
The City of Lakeport is a partial service city (as opposed to full service) in that it provides most typical
municipal functions, including public safety (police), public works, community development and parks and
recreation. In addition, the City provides water and wastewater services. It does not provide library or fire
protection, as those are activities of the County of Lake and the Lakeport Fire Protection District, respectively.
It operates in a council‐manager form of government, whereby the council serves as the legislative body and
the City Manager its executive. The City Manager is responsible for directing and supervising the
administration of all departments of the City, to ensure that laws, ordinances, orders, resolutions, contracts,
leases, and franchises are enforced and executed, and for appointing all City employees.
The Lakeport City Council consists of five members, elected at‐large to four‐year overlapping terms. Council
members must be residents of the City. The positions of Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem are chosen by the Council
through its own policy. The Mayor conducts the Council meetings and represents the City in ceremonial
occasions.
The City Council serves as the policy board for the municipality. It provides policy direction, establishes goals,
and sets priorities for the City government. In addition to serving as the policy makers for the community, the
City Council also is responsible for numerous land use decisions within its borders, including the General Plan.
The City Council appoints the City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk, and all members of advisory boards and
commissions.
Incorporated on April 30, 1888 as a general law city, Lakeport serves as the administrative seat for the County
of Lake and with a residential population of 4,8061 in a 2.4 square‐mile area, Lakeport is graced with a strong
business base and a well‐established residential community.
Lakeport is a travel and recreation‐oriented destination and fortunate to have a large area serving as a hub for
recreational activities for Lake County. The Lakeport business environment is positive and well organized.
Driven by an active chamber of commerce, local businesses are community‐oriented and engaged in City‐
business partnerships, including Main Street renovations, façade improvements, events and promotions. The
City’s permanent retail trade area population is approximately 35,000 people with 45,000 within a 10‐mile
radius. Lakeport’s historic downtown area is the center of commercial activity within the community. There
are also commercial areas along Lakeport Boulevard, Parallel Drive, Eleventh Street, North High Street, and
South Main Street.

1
2019 California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit, E‐1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties and
the State, January 1, 2019.
City of Lakeport, California ii
The annual budget provides a comprehensive statement of the City’s organization, operations and resources
and it expresses City Council and CLMSD Board policies and priorities in all areas of the City’s operations. The
budget process is the vehicle through which the City establishes goals and objectives, and prioritizes the
desired programs or services that the City should provide, and which can be financed by the City’s projected
revenue for the budget year. The budget is prepared by fund, function (e.g., public safety), and department
(e.g., police). It is the means through which policy decisions are made, effected, controlled and monitored.
Department heads submit budget requests to the City Manager. The City Manager prepares an estimate of
revenues and prepares recommendations for the next year’s budget. The preliminary budget may or may not
be amended by the City Council and is adopted by resolution by the City Council on or before June 30.
In addition to the budget planning process, the City maintains budgetary controls. The City’s objective in
maintaining budgetary control is to ensure compliance with legal provisions embodied in the annual
appropriated budget approved by the City Council. The City Manager is authorized to transfer budgeted
amounts within funds as deemed necessary in order to meet the City’s needs subject to policy defined in the
City’s Administrative Regulations. The City Council may amend the budget by resolution during the fiscal year.
Citywide Achievements in FY 2018/19
The summer of 2018, the community of Lakeport starred down a wall of fire and survived. This could have
been a disastrous year for the city, if not for the local heroes and those that came to the City’s aid. The River
Fire, which was part of the Mendocino Complex Fire, the largest fire in California history, came to Lakeport’s
doorstep. The hard working first responders and all of the 50 city employees who stayed and worked during
the evacuation of the entire community, responded to the emergency needs and kept the community
prepared for the return of our citizens.

The fall brought on the PG&E Public Safety Power Shutoffs (PSPS). Local small business who had been hit hard
by the six days of evacuation during the River Fire, were now hit by power shutoffs, one lasting event from
some of our struggling small business and for others it was large capital cost of generators to keep their
businesses going.
Even with all the events in the summer and fall of 2018 capital projects continued, public safety was enhanced
and the city was gifted the Bank of America building for our first community center.
Capital Projects: The city completed three major street projects; a portion of Lakeshore Blvd, Eleventh Street
and a portion of South Main Street. Restriping of all the city arterial and collector streets throughout the city
and FEMA repairs began on city streets.
Major solar energy projects were completed; solar arrays at the wastewater treatment plant, the water plant
and public works yard, police department and at the new community center.
Three portable generators were replaced for lift stations for the PSPS’s. Seven aerators were replaced at the
wastewater plant. A new website was completed aimed at improving transparency and information access.
Public Safety Programs: The police department purchased four new police cars. One being a SUV for a canine
unit was purchased through a USDA Grant and private fundraising, and a new MOU was implemented with
County Behavior Department to work within the Lakeport Police Department.
City of Lakeport, California iii
Other accomplishments: A 24 unit affordable housing complex was completed, and the city submitted an
application to LAFCO for a large 150 parcel annexation.
Economic Developments. The City was awarded $400,000 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds
for a business loan program and for implementing American’s with Disabilities upgrades at Carnegie Library.
Measure I: Measure I, passed by a simple majority (50% plus 1) of Lakeport voters in November of 2004, is a
general (unrestricted) transaction and use tax. A general, unrestricted tax is one that can be used to fund any
program, function, service, or project at the discretion of the City Council. It is not a special, restricted tax,
which would require approval of two‐thirds of the voting public. Measure J, passed in conjunction with
Measure I, was a distinctly separate, advisory measure indicating the voting public's preference for the use of
Measure I proceeds.
Each year, the City Council appropriates resources in the amount of revenue expected from Measure I for
projects, programs, and activities that are in the spirit of the measure. Below is a schedule of what those were
and what resources were allocated to them.
Measure I: Transaction and Use Tax
Measure I, passed by a simple majority (50% plus 1) of Lakeport voters in November of 2004, is a general (unrestricted)
transaction and use tax. A general, unrestricted tax is one that can be used to fund any program, function, service, or
project at the discretion of the City Council. It is not a special, restricted tax, which would require approval of two-thirds of
the voting public. Measure J, passed in conjunction with Measure I, was a distinctly separate, advisory measure indicating
the voting public's preference for the use of Measure I proceeds. The language for the two ballot measure was as follows:
Ballot Measure “I”:

“Shall the City of Lak eport enact a one-half cent sales tax for City facilities, services and programs?”
Advisory Measure “J”:

“If Measure “I” is approved, should the proceeds fund repair and maintenance of City streets, park and community service
facilities, and expand public services and programs?”
Estimated Revenue 2019-20

Measure I: Transaction and Use Tax $740,000
Other Adopted
Fiscal Year 2019-20 Recommended Uses General Total
Cost Financing Measure I
and Projects Fund Share Funding
Sources Share
General road maintenance & rebuild $ 1,781,477 $ 1,311,077 $ 470,400 $ 235,039 $ 1,781,477
Parks, buildings and grounds 416,299 416,299 - 74,631 416,299
Westshore Pool 4,000 4,000 - 717 4,000
Public Safety - Police 2,460,439 2,396,439 30,000 429,613 2,426,439
$4,662,215 $4,127,815 $ 500,400 $ 740,000 $4,628,215

City of Lakeport, California iv
Measure Z: Measure Z, passed by a simple majority (50% plus 1) of Lakeport voters in November of 2017, is a
general (unrestricted) transaction and use tax. A general, unrestricted tax is one that can be used to fund any
program, function, service, or project at the discretion of the City Council. It is not a special, restricted tax,
which would require approval of two‐thirds of the voting public. The measure included a five‐member oversite
committee which meets quarterly.
Measure Z: Transaction and Use Tax
Measure Z, passed by a simple majority (50% plus 1) of Lakeport voters in November of 20016, is a general
(unrestricted) transaction and use tax. A general, unrestricted tax is one that can be used to fund any program,
function, service, or project at the discretion of the City Council. It is not a special, restricted tax, which would require
approval of two-thirds of the voting public. The language for the ballot measure was as follows:
Ballot Measure “Z”:

“LAKEPORT PUBLIC SAFETY/ESSENTIAL CITY SERVICES MEASURE. To maintain/enhance general City
services such as: recruiting, hiring, retaining qualified police officers to improve neighborhood patrols/maintain
response to property, burglary, violent crimes; paving/repairing local streets/potholes; enhancing business
attraction/youth recreational programs; k eeping Lak eport’s park s/pool safe/clean; shall the City enact a one-cent
sales tax until ended by voters, providing about $1,500,000 annually, requiring independent audits, citizens’ oversight,
all revenues controlled locally?”
Estimated Revenue 2018-19 Budget 2018-19 Actual

Measure Z: Transaction and Use Tax $1,480,000 $1,540,909
Net Decline in Other Tax and Other Revenue (130,000) -
Net Increase from Measure Z $1,350,000 $1,540,909
Maintenance of Services:
Roads and Public Works Salaries Reallocated to General Fund 90,000 90,000
Additional Public Works/ Roads Employee 30,000 17,000
12th Police Officer Position 50,000 -
Police Officer SRO Position 25,000 25,000
Police Salary Increases for Improved Retention 90,000 90,000
Police Operational Costs 145,500 110,000
General Fund Employee and Operations Cost Increases 122,000 122,000
Total Maintenance of Services 552,500 454,000
Measure Z Revenues Available for 18/19 Projects $797,500 $1,086,909
Recommended Recommended
Fiscal Year 2018-19 Recommended Uses and Projects Measure Z Share Measure Z Share
2018-19 Budget 2018-19 Actual
2 Police Vehicles $ 90,000 $ 163,854
Pick up Chassis for Road Crew 48,000 46,416
Public Safety Camera System at Library Park 25,000 -
Street Repair Material and In- House Road Improvements 178,500 430,584
Upgraded Tables, Trash Receptacles at Library Park 20,000 19,949
Skip Loader 30,000 22,106
South Main Street Surface Treatment 183,000 154,130
11th Street Surface Treatment 210,000 176,870
South Main Encumbrance / Reserve 13,000 73,000
$ 797,500 $ 1,086,909

City of Lakeport, California v
Economic Condition and Fiscal Outlook
The information presented in the financial statements is perhaps best understood when it is considered from
the broader perspective of the specific environment within which the City operates. Understanding that
property and sales taxes generate the City’s largest two sources of revenue, it is important to look at the
economy in the context of people’s wherewithal for producing general fund tax revenues.
Lake County’s economy continues to slowly recover from the Great Recession of 2008‐09. The recovery is
evidenced by slight improvements in the unemployment rate, consumer spending (through sales tax analysis),
building permits, and planning work.
The City’s economic development efforts and implementation of revised financial policies are intended to help
to promote Lakeport’s long‐term fiscal stability. This was a cornerstone in management’s approach to debt
structuring, capital improvement planning, labor negotiations, and service delivery.
According to the State of California; Employment Development Department; Historical Employment and Labor
Force Data, during the fiscal year ended June 2019, the City saw the positive employment trends of the last
four years continue. As reported by the State Employment Development Department, the local
unemployment rate remained stable at 5.1%. This represents the lowest unemployment rate in the past ten
years.
Sales and Use taxes, the City’s largest sources of discretionary revenue saw substantial growth which is a result
of a recovering economy. Future projections of anticipated growth are relatively flat in upcoming years.
Median home prices decreased slightly to $284,303 or 5% (according to the California Association of Realtors).
Total property taxes decreased slightly.
Overall revenue results for FY 2018‐19 improved positively over the prior year. Pension costs, energy market
volatility and actions by the federal and state governments, continue to cause concern about the sustainability
of a healthy local economy. The City, along with governments at all levels, remains under pressure to contain
operating expenditures to ensure that such costs do not grow at a rate that exceeds revenue growth. A
balanced budget in the short‐ and long‐term can quickly become unbalanced if costs are not managed closely.
Many of the current economic uncertainties however are offset by positive economic developments, leading
to an overall outlook of cautious optimism.
Top Ten Revenues Compared Percent

General Fund FY 18/19 FY 17/18 Change
Sales and use tax - Measure Z $ 1,540,909 $ 1,351,487 14.0%
Sales tax - Bradley-Burns 1,434,691 1,351,303 6.2%
Sales and use tax - Measure I 775,630 680,789 13.9%
Property tax 443,456 478,094 -7.2%
Property tax in lieu of VLF 426,931 412,059 3.6%
Franchise fees 336,004 256,370 31.1%
Transient occupancy tax (TOT) 197,785 62,124 218.4%
Building Permits 103,905 166,150 -37.5%
Business Licence Tax 81,400 85,816 -5.1%
Plan Review Fees 26,994 75,254 -64.1%
Total $ 5,367,705 $ 4,919,446 9.1%

City of Lakeport, California vi
Long‐term Financial Planning
For the City, as with governmental jurisdictions throughout the nation, continuing fiscal challenges have
required a redoubling of efforts to address current and future budget shortfalls while working to prioritize and
maintain the level of services that the residents of Lakeport have come to expect. Traditional funding sources
for parks, public safety, and community development are shrinking or have disappeared but with the passage
of Measure Z, some of this pressure will ease. The immediate challenges continue to be the dissolution of the
Redevelopment Agency by the State, major cuts in revenues distributed through Federal and State grant
programs and increasing health and pension costs.
Certificate of Achievement
The Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada (GFOA) awarded a Certificate of
Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting to the City for its comprehensive annual financial report for
the fiscal year ended June 30, 2018. This was the fourth year in a row that the City has achieved this
prestigious award. In order to be awarded a Certificate of Achievement, a government must publish an easily
readable and efficiently organized comprehensive annual financial report. This report must satisfy both
generally accepted accounting principles and applicable legal requirements.
A Certificate of Achievement is valid for a period of one year only. We believe that our current comprehensive
annual financial report continues to meet the Certificate of Achievement Program’s requirements and we are
submitting it to the GFOA to determine its eligibility for another certificate.
Acknowledgements
Preparation of this comprehensive annual financial report could not have been accomplished on a timely basis
without the support and cooperation of many members of the City of Lakeport’s staff. Their efforts made it
possible to improve the quality of the information being reported to the citizens, the City Council, and other
users on a timely basis. Appreciation is also expressed to the Mayor and the City Council for their interest and
support in planning and conducting the financial activities of the City in a responsible and responsive manner.
Respectively Submitted
___________________
Margaret Silveria
City Manager
,

City of Lakeport, California vii

Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting

vii

List of Officials

CITY COUNCIL
LAKEPORT REDEVELOPMENT SUCCESSOR AGENCY BOARD OF
DIRECTORS CITY OF LAKEPORT MUNICIPAL SEWER DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS

George Spurr Mayor
Kenneth Parlet, III Mayor Pro Tem
Mireya Turner Council Member
Stacey Mattina Council Member
Tim Barnes Council Member
MANAGEMENT TEAM

Margaret Silveira City Manager
David Ruderman City Attorney
Brad Rasmussen Chief of Police
Nicholas Walker Finance Director
Kelly Buendia City Clerk/Administrative Services Director
Doug Grider Interim Public Works Director
Kevin Ingram Community Development Director
viii
ix

City Organizational Chart

x

FINANCIAL SECTION

 Independent Auditor’s Report

 Management’s Discussion and Analysis

 Basic Financial Statements

 Notes to the Basic Financial Statements

 Required Supplementary Information

 Combining and Individual Fund Statements and Schedules


INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S REPORT

To the Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of Lakeport

Report on the Financial Statements

We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the governmental activities, the business‐type activities, each
major fund, the aggregate remaining fund information, and the budgetary comparison information of the City of Lakeport,
California (City), as of and for the year ended June 30, 2019, and the related notes to the financial statements, which
collectively comprise the City’s basic financial statements as listed in the table of contents.

Management’s Responsibility for the Financial Statements

Management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of these financial statements in accordance with
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America; this includes the design, implementation, and
maintenance of internal control relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of financial statements that are free from
material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error.

Auditor’s Responsibility

Our responsibility is to express opinions on these financial statements based on our audit. We conducted our audit in
accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to
financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial
statements are free from material misstatement.

An audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and disclosures in the financial
statements. The procedures selected depend on the auditor’s judgment, including the assessment of the risks of material
misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or error. In making those risk assessments, the auditor
considers internal control relevant to the entity’s preparation and fair presentation of the financial statements in order to
design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the
effectiveness of the entity’s internal control. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes evaluating
the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of significant accounting estimates made by
management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements.

We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our audit opinions.

Opinions

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the respective financial
position of the governmental activities, the business‐type activities, each major fund, the aggregate remaining fund
information, and the budgetary comparison information of the City, as of June 30, 2019, and the respective changes in
financial position and, where applicable, cash flows thereof for the year then ended in accordance with accounting
principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
7080 Donlon Way, Suite 204, Dublin, CA 94568 ● phone (925) 556-6200 ● fax: (510) 217-5930
1102 South Main Street, #1, Fort Bragg, CA 95437 ● phone (707) 964-6325
www.jjacpa.com

To the Honorable Mayor and City Council
The City of Lakeport
Page 2

Other Matters

Required Supplementary Information

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America require that the management’s discussion and
analysis on pages 3–19, the Schedule of Changes in the Net OPEB Liability and Ratios on page 102, The Net OPEB Liability
Schedule of Contributions on page 103, the City’s Schedules of Contributions, Pensions on pages 104, and the Schedules of
the City’s Proportionate Share of the Net Pension Liability on pages 105, be presented to supplement the basic financial
statements. Such information, although not a part of the basic financial statements, is required by the Governmental
Accounting Standards Board who considers it to be an essential part of financial reporting for placing the basic financial
statements in an appropriate operational, economic, or historical context. We have applied certain limited procedures to
the required supplementary information in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of
America, which consisted of inquiries of management about the methods of preparing the information and comparing the
information for consistency with management’s responses to our inquiries, the basic financial statements, and other
knowledge we obtained during our audit of the basic financial statements. We do not express an opinion or provide any
assurance on the information because the limited procedures do not provide us with sufficient evidence to express an
opinion or provide any assurance.

Other Information

Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming opinions on the financial statements that collectively comprise the
City’s basic financial statements. The combining and individual nonmajor fund financial statements and the introductory
section and statistical sections are presented for purposes of additional analysis and are not a required part of the basic
financial statements.

The combining and individual nonmajor fund financial statements are the responsibility of management and were derived
from and relates directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial statements.
Such information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial statements and
certain additional procedures, including comparing and reconciling such information directly to the underlying accounting
and other records used to prepare the basic financial statements or to the basic financial statements themselves, and other
additional procedures in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America. In our
opinion, the combining and individual nonmajor fund financial statements is fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation
to the basic financial statements as a whole.

The introductory section and statistical sections have not been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of
the basic financial statements, and accordingly, we do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on it

Other Reporting Required by Government Auditing Standards

In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we have also issued our report dated March 2, 2020 on our
consideration of the City's internal control over financial reporting and on our tests of its compliance with certain provisions
of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements and other matters. The purpose of that report is to describe the
scope of our testing of internal control over financial reporting and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to
provide an opinion on internal control over financial reporting or on compliance. That report is an integral part of an audit
performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering City’s internal control over financial reporting
and compliance.
]]TVcT? \ÇvA
March 2, 2020 JJACPA, Inc.

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

This section provides a narrative overview and analysis of the financial activities of the City of Lakeport
(City) for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2019. It should be read in conjunction with the accompanying
transmittal letter and basic financial statements.

FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS

 The City’s Net Position increased $21.17 million to $23.2 million. Components of this increase
are discussed in more detail subsequently in the analysis.
 At the close of the most recent fiscal year the City’s governmental funds reported combined
fund balances of $11.2 million, an increase of $2 million in comparison with the prior fiscal
year. Approximately 15% of combined fund balance at June 30, 2019, ($843 thousand) is
available for spending at the government’s discretion (unassigned fund balance). The balance
of the General Fund increased $4 million to $4.5 million.
 The Budget vs. Actual had a positive variance in the General Fund of $930 thousand.
 The Water Enterprise Net Position increased $54 thousand and the Sewer Enterprise Net
Position increased $83 thousand.

OVERVIEW OF THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT

This Comprehensive Annual Financial Report is in three major parts:

1) Introductory section, which includes the Transmittal Letter and general information.

2) Financial section, which includes the Management’s Discussion and Analysis (this part), the Basic
Financial Statements, which include the Government‐wide and the Fund Financial Statements
along with the notes to these financial statements, and Combining and Individual Fund Financial
Statements and Schedules.
3) Statistical section, which includes detailed information as a context for understanding what the
information in the financial statements, and footnotes says about the City's overall financial health.

The Basic Financial Statements

The Basic Financial Statements are comprised of the Government‐wide Financial Statements and the
Fund Financial Statements; these two sets of financial statements provide two different views of the
City’s financial activities and financial position.

3

Management’s Discussion and Analysis, Continued

OVERVIEW OF THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT, Continued

Government‐wide Financial Statements

The Government‐wide Financial Statements provide a broad overview of the City’s activities as a whole
and comprise the Statement of Net position and the Statement of Activities. The Statement of Net
position provides information about the financial position of the City as a whole, including all its capital
assets and long‐term liabilities on the full accrual basis, similar to that used by corporations. The
Statement of Activities provides information about all the City’s revenues and all its expenses, also on
the full accrual basis, with the emphasis on measuring net revenues or expenses of each the City’s
programs. The Statement of Activities explains in detail the change in Net position for the year.

All of the City’s activities are grouped into Governmental Activities and Business‐type activities, as
explained below. All the amounts in the Statement of Net position and the Statement of Activities are
separated into Governmental Activities and Business‐type Activities in order to provide a summary of
these two activities of the City as a whole.

♦ Governmental activities – All of the City’s basic services are considered to be governmental
activities, including general government, community development, public safety, public works and
administration. These services are supported by general City revenues such as taxes and by specific
program revenues such as developer fees.

♦ Business‐type activities – All the City’s enterprise activities are reported here, including Water and
Sewer. Unlike governmental services, these services are supported by charges paid by users based
on the amount of the service they use.

Fund Financial Statements

A fund is a grouping of related accounts that is used to maintain control over resources that have been
segregated for specific activities or objectives. The City, like other state and local governments, uses
fund accounting to ensure and demonstrate compliance with finance‐related legal requirements. All of
the funds of the City can be divided into two categories: governmental funds and proprietary funds

Governmental funds. Governmental funds are used to account for essentially the same functions
reported as governmental activities in the Government‐wide Financial Statements. However, unlike
the Government‐wide Financial Statements, Governmental Fund Financial Statements focus on near‐
term inflows and outflows of spendable resources, as well as on balances of spendable resources
available at the end of the fiscal year. Such information may be useful in evaluating a government’s
near‐term financing requirements.
4




Because the focus of the Governmental Fund Financial Statements is narrower than that of the
Government‐wide Financial Statements, it is useful to compare the information presented for
governmental funds with similar information presented for governmental activities in the
Government‐wide Financial Statement. By doing so, readers may better understand the long‐term
impact of the government’s near‐term financial decisions. Both the governmental fund balance sheet
and the governmental fund statement of revenues, expenditures, and changes in fund balances
provide a reconciliation to facilitate this comparison between governmental funds and governmental
activities. The Governmental Fund Financial Statements provide detailed information about each of
the City’s most significant funds, called major funds. The concept of major funds, and the
determination of which are major funds, was established by GASB Statement No. 34 and replaces the
concept of combining like funds and presenting them as one total. Instead, each major fund is
presented individually, with all nonmajor funds summarized and presented only in a single column.
Subordinate schedules present the detail of these nonmajor funds. Major funds present the major
activities of the City for the year, and may change from year to year as a result of changes in the
pattern of the City’s activities.

For the fiscal year ended June 30, 2019, the City’s major funds are as follows:

Governmental Funds:
 General Fund
 HOME Grant 2017 Special Revenue Fund
 2017 Storm Capital Projects

For the fiscal year ended June 30, 2019, the City adopted annual appropriated budgets for all funds.
Budgetary comparison schedules have been provided for the general fund and major governmental
funds to demonstrate compliance with this budget and may be found on pages 36‐37.

Proprietary funds. The City maintains Enterprise‐type and Internal Service proprietary funds. Enterprise
funds are used to report the same functions presented as business‐type activities in the Government‐
wide Financial Statements. The City uses enterprise funds to account for Water and Sewer activities.
Internal service funds are an accounting methodology used to accumulate and allocate costs internally
among the City’s various functions. The City uses internal service funds to account for its building
maintenance, information technology assets, and its fleet of vehicles.
5




Proprietary funds provide the same type of information as the Government‐wide Financial Statements,
only in more detail. The proprietary fund financial statements provide separate information for all of
these operations.

Proprietary Funds:
 Water Enterprise Fund
 Sewer Enterprise Fund

Notes to the Basic Financial Statements

The notes provide additional information that is essential to a full understanding of the data provided
in the Government‐wide and Fund Financial Statements. The notes to the basic financial statements
can be found on pages 50–99 of this report. Required Supplementary Information follows the notes on
page 102.

Combining and Individual Fund Financial Statements and Schedules

The combining statements referred to earlier in connection with nonmajor governmental funds are
presented on pages 110‐138 of this report.

6


GOVERNMENT‐WIDE FINANCIAL ANALYSIS

As noted earlier, net position may serve over time as a useful indicator of a government’s financial
position. In the case of the City, assets and deferred outflows of resources exceeded liabilities and
deferred inflows of resources by $23,322,696 as of June 30, 2019. The following table represents a
comparative analysis of the net position of governmental and business‐type activities as of June 30,
2019 and June 30, 2018.
Summary of Net Position
2019 2018
Govern‐ Business‐ Govern‐ Business‐
mental type mental type
Activities Activities Total Activities Activities Total
Current and other assets $ 11,992,440 $ 8,851,040 $ 20,843,480 $ 10,096,238 $ 6,556,549 $ 16,652,787

Noncurrent assets 13,384,758 24,712,681 38,097,439 12,296,899 23,672,734 35,969,633
Total assets 25,377,198 33,563,721 58,940,919 22,393,137 30,229,283 52,622,420
Deferred outflows of resources 1,178,639 381,319 1,559,958 1,845,249 805,327 2,650,576

Total assets and deferred outflows of
resources 26,555,837 33,945,040 60,500,877 24,238,386 31,034,610 55,272,996
Current and other liabilities 944,415 1,230,612 2,175,027 1,166,824 1,170,409 2,337,233

Long‐term liabilities 11,457,733 22,289,595 33,747,328 10,106,188 19,070,469 29,176,657
Total liabilities 12,402,148 23,520,207 35,922,355 11,273,012 20,240,878 31,513,890
Deferred inflows of resources 875,008 380,818 1,255,826 1,700,773 886,932 2,587,705

Total liabilities and deferred inflows of
resources 13,277,156 23,901,025 37,178,181 12,973,785 21,127,810 34,101,595
Net position:
Net investment in
Capital Assets 13,384,758 7,149,800 20,534,558 12,296,899 9,185,934 21,482,833
Restricted 1,040,845 784,742 1,825,587 844,500 784,742 1,629,242
Unrestricted (deficit) (1,146,922) 2,109,473 962,551 (1,876,798) (63,876) (1,940,674)
Total net position $ 13,278,681 $ 10,044,015 $ 23,322,696 $ 11,264,601 $ 9,906,800 $ 21,171,401

Overall, total Net Position increased by approximately $2 million, despite the issuance of $5.3 million in
new bonds for the solar and energy efficiency projects, primarily due to investments in capital assets.
While the net pension and OPEB liabilities remained relatively stable the associated deferred inflows
and outflows decreased significantly due to schedule amortizations of balances and minimized plan
generated balances. The city significantly improved its cash position. Primarily caused by the collection
of an additional $1 million in insurance proceeds for a large claim on damages caused by the 2017
Winter Storms.
7


GOVERNMENT‐WIDE FINANCIAL ANALYSIS, Continued

A large portion (88%) of the City of Lakeport’s net position reflect its investment in capital assets (e.g.,
land, easements, buildings, machinery, and infrastructure); less any related outstanding debt that was
used to acquire those assets. The City uses these capital assets to provide a variety of services to its
citizens; consequently, these assets are not available for future spending. Although the City of
Lakeport’s investment in its capital assets is reported net of related debt, it should be noted that the
resources used to repay this debt must be provided from other sources, since the capital assets
themselves cannot be used to liquidate these liabilities.

Unrestricted Net Position increased $2.9 million over the previous year. The increase in unrestricted
Net Position is primarily due to the receipt of bond proceeds for the solar and energy efficiency
projects that were not disbursed at year end.

8



The change in net position for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2019, and 2018, follows:

Changes in Net Position
2019 2018
Govern‐ Business‐ Govern‐ Business‐
mental type mental type
Activities Activities Total Activities Activities Total
Revenues:
Program revenues:
Charges for services $ 79,384 $ 5,125,316 $ 5,204,700 $ 126,097 $ 5,387,698 $ 5,513,795
Grants and contributions:
Operating 3,452,149 ‐ 3,452,149 285,277 ‐ 285,277
Capital 530,770 ‐ 530,770 784,112 ‐ 784,112
General revenues:
Sales taxes 3,751,230 ‐ 3,751,230 3,383,579 ‐ 3,383,579
Property taxes 869,506 290,086 1,159,592 931,679 316,863 1,248,542
Transient and other taxes 197,785 ‐ 197,785 62,124 ‐ 62,124
Licenses and franchises 520,443 ‐ 520,443 652,736 ‐ 652,736
Fines, forfeitures and penalties 27,107 ‐ 27,107 22,824 ‐ 22,824
Use of money and property 146,691 125,160 271,851 53,819 48,773 102,592
Other revenues 934,749 ‐ 934,749 1,807,367 ‐ 1,807,367
Total revenues 10,509,814 5,540,562 16,050,376 8,109,614 5,753,334 13,862,948
Expenses:
Governmental activities:
General government 1,217,094 ‐ 1,217,094 873,488 ‐ 873,488
Community development 319,286 ‐ 319,286 313,505 ‐ 313,505
Roads and infrastructure 1,221,717 ‐ 1,221,717 1,374,901 ‐ 1,374,901
Housing and support programs 2,750,724 ‐ 2,750,724 500,861 ‐ 500,861
Economic development 97,186 ‐ 97,186 113,257 ‐ 113,257
Public safety 2,042,734 ‐ 2,042,734 1,917,400 ‐ 1,917,400
Parks, buildings, and grounds 704,434 704,434 403,719 403,719
Interest and fiscal charges 142,559 ‐ 142,559 93,234 ‐ 93,234
Business‐type activities: ‐ ‐
Water ‐ 2,261,177 2,261,177 ‐ 1,792,625 1,792,625
Sewer ‐ 3,142,170 3,142,170 ‐ 2,239,698 2,239,698
Total expenses 8,495,734 5,403,347 13,899,081 5,590,365 4,032,323 9,622,688
Excess (Deficiency) of revenues over
expenditures before transfers 2,014,080 137,215 2,151,295 2,519,249 1,721,011 4,240,260
Net position:
Beginning of year 11,264,601 9,906,800 21,171,401 11,819,511 9,388,034 21,207,545
Adjustments ‐ ‐ ‐ (3,074,159) (1,202,245) (4,276,404)
Beginning, as adjusted 11,264,601 9,906,800 21,171,401 8,745,352 8,185,789 16,931,141
End of year $ 13,278,681 $ 10,044,015 $ 23,322,696 $ 11,264,601 $ 9,906,800 $ 21,171,401
9



Revenues

The City’s total revenues for governmental and business‐type activities were $16,050,376 for the fiscal
year ended June 30, 2019, which represents a 16% increase over the previous fiscal year. Significant
revenues for the City for fiscal year 2018/19 were derived from charges for services (32%) operating
grants and contributions (22%), sales and use tax (23%) and property tax (7%).

Following is a discussion of variances in key revenues from the prior fiscal year:

1. Charges for Services. Charges for Services decreased approximately 5% which is a
considered a normal fluctuation of charges for services consisting entirely of usage of
water, sewer and solid waste.

2. Grants and Contributions. Annual receipts increased approximately $3.1 million as the City
received a large HOME grant for the development of low‐income housing.

3. Sales and Use Tax. Sales and use taxes increased by $367k or 11% entirely made up of
expanding sales and use tax base resulting from a strong economy.

4. Property Tax. Property taxes remained relatively stable over the prior year as a result of a
somewhat stagnant housing market.

10



Expenses

Governmental and business‐type activity expenses of the City for the year totaled $13,899,081 which
represents a 46% increase over the previous fiscal year. Governmental activity expenses totaled
$8,495,734 or 61% of total expenses. Housing and support program costs represented (32%) of total
governmental activities expenses, followed by public safety (23%) and roads and infrastructure (14%).
Business‐type activities incurred $5,403,347 of expenses during the fiscal year or 39% of the total City
expenses.

Following is a discussion of significant variances in key expense categories from the prior fiscal year:

1. Housing and support programs. The City incurred an additional $2.2 million in 2018/19 for
costs associated with the construction of a new low‐income housing apartment complex.

2. Public Safety. Expenses increased $125k or 6% as a result of increases to personnel related
costs.

3. Roads and infrastructure. Expenses remained relatively stable as a result of increased
commitment to street repair and improvement projects to achieve the community goal of
improving the City’s streets and roads.

4. Water Enterprise. Expenses increased $468k or 26% due to increases to personnel and pension
related costs. The majority of this increase is pension expense which can fluctuate significantly
for year to year.

5. Sewer Enterprise. Expenses increased $902k or 40% due to increases to personnel and pension
related costs. The majority of this increase is pension expense which can fluctuate significantly
for year to year.
11



Governmental Activities

The following table shows the cost of each of the City’s major programs and the net cost of the
programs. Net cost is the total cost less fees and other direct revenue generated by the activities. The
net cost reflects the financial burden that was placed on the City’s taxpayers by each of the programs.
The total cost of services and the net cost of services for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2019, and
2018, are as follows:

2019 2018
Total Cost Net Cost Total Cost Net Cost
of Services of Services of Services of Services
General government $ 1,217,094 $ 670,132 $ 873,488 $ 736,487
Community development 319,286 268,872 313,505 223,426
Roads and infrastructure 1,221,717 544,314 1,374,901 441,787
Housing and support programs 2,750,724 16,256 500,861 500,861
Economic development 97,186 76,271 113,257 113,257
Public safety 2,042,734 2,010,593 1,917,400 1,882,108
Parks, buildings, and grounds 704,434 704,434 403,719 403,719
Interest and fiscal charges 142,559 142,559 93,234 93,234
Total $ 8,495,734 $ 4,433,431 $ 5,590,365 $ 4,394,879

12



Governmental Activities, Continued

Revenues by source for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2019, and 2018, are as follows:
Revenues by Source ‐ Governmental Activities 2018
Capital grants and
contributions
530,770
5%
Operating grants
and contributions
3,452,149 Sales and use taxes
33% 3,751,230
36%
Charges for services
79,384
1%
Property taxes
Other general
869,506
revenues
8%
934,749
9% Transient
Use of money and occupancy tax
Fines, forfeitures Licenses, permits
property 197,785
and penalties and franchises
146,691 2%
27,107 520,443
1% 5%
0%

Revenues by Source ‐ Governmental Activities 2018
Capital grants and
Operating grants
contributions
and contributions
784,112
285,277
10%
3%
126,097
2% Sales and use taxes
Other general
revenues 3,383,579
1,807,367 42%
22%
Use of money and
property
53,819
1%
Fines, forfeitures Property taxes
and penalties Transient 931,679
Licenses, permits
22,824 occupancy tax 11%
and franchises
0% 62,124
652,736
1%
8%
13



Business‐type Activities

Business‐type activities increased the City’s net position by $137,215. The City has two business‐type
activities: Water and Sewer. While both activities generated positive changes in net position the
changes were marginal with no specific significant items.

14



Business‐type Activities, Continued

Operating Revenues and Expenses
2019
$3,500,000
$3,000,000
$2,500,000 Operating revenues
Operating expenses
$2,000,000
$1,500,000
$1,000,000
$500,000
$‐
Water Sewer

Operating Revenues and Expenses
2018
$3,500,000
$3,000,000
$2,500,000 Operating revenues
Operating expenses
$2,000,000
$1,500,000
$1,000,000
$500,000
$‐
Water Sewer

15



Business‐type Activities, Continued

The revenues by source for the business‐type activities for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2019, and
2018, are as follows:
Revenues by Source ‐ Business‐type Activities
2019
Use of money and
property
125,160
2.26%
Property taxes
290,086
5.24%
5,125,316
92.51%

Revenues by Source ‐ Business‐type Activities
2018
Use of money and
property
49,885
0.77%
Property taxes
414,720
6.43%
Capital grants and
4,886,037
contributions
75.79%
1,096,530
17.01%
16



Financial Analysis of the Government’s Funds

The City of Lakeport uses fund accounting to ensure and demonstrate compliance with finance‐related
legal requirements. The fund financial statements focus on individual parts of the City government,
reporting the City’s operations in more detail than the government‐wide financial statements.

Governmental funds. The City’s governmental funds provide information on near‐term inflows,
outflows, and balances of spending resources. At the fiscal year ended June 30, 2019, the City’s
governmental funds reported combined fund balances of $11,184,098. This is a increase of $2 million
from last year.

The General Fund is the chief operating fund of the City. At the fiscal year ended June 30, 2019,
General Fund unassigned fund balance totaled $842,769. Total governmental fund balance increased
$2 million from the prior year. The increase results from insurance proceeds received on a claim filed
for damages incurred during the 2017 Winter Storms flood event and proceeds from bonds issued for
solar and energy efficiency upgrade projects.

Proprietary funds. Further detail on the change in net position may be found in the section titled
Business‐type Activities on page 14.

Budgetary Highlights

General Fund

The difference between the final budget and actual revenues differs favorably by $930,540.
Expenditures were held below budget by $1 million with savings across nearly all categories. Most
notably public works and public safety. The savings for public safety were primarily the result of the
departments inability to fill open positions. The savings for public works was a result of capital projects
that were not completed as anticipated.

17



Capital Assets

Governmental Activities Business‐type Activities Totals
2019 2018 2019 2018 2019 2018
Land $ 1,769,145 $ 1,652,983 $ 2,475,403 $ 2,475,403 $ 4,244,548 $ 4,128,386
Construction in progress 475,750 369,052 1,820,865 568,217 2,296,615 937,269
Buildings and improvements 4,654,217 3,913,444 8,724,314 8,963,637 13,378,531 12,877,081
Improvements 5,898,247 5,909,935 10,701,124 10,927,915 16,599,371 16,837,850
Vehicles and equipment 587,399 451,485 990,975 737,562 1,578,374 1,189,047
Total $ 13,384,758 $ 12,296,899 $ 24,712,681 $ 23,672,734 $ 38,097,439 $ 35,969,633

Significant increases to Capital Assets are primarily Construction in progress for energy efficiency
projects including solar at various City owned facilities. More detail of the capital assets and current
activity can be found in the notes to the financial statements on Page 55 for significant accounting
policies and Note 7 on Page 70 for other capital asset information.

Debt Administration

For the year ended June 30, 2019, the City issued $5.3 million in new bonds for the solar and energy
efficiency projects.

Economic Outlook

At the time of budget preparation for FY 209/20, the economic outlook for the City continued to be
stable. The General Fund Budget for FY 209/20 of approximately $6 million was adopted in June of
2019. Particularly positive revenue categories are charges for services and sales and use tax which
have shown slow but steady growth over the past three years.

The FY 2019/20 budget continues the practice of conservative revenue estimates, especially in the
General Fund. Overall, the FY 2019/20 Adopted Budget anticipates modest increases in most revenues.
18



Requests for Information

This financial report is designed to provide our citizens, taxpayers, creditors and government
regulators with a general overview of the City’s finances and to demonstrate the City’s accountability
for the money it receives. Additional information may be found on our website at
www.cityoflakeport.com. Below is the contact address for questions about the report or requests for
additional financial information.

City of Lakeport
Finance Department
225 Park Street
Lakeport, CA 95453

19

20
Government‐Wide Financial Statements
The Statement of Net Position reports the difference between the City’s total assets and the City’s total liabilities, including
all the City’s capital assets and all its long‐term debt. The Statement of Net Position summarizes the financial position of all
City Governmental Activities in a single column, and the financial position of all the City’s Business‐Type Activities in a single
column; these are followed by a total column which presents the financial position of the entire City.
The City’s Governmental Activities include the activities of its General Fund, along with all of its Special Revenue, Capital
Projects and Debt Service Funds. The City’s Business‐Type Activities include all of its Enterprise Fund activities.
The Statement of Activities reports increases and decreases in the City’s net position. It presents the City’s expenses first,
listed by program, and follows these with the expenses of its business‐type activities. Program revenues—that is, revenues
which are generated directly by these programs—are then deducted from program expenses to arrive at the net expense of
each governmental and business‐type program. The City’s general revenues are then listed in the Governmental Activities or
Business‐type Activities column, as appropriate, and the Change in Net Position is computed and reconciled with the
Statement of Net Position.
Both these Statements include the financial activities of the City and the City of Lakeport Municipal Sewer District, which are
legally separate but are component units of the City because they are controlled by the City, which is financially accountable
for their activities.
21
22
Statement of Net Position
June 30, 2019
Governmental Business‐type
Activities Activities Total
ASSETS
Cash and investments $ 8,310,016 $ 7,325,602 $ 15,635,618
Restricted cash and investments 22,588 582,868 605,456
Receivables:
Accounts 1,179,713 810,122 1,989,835
Loans/Notes receivable 2,480,123 132,448 2,612,571
Total current assets 11,992,440 8,851,040 20,843,480
Capital assets:
Nondepreciable 2,244,895 4,296,268 6,541,163
Depreciable 11,139,863 20,416,413 31,556,276
Total noncurrent assets 13,384,758 24,712,681 38,097,439
Total assets 25,377,198 33,563,721 58,940,919
DEFERRED OUTFLOWS OF RESOURCES
Pension plan 1,105,420 351,885 1,457,305
OPEB 73,219 29,434 102,653
Total deferred outflows of resources 1,178,639 381,319 1,559,958
Total assets and deferred outflows $ 26,555,837 $ 33,945,040 $ 60,500,877
LIABILITIES
Accounts payable 748,197 356,790 1,104,987
Accrued payroll liabilities 28,309 16,173 44,482
Other liabilities 9,377 107,722 117,099
Deposits payable ‐ 71,483 71,483
Compensated absences ‐ current portion 80,396 8,574 88,970
Due within one year 78,136 669,870 748,006
Total current liabilities 944,415 1,230,612 2,175,027
Long‐term liabilities:
Compensated absences 219,871 206,893 426,764
Due after one year 3,538,565 17,763,681 21,302,246
Net OPEB obligation 3,846,596 1,546,342 5,392,938
Net pension liability 3,852,701 2,772,679 6,625,380
Total noncurrent liabilities 11,457,733 22,289,595 33,747,328
Total liabilities 12,402,148 23,520,207 35,922,355
DEFERRED INFLOWS OF RESOURCES
Deferred revenue ‐ Business license tax 22,459 ‐ 22,459
Pension Plan 852,549 380,818 1,233,367
Total deferred inflows of resources 875,008 380,818 1,255,826
NET POSITION
Net investment in capital assets 13,384,758 7,149,800 20,534,558
Restricted for:
Law enforcement 202,781 ‐ 202,781
Housing programs 289,450 ‐ 289,450
Transportation infrastructure 548,614 ‐ 548,614
Debt service ‐ 373,231 373,231
Assessment district ‐ 316,610 316,610
Depreciation reserve ‐ 94,901 94,901
Unrestricted (deficit) (1,146,922) 2,109,473 962,551
Total net position 13,278,681 10,044,015 23,322,696
Total liabilities, deferred inflows and net position $ 26,555,837 $ 33,945,040 $ 60,500,877
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these basic financial statements.
23
Statement of Activities
Program Revenues
Operating Capital
Charges for Grants and Grants and
Functions/Programs Expenses Services Contributions Contributions
Primary government:
General government $ 1,217,094 $ ‐ $ 546,962 $ ‐
Community development 319,286 50,054 ‐ 360
Roads and infrastructure 1,221,717 27,768 119,225 530,410
Housing and support programs 2,750,724 ‐ 2,734,468 ‐
Economic development 97,186 ‐ 20,915 ‐
Public safety 2,042,734 1,562 30,579 ‐
Parks, buildings and grounds 704,434 ‐ ‐ ‐
Interest and fiscal charges 142,559 ‐ ‐ ‐
Total governmental activities 8,495,734 79,384 3,452,149 530,770
Business‐type activities:
Water 2,261,177 2,302,278 ‐ ‐
Sewer 3,142,170 2,823,038 ‐ ‐
Total business‐type activities 5,403,347 5,125,316 ‐ ‐
Total primary government $ 13,899,081 $ 5,204,700 $ 3,452,149 $ 530,770
General revenues:
Taxes:
Sales and use taxes
Property taxes, levied for general purposes
Transient occupancy tax, levied for general purposes
Licenses, permits and franchises
Fines, forfeitures and penalties
Use of money and property
Other general revenues
Total general revenues
Change in net position
Net position:
Beginning of year
Adjustments
Beginning, as adjusted
End of year
24
Net (Expense) Revenue and
Governmental Business‐Type
Activities Activities Totals
$ (670,132) $ ‐ $ (670,132)

(268,872) ‐ (268,872)
(544,314) ‐ (544,314)
(16,256) ‐ (16,256)
(76,271) (76,271)
(2,010,593) (2,010,593)
(704,434) (704,434)
(142,559) ‐ (142,559)
(4,433,431) ‐ (4,433,431)
‐ 41,101 41,101

‐ (319,132) (319,132)
‐ (278,031) (278,031)
(4,433,431) (278,031) (4,711,462)
3,751,230 ‐ 3,751,230

869,506 290,086 1,159,592
197,785 ‐ 197,785
520,443 ‐ 520,443
27,107 ‐ 27,107
146,691 125,160 271,851
934,749 ‐ 934,749
6,447,511 415,246 6,862,757
2,014,080 137,215 2,151,295
11,264,601 9,906,800 21,171,401

‐ ‐ ‐
11,264,601 9,906,800 21,171,401
$ 13,278,681 $ 10,044,015 $ 23,322,696
25
26
FUND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
MAJOR FUNDS
Fund Description
General Fund The General Fund is used for all the general revenues of the City not specifically
levied or collected for other City funds and the related expenditures. The major
revenue sources for this fund are property taxes, sales taxes, franchise fees,
business licenses, unrestricted revenues from the state, fines and forfeitures,
and interest income. Expenditures are made for community development,
public safety, public works, and other services.
HOME Grant 2017 Special Revenue Fund to track HOME grant funding and expenditures for the construction of a 26
unit low income family housing complex.
2017 Storm Capital Projects Accounts for capital projects resulting from the 2017 Winter storms which were
declared a federal disaster.
27
Balance Sheet
Governmental Funds
June 30, 2019
Major Funds
HOME
General Grant 2017 2017 Storm
Fund Special Revenue Capital Projects
ASSETS
Cash and investments $ 3,478,127 283,109 $ 2,609,334
Restricted cash and investments 22,588 ‐ ‐
Receivables:
Taxes 87,156 ‐
Intergovernmental ‐ 36,405 ‐
Loans/Notes receivable ‐ ‐ ‐
Other receivable 1,037,060 ‐ ‐
Due from other funds 19,820 ‐
Advances to other funds 289,481 ‐
Total assets $ 4,934,232 $ 319,514 $ 2,609,334
LIABILITIES, DEFERRED INFLOWS
AND FUND BALANCES
Liabilities:
Accounts payable $ 420,995 318,110 $ 3,414
Accrued payroll liabilities 28,309 ‐ ‐
Due to other funds ‐ ‐ ‐
Interest payable 9,377 ‐ ‐
Advances from other funds ‐ ‐ ‐
Total liabilities 458,681 318,110 3,414
Deferred inflows of resources:
Unavailable revenue ‐ Business license taxes 22,459 ‐ ‐
Total deferred inflows of resources: 22,459 ‐ ‐
Total Liabilities and deferred inflows 481,140 318,110 3,414
Fund balances:
Nonspendable
Advances to other funds 289,481 ‐ ‐
Loans/Notes receivable ‐ ‐ ‐
Restricted
Law enforcement 10,387 ‐ ‐
Housing programs ‐ ‐ ‐
Transportation infrastructure ‐ ‐ ‐
Assigned ‐
Capital projects 2,000,000 ‐ 2,605,920
General reserves 1,199,455 ‐ ‐
Housing and community programs 1,404 ‐
Debt service reserve 111,000 ‐ ‐
Unassigned (deficit) 842,769 ‐ ‐
Total fund balances 4,453,092 1,404 2,605,920
Total liabilities, deferred inflows and fund balances $ 4,934,232 $ 319,514 $ 2,609,334
28
Nonmajor
Governmental
Funds Totals
$ 1,939,446 $ 8,310,016
‐ 22,588
‐ 87,156
19,092 55,497
2,480,123 2,480,123
‐ 1,037,060
‐ 19,820
‐ 289,481
$ 4,438,661 $ 12,301,741
$ 5,678 $ 748,197
‐ 28,309
19,820 19,820
‐ 9,377
289,481 289,481
314,979 1,095,184
‐ 22,459
‐ 22,459
314,979 1,117,643
‐ 289,481
2,480,123 2,480,123
192,394 202,781
289,450 289,450
548,614 548,614
832,365 5,438,285
‐ 1,199,455
39,447 40,851
111,000
(258,711) 584,058
4,123,682 11,184,098
$ 4,438,661 $ 12,301,741
29
Reconciliation of the Governmental Funds Balance Sheet
to the Statement of Net Position
June 30, 2019
Total fund balances ‐ total governmental funds $ 11,184,098
Amounts reported for governmental activities in the Statement of Net Position are
different because:
Capital assets used in governmental activities are not current financial
resources and, therefore, are not reported in the governmental funds
balance sheet. 13,384,758
Long‐term liabilities are not due and payable in the current period and,
therefore, are not reported in the governmental funds balance sheet.
Compensated absences $ (300,267)
Pension obligation bonds (3,616,701)
Net OPEB obligation (3,846,596)
Net pension liability (3,852,701) (11,616,265)
Pension obligations result in deferred outflows and inflows of resouces
associated with the actuarial value of contributions, assets, and liaiblities
Deferred outflows ‐ pensions 1,105,420
Deferred outflows ‐ OPEB 73,219
Deferred inflows ‐ pensions (852,549) 326,090
Net Position of governmental activities $ 13,278,681
30
Reconciliation of Fund Basis Balance Sheet to Government‐wide Statement of Net Position
Governmental Activities
June 30, 2019
Governmental Internal
Funds Changes Services Statement of
Balance Sheet Reclassifications in GAAP Balances Net Position
ASSETS
Current assets:
Cash and investments $ 8,310,016 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 8,310,016
Restricted cash and investments 22,588 ‐ ‐ ‐ 22,588
Receivables:
Taxes 87,156 ‐ ‐ ‐ 87,156
Interest ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Intergovernmental 55,497 ‐ ‐ ‐ 55,497
Loans/Notes receivable 2,480,123 ‐ ‐ ‐ 2,480,123
Other receivable 1,037,060 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,037,060
Due from other funds 19,820 (19,820) ‐ ‐ ‐
Advances to other funds 289,481 (289,481) ‐ ‐ ‐
Total current assets 12,301,741 (309,301) ‐ ‐ 11,992,440
Noncurrent assets:
Capital assets, net ‐ ‐ 13,384,758 13,384,758
Total noncurrent assets ‐ ‐ 13,384,758 ‐ 13,384,758
Pension plan ‐ ‐ 1,105,420 ‐ 1,105,420
OPEB ‐ ‐ 73,219 ‐ 73,219
Total assets and deferred outflows of resources $ 12,301,741 $ (309,301) $ 14,563,397 $ ‐ $ 26,555,837
LIABILITIES
Current liabilities:
Accounts payable $ 748,197 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 748,197
Accrued payroll liabilities 28,309 ‐ ‐ ‐ 28,309
Due to other funds 19,820 (19,820) ‐ ‐ ‐
Advances from other funds 289,481 (289,481) ‐
Compensated absences ‐ current portion ‐ ‐ 80,396 ‐ 80,396
Due within one year ‐ ‐ 78,136 ‐ 78,136
Total current liabilities 1,095,184 (309,301) 158,532 ‐ 944,415
Noncurrent liabilities:
Compensated absences ‐ ‐ 219,871 ‐ 219,871
Due after one year ‐ ‐ 3,538,565 ‐ 3,538,565
Net OPEB obligation ‐ ‐ 3,846,596 ‐ 3,846,596
Net pension liability ‐ ‐ 3,852,701 ‐ 3,852,701
Total noncurrent liabilities ‐ ‐ 11,457,733 ‐ 11,457,733
Total liabilities 1,095,184 (309,301) 11,616,265 ‐ 12,402,148
Unavailable revenue 22,459 ‐ ‐ ‐ 22,459
Pension Plan ‐ ‐ 852,549 ‐ 852,549
Total liabities and deferred inflows: 1,117,643 (309,301) 12,468,814 ‐ 13,277,156
FUND BALANCES/NET POSITION
Fund balances:
Nonspendable 2,769,604 (2,769,604) ‐ ‐ ‐
Restricted 1,040,845 (1,040,845) ‐ ‐ ‐
Committed ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Assigned 6,789,591 (6,789,591) ‐ ‐ ‐
Unassigned (deficit) 584,058 (584,058) ‐ ‐ ‐
Net position: ‐
Net investment in capital assets ‐ ‐ 13,384,758 ‐ 13,384,758
Restricted ‐ ‐ 1,040,845 ‐ 1,040,845
Unrestricted ‐ 11,184,098 (12,331,020) ‐ (1,146,922)
Total fund balances/net position 11,184,098 ‐ 2,094,583 ‐ 13,278,681
Total liabilities, deferred inflows and net position $ 12,301,741 $ (309,301) $ 14,563,397 $ ‐ $ 26,555,837
31
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances
Governmental Funds
Major Funds
HOME Other
General Grant 2017 2017 Storm Governmental
Fund Spcial Revenue Capital Projects Funds Totals
REVENUES:
Taxes:
Sales $ 3,751,230 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 3,751,230
Property 869,506 ‐ ‐ ‐ 869,506
Transient occupancy 197,785 ‐ ‐ ‐ 197,785
Business license 81,400 ‐ ‐ ‐ 81,400
Other taxes ‐ ‐ ‐
Licenses, permits and franchises 439,043 ‐ ‐ ‐ 439,043
Fines, forfeitures and penalties 27,107 ‐ ‐ ‐ 27,107
Intergovernmental 546,962 2,734,468 9,789 691,700 3,982,919
Use of money and property 117,880 1,464 ‐ 27,347 146,691
Charges for services 79,384 ‐ ‐ ‐ 79,384
Other revenues 148,034 ‐ 786,715
‐ 934,749
Total revenues 6,258,331 2,735,932 796,504 719,047 10,509,814
EXPENDITURES:
Current:
General government:
Council 87,431 ‐ ‐ ‐ 87,431
Administration 259,217 ‐ ‐ ‐ 259,217
Attorney 95,491 ‐ ‐ ‐ 95,491
Finance and information technology 236,179 ‐ ‐ ‐ 236,179
Non‐departmental 224,203 ‐ ‐ ‐ 224,203
Community development:
Planning 177,565 ‐ ‐ ‐ 177,565
Building 141,721 ‐ ‐ ‐ 141,721
Roads and infrastructure:
Public works 1,234,991 ‐ ‐ 255,613 1,490,604
Engineering 187,341 ‐ ‐ ‐ 187,341
Sanitation ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Housing and support programs ‐ 2,734,528 ‐ 16,196 2,750,724
Economic development 79,806 ‐ ‐ 17,380 97,186
Public safety 1,946,402 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,946,402
Parks, buildings and grounds 621,019 ‐ ‐ ‐ 621,019
Capital outlay 103,986 ‐ 56,949 866,381 1,027,316
Debt service:
Principal 148,438 ‐ ‐ ‐ 148,438
Interest and fiscal charges 142,559 ‐ ‐ ‐ 142,559
Total expenditures 5,686,349 2,734,528 56,949 1,155,570 9,633,396
REVENUES OVER (UNDER)
EXPENDITURES 571,982 1,404 739,555
(436,523) 876,418
OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES):
Bond proceeds ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,134,374 1,134,374
Transfers in 29,500 ‐ ‐ 99,778 129,278
Transfers out (99,778) ‐ ‐ (29,500) (129,278)
Total other financing sources (uses) (70,278) ‐ ‐ 1,204,652 1,134,374
Net change in fund balances 501,704 1,404 739,555
768,129 2,010,792
FUND BALANCES (DEFICITS):
Beginning of year 3,951,388 ‐ 1,866,365 3,355,553 9,173,306
End of year $ 4,453,092 $ 1,404 $ 2,605,920 $ 4,123,682 $ 11,184,098
32
Reconciliation of Fund Basis Statements to Government‐wide Statement of Activities
Compensated Capital
Absences/ Asset Government‐
Fund Based Debt (Additions)/ OPEB wide

Functions/Programs Totals Service Depreciation Retirements Obligation Pension Plan Totals
General government $ 902,521 $ 66,538 $ 217,288 $ ‐ $ 136,727 $ (105,980) $ 1,217,094
Community development 319,286 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 319,286
Roads and infrastructure 1,677,945 ‐ 78,954 (535,182) ‐ ‐ 1,221,717
Housing and support programs 2,750,724 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2,750,724
Economic development 97,186 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 97,186
Public safety 1,946,402 ‐ 96,332 ‐ ‐ ‐ 2,042,734
Parks, buildings and grounds 621,019 ‐ 83,415 ‐ ‐ ‐ 704,434
Capital outlay 1,027,316 ‐ ‐ (1,027,316) ‐ ‐ ‐

Debt service/Interest 290,997 (148,438) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 142,559
Total governmental activities $ 9,633,396 $ (81,900) $ 475,989 $ (1,562,498) $ 136,727 $ (105,980) $ 8,495,734
33
34
Reconciliation of the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in
Fund Balances of Governmental Funds to the Statement of Activities
Net change in fund balances ‐ total governmental funds $ 2,010,792
Amounts reported for governmental activities in the Statement of Activities are different
because:
Governmental funds report capital outlays as expenditures while governmental

activities report depreciation expense to allocate those expenditures over the life of the
Capital asset purchases capitalized $ 1,562,498
Depreciation expense (475,989) 1,086,509
The issuance of long‐term debt (e.g., bonds, leases) provides current financial
resources to governmental funds, while the repayment of the principal of long‐term
debt consumes the current financial resources of governmental funds. Neither
transaction, however, has any effect on net position.
Proceeds from the issuance of debt (1,134,374)
Pension obligation bonds 148,438 (985,936)
Certain employee benefit obligations are recorded on a pay‐as‐you‐go basis in the

governmental funds, but are accrued as liabilities in the Statement of Net Position:
Net OPEB obligation (136,727)
Net Pension obligation 105,980 (30,747)
Change in Net Position of governmental activities $ 2,014,080
35
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances ‐
Budget to Actual ‐ General and Major Special Revenue Funds
General Fund
Variance w/Final
Budgeted Amounts Positive
Original Final Actual (Negative)
REVENUES:
Taxes:
Sales 3,624,000 3,624,000 3,751,230 $ 127,230
Property 890,040 890,040 869,506 (20,534)
Transient occupancy 140,000 140,000 197,785 57,785
Business license 95,000 95,000 81,400 (13,600)
Licenses, permits and franchises 280,050 280,050 439,043 158,993
Fines, forfeitures and penalties 15,500 15,500 27,107 11,607
Intergovernmental 366,000 366,000 546,962 180,962
Use of money and property 136,000 136,000 117,880 (18,120)
Charges for services 139,510 139,510 79,384 (60,126)
Other revenues 41,060 41,060 148,034 106,974
Total revenues 5,727,160 5,727,160 6,258,331 531,171
EXPENDITURES:
Current:
General government:
Council 92,556 92,556 87,431 5,125
Administration 325,171 325,171 259,217 65,954
Attorney 58,000 58,000 95,491 (37,491)
Finance and information technology 237,338 237,338 236,179 1,159
Non‐departmental 221,000 221,000 224,203 (3,203)
Community development:
Planning 270,453 270,453 177,565 92,888
Building 170,522 170,522 141,721 28,801
Public works 1,412,042 1,412,042 1,234,991 177,051
Engineering 137,974 137,974 187,341 (49,367)
Housing and support programs ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Public safety 2,117,915 2,229,683 1,946,402 283,281
Parks, buildings and grounds 595,535 694,035 621,019 73,016
Capital outlay ‐ ‐ 103,986 (103,986)
Debt service:
Principal 160,832 160,832 148,438 12,394
Interest and fiscal charges 92,890 92,890 142,559 (49,669)
Total expenditures 5,975,228 6,185,496 5,686,349 499,147
EXPENDITURES (248,068) (458,336) 571,982 1,030,318
Loss on note receivable ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Transfers in 29,500 29,500 29,500 ‐
Transfers out (253,722) (253,722) (99,778) 153,944
Total other financing sources (uses) (224,222) (224,222) (70,278) 153,944
Net change in fund balances (472,290) (682,558) 501,704 1,184,262
Beginning of year 3,951,388 3,951,388 3,951,388 ‐
End of year $ 3,479,098 $ 3,268,830 $ 4,453,092 $ 1,184,262
36
HOME Grant 2017 Special Revenue
Variance w/Final
Budgeted Amounts Positive
Original Final Actual (Negative)
$ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ 2,734,468 2,734,468
‐ ‐ 1,464 1,464
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ 2,735,932 2,735,932
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ 2,734,528 (2,734,528)
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ 2,734,528 (2,734,528)
‐ ‐ 1,404 1,404
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ 1,404 1,404
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

$ ‐ $ ‐ $ 1,404 $ 1,404
37
38
PROPRIETARY FUNDS
Proprietary funds account for City operations financed and operated in a manner similar to a private business
enterprise. The intent of the City is that the cost of providing goods and services be financed primarily
through user charges.
The City maintains two enterprise funds: water and sewer described as follows:
Fund Description
Major Funds:
Water Enterprise Fund Chapter 13.04 of the Lakeport Municipal Code provides the
authority for City to operate water system. Revenues (fees and
charges) are collected to pay for service (water) received.
Sewer Enterprise Fund Chapter 13.20 of the Lakeport Municipal Code provides the
authority for the City to operate sewer system. Revenues (fees
and charges) are collected to pay for availability of collection,
transportation, treatment, and disposal system. In addition,
grazing lease payments, LACOSAN payments for flows, tax
revenues, FEMA storm damage reimbursement, OES storm
damage reimbursement, and insurance rebates have been
credited to this fund.
39
Statement of Net Position
Proprietary Funds
June 30, 2019
Water Sewer Totals

ASSETS
Current assets:
Cash and investments $ 879,043 $ 6,446,559 7,325,602
Receivables:
Accounts, net of uncollectibles 352,968 457,154 810,122
Total current assets 1,418,528 7,300,064 8,718,592
Noncurrent assets:
Notes receivable 41,059 91,389 132,448
Capital assets not being depreciated:
Land 740,170 1,735,233 2,475,403
Construction in progress 878,451 942,414 1,820,865
Capital assets being depreciated:
Buildings and improvements 12,002,551 26,470,773 38,473,324
Machinery, equipment and vehicles 503,158 1,495,366 1,998,524
Less: Accumulated depreciation (4,297,689) (15,757,746) (20,055,435)
Total noncurrent assets 9,867,700 14,977,429 24,845,129
Total Assets 11,286,228 22,277,493 33,563,721
Pension plan 190,342 161,543 351,885
OPEB 13,965 15,469 29,434
Total assets and defered outflows of resources $ 11,490,535 $ 22,454,505 $ 33,945,040
LIABILITIES
Accounts payable $ 155,577 $ 201,213 $ 356,790
Accrued payroll and benefits 8,099 8,074 16,173
Interest payable 25,770 81,952 107,722
Deposits payable 71,033 450 71,483
Compensated absences ‐ current portion 5,333 3,241 8,574

Pension obligation bonds ‐ current portion 18,885 18,885
37,770
Due within one year 204,600 427,500 632,100
Total current liabilities 489,297 741,315 1,230,612
Noncurrent liabilities:
Pension obligation bonds 416,451 416,449 832,900
Due after one year 6,074,947 10,855,834 16,930,781
Net pension liability 1,290,943 1,481,736 2,772,679
Net OPEB liability 733,667 812,675 1,546,342
Total noncurrent liabilities 8,615,165 13,674,430 22,289,595
Total liabilities 9,104,462 14,415,745 23,520,207
Pension Plan 184,969 195,849 380,818
Total deferred inflows of resources 184,969 195,849 380,818
NET POSITION
Net Position:
Net investment in capital assets 3,547,094 3,602,706 7,149,800
Restricted for debt service 142,231 231,000 373,231
Restricted for assessment district ‐ 316,610 316,610
Restricted depreciation reserve 26,469 68,432
94,901
Unrestricted (deficit) (1,514,690) 3,624,163 2,109,473
Total net position 2,201,104 7,842,911 10,044,015
Total liabilities, deferred inflows and net position $ 11,490,535 $ 22,454,505 $ 33,945,040
40
Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Fund Net Position
Proprietary Funds
Water Sewer Totals

OPERATING REVENUES:
Charges for service $ 2,300,912 2,821,538 $ 5,122,450
Other operating revenue 1,366 1,500 2,866
Total operating revenues 2,302,278 2,823,038 5,125,316
OPERATING EXPENSES:
Personnel services 1,017,578 991,493 2,009,071
Materials, services and supplies 768,001 1,030,754 1,798,755
Depreciation 338,655 831,415 1,170,070
Total operating expenses 2,124,234 2,853,662 4,977,896
OPERATING INCOME 178,044 (30,624) 147,420

NONOPERATING REVENUES (EXPENSES):
Property taxes and special assessments ‐ 290,086 290,086
Investment revenue 12,678 11,199 23,877
Lease revenue ‐ 101,283 101,283
Interest and fiscal charges expense (136,943) (288,508) (425,451)
Total non‐operating revenues, net (124,265) 114,060 (10,205)
NET INCOME BEFORE TRANSFERS 53,779 83,436 137,215

Transfers in ‐ ‐ ‐
Transfers out ‐ ‐ ‐
Total transfers ‐ ‐ ‐
CHANGE IN NET POSITION 53,779 83,436 137,215
NET POSITION:
Beginning of year 2,147,325 7,759,475 9,906,800
End of year $ 2,201,104 $ 7,842,911 $ 10,044,015
41
Statement of Cash Flows
Proprietary Funds
Water Sewer Totals

CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES:
Cash received from customers/users for services provided $ 2,284,940 $ 2,912,201 $ 5,197,141
Cash payments to suppliers for goods and services (591,895) (1,031,606) (1,623,501)
Cash payments to employees for services (991,462) (985,202) (1,976,664)
Net cash provided by operating activities 701,583 895,393 1,596,976
CASH FLOWS FROM NONCAPITAL FINANCING ACTIVITIES:
Property taxes and assessments received ‐ 290,086 290,086
Net cash used by noncapital financing activities 36,619 326,705 363,324
CASH FLOWS FROM CAPITAL AND RELATED FINANCING ACTIVITIES:
Acquisition and construction of capital assets (904,428) (1,305,589) (2,210,017)
Proceeds from issuance of long‐term debt 820,000 2,605,000 3,425,000
Principal paid on long term debt (199,534) (229,947) (429,481)
Interest paid on long term debt (159,479) (268,217) (427,696)
Proceeds from lease revenue ‐ 101,283 101,283
Net cash (used) by capital and related financing activities (443,441) 902,530 459,089
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES:
Investment income received 12,678 11,199 23,877
Net cash provided by investing activities 12,678 11,199 23,877
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents 307,439 2,135,827 2,443,266
CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS:
Beginning of year 758,121 4,707,083 5,465,204
End of year $ 1,065,560 $ 6,842,910 $ 7,908,470
Presentation in Statement of Financial Position:
Cash and investments $ 879,043 $ 6,446,559 $ 7,325,602
Total Cash and investments $ 1,065,560 $ 6,842,910 $ 7,908,470
Reconciliation of income from operations to net
cash provided by operating activities:
Operating income $ 178,044 $ (30,624) $ 147,420
Adjustments to reconcile operating income
to net cash provided by operating activities:
Depreciation 338,655 831,415 1,170,070
OPEB Expense (13,965) (15,469) (29,434)
(Increase) decrease in current assets:
Accounts receivable (22,260) 48,871 26,611
Intergovernmental receivables ‐ 37,789 37,789
Inventory 65,778 14,817 80,595
Note receivable 1,172 2,608 3,780
Increase (decrease) in liabilities:
Accounts payable 110,328 (15,669) 94,659
Accrued payroll and benefits 1,262 726 1,988
Deposits payable 3,750 (105) 3,645
Net cash provided by operating activities $ 701,583 $ 895,393 $ 1,596,976
There were no noncash investing, capital, or financing activities affecting recognized assets and liabilities for the year ended June 30, 2019.
42
43
FIDUCIARY ACTIVITIES
Fiduciary funds account for assets held by the City as an agent for individuals, private organizations, and other
governments. The financial activities of these funds are excluded from the Government‐wide financial statements, but
are presented in the separate Fiduciary Fund financial statements. Private Purpose Trust Funds are used for resources
held for other individuals and entities in a manner similar to private enterprise. The City has the following private
purpose trust fund:
Fund Description
Redevelopment Non‐Housing Accounts for funds collected and disbursed for the dissolution of the former
Successor Private Purpose Trust Fund Lakeport Redevelopment Agency related to administration and retirement of
enforceable obligations.
44
Statement of Fiduciary Net Position
Fiduciary Activities
June 30, 2019
Redevelopment
Non‐Housing Successor
Private Purpose
Trust Fund Agency Funds
ASSETS
Current assets:
Cash and investments $ 364,231
$ 399,102
Cash and investments with trustee/fiscal agent 111 ‐
Accounts receivable ‐ 19,183
Total current assets 364,342 418,285
Total assets $ 364,342
$ 418,285
LIABILITIES
Accounts payable and accrued liabilities $ 4,037 $ 237
Interest payable 147,708 ‐
Refundable deposits and trust liabilities ‐ 418,048
Due within one year 135,000 ‐
Total current liabilities 286,745 418,285
Due after one year 4,395,000 ‐
Total long‐term liabilities 4,395,000 ‐
Total liabilities 4,681,745 $ 418,285
NET POSITION (DEFICIT)
Restricted ‐ debt service reserve 317,230
Held in trust for outstanding obligations (4,634,633)
Total net position (deficit) (4,317,403)
Total liabilities and net position (deficit) $ 364,342

45
Statement of Changes in Fiduciary Net Position
Redevelopment Agency Successor Private Purpose Trust Fund
Private Purpose
Trust Fund
ADDITIONS:
Property taxes $ 444,890
Investment income 1,631
Other additions 48,394
Total additions 494,915
DEDUCTIONS:
Administrative costs 100,047
Interest and trustee fees 194,807
Other deductions 82,964
Amortization 325,000
Total deductions 702,818
CHANGE IN FIDUCIARY NET POSITION (207,903)
NET POSITION (DEFICIT):
Beginning of year (4,109,500)
End of year $ (4,317,403)
46
NOTES TO BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

47
48
Basic Financial Statements

Index to Notes to Basic Financial Statements

Page
The notes to the financial statements include a summary of significant accounting policies and other
notes considered essential to fully disclose and fairly present the transactions and financial position of
the City as follows:

Note 1 ‐ Summary of Significant Accounting Policies ............................................................................. 50
Note 2 ‐ Cash and Investments ................................................................................................................ 64
Note 3 ‐ Accounts Receivable ................................................................................................................... 67
Note 4 – Loans, Notes Receivable, and Interfund Borrowing ................................................................ 68
Note 5 – Capital Assets ............................................................................................................................. 70
Note 6 – Long Term Liabilities .................................................................................................................. 72
Note 7 – Net Position/Fund Balances ...................................................................................................... 76
Note 8 – Interfund Transactions .............................................................................................................. 80
Note 9 – Risk Management ...................................................................................................................... 81
Note 10 – Public Employee Retirement Plan .......................................................................................... 83
Note 11 – Post Retirement Healthcare Benefits ..................................................................................... 90
Note 12 – Successor Agency Trust for Assets of Former Redevelopment Agency .............................. 94
Note 13 – New Accounting Pronouncements ......................................................................................... 97

49

Notes to the Basic Financial Statements

1. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
The accounting policies of the City conform to accounting principles generally accepted in the United
States of America as applied to government agencies. The Governmental Accounting Standards Board
(GASB) is the accepted standard‐setting body for establishing governmental accounting and financial
reporting principles. The more significant accounting policies of the City are described below:

A. Defining the reporting entity

The City of Lakeport was incorporated in 1888 under the laws of the State of California. Lakeport
operates under a Council‐Manager form of government. The City Manager serves as the chief
executive for day‐to‐day operations and long‐term planning, including executing the policies and
directives of the City Council. Department heads report directly to the City Manager and serve at his
or her pleasure.

The City provides a range of municipal services to its citizens including public safety, public works,
planning and building regulation, recreation and parks, and water and sewer services.

These financial statements present the financial status of the City and its components units. The
component units discussed in the following paragraph are included in the City‘s financial statements
because the City is financially accountable for their operations.

The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Lakeport (the Agency) was established by the City as a
separate legal entity in accordance with state law. The purpose of the Agency is to encourage new
investment and reinvestment within legally designated redevelopment areas in partnership with
property owners. The Agency was dissolved on February 1, 2013 by the State Legislature and
California Governor, Jerry Brown.

The Municipal Sewer District No. 1 (CLMSD) was established as a separate legal entity to obtain
funding to construct a new sewage treatment plant and pumping stations in 1965. In later years and
assessment district was formed for the purpose of financing needed improvements and expansion of
the wastewater systems.

Although the component units are legally separate from the City, they are reported on a blended basis
as part of the primary government because their boards consist of members of the City Council. The
component units’ financial statements may be obtained from the City.
50

Notes to the Basic Financial Statements, Continued

1. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES, Continued

B. Government‐wide and Fund Financial Statements

The government‐wide financial statements report information on all of the non‐fiduciary activities of
the primary government. For the most part, the effect of interfund activity has been removed from
these statements. Governmental activities, which normally are supported by taxes and
intergovernmental revenues are reported separately from business‐type activates, which rely to a
significant extent on fees and charges for support.

The statement of activities demonstrates the degree to which the direct expenses of a given function
or segment is offset by program revenues. Direct expenses are those that are clearly identifiable with a
specific function or segment. Program revenues include (1) charges to customers or applicants who
purchase, use, or directly benefit from goods, services, or privileges provided by a given function or
segment and (2) grant and contributors that are restricted to meeting the operational or capital
requirements of a particular function. Taxes, and other items not properly included among program
revenues are reported instead as general revenues.

The accounts of the City are organized on the basis of funds. The operations of each fund are
accounted for with a separate set of self‐balancing accounts that comprise its assets, liabilities, fund
equity, revenue, and expenditures or expenses, as appropriate. Government resources are allocated
to, and accounted for, in individual funds based upon the purposes for which they are to be spent and
the means by which spending activities are controlled.

In the fund financial statement in the report, the various funds are grouped into generic funds within
four broad fund types. They are as follows:

Governmental Funds

The General Fund is the general operating fund of the City. It is used to account for all financial
resources except those required to be accounted for in another fund.

Special Revenue Funds are used to account for the proceeds of specific revenue sources (other
than special assessments, expendable trust of major capital projects) that are legally restricted to
expenditures for specific purposes.

Capital Project Funds are used to account for revenue and expenditures restricted to the
acquisition or major capital facilities (other than those financed by proprietary or trust funds).

Debt Service Funds are used to account for the accumulation of resources for, and the payment
to, governmental long‐term debt, both principal and interest.
51



B. Government‐wide and Fund Financial Statements, Continued

Proprietary Funds

Enterprise Funds are used to account for operations that are financed and operated in a manner
similar to private business enterprise –the intent of the governing body is that the cost
(expenses, including depreciation) of providing goods or services to the general public on a
continuing basis, be financed or recovered primarily through user charges. The City accounts for
the operation of its water and sewer utility fund on this basis.

Internal Service funds are used to account for operations similar to enterprise funds. The
difference between the two is that internal service funds provide goods and services to
departments and agencies under the primary government. Currently the City does not use an
internal service fund.

Fiduciary Funds

Agency Funds are used to account for assets administered by the City in a trustee capacity or as
an agent for other governments and other funds. Agency funds are custodial in nature (assets
equal liabilities) and do not involve measurement of results of operations. The City reports on
two agency funds: Special Deposit Agency Fund which hold funds on deposit from outside
parties and Other Post‐Employment Benefits (OPEB) Agency Fund which manages resources for
retiree health benefits.

Trust Funds are used to account for assets held by the government in a trustee capacity. The City
reports one private purpose trust fund: Redevelopment Non‐Housing Successor Private Purpose
Trust Fund which accounts for fund collect and disbursed for the dissolution of the former
Lakeport Redevelopment Agency. For more information about the Successor Agency for the
Former Lakeport Redevelopment Agency see Note 14.

An emphasis is placed on major funds within the governmental and proprietary categories. A
fund is considered major if it is the primary operating fund of the City or meets the following
criteria:

1. Total assets, liabilities, revenues, or expenditures/expenses of that individual governmental
fund are at least 10 percent of the corresponding total for all funds of that category or type;
and,
2. Total assets, liabilities, revenues, or expenditures/expenses of the individual governmental
fund are at least 5 percent of the corresponding total for all governmental funds combined.

52



The City reports the following major funds:
 General Fund
 2017 Storm Capital Projects
 2012 HOME Grant Special Revenue
 Water
 Sewer

C. Basis of Accounting and Measurement Focus

Basis of accounting refers to when revenue and expenditures (or expenses) are recognized in the
accounts and reported in the financial statements. Basis of accounting relates to the timing of
measurements made, regardless of the measurement focus applied.

Measurement focus is the determination of (1) which assets and which liabilities are included on a
government's balance sheet and where they are reported, and (2) whether an operating statement
presents information on the flow of financial resources (revenues and expenditures) or information on
the flow of economic resources (revenues and expenses).

The government‐wide financial statements are reported using the economic resources measurement
focus and the accrual basis of accounting, as are the proprietary fund financial statement. Revenue is
recorded when earned and expenses are recorded when liabilities are incurred, regardless of the
timing of related cash flows. Property taxes are recognized as revenue in the year for which they are
levied. Grants and similar items are recognized as revenue as soon as all eligibility requirements have
been met.

In the fund financial statements, all governmental funds are accounted for using the modified accrual
basis of accounting. Revenue is recognized when they become both measurable and available to
finance the expenditures of the current period (susceptible to accrual). Major revenue sources
susceptible to accrual include substantially all property taxes, taxpayer‐assessed taxes (such as sales
and use, utility users, business license, transient occupancy, franchise fees and gas taxes), interest,
special assessments levied, state and federal grants and charges for current services. For this purpose,
the City considers revenues to be available if they are collected within 90 days of the end of the
current fiscal period. Revenue from licenses, permits, fines and forfeits is recorded as received.
Expenditures are recorded when the related fund liability is incurred.

All governmental funds are accounted for using a current financial resources measurement focus. This
means that only current assets and current liabilities are generally included on their balance sheets.
Their reported fund balance (net current assets) is considered a measure of “available spendable
resources.” Governmental fund operating statements present increases (revenue and other financing

53



C. Basis of Accounting and Measurement Focus, Continued

sources) and decreases (expenditures and other financing uses) in net current assets. Accordingly, they
present a summary of sources and uses of “available spendable resources” during a period.

The government‐wide financial statements, as well as the proprietary funds and fiduciary funds
(including agency funds) financial statements, are accounted for on a flow of economic resources
measurement focus. This means that all assets and all liabilities (whether current or noncurrent)
associated with their activity are included on their balance sheets. Proprietary fund operating
statements present increases (revenues) in net total assets.

D. Use of Estimates

Financial statement preparation in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the
United States of America requires the use of estimates and assumptions that affect the reported
amount of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the
financial statements and the reported amounts of revenue and expenditures/expenses during the
reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates.

E. Cash and Investments

The City’s cash and cash equivalents are considered to be cash on hand, demand deposits, and short‐
term investments with original maturities of three months or less from the date of acquisition.

The City pools cash and investments from all funds for the purpose of increasing income through
investment activities. Highly liquid money market investments with maturities of one year or less at
time of purchase are stated at amortized cost. All other investments are stated at fair value in
accordance with GASB Statement No. 31, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Certain Investments
and for External Investment Pools. Market value is used as fair value for those securities for which
market quotations are readily available.

F. Receivable and Payables

Balances Representing lending/borrowing transactions between funds outstanding at the end of the
fiscal year are reported as either “due to/due from other funds” (amounts due within one year),
“advances to/from other funds” (non‐current portions of interfund lending/borrowing transactions), or
“loans to/from other funds” (long‐term lending/borrowing transactions as evidenced by loan
agreements). Advances and loans to other funds are offset by a fund balance reserve in applicable
54



F. Receivable and Payables, Continued

governmental funds to indicate they are not available for appropriation, and are not expendable
available financial resources.

Property, sales, use, and utility user taxes related to the current fiscal year are accrued as revenue and
accounts receivable and considered available if received within 60 days of year end. Federal and state
grants are considered receivable and accrued as revenue when reimbursable costs are incurred under
the accrual basis of accounting in the government‐wide statement of net position. The amount
recognized as revenue under the modified accrual basis of accounting is limited to the amount that is
deemed measureable and available. The City considers these taxes available if they are received during
the period when settlement of prior fiscal year accounts payable and payroll charges normally occur.

Grants, entitlements or shared revenue is recorded as receivables and revenue in the general, special
revenue and capital project funds when they are received or susceptible to accrual. Notes receivables
represent individual loans, secured by property liens in favor of the City and the Redevelopment
Agency, made through various sources, including the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
and federal HOME housing programs. When repaid, these amounts are designated for purposes
allowed under the aforementioned reuse guidelines.

G. Allowance for Doubtful Accounts

Management has elected to record bad debts using the allowance method.

H. Prepaid Expenses

The prepaid expenses consist of expendables supplies held for consumption and are recorded as
expenses when consumed. Materials and supplies used by governmental funds are recorded as
expenditures at the time they are purchases or obtained.

I. Capital Assets

Government‐Wide Statements

Public domain (infrastructure) capital assets include roads, bridges, curbs and gutters, streets,
sidewalks, drainage systems, and lighting systems.

The accounting treatment of property, plant and equipment (capital assets) depends on whether the
assets are used in governmental fund operations or proprietary fund operations and whether they are
reported in the government‐wide or fund financial statements.
55



I. Capital Assets

Prior to July 1, 2003, governmental funds’ infrastructure assets were not capitalized, since then these
assets have been valued at estimated historical cost.

Depreciation of all exhaustible capital assets is recorded as an allocated expense in the Statement of
Activities, with accumulated depreciation reflected in the Statement of Net Position. Depreciation is
provided over the assets’ estimated useful lives using the straight‐line method of depreciation. The
City capitalizes assets with an original cost greater than $5,000 and with a useful lifespan longer than
three years. No depreciation is recorded in the year of acquisition or in the year of disposition.

The range of estimated useful lives by type of asset is as follows:

Buildings and improvements 5 – 50 years
Roadway improvements 50 years
Sidewalks, curbs and gutters 50 years
Storm drain pipes/structures 50 years
Traffic signal devices 5 – 40 years
Landscaping 30 years
Signage 25 years
Leasehold improvements 5 years
Machinery and equipment 3 – 5 years
Vehicles 3 years


In the fund financial statements, capital assets used in governmental fund operations are accounted
for as capital outlay expenditures of the governmental fund upon acquisition. Capital assets used in
proprietary fund operations are accounted for the same way as in the government‐wide statements.

J. Compensated Absences

Compensated absences represent the vested portion of accumulate vacation and sick leave. In
governmental funds, the cost of vacation and sick leave benefits is recognized when payments are
made to employees. Upon separation, 100% of accrued vacation leave (up to a maximum of 400
hours) and accrued comp time is paid and, depending on longevity, sick leave is paid out up to 50% of
the accrued amount. In proprietary funds, a long‐term liability for such benefits has been recorded.

56



K. Deferred Inflow of Resources

Deferred inflow of resources in governmental funds primarily represents business license taxes
collected but unavailable for spending until the next fiscal year.

L. Long‐term Liabilities

In both the governmental‐wide financial statements and proprietary fund financial statements, long‐
term debt and other long‐term liabilities are reported as liabilities in the applicable statement of net
position. Bond premiums, issuance costs and discounts are deferred and amortized over the life of the
bond.

In the fund financial statements, governmental fund types recognized bond premiums and discounts,
as well as bond issuance costs, during the current period. The face amount of debt issued is reported
as other financing sources.

M. Equity Classification

Government‐Wide Statements

Equity is classified as net position and is displayed in three components:

Net investment in capital assets – consists of capital assets, including restricted capital assets, net of
accumulated depreciation and reduced by the outstanding balances of any bonds, mortgages, notes,
or other borrowings that are attributable to the acquisition, construction, or improvement of those
assets.

Restricted net position – consists of net position with constraints placed on the use by external groups
such as creditors, grantors, contributors, or by laws or regulations of other governments or law
through constitutional provisions or enabling legislation.

Unrestricted net position – all other net position that do not meet the definition of “restricted” or “net
investment in capital assets.”
57




Governmental fund equity is classified as fund balance. Fund balance is classified as nonspendable,
restricted, committed, assigned or unassigned. Proprietary fund equity is classified the same as in the
government‐wide statements. The classifications for governmental funds are defined as follows for the
City:

Nonspendable Fund Balance –
 Assets that will never convert to cash (prepaid items, inventory).
 Assets that will not convert to cash soon enough to affect the current period (long‐term notes or
loans receivable).
 Resources that must be maintained intact pursuant to legal or contractual requirements (the
principal of an endowment).

Restricted Fund Balance –
 Resources that are subject to externally enforceable legal restrictions imposed by parties
altogether outside the government (Creditors, Grantors, Contributors and Other Governments).
 Resources that are subject to limitations imposed by law through constitutional provisions or
enabling legislation (Gas Tax).

Committed Fund Balance –
 Self‐imposed limitations set in place prior to the end of the period. (Encumbrances, economic
contingencies and uncertainties).
 Limitation at the highest level of decision‐making (Council) that requires formal action at the same
level to remove, done typically through resolution during the budget process.

Assigned Fund Balance –
 Amounts in excess of nonspendable, restricted, and committed fund balance in funds other than
the general fund automatically are reported as assigned fund balance and are done so by the City
Manager through the budget process.

Unassigned Fund Balance –
 Residual net resources
 Total fund balance in the general fund in excess of nonspendable, restricted, committed and
assigned fund balance (surplus).
 Excess of nonspendable, restricted, and committed fund balance over total fund balance (deficit).
58



M. Equity Classification, Continued

When both restricted and unrestricted resources are available for use, it is the City’s policy to use
restricted fund balance resources first, followed by the unrestricted resources in the Committed and
Unassigned fund balances, as they are needed.

The general fund is the only fund that reports a positive unassigned fund balance. In other
governmental funds it is not appropriate to report a positive unassigned fund balance amount.
However, in governmental funds other than the general fund, if expenditures incurred for specific
purposes exceed the amounts that are restricted, committee, or assigned to those purposes, it may be
necessary to report a negative unassigned fund balance in that fund. [GASB – S54: 17 and 19]

N. Property Taxes

Property taxes in the State of California are administered for all local agencies at the county level and
consist of secured, unsecured and utility tax rolls. The following is a summary of major policies and
practices relating to property taxes:

Property Valuations are established by the Lake County Assessor for the secured and unsecured
property tax rolls; the utility property tax roll is valued by the State Board of Equalization. Under
the provision of Article XIII‐A of the State Constitution (Proposition 13, adopted by the voters on
June 6, 1978), properties are assessed at 100% of full value. From this base assessment,
subsequent annual increases in valuation are limited to a maximum of two percent. However, an
increase to full value is allowed for property improvements or upon change in ownership.
Personal property is excluded from these limitations and is subject to annual reappraisal.

Tax Levies are limited to one percent of full assessed value which results in a tax rate of one
percent assessed valuation under the provisions of Proposition 13. Tax rates for voter‐approved
indebtedness are excluded from this limitation.

Tax Levy Dates are attached annually on January 1, preceding the fiscal year for which the taxes
are levied. The fiscal year begins July 1 and ends June 30 of the following year. Taxes are levied
on both real and unsecured personal property as it exists at that time. Liens against real estate,
as well as the tax on personal property are not relieved by subsequent renewal or change in
ownership.
59



N. Property Taxes, Continued

Tax Collections are the responsibility of the Lake County Treasurer‐Tax Collector. Taxes and
assessments on secured and utility rolls, which constitute a lien against the property, may be
paid in two installments.

 The First is due on November 1 of the fiscal year and is delinquent if not paid by December
10;
 The second is due on March 1 of the fiscal year and is delinquent if not paid by April 10.

Unsecured personal property taxes do not constitute a lien against property unless the taxes
become delinquent. Payments must be made in one installment, which is delinquent if not paid
by August 31 of the fiscal year. Significant penalties are imposed by the county for late payments.
The City has elected to receive the City’s portion of the property taxes from the county under the
county Teeter Bill program. Under this program, the City receives 100% of the City’s share of the
levied property taxes in periodic payments with the county assuming the responsibility for the
delinquencies.

Property Tax Administration Fees – the state of California FY 90‐91 Budget Act authorized
counties to collect an administrative fee for collection and distribution of property taxes.

Tax Levy Apportionments – due to the nature of the City‐wide maximum levy, it is not possible to
identify general‐purpose tax rates for specific entities. Under State legislation adopted
subsequent to the passage of Proposition 13, apportionments to local agencies are made by the
county’s auditor‐controller based primarily on the ratio that each agency represented of the total
City‐wide levy for the three fiscal years prior to fiscal year 1979.

O. Interfund Transfers

Resources are reallocated between funds by reporting them as interfund transfers. For the purposes
of the Statement of Activities, all interfund transfers between individual governmental funds have
been eliminated.

P. Reclassifications

Certain amounts have been reclassified to provide for comparable results on a year to year basis.

60



Q. Budgetary Information

The City follows these procedures annually in establishing the budgetary data reflected in the financial
statements:

1. The City Manager submits to the City Council a proposed draft budget for the fiscal year
commencing July 1 of the next fiscal year. The budget includes proposed expenditures and
the means of financing them.

2. If use of fund balance is recommended by the City Manager, resources to be used will be in
the following order:
a. unassigned fund balance
b. assigned
c. committed

3. The City Council reviews the proposed budget at special scheduled sessions which are open
to the public. The Council also conducts a public hearing on the proposed budget to obtain
comments from interested persons.

4. Prior to July 1, the budget is to be adopted by resolution of the City Council.

5. From the effective date of the budget, which is adopted and controlled at the fund level, the
amounts stated therein as proposed expenditures become appropriations to the various City
funds and departments. The City Council may amend the budget by minute action during the
fiscal year. The City Manager may authorize transfers from one object or purpose to another
within the same fund, and between departments within the General Fund. All appropriations
lapse at year end unless encumbered and carried forward upon the approval of the City
Manager.

Budgets are adopted for all fund types and are reported on a basis consistent with generally accepted
accounting principles. Budgeted amounts presented are as originally adopted and as further amended
by the City Council.
61



R. Pensions

For purposes of measuring the net pension liability and deferred outflows/inflows of resources related
to pensions, and pension expense, information about the fiduciary net position of the Local
Government of Example's California Public Employees' Retirement System (CaIPERS) plans (Plans) and
additions to/deductions from the Plans' fiduciary net position have been determined on the same basis
as they are reported by CaIPERS. For this purpose, benefit payments (including refunds of employee
contributions) are recognized when due and payable in accordance with the benefit terms.
Investments are reported at fair value.

S. Other Postemployment Benefits (OPEB)

For purposes of measuring the net OPEB liability, deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows
of resources related to OPEB, and OPEB expense, information about the fiduciary net position of the
City’s plan (OPEB Plan) and additions to/deductions from the OPEB Plan’s fiduciary net position have
been determined on the same basis. For this purpose, benefit payments are recognized when
currently due and payable in accordance with the benefit terms. Investments are reported at fair
value. Generally accepted accounting principles require that the reported results must pertain to
liability and asset information within certain defined timeframes. For this report, the following
timeframes are used:

Valuation Date June 30, 2019
Measurement Date June 30, 2019
Measurement Period July 1, 2018 to June 30, 2019

T. Reclassifications
Certain amounts have been reclassified to provide for comparable results on a year to year basis.

62



U. STEWARDSHIP, COMPLIANCE, AND ACCOUNTABILITY

Revenue Limitations Imposed by California Propositions 218 and 26

Proposition 218, approved by the voters in November 1996, regulates the City’s ability to impose,
increase, and extend taxes, assessments, and fees. It was enhanced further by the passage of
Proposition 26 in 2010, which revised to the definitions of taxes and fees. Any new, increased, or
extended taxes, assessments, and fees subject to the provisions of Proposition 218 require voter
approval before they can be implemented. Additionally, Proposition 218 provides that these taxes,
assessments, and fees be subject to the voter initiative process and may be rescinded in future years
by the voters.

63


2. CASH AND INVESTMENTS

The City follows the practice of pooling cash and investments of all funds except for the restricted
funds required to be held by outside custodians, fiscal agents or trustees under the provisions of bond
indentures. Cash and investments as of June 30, 2019, are classified in the accompanying financial
statements as follows:

Cash, Cash Equivalents and Investments Pooled
Maturities (in years) Fair
<1 1 to 3 3 to 5 Deposits Market Value
Pooled cash, at fair value:
Cash in bank $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 8,589,244 $ 8,589,244
Petty cash ‐ ‐ ‐ 400 400
Total pooled items ‐ ‐ ‐ 8,589,644 8,589,644
Pooled investments, at fair value:
Interest obligations:
Par Rate
$ 2,000,000 2.65‐3.55% Certificate of Deposits 401,072 812,150 827,504 ‐ 2,040,726
Money market 3,766,284 ‐ ‐ ‐ 3,766,284
State of California Local Agency Investment Fund 2,608,264 ‐ ‐ ‐ 2,608,264
Total pooled investments ‐ interest obligations 6,775,620 812,150 827,504 ‐ 8,415,274
Total cash equivalents and investments pooled $ 6,775,620 $ 812,150 $ 827,504 $ 8,589,644 $ 17,004,918
Amounts reported in:
Governmental activities $ 8,310,016
Governmental activities ‐ Restricted 22,588
Business‐type activities 7,325,602
Business‐type activities ‐ Restricted 582,868
Fiduciary activities 763,333
Fiduciary activities ‐ Restricted 111
Total $ 17,004,518

Collateral and Categorization Requirements

At the fiscal year end, the City’s carrying amount of demand deposits was $8,589,244 and the bank
account balance was $8,634,889. The difference of $45,645 represented outstanding checks and
deposits in transit. Of the total deposit balance, $250,000 was insured by Federal Depository Insurance
Corporation (FDIC), the remaining amount of $8,384,889 was collateralized in accordance with
California Government Code Section 53600‐53609.
64


2. CASH AND INVESTMENTS, Continued

Investment Policy

The table below identifies the investment types that are authorized under provisions of the City’s
investment policy adopted August 16, 2005 (subsequently updated July 6, 2010), and in accordance
with Section 53601 of the California Government Code. The table also identifies certain provisions of
the investment policy that address interest rate risk, credit risk, and concentration of credit risk.

Maximum Maximum
Authorized Maximum Percentage Investment Minimum
Investment Type Maturity of Portfolio in One Issuer Rating
U.S. Treasury Securities 5 years None None None
U.S. Government Securities 5 years None None None
Bankers' Acceptances 270 days 30% None None
Certificates of Deposit 5 years 30% None None
Negotiable Certificates of Deposit 5 years 30% None None
Repurchase Agreements 30 days None None None
Commercial Paper 31‐180 days 15‐30% None A1/P1
Corporate Medium‐term Notes 5 years 30% None A1/P1
Mutual Funds None 15% None Two/Three
Passbook Savings N/A None None None
Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) N/A $10M None None

Interest Rate Risk

Interest rate risk is the risk that changes in market interest rates will adversely affect the fair value of
an investment. Generally, the longer the maturity of an investment the greater the sensitivity of its fair
value to changes in market interest rates. One of the ways that Lakeport manages its exposure to
interest rate risk is by investing in LAIF, whose underlying securities have staggered maturities and are
generally due on demand, which provides cash flow and liquidity needed for operations.

Credit Risk

Generally, credit risk is the risk that an issuer of an investment will not fulfill its obligation to the holder
of the investment. This is measured by the assignment of a rating by nationally recognized statistical
rating organization. The City’s investment policy limits credit risk by requiring compliance with the
California Government Code for investment of public funds, as described in detail above.
65



Concentration of Credit Risk

The investment policy of the City contains no limitations on the amount that can be invested in any
single issuer beyond that stipulated by the California government code, Investments in any one issuer
that represent 5% or more of total investments at June 30, 2019 are as follows:

Investment Type Fair Value Yield Concentration
Certificate of Deposits $ 2,040,726 2.41% 24.25%
Money market 3,766,284 0.00% 44.76%
Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) 2,608,264 2.27% 30.99%
Total fair value $ 8,415,274 100.00%
Weighted yield 2.34%

Custodial Credit Risk

The credit risk for deposits is the risk that, in the event of failure of a depository financial institution, a
government will not be able recover its deposits or will not be able to recover collateral securities that
are in the possession on an outside party. The California government code and the City’s investment
policy do not contain legal or policy requirements that would limit the exposure to custodial credit risk
for deposits, other than the following provision for deposits:

The California government code requires that a financial institution secure deposits made by state
or local governmental units by pledging securities in an undivided collateral pool held by a
depository regulated under state law (unless so waived by the governmental unit). The market
value of the pledged securities in the collateral pool must be equal at least 110% of the total
amount deposited by the public agencies. California law also allows financial institutions to secure
City deposits by pledging first trust deed mortgage notes having a value of 150% of the secured
public deposits.

At June 30, 2019, the City had $8,384,889 in financial institutions that were not covered by the FDIC
but were covered by collateralized securities of the financial institutions where the deposits were
maintained.

The credit risk for investments is the risk that, in the event of the failure of counterparty (e.g., broker‐
dealer) to a transaction, a government will not be able to recover the value of investment or collateral
securities that are in the possession of another party. The California government code and the City’s
investment policy do not contain legal or policy requirements that would limit the exposure to
custodial risk for investments. With respect to investments, custodial credit risk generally applies only
to direct investments in marketable securities. Custodial credit risk does not apply to a local
government’s indirect investment in securities through the use of mutual funds or government
investment pools (such as LAIF).
66



Participation in an External Investment Pool

The City is a voluntary participant in the California Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF), which is
regulated by California Government Code Section under the oversight of the Local Investment Advisory
Board (Board). The Board consists of five members as designated by state statue, and is chaired by the
State Treasurer who is responsible for the day to day administration of LAIF. The balance available for
withdrawal is based on the accounting records maintained by LAIF, which are recorded on an
amortized cost basis, which is different from the fair value of the City’s position in the LAIF pool. The
State Treasurer determines fair value on its investment portfolio based on market quotations for those
securities where market quotations are readily available. As of June 30, 2019, the City’s investment in
LAIF was $2,608,264. The total amount invested by all public agencies at that date was $24.58 billion.
LAIF is part of the California Pooled Money Investment Account (PMIA), which at June 30, 2019 has a
balance of $105.81 billion. Financial Statements of LAIF and PMIA may be obtained from the California
Treasurer’s web site at www.treasurer.ca.gov.

3. ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE

Accounts receivable consisted of the following at June 30, 2019:

Ac c ounts Rec eivable and Due from O ther Gov ernments
Receivables Allowance Net
Due from other governments:
Property taxes $ 87,156 $ ‐ $ 87,156
Grants and subventions 55,497 ‐ 55,497
Accounts 352,761 ‐ 352,761
SB1 16,503 ‐ 16,503
TOT 60,412 ‐ 60,412
Sales tax 606,784 ‐ 606,784
Accounts receivable:
Administrative citations 5,300 (4,700) 600
Total $ 1,184,413 $ (4,700) $ 1,179,713
Accounts $ 810,122 $ ‐ $ 810,122
Total $ 810,122 $ ‐ $ 810,122
67


3. ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE, Continued

These amounts resulted in the following concentrations in receivables:

Concentration of Receivables
Other governments 56.2%
Individuals/businesses 43.8%

Amounts do not indicate a significant concentration (greater than 25%) with any single individual,
business or agency.

4. LOANS, NOTES RECEIVABLE, AND INTERFUND BORROWING

Through the City’s various housing rehabilitation funds, first‐time home buyer’s funds, and
business/economic development loan funds, the City has loaned funds to qualifying individuals and
businesses. Interest rates vary depending on the terms of the loan. Interest is accrued on the loans
that bear interest. The City also has loans receivable from employees for computer purchases in the
General Fund, as well as a loan from the general fund to the water enterprise fund for a capital
purchase of land meant to act as bridge financing until grant/loan proceeds are received from USDA
rural development (see Note 16).
68


4. LOANS, NOTES RECEIVABLE, AND INTERFUND BORROWING, Continued
Loans and notes receivable for the year ended June 30, 2019, consisted of the following:
Loans and Notes Receivable
Beginning Ending
July 1, 2018 Additions Deletions June 30, 2019
Nonmajor governmental funds:
Special revenue funds:
Lakeport Housing $ 372,368 $ ‐ $ (1,257) $ 371,111
CDBG Economic Development PI notes receivable 864,532 ‐ (60,867) 803,665
2012 HOME Grant 1,386,378 ‐ (81,031) 1,305,347
Total governmental funds 2,623,278 ‐ (143,155) 2,480,123
Major enterprise funds:
Water 42,231 ‐ (1,172) 41,059
Sewer 93,997 ‐ (2,608) 91,389
Total enterprise funds 136,228 ‐ (3,780) 132,448
Total loans/notes receivable $ 2,759,506 $ ‐ $ (146,935) $ 2,612,571

69


5. CAPITAL ASSETS

Governmental capital asset activity for the year ended June 30, 2019, was as follows:

Balance Balance
July 1, 2018 Additions Deletions Transfers June 30, 2019
Nondepreciable assets:
Land $ 1,652,983 $ 116,162 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 1,769,145
Construction in progress 369,052 475,750 ‐ (369,052) 475,750
Total nondepreciable assets 2,022,035 591,912 ‐ (369,052) 2,244,895
Depreciable assets:
Buildings and structures 5,588,337 658,168 ‐ 253,526 6,500,031
Improvements 7,428,368 68,500 ‐ 115,526 7,612,394
Vehicles and equipment 1,998,202 245,268 ‐ ‐ 2,243,470
Total depreciable assets 15,014,907 971,936 ‐ 369,052 16,355,895
Total 17,036,942 1,563,848 ‐ ‐ 18,600,790
Accumulated depreciation:
Buildings and structures (1,674,893) (170,921) ‐ ‐ (1,845,814)
Improvements (1,518,433) (195,714) ‐ ‐ (1,714,147)
Vehicles and equipment (1,546,717) (109,354) ‐ ‐ (1,656,071)
Total accumulated depreciation (4,740,043) (475,989) ‐ ‐ (5,216,032)
Net depreciable assets 10,274,864 495,947 ‐ 369,052 11,139,863

Total net capital assets $ 12,296,899 $ 1,087,859 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 13,384,758

Depreciation expense of $475,989 was allocated in the Statement of Activities as follows:

General governement $ 217,288
Public Safety 96,332
Public Works 78,954
Parks, buildings, grounds 83,415
$ 475,989

70


5. CAPITAL ASSETS, Continued

Business‐type capital asset activity for the year ended June 30, 2019, was as follows:

Balance Balance
July 1, 2018 Additions Deletions Transfers June 30, 2019
Nondepreciable assets:
Land $ 2,475,403 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 2,475,403
Construction in progress 568,217 1,820,865 ‐ (568,217) 1,820,865
Total nondepreciable assets 3,043,620 1,820,865 ‐ (568,217) 4,296,268
Depreciable assets:
Buildings and structures 9,955,195 ‐ ‐ ‐ 9,955,195
Improvements 27,949,912 ‐ ‐ 568,217 28,518,129
Vehicles and equipment 1,609,373 389,151 ‐ 1,998,524
Total depreciable assets 39,514,480 389,151 ‐ 568,217 40,471,848
Total 42,558,100 2,210,016 ‐ ‐ 44,768,116
Buildings and structures (991,558) (239,323) ‐ ‐ (1,230,881)
Improvements (17,021,997) (795,009) ‐ 1 (17,817,005)
Vehicles and equipment (871,811) (135,738) ‐ ‐ (1,007,549)
Total accumulated depreciation (18,885,366) (1,170,070) ‐ 1 (20,055,435)
Net depreciable assets 20,629,114 (780,919) ‐ 568,218 20,416,413
Total business‐type capital assets, net $ 23,672,734 $ 1,039,946 $ ‐ $ 1 $ 24,712,681

Depreciation expense for capital assets for the year ended June 30, 2019, was charged to functions as
follows:

Water $ 338,655
Sewer 831,415
$ 1,170,070

71


6. LONG TERM LIABILITIES

The following is a summary of changes in long‐term liabilities for the year ended June 30, 2019:

Beginning Ending
Balance Balance Due w ithin
Governmental Activities 7/1/2018 Additions Reductions 6/30/2019 One Year
USDA Police Station Bond $ 1,079,000 $ - $ (17,000) $ 1,062,000 $ 18,000
Pension Obligation Bonds - Governmental Share 1,551,765 - (131,438) 1,420,327 60,136
2018 Series B Solar Bonds - Governmental Share - 1,170,000 - 1,170,000 -
Less: Discount - (35,626) - (35,626) -
Compensated Absences 233,729 128,469 (61,931) 300,267 80,396
Total $ 2,864,494 $ 1,262,843 $ (210,369) $ 3,916,968 $ 158,532
Business-Type Activities
USDA Water Revenue Bonds, 2016 $ 3,131,800 $ - $ (58,200) $ 3,073,600 $ 59,100
Pinnacle Water Loan 2,487,000 - (110,000) 2,377,000 113,000
Wastew ater Revenue Bonds, 2017 Refunding 2,635,000 - (175,000) 2,460,000 180,000
USDA WasteWater Revenue Bonds, 2017 3,433,000 - (68,000) 3,365,000 56,000
2017 CLMSD Sewer District Assessment Bonds 2,800,000 - (152,000) 2,648,000 159,000
Pension Obligation Bonds - Business-type Share 951,232 - (80,562) 870,670 37,770
2018 Series B Solar Bonds - Business-type Share - 3,600,000 - 3,600,000 65,000
Add: Premium - 39,281 - 39,281 -
Compensated Absences 155,614 73,668 (13,815) 215,467 8,574
Total $ 12,397,346 $ 3,712,949 $ (657,577) $ 18,649,018 $ 678,444

USDA Water Revenue Bonds, 2016
Total issue $3,182,000. Annual principal and interest payments of approximately $109,500, at an
interest rate of 2.85%, are due August 1 and February 1 each year, secured by water fund revenue.
The total obligation matures in the year 2056.
Balance due $ 3,073,600
Pinnacle Water Loan
Total issue $2,587,000. Annual principal and interest payments of approximately $175,250, at an
interest rate of 2.65%, are due February 1 and August 1 each year. Payments are secured by water
fund revenue. The obligation matures in the year 2035.
Wastewater Revenue Bonds, 2017 Refunding
2007 Series A, total remaining balance of $2,580,000 was refinanced to 2017 Wastewater Refunding
on December 1, 2017. Total issue $2,723,000. Annual principal is due on October 1 and interest
payments at 2.52% are due April 1 and October 1 each year, which are secured by wastewater fund
revenue. The total obligation matures in the year 2030. The reacquisition price exceeded the net
carrying amount of the old debt by $143,000. The City obtained an economic gain (difference between
the present value of the debt service payments on the old and new debt) of $205,069. The aggregate
difference in debt service between the 2007 Series A and the Wastewater Revenue Bonds, 2017
Refunding is $924,655.
72


6. LONG TERM LIABILITIES, Continued

USDA Wastewater Revenue Bonds, 2017
Series 2017 Wastewater enterprise revenue bonds. Total issue $3,433,000. Annual principal and
interest payments of approximately $127,000, at an interest rate of 2.125%, are due April 1 and
October 1 each year, secured by wastewater fund revenue. The total obligation matures in the year
2057. These bonds were issued to complete various wastewater infrastructure upgrades including the
installation of SCADA.
2017 CLMSD Sewer District Assessment Bonds
2017‐1 Sewer Assessment bonds. Total issue $2,854,000. Annual principal and interest payments of
approximately $230,000, at an interest rate of 2.85%, are due March 2 and September 2 each year,
secured by Municipal Sewer District No.1 revenue from the South Assessment District 91‐1 area. The
total obligation matures in the year 2032. These bonds were issued to refinance the 1993 CMLSD
Sewer District Assessment Bonds at lower interest rate saving the taxpayers significant assessments.
The aggregate difference in debt service between the 1993 Assessment Bonds and the Assessment
Bonds, 2017 Refunding is $1,217,374.
Pension Obligation Bonds

On June 22, 2015, the City entered into an agreement with Umpqua Bank to obtain a loan in the
amount of $3,184,000 to pay their PERS side fund obligation at an interest rate of 4.25% maturing in
17 years on January 1, 2033. Interest is payable semi‐annually on January 1 and July 1. The obligation is
payable from revenues received from the General, Water and Sewer Funds, 62% of the payments
charged to governmental activities and the remaining 38% split evenly between the Water and Sewer
Funds. The maturity schedule for the bonds is as follows:
Debt Service Schedule
Gov ernmental Activ ities Business-type Activ ities

Year Ending Total
June 30, Pension Obligation Bonds Pension Obligation Bonds Pension Obligation Bonds
Principal Interest Principal Interest Principal Interest

2020 $ 60,136 $ 61,616 $ 36,864 $ 37,770 $ 97,000 $ 99,386
2021 118,413 56,570 72,587 34,677 191,000 91,247
2022 117,173 51,551 71,827 31,601 189,000 83,152
2023 115,313 46,584 70,687 28,556 186,000 75,140
2024 114,073 41,696 69,927 25,560 184,000 67,256
2025-2029 532,548 138,198 326,452 84,715 859,000 222,913
2030-2033 362,671 33,752 222,326 20,690 584,997 54,442
Total $ 1,420,327 $ 429,967 $ 870,670 $ 263,569 $ 2,290,997 $ 693,536
Due within one year $ 60,136 $ 61,616 $ 36,864 $ 37,770 $ 97,000 $ 99,386
Due after one year 1,360,191 368,351 833,806 225,799 2,193,997 594,150
Total $ 1,420,327 $ 429,967 $ 870,670 $ 263,569 $ 2,290,997 $ 693,536
73



Future Debt Service
Future debt service for Governmental and Business‐type activities at June 30, 2019 is as follows for all
debt except compensated absences and claims liabilities:

Business-type
Business-type Activ ities
Year Ending 2017 CLMSD Assessment W astewater Rev enue
June 30, Bonds Series-2017-1 Bonds Series Refunding Pinnacle W ater Loan

2020 $ 159,000 $ 73,202 $ 180,000 $ 59,724 $ 113,000 $ 61,493
2021 161,000 68,642 184,000 55,138 116,000 58,459
2022 168,000 63,954 189,000 50,438 118,000 55,359
2023 174,000 59,081 194,000 45,612 122,000 52,179
2024 175,000 54,107 199,000 40,660 125,000 48,906
2025-2029 954,000 191,463 1,073,000 124,551 675,000 192,483
2030-2034 857,000 49,747 441,000 10,849 770,000 96,858
2035-2039 - - - - 338,000 9,010
Total $ 2,648,000 $ 560,196 $ 2,460,000 $ 386,972 $ 2,377,000 $ 574,747
Due after one year 2,489,000 486,994 2,280,000 327,248 2,264,000 513,254
Total $ 2,648,000 $ 560,196 $ 2,460,000 $ 386,972 $ 2,377,000 $ 574,747
Year Ending USDA W ater Rev enue USDA W asteW ater Rev enue
June 30, Bonds, 2016 Bonds, 2017 Total

2020 $ 59,100 $ 49,564 $ 56,000 $ 70,911 $ 567,100 $ 314,894
2021 60,100 48,587 58,000 69,700 579,100 300,526
2022 61,000 47,593 59,000 68,457 595,000 285,801
2023 62,000 46,583 60,000 67,193 612,000 270,648
2024 63,000 45,557 61,000 65,907 623,000 255,137
2025-2029 330,900 211,794 327,000 309,198 3,359,900 1,029,489
2030-2034 358,700 183,514 362,000 272,680 2,788,700 613,648
2035-2039 388,800 152,856 402,000 232,093 1,128,800 393,959
2040-2044 421,400 119,610 447,000 186,989 868,400 306,599
2045-2049 456,700 83,557 496,000 136,999 952,700 220,556
2050-2054 495,100 44,456 552,000 81,345 1,047,100 125,801
2055-2059 316,800 6,548 485,000 20,899 801,800 27,447
Total $ 3,073,600 $ 1,040,219 $ 3,365,000 $ 1,582,371 $ 13,923,600 $ 4,144,505
Due after one year 3,014,500 990,655 3,309,000 1,511,460 13,356,500 3,829,611
Total $ 3,073,600 $ 1,040,219 $ 3,365,000 $ 1,582,371 $ 13,923,600 $ 4,144,505

74



Various bond indentures contain limitations and restrictions, with which, in the opinion of
management, the City is in compliance.

2018 Series B Solar Bonds

On July 18, 2018, the City issued $4,770,000 revenue bonds to fund a solar and energy efficiency
retrofit project. The interest rate on the bonds is 2.0 ‐ 3.5 and the maturity date is October 1, 2043.
Interest is payable semi‐annually on April 1 and October 1. The obligation is payable from revenues
received from the General, Water and Sewer Funds. The maturity schedule for the bonds is as follows:

Gov ernmental Activ ities Business-type Activ ities

Year Ending Total
June 30, 2018 Series B Solar Bonds 2018 Series B Solar Bonds 2018 Series B Solar Bonds

2020 $ - $ 37,506 $ 65,000 $ 119,838 $ 65,000 $ 157,344
2021 10,000 37,406 90,000 118,288 100,000 155,694
2022 15,000 37,156 105,000 116,338 120,000 153,494
2023 15,000 36,856 115,000 113,563 130,000 150,419
2024 20,000 36,506 130,000 109,888 150,000 146,394
2025-2029 130,000 173,906 860,000 458,088 990,000 631,994
2030-2034 215,000 149,578 1,285,000 268,006 1,500,000 417,584
2025-2039 350,000 104,519 950,000 50,031 1,300,000 154,550
2040-2044 415,000 39,288 - - - -
Total $ 1,170,000 $ 652,721 $ 3,600,000 $ 1,354,040 $ 4,355,000 $ 1,967,473
Due within one year $ - $ 37,506 $ 65,000 $ 119,838 $ 65,000 $ 157,344

Due after one year 1,170,000 615,215 3,535,000 1,234,202 4,290,000 1,810,129
Total $ 1,170,000 $ 652,721 $ 3,600,000 $ 1,354,040 $ 4,355,000 $ 1,967,473

Compensated Absences

The City records employee absences, such as vacation, illness, deferred overtime, and holidays, for
which it is expected that employees will be paid as compensated absences. The governmental
activities compensated absences balance at June 30, 2019 was $300,267 with $80,396 expected to be
paid within a year and to be liquidated by the general fund; the business‐type activities compensated
absences balance at June 30, 2019 was $215,467 with $8,574 expected to be paid within a year. Of
which the water fund will liquidate $5,333 and the sewer fund $3,241.
75


7. NET POSITION/FUND BALANCES

Restric ted Net P osition Detail
Governmental Business‐type
Activities Activities
Restricted for:
Law enforcement $ 202,781 $ ‐
Housing programs 289,450 ‐
Transportation infrastructure 548,614 ‐
Debt service reserve ‐ 373,231
Assessment district debt service ‐ 316,610
Depreciation reserve ‐ 94,901
Total $ 1,040,845 $ 784,742

 Restrictions of Net position for Law enforcement, Housing programs and Transportation
infrastructure are the same as described on the next page as restrictions of fund balances.

 Debt service reserve: the amount of funds in the water and sewer enterprise restricted per
the loan and bond covenants of the outstanding debt.

 Assessment district debt service: consists of funds held for the repayment of the Series 1993
bond. The funds are restricted by a bond covenant.

 Depreciation reserve: the amount of funds set aside to meet USDA project requirements in
the Water and Sewer funds.
76


7. NET POSITION/FUND BALANCES, Continued

Fund Balance Detail
Nonspendable:
Long‐term interfund advances $ 289,481
Loans/notes receivable 2,480,123
Total nonspendable 2,769,604
Restricted:
Law enforcement 202,781
Housing programs 289,450
Transportation infrastructure 548,614
Total restricted 1,040,845
Assigned:
Capital projects 5,438,285
General reserves 1,199,455
Housing and community programs 40,851
Debt service reserve 111,000
Total assigned 6,789,591
Unassigned:
General fund 842,769
Special revenue funds (258,711)
Total unassigned 584,058
Total fund balance $ 11,184,098

The following describe the purpose of each nonspendable, restricted, committed, assigned, and
unassigned category used by the City:

Nonspendable

 Loans/notes receivable – used to segregate that portion of fund balance to indicate that long‐term
loans or notes receivable do not represent available, spendable resources even though they are
components of assets.
 Long‐term interfund advances – cash transfers to special revenue funds to provide financing for
those activities. This also includes a loan from the general fund to the water fund for a capital
purchase, reported on the statement face as an internal balance.
77



Restricted

 Law enforcement – comprised of asset forfeiture money and subventions received from the state
for the use in police activities.
 Housing programs – consists of cash and notes receivable expressly reserved for the use in
providing housing for low and moderate income residents.
 Transportation infrastructure – reserved in special revenue funds to finance transportation projects
funded by state and federal sources.

Assigned

 Capital projects –funds committed by the City Council from the general fund for the replacement
of docks, an infrastructure improvement project.
 General reserves – funds identified as operating reserves by management and the City Council.
 Subsequent year’s budget: appropriation of fund balance – amount appropriated from prior
budgetary surpluses in the general fund to finance one‐time uses, primarily capital projects.
 Housing and community assistance – resources held for emergency housing and business
stabilization programs.
 Debt service reserve – funds reserved by management for future debt service payments related to
capital acquisitions.

Unassigned

 Special revenue fund deficits – deficit fund balances in four special revenue funds.
78



Fund Deficits

Deficit fund balances consisted of the following:

Non‐Major Special Revenue Funds
Fund Deficit
Fund Name Number Amount Discussion/Explanation
Parkland 202 (175,140) Deficit resulted from a large payment to the Witt loan in fiscal year 2013.

Dedication Fund Financing for that payment came from advance from the general fund and
will be repaid from park dedication fees.
Lakeport Housing 209 (79,983) This fund was used to acquire certain properties for the City over the last

Program decade. Management has elected to keep this fund balance in a negative
balance as income to the fund will reduce it. Financing in the interim will
come from the general fund.
CDBG Grant 2018 238 (1,360) Immaterial accounts receivable were not recorded to offset the accrued

expenditures in this fund.
Lakshore Storm 410 (1,275) While final construction had been completed at year end, final inspections

Damage Repair were pending. A matching contribution from the general fund will be
determined upon completion of said inspections, audit and closeout of the
capital project fund.
Safe Routes to 411 (953) Immaterial accounts receivable were not recorded to offset the accrued

School expenditures in this fund. Timing of invoicing for costs associated with this
capital project was unknown at year end and revenue recognition was not
determined met.

79


8. INTERFUND TRANSACTIONS AND INTERFUND BORROWING

With City Council approval, resources may be transferred from one City fund to another. The purpose
of the majority of transfers is to reimburse a fund which has made expenditure on behalf of another
fund. Transfers between funds during the fiscal year 2019 were as follows:

Transfers were made to close out old funds and accounts that were no longer in use and to reimburse
the general fund for program‐related general administrative costs.

Transferred In Transferred Out
Go v ern men tal Fu n d s
Major funds:
Fund: 110 ‐ GENERAL FUND $ 29,500 $ 99,778
Total major funds 29,500 99,778
No n ‐majo r fu n d s:
Sp ec i al rev en u e fu n d s:
Fund: 207 ‐ PROP 172 PUBLIC SAFETY ‐ 29,500
Fund: 401 ‐ LAKESHORE STORM DAMAGE REPAIR 99,778 ‐
Total non‐major funds 99,778 29,500
Total Transfers $ 129,278 $ 129,278

In terfu n d Bo rrowin g an d In tern al Balan c es
Borrowing Fund (Due To) Lending Fund (Due From)
Fund Fund
Number Fund Name Amount Number Fund Name Amount
238 CDBG Housing Grants $ 12,905 110 General Fund $ 12,905
411 Safe Routes to School 6,915 110 General Fund 6,915
Total due to $ 19,820 Total due from $ 19,820
Borrowing Fund (Advances To) Lending Fund (Advances From)
Fund Fund
Number Fund Name Amount Number Fund Name Amount
202 Parkland Dedication $ 175,140 110 General Fund $ 175,140
604 Lakeport Housing 114,341 110 General Fund 114,341
Total advances to $ 289,481 Total advances from $ 289,481
$ 309,301 Total interfund borrowing $ 309,301
80


8. RISK MANAGEMENT

The City is an associate member of the Redwood Empire Municipal Insurance Fund (REMIF), a public
entity pool comprised of fifteen northern California charter and associate member cities. REMIF is
organized under a Joint Powers Agreement pursuant to the California Government Code. The purpose
of REMIF is to arrange and administer programs of insurance for the pooling of self‐insured losses and
to purchase excess insurance coverage. The City pays an annual premium to REMIF for its workers’
compensation, general liability and property coverage.

The City of Lakeport participates in the following three REMIF programs:

General Liability Insurance

Annual premiums are paid by the member cities and are adjusted retrospectively to cover costs. The
City of Lakeport self‐insures for the first $5,000 of each loss and pays 100% of all losses incurred under
$5,000. The City does not share or pay for losses of other cities under $5,000, depending on the
entity’s deductible amount. Participating cities then share in the next $5,000 to $500,000 per loss
occurrence. Specific coverage includes comprehensive and general automotive liability, personal
injury, contractual liability, professional liability, and certain other coverage. REMIF is a member of the
California Joint Powers Risk Management Authority, which provides REMIF with an additional
$9,500,000 liability insurance coverage over and above REMIF retention level of $500,000.

Workers’ Compensation

Periodic deposits are paid by member cities and are adjusted retrospectively to cover costs. The City of
Lakeport is self‐insured for the first $5,000 of each loss and pays 100% of all losses incurred under
$5,000. The City does not share or pay for losses of other cities under $5,000.

Losses of $10,000 to $300,000 are prorated among all participating cities. Losses in excess of $300,000
are covered by excess insurance purchased by participating cities, as part of the pool, to State
statutory limits.

Property Insurance

The City participates in REMIF’s property insurance program. The annual deposits paid by participating
member cities are based upon deductibility levels and are not subject to retroactive adjustments. The
City of Lakeport has a deductible level of $10,000 and a coverage limit of $300,000,000 declared value.

81


9. RISK MANAGEMENT, Continued

Risk Management Coverage
Amount Coverage Provider Payment Source

General liability claims:
$0 ‐ $5,000 Self‐insured retention City funds
5,001 ‐ 500,000 Public Agency Risk Sharing Authority Shared risk pool
500,001 ‐ 9,500,000 California Affiliated Risk Management Authorities Shared risk pool
5,000,001 ‐ 15,000,000 Commercial reinsurance
15,000,001 ‐ 25,000,000 California Affiliated Risk Management Authorities Shared risk pool
Workers' compensation claims:
$0 ‐ $5,000 Self‐insured retention City funds
5,001 ‐ 300,000 Public Agency Risk Sharing Authority Shared risk pool
300,001 + Local Agency Workers' Compensation Excess Pool Shared risk pool
5,000,001 ‐ 50,000,000 Commercial reinsurance
50,000,001 ‐ 300,000,000 Insurance
Property insurance claims:
$0 ‐ $10,000 Deductible City funds
10,001 ‐ 300,000,000 REMIF coverage of declared value Shared risk pool

The City did not have any settlements which exceeded its liability coverage. The City does not have
any accrued liability or reserves for fiscal year 2019.

The following is a summary of the most recent financial statements of REMIF as of and for the fiscal
year ended June 30, 2018:

Total assets $ 31,189,650
Total deferred outflows of resources 659,765
Total liabilities (30,229,545)
Total Deferred inflows of resources (216,372)
Members' equity $ 1,403,498
Total revenue $ 26,012,592
Total expense (25,661,506)
Operating income (loss) $ 351,086

REMIF issues a separate comprehensive annual financial report. Copies of that report may be obtained
from REMIF at Post Office Box 885, Sonoma, California 95476.
82


10. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT PLAN

Plan Description

The City contributes to the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS), a cost‐sharing
multiple‐employer public employee defined benefit pension plan. PERS provides retirement and
disability benefits, annual cost‐of‐living adjustments, and death benefits to plan members and
beneficiaries. PERS acts as a common investment and administrative agent for participating public
entities within the State of California. Benefit provisions and all other requirements are established by
state statue and city ordinance. Copies of PERS annual financial report may be obtained from the
Executive Office, 400 “P” Street, Sacramento, California, 95814.

General Information about the Pension Plans

Plan Descriptions ‐ All qualified permanent and probationary employees are eligible to participate in
the Local Government's separate Safety (police and fire) and Miscellaneous (all other) Employee
Pension Plans, cost‐sharing multiple employer defined benefit pension plans administered by the
California Public Employees' Retirement System (CaIPERS). Benefit provisions under the Plans are
established by State statute and Local Government resolution. CalPERS issues publicly available reports
that include a full description of the pension plans regarding benefit provisions, assumptions and
membership information that can be found on the CalPERS website.

Benefits Provided ‐ CalPERS provides service retirement and disability benefits, annual cost of living
adjustments and death benefits to plan members, who must be public employees and beneficiaries.
Benefits are based on years of credited service, equal to one year of full time employment. Members
with five years of total service are eligible to retire at age 50 with statutorily reduced benefits. All
members are eligible for non‐duty disability benefits after 10 years of service. The death benefit is one
of the following: the Basic Death Benefit, the 1957 Survivor Benefit, or the Optional Settlement 2W
Death Benefit. The cost of living adjustments for each plan are applied as specified by the Public
Employees' Retirement Law.
83


10. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT PLAN, Continued

The Plans' provisions and benefits in effect at June 30, 2019, are summarized as follows:

Benefits P rov ided
Miscellaneous
Hire date Prior to January 1, 2013 On or after January 1, 2013
Benefit formula 2.5% @ 55 2% @ 62
Benefit vesting schedule 5 years service 5 years service
Benefit payments Monthly for life Monthly for life
Retirement age 50 ‐ 55 52 ‐ 67
Monthly benefits, as a & of eligible compensation 2.0% to 2.7% 1.0% to 2.5%
Required employee contribution rates 8% 9%
Required employer contribution rates 10.609% 6.842%
Safety
Hire date Prior to January 1, 2013 On or after January 1, 2013
Benefit formula 3% @ 50 2.7% @ 57
Benefit vesting schedule 5 years service 5 years service
Benefit payments Monthly for life Monthly for life
Retirement age 50 50 ‐ 57
Monthly benefits, as a & of eligible compensation 3% 2.0% to 2.7%
Required employee contribution rates 9% 11.5%
Required employer contribution rates 18.677% 12.14%

Contributions

Section 20814(c) of the California Public Employees' Retirement Law requires that the employer
contribution rates for all public employers be determined on an annual basis by the actuary and shall
be effective on the July 1 following notice of a change in the rate. Funding contributions for both Plans
are determined annually on an actuarial basis as of June 30 by CaIPERS. The actuarially determined
rate is the estimated amount necessary to finance the costs of benefits earned by employees during
the year, with an additional amount to finance any unfunded accrued liability. The Local Government is
required to contribute the difference between the actuarially determined rate and the contribution
rate of employees.
84



For the year ended June 30, 2019, the contributions recognized as part of pension expense for each
Plan were as follows:

PEPRA ‐
Miscellaneous Safety Miscellaneous PEPRA Safety
Contributions ‐ employer $ 130,540 $ 56,507 $ 63,073 $ 57,802

Pension Liabilities, Pension Expenses, and Deferred Outflows/Inflows of Resources Related to Pensions

As of June 30, 2019, the City reported net pension liabilities for its proportionate shares of the net
pension liability of each Plan as follows:

Proportionate Share
of Net Pension Liability
Miscellaneous $ 4,448,040
Safety 2,177,340
Total Net Pension Liability $ 6,625,380

The City's net pension liability for each Plan is measured as the proportionate share of the net pension
liability. The net pension liability of each of the Plans is measured as of June 30, 2018, and the total
pension liability for each Plan used to calculate the net pension liability was determined by an actuarial
valuation as of June 30, 2017, rolled forward to June 30, 2018, using standard update procedures. The
Local Government's proportion of the net pension liability was based on a projection of the Local
Government's long‐term share of contributions to the pension plans relative to the projected
contributions of all participating employers, actuarially determined.
85



The City’s proportionate share of the net pension liability for each Plan as of June 30, 2018 and 2019,
was as follows:
Miscellaneous Safety
Proportion ‐ June 30, 2018 0.11413% 0.03613%

Proportion ‐ June 30, 2019 0.11803% 0.03711%
Change ‐ Increase (Decrease) 0.00390% 0.00098%

For the year ended June 30, 2019, the City recognized an increase in pension expense of $136,989.

At June 30, 2019, the City reported deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources
related to pensions from the following sources:
Deferred Outflows Deferred Inflow
of Resources of Resources
Changes in assumptions $ 567,624 $ ‐
Differences between expected and actual experiences 159,194 ‐
Differences between projected and actual investment earnings 36,732 ‐
Differences between the employer's contributions and
proportionate share of the contributions ‐ 647,009
Change in employer's proportion 385,831 586,358
Pension contributions subsequent to measurement date 307,924 ‐
Total $ 1,457,305 $ 1,233,367

The $307,924 reported as deferred outflows of resources related to contributions subsequent to the
measurement date will be recognized as a reduction of the net pension liability in the year ended June
30, 2020. Other amounts reported as deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources
related to pensions will be recognized as pension expense as follows:
Year Ended
30‐Jun
2019 $ (119,270)
2020 287,889
2021 (197,516)
2022 (55,089)
2023 ‐
Thereafter ‐
86



Actuarial Assumptions

The total pension liabilities in the June 30, 2017 actuarial valuations were determined using the
following actuarial assumptions:

Actuarial Assumptions
Actuarial cost method Entry‐age normal cost method
Actuarial assumptions:
Discount rate 7.15%
Inflation 2.75%
Salary increases Varies by entry age and service
Mortality Rate Table Derived using CalPERS’ Membership Data for all Funs
Post‐retirement benefit increase Contract COLA up to 2.75% until purchasing power protection
allowance floor on purchasing power applies, 2.75% thereafter.

The underlying mortality table used was developed based on CalPERS’ specific data. The table includes 20 years
of mortality improvements using Society of Actuaries Scale BB. For more details, please refer to the 2014
experience study report.

All other actuarial assumptions used in the June 30, 2014 valuation were based on the results of an actuarial
experience study for the fiscal years 1997 to 2011, including updates to salary increase, mortality and
retirement rates. The Experience Study can be obtained at CalPERS’ website under Forms and Publications.

Discount Rate

The discount rate used to measure the total pension liability was 7.15 percent. To determine whether the
municipal bond rate should be used in the calculation of the discount rate for each plan, CalPERS stress tested
plans that would most likely result in a discount rate that would be different from the actuarially assumed
discount rate. The tests revealed the assets would not run out. Therefore, the current 7.15 percent discount
rate is appropriate and the use of the municipal bond rate calculation is not deemed necessary. The long‐term
expected discount rate of 7.15 percent is applied to all plans in the Public Employees' Retirement Fund (PERF).
The cash flows used in the testing were developed assuming that both members and employers will make their
required contributions on time and as scheduled in all future years. The stress test results are presented in a
detailed report called "GASB Crossover Testing Report" that can be obtained at CalPERS website under the GASB
68 section.
87



The long ‐term expected rate of return on pension plan investments was determined using a building‐
block method in which best‐estimate ranges of expected future real rates of return (expected returns,
net of pension plan investment expense and inflation) are developed for each major asset class.

In determining the long‐term expected rate of return, CalPERS took into account both short‐term and
long‐term market return expectations as well as the expected pension fund cash flows. Using historical
returns of all the funds' asset classes, expected compound returns were calculated over the short‐term
(first 10 years) and the long‐term (11‐60 years) using a building‐block approach. Using the expected
nominal returns for both short‐term and long‐term, the present value of benefits was calculated for
each fund. The expected rate of return was set by calculating the single equivalent expected return
that arrived at the same present value of benefits for cash flows as the one calculated using both
short‐term and long‐term returns. The expected rate of return was then set equivalent to the single
equivalent rate calculated above and rounded down to the nearest one quarter of one percent.

The table below reflects the long‐term expected real rate of return by asset class. The rate of return
was calculated using the capital market assumptions applied to determine the discount rate and asset
allocation. These rates of return are net of administrative expenses.

Rates of Return
New Strategic Real Return Real Return
(1) (2)
Allocation Years 1‐10 Years 11+
Global equity 47% 5.25% 5.71%
Global fixed income 19% 0.99% 2.43%
Inflation sensitive 6% 0.45% 3.36%
Private equity 12% 6.83% 6.95%
Real estate 11% 4.50% 5.13%
Infrastructure and forestland 3% 4.50% 5.09%
Liquidity 2% ‐0.55% ‐1.05%
Total 100%
(1)
An expected inflation of 2.5% used for this period.
(2)
An expected inflation of 3.0% used for this period.
88



Sensitivity of the Proportionate Share of the Net Pension Liability to Changes in the Discount Rate ‐The
following presents the City's proportionate share of the net pension liability for each Plan, calculated
using the discount rate for each Plan, as well as what the City's proportionate share of the net pension
liability would be if it were calculated using a discount rate that is I‐percentage point lower or I‐
percentage point higher than the current rate:

Current

1% Decrease Discount Rate 1% Increase

(6.15%) (7.15%) (8.15%)

Net Pension Liability as of
June 30, 2017
Miscellaneous $ 7,102,621 $ 4,448,040 $ 2,256,727

Safety 3,836,401 2,177,340 818,037

Total $ 10,939,022 $ 6,625,380 $ 3,074,764

Pension Plan Fiduciary Net Position

Detailed information about each pension plan's fiduciary net position is available in the separately
issued CalPERS financial reports.

Payable to the Pension Plan

At June 30, 2019, the Local Government reported a payable of $13,565 for the outstanding amount of
contributions to the pension plan required for the year ended June 30, 2019.
89


11. POST RETIREMENT HEALTHCARE BENEFITS

Plan Description

The City’s single‐employer defined benefit retiree health plan provides certain health care benefits to
qualified retired employees until they become eligible for Medicare benefits. Employees of the City
may become eligible for these benefits when they reach normal retirement age while working for the
City based upon years of service.

Funding Policy

The City recognizes the cost of providing these benefits by expensing their monthly insurance
premiums. Other postemployment benefits paid by the City for the year totaled $324,908.

The plan provisions and benefits are summarized below:

Benefit types provided Medical only
Duration of benefits Lifetime
Required service 12 years
Minimum age 50
Dependent coverage Yes
City contribution % (1) 12‐14 years of service: 40%
15‐17 years of service: 60%
18‐20 years of service: 80%
21+ years of service: 100%
City cap Active cap (currently a % of premium)

(1)
Applies to City contribution for active coverage. Those hired prior to
4/6/99 are entitled to the active contribution upon retirement subject
only to the minimum pension eligibility requirements.
90


11. POST RETIREMENT HEALTHCARE BENEFITS, Continued

O P EB Eligibility Summary
Inactive employees receiving benefits 39
Inactive employees entitled to but not receiving benefits 0
Participating active employees 11
Total number of participants 50

Contributions

The Plan and its contribution requirements are established by Memoranda of Understanding with the
applicable employee bargaining units and may be amended by agreements between the City and the
bargaining units. The annual contribution is based on the actuarially determined contribution. For the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2019, the City’s cash contributions were $324,908.

Net OPEB Liability

The City’s net OPEB liability was measured as of June 30, 2019 and the total OPEB liability used to
calculate the net OPEB liability was determined by an actuarial valuation dated June 30, 2019, based
on the following actuarial methods and assumptions:

Actuarial Assumptions:
Discount Rate 3.50%
Inflation 2.75%
Salary Increases 2.75%
Investment Rate of Return 3.50%
Mortality Rate (1) Derived using CalPERS' Membership Data for all funds.
(2)
Pre-Retirement Turnover Derived using CalPERS' Membership Data for all funds.
Healthcare Trend Rate 4%

Notes:
(1)
Pre‐retirement mortality information was derived from data collected during 1997 to 2011 CalPERS
Experience Study dated January 2014 and post‐retirement mortality information was derived from the
2007 to 2011 CalPERS Experience Study. The Experience Study Reports may be accessed on the
CalPERS website www.calpers.ca.gov under Forms and Publications.
(2)
The pre‐retirement turnover information was developed based on CalPERS’ specific data. For more
details, please refer to the 2007 to 2011 Experience Study Report. The Experience Study Report may
be accessed on the CalPERS website www.calpers.ca.gov under Forms and Publications.

91



Discount Rate

The discount rate used to measure the total OPEB liability was 3.50 percent. The projection of cash
flows used to determine the discount rate assumed that Authority contributions will be made at rates
equal to the actuarially determined contribution rates. Based on those assumptions, the OPEB plan’s
fiduciary net position was projected to be available to make all projected OPEB payments for current
active and inactive employees and beneficiaries. Therefore, the long‐term expected rate of return on
OPEB plan investments was applied to all periods of projected benefit payments to determine the total
OPEB liability.

Changes in the OPEB Liability

The changes in the net OPEB liability for the Plan are as follows:

Total OPEB Fiduciary Ne t OPEB

Liability Ne t Position Liability
Balance at 6/30/2018 $ 5,044,798 $ - $ 5,044,798
Changes for the year
Service Cost 53,802 - 53,802
Interest 173,339 - 173,339
Assumption changes 359,286 - 359,286
Contributions - employer - 238,287 (238,287)
Benefit payments (238,287) (238,287) -
Net Changes 348,140 - 348,140
Balance at 6/30/2019 $ 5,392,938 $ - $ 5,392,938

Sensitivity of the Net OPEB Liability to Changes in the Discount Rate

The discount rate used for the fiscal year end 2019 is 3.50%. The following presents the net OPEB
liability of the City if it were calculated using a discount rate that is one percentage point lower or one
percentage point higher than the current rate, for measurement period ended June 30, 2019:

Discount Rate Valuation Discount Rate
Change in Discount Rate 1% Lower Discount Rate 1% Higher
Net OPEB Liability $ 5,838,502 $ 5,392,938 $ 4,633,299

92



Sensitivity of the Net OPEB Liability to Changes in the Health Care Cost Trend Rates

The following presents the net OPEB liability of the City if it were calculated using health care cost
trend rates that are one percentage point lower or one percentage point higher than the current rate,
for measurement period ended June 30, 2019:

Trend Trend
Change in Healthcare Cost Trend Rate 1% Lower Current Trend 1% Higher
Net OPEB Liability $ 4,590,234 $ 5,392,938 $ 5,820,580

Recognition of Deferred Outflows and Deferred Inflows of Resources

Gains and losses related to changes in total OPEB liability and fiduciary net position are recognized in
OPEB expense systematically over time. Amounts are first recognized in OPEB expense for the year the
gain or loss occurs. The remaining amounts are categorized as deferred outflows and deferred inflows
of resources related to OPEB and are to be recognized in future OPEB expense. The recognition period
differs depending on the source of the gain or loss:

Net difference between projected and 5 years
actual earnings on OPEB plan
investments
Expected average remaining service
All other amounts lifetime (EARSL) (6.0 Years at June 30, 2019)

OPEB Expense and Deferred Outflows/Inflows of Resources Related to OPEB

For the fiscal year ended June 30, 2019, the City recognized OPEB expense of $483,774. As of fiscal
year ended June 30, 2019, the City reported deferred outflows of resources related to OPEB from the
following sources:

Deferred Outflows Deferred Inflow
of Resources of Resources
Changes in assumptions $ 102,653 $ ‐
Total $ 102,653 $ ‐

93



Amounts reported as deferred outflows of resources related to OPEB will be recognized as expense as
follows:
Year Ended
30‐Jun
2020 102,653
2021 ‐
2022 ‐
2023 ‐
Thereafter ‐

12. SUCCESSOR AGENCY TRUST FOR ASSETS OF FORMER REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY

On December 29, 2011, the California Supreme Court upheld Assembly Bill 1X 26 (“the Bill”) that
provides for the dissolution of all redevelopment agencies in the State of California. This action
impacted the reporting entity of the City of Lakeport that previously had reported a redevelopment
agency within the reporting entity of the City as a blended component unit.

The Bill provides that upon dissolution of a redevelopment agency, either the city or another unit of
local government will agree to serve as the “successor agency” to hold the assets until they are
distributed to other units of state and local government. On January 10, 2012, the City Council elected
to become the Successor Agency for the former redevelopment agency in accordance with the Bill as
part of City resolution number 2441 (2012).

After enactment of the law, which occurred on June 28, 2011, redevelopment agencies in the State of
California cannot enter into new projects, obligations or commitments. Subject to the control of a
newly established oversight board, remaining assets can only be used to pay enforceable obligations in
existence at the date of dissolution (including the completion of any unfinished projects that were
subject to legally enforceable contractual commitments).

In future fiscal years, successor agencies will only be allocated revenue in the amount that is necessary
to pay the estimated annual installment payments on enforceable obligations of the former
redevelopment agency until all enforceable obligations of the prior redevelopment agency have been
paid in full and all assets have been liquidated.

94


12. SUCCESSOR AGENCY TRUST FOR ASSETS OF FORMER REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, Continued

The Bill directs the State Controller of the State of California to review the propriety of any transfers of
assets between redevelopment agencies and other public bodies that occurred after January 1, 2011.
If the public body that received such transfers is not contractually committed to a third party for the
expenditure or encumbrance of those assets, the State Controller is required to order the available
assets to be transferred to the public body designated as the successor agency by the Bill.

Management believes, in consultation with legal counsel, that the obligations of the former
redevelopment agency due to the City are valid enforceable obligations payable by the successor
agency trust under the requirements of the Bill. The City’s position on this issue is not a position of
settled law and there is considerable legal uncertainty regarding this issue. It is reasonably possible
that a legal determination may be made at a later date by an appropriate judicial authority that would
resolve this issue unfavorably to the City.

In accordance with the timeline set forth in the Bill (as modified by the California Supreme Court on
December 29, 2011) all redevelopment agencies in the State of California were dissolved and ceased
to operate as a legal entity as of February 1, 2013. Prior to that date, the final seven months of the
activity of the redevelopment agency continued to be reported in the governmental funds of the City
included in the fund financial statements as Former Redevelopment Agency Special Revenue Fund and
Low/Moderate Income Housing Fund.

After the date of dissolution, the assets and activities of the dissolved redevelopment agency are
reported in a fiduciary fund (private‐purpose trust fund) in the financial statements of the City. The
transfer of the assets and liabilities of the former redevelopment agency as of February 1, 2012
(effectively the same date as January 31, 2012) from governmental funds of the City to fiduciary funds
was reported in the governmental funds as an extraordinary loss (or gain) in the governmental fund
financial statements. The receipt of these assets and liabilities as of January 31, 2012 was reported in
the private‐purpose trust fund as an extraordinary gain (or loss).

95



The following is a summary of changes in long‐term liabilities for the year ended June 30, 2019:

Redevelopment Successor Private Purpose Trust
Debt Service Activity
Balance Balance Due within
Fiduciary activities: July 1, 2017 Additions Retirements June 30, 2018 one year
2004 Series B RDA Tax Exempt Bonds $ 635,000 $ ‐ $ (55,000) $ 580,000 $ 60,000
2016 Tax Allocation Bonds 4,020,000 ‐ (70,000) 3,950,000 75,000
Total fiduciary activities $ 4,655,000 $ ‐ $ (125,000) $ 4,530,000 $ 135,000

2004 Series B Bonds
2004 Series B bond, total issue $1,170,000. Annual principal is due on September 1 and interest
payments are due semi‐annually, at an annual interest rate of 5.31%, September 1 and March 1 each
year. Payments are secured by redevelopment tax increment revenue, maturing in year 2027.
Balance due $ 580,000
2016 Tax Allocation Bond
2016 Tax Allocation Bond, total issue $4,120,000. Annual principal is due on September 1 and interest
payments are due semi‐annually, September 1 and March 1 each year. Payments are secured by
redevelopment tax increment revenue, maturing in year 2034.

96



Future debt service for Fiduciary Activities at June 30, 2019, is as follows:

2004 Series B RDA 2016 Tax
Tax Exempt Bond Allocation Bond Totals
June 30, Principal Interest Principal Interest Principal Interest
2020 $ 60,000 $ 30,988 $ 75,000 $ 153,950 $ 135,000 $ 184,938
2021 65,000 27,544 145,000 149,550 210,000 177,094
2022 65,000 23,871 145,000 143,750 210,000 167,621
2023 70,000 20,058 160,000 137,650 230,000 157,708
2024 75,000 15,961 160,000 131,250 235,000 147,211
2025‐2029 245,000 21,046 1,185,000 539,550 1,430,000 560,596
2030‐2034 ‐ ‐ 1,825,000 226,150 1,825,000 226,150
2035‐2039 ‐ ‐ 255,000 3,825 255,000 3,825
$ 580,000 $ 139,468 $ 3,950,000 $ 1,485,675 $ 4,530,000 $ 1,625,143

Due after one year 520,000 108,480 3,875,000 1,331,725 4,395,000 1,440,205
$ 580,000 $ 139,468 $ 3,950,000 $ 1,485,675 $ 4,530,000 $ 1,625,143

13. NEW ACCOUNTING PRONOUNCEMENTS

The GASB has issued Statement No. 83, "Certain Asset Retirement Obligations." The requirements of
this Statement are effective for reporting periods beginning after June 15, 2018. Earlier application is
encouraged. This Statement addresses accounting and financial reporting for certain asset retirement
obligations (AROs). An ARO is a legally enforceable liability associated with the retirement of a tangible
capital asset. A government that has legal obligations to perform future asset retirement activities
related to its tangible capital assets should recognize a liability based on the guidance in this
Statement. This statement had no effect on these financial statements.

The GASB has issued Statement No. 84, "Fiduciary Activities." The requirements of this Statement are
effective for reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2018. Earlier application is encouraged.
The objective of this Statement is to improve guidance regarding the identification of fiduciary
activities for accounting and financial reporting purposes and how those activities should be
reported. The City will implement this statement, as applicable, to its financial statements for the year
ending June 30, 2020.

97


13. NEW ACCOUNTING PRONOUNCEMENTS, CONTINUED

The GASB has issued Statement No. 87, "Leases." The requirements of this Statement are effective for
reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2019. The objective of this Statement is to better
meet the information needs of financial statement users by improving accounting and financial
reporting for leases by governments. This Statement increases the usefulness of governments’
financial statements by requiring recognition of certain lease assets and liabilities for leases that
previously were classified as operating leases and recognized as inflows of resources or outflows of
resources based on the payment provisions of the contract. It establishes a single model for lease
accounting based on the foundational principle that leases are financings of the right to use an
underlying asset. Under this Statement, a lessee is required to recognize a lease liability and an
intangible right‐to‐use lease asset, and a lessor is required to recognize a lease receivable and a
deferred inflow of resources, thereby enhancing the relevance and consistency of information about
governments’ leasing activities. The City will implement this statement, as applicable, to its financial
statements for the year ending June 30, 2021.

The GASB has issued Statement No. 88, "Certain Disclosures Related to Debt, including Direct
Borrowings and Direct Placements." The requirements of this Statement are effective for reporting
periods beginning after June 15, 2018. Earlier application is encouraged. The primary objective of this
Statement is to improve the information that is disclosed in notes to government financial statements
related to debt, including direct borrowings and direct placements. It also clarifies which liabilities
governments should include when disclosing information related to debt. This statement had no effect
on these financial statements.

The GASB has issued Statement No. 89, "Accounting for Interest Cost Incurred before the End of a
Construction Period." The requirements of this Statement are effective for reporting periods beginning
after December 15, 2019. Earlier application is encouraged. The objectives of this Statement are (1) to
enhance the relevance and comparability of information about capital assets and the cost of borrowing
for a reporting period and (2) to simplify accounting for interest cost incurred before the end of a
construction period. The City will implement this statement, as applicable, to its financial statements
for the year ending June 30, 2021.

The GASB has issued Statement No. 90, "Majority Equity Interests—an amendment of GASB
Statements No. 14 and No. 61." The requirements of this Statement are effective for reporting periods
beginning after December 15, 2018. Earlier application is encouraged. The primary objectives of this
Statement are to improve the consistency and comparability of reporting a government’s majority
equity interest in a legally separate organization and to improve the relevance of financial statement
information for certain component units. The City will implement this statement, as applicable, to its
financial statements for the year ending June 30, 2020.

98


13. NEW ACCOUNTING PRONOUNCEMENTS, CONTINUED

The GASB has issued Statement No. 91, "Conduit Debt Obligations." The requirements of this
Statement are effective for reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2020. Earlier application is
encouraged. The primary objectives of this Statement are to provide a single method of reporting
conduit debt obligations by issuers and eliminate diversity in practice associated with (1) commitments
extended by issuers, (2) arrangements associated with conduit debt obligations, and (3) related note
disclosures. This Statement achieves those objectives by clarifying the existing definition of a conduit
debt obligation; establishing that a conduit debt obligation is not a liability of the issuer; establishing
standards for accounting and financial reporting of additional commitments and voluntary
commitments extended by issuers and arrangements associated with conduit debt obligations; and
improving required note disclosures. The City will implement this statement, as applicable, to its
financial statements for the year ending June 30, 2022.

99


100
REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
101
Required Supplementary Information ‐ Schedule of Changes
in the Net OPEB Liability and Related Ratios
for the Measurement Periods Ended June 30,
2019 2018
Total OPEB Liability
Service Cost $ 53,802 $ 52,362
Interest on the total OPEB liability 173,339 189,647
Differences between expected and actual experience ‐ ‐
Changes of benefit terms ‐ ‐
Changes of assumptions 359,286 ‐
Benefit payments (238,287) (324,908)
Net change in total OPEB liability 348,140 (82,899)
Total OPEB liability ‐ beginning 5,044,798 5,127,697

Total OPEB liability ‐ ending (a) $ 5,392,938 $ 5,044,798
Plan fiduciary net position
Contributions ‐ employer $ 238,287 $ 324,908
Contributions ‐ employee
Actual investment income ‐ ‐
Administrative expense ‐ ‐
Benefit payments (238,287) (324,908)
Net change in plan fiduciary net position ‐ ‐
Plan fiduciary net position ‐ beginning ‐ ‐

Plan fiduciary net position ‐ ending (b) $ ‐ $ ‐
Net OPEB liability ‐ ending (a) ‐ (b) $ 5,392,938 $ 5,044,798
Covered payroll 2,632,480 $ 2,570,660
Net OPEB liability as a percentage of covered payroll 204.86% 196.25%
Notes to Schedule
1) GASB 75 requires presentation of the 10‐year history of changes in the Net OPEB Liability. However, since 2018 was the
initial year of implementation, only two years are currently available.
102
Required Supplementary Information ‐ Net OPEB Liability Schedule of Contributions
June 30, 2019
Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2019 2018

Actuarially Determined Contribution (ADC) $ 238,287 $ 324,908
Contributions in relation to the ADC 238,287 324,908
Contribution deficiency ( excess) $ ‐ $ ‐
Covered payroll 2,632,480 2,570,660
Contributions as a percentage of covered payroll 9.05% 12.64%
Notes to Schedule
1) GASB 75 requires presentation of the 10‐year history of changes in the Net OPEB Liability. However, since 2018 was
the initial year of implementation, only two years are currently available.
103
Required Supplementary Information ‐ Schedule of Contributions
Miscellaneous Plan
Last 10 Fiscal Years* 2019 2018 2017
Contractually required contribution (actuarially determined) $ 114,309 $ 299,811 $ 279,716

Contributions in relation to the actuarially determined contributions (114,309) (299,811) (279,716)
Contribution deficiency (excess) $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐
Covered payroll $ 2,174,275 $ 1,854,631 $ 1,727,792
Contribution as a percentage of covered payroll 5.26% 16.17% 16.19%
Notes to Schedule
1) Covered employee payroll represents compensation earnable and pensionable compensation. Only compensation earnable
and pensionable compensation that would possibly go into the determination of retirement benefits are included.
* Due to a change in CalPERS reporting information, only two years
are available. Additional years will be presented as they become
available.
Safety Plan
Contractually required contribution (actuarially determined) $ 193,615 $ 178,679 $ 175,590

Contributions in relation to the actuarially determined contributions (193,615) (178,679) (175,590)
Contribution deficiency (excess) $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐
Covered payroll $ 788,343 $ 716,030 $ 701,870
Contribution as a percentage of covered payroll 24.56% 24.95% 25.02%
Notes to Schedule
1) Covered employee payroll represents compensation earnable and pensionable compensation. Only compensation earnable
and pensionable compensation that would possibly go into the determination of retirement benefits are included.
available.
104
Required Supplementary Information ‐ Schedule of City's Proportionate Share
of Net Pension Liability
Miscellaneous Plan
Plan's Proportion of the Net Pension Liability/(Asset) 0.11803% 0.11413% 0.11527%

Plan's Proportionate Share of the Net Pension Liability/(Asset) $ 4,448,040 $ 4,498,927 $ 4,004,316
Plan's Covered Payroll $ 1,854,631 $ 1,727,792 $ 1,827,783
Plan's Proportionate Share of the Net Pension Liability/(Asset) as a
Percentage of its Covered Payroll 239.83% 260.39% 219.08%
Plan's Proportionate Share of the Fiduciary Net Position as a
Percentage of the Plan’s Total Pension Liability 77.33% 77.17% 78.69%
Plan's Proportionate Share of Aggregate Employer Contribution $ 578,074 $ 575,409 $ 550,660
Notes to Schedule
1) Covered employee payroll represents compensation earnable and pensionable compensation. Only compensation earnable and
available.
Safety Plan
Plan's Proportion of the Net Pension Liability/(Asset) 0.03711% 0.03613% 0.03744%

Plan's Proportionate Share of the Net Pension Liability/(Asset) $ 2,177,340 $ 2,158,780 $ 1,938,947
Plan's Covered Payroll $ 716,030 $ 701,870 $ 587,420
Plan's Proportionate Share of the Net Pension Liability/(Asset) as a
Percentage of its Covered Payroll 304.09% 307.58% 330.08%
Plan's Proportionate Share of the Fiduciary Net Position as a
Percentage of the Plan’s Total Pension Liability 81.91% 80.21% 79.63%
Plan's Proportionate Share of Aggregate Employer Contribution $ 415,848 $ 301,957 $ 261,963
Notes to Schedule
1) Covered employee payroll represents compensation earnable and pensionable compensation. Only compensation earnable and
available.
105
COMBINING AND INDIVIDUAL FUND STATEMENTS AND SCHEDULES
106
NONMAJOR SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
Special Revenue Funds account for revenues received that have special restrictions placed on their use or are
committed to expenditure for specified purposes either through statute or by Council policy. The City has a number of
different special revenue funds which are part of the non‐operating budget. The City’s nonmajor special revenue funds
include the following:
Fund Description
Parkland Dedication Fund State law and General Plan provide for new development to fund expansion of
park systems to compensate for added demand of growth. Fees are collected
at time of recordation of parcel and subdivision maps (see Section 16.16.040
Lakeport Municipal Code).
Gas Tax Fund Established to account for revenues and expenditures on road‐related projects

in the City. Financing is provided by the City's share of the statewide tax on
gasoline and other fuels.
Prop 172 Public Safety Fund A city or county that received Prop 172 funds must place the revenues in a
special revenue fund to be expended only on public safety services as defined in
Government Code Section 30052. Maintenance of effort provision in the
statute requires the City to maintain funding levels to public safety functions.
Lakeport Housing Fund A special revenue fund established for the provision of affordable housing.
BSCC Law Enforcement Subvention This fund reports the receipt of state subvention from the Board of State and
Community Corrections (BSCC) appropriated to local municipal law
enforcement agencies for specified police activities.
CDBG Grant 2018 Established to account for the revenues and expenditures associated with a
CDBG funded off site improvements projects related to low‐income family
housing development.
Tenth Street Drainage Fund Restricted fund/set aside by developer of Willow Tree Shopping Center.
Lakeport Blvd Improvement Fund Special assessment of developer to mitigate traffic impacts of K‐Mart (now

Bruno's) development in 1987.
South Main Street Improvement Special assessment of developer to mitigate traffic impacts of K‐Mart.
Fund
107
NON‐MAJOR SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS, Continued
Fund Description
Parkside Traffic Mitigation Fund Traffic mitigation fees are required as a mitigation measure of Parkside

Subdivision.
Parallel/Bevins Storm Maintenance Fund set up to account for revenue received and expenditures made in
Fund conjunction with development along the Parallel Drive and Bevins Drive
corridor.
Lakeshore Storm Damage Repair On Lakeshore Boulevard from 75' south of Sayre Street, north through Jones
Fund Street to clear concrete debris from below the existing sea wall, reinforce the
embankment with sheet pile, and backfill the wall. Repair the roadway, curb,
and gutter failure by cutting out failed sections and replacing the base rock and
AC paving. Funds provided by the Federal government through Caltrans'
administration of the Emergency Relief (ER) Program.
Storm Drainage Fund Assessments are made against larger properties to pay for prior and future
storm drain projects (see Chapter 3.16 Lakeport Municipal Code).
Lakeshore Blvd. HSIPL (Safety) Special revenue fund established to account for expenditure related to the
federal highway funding.
CDBG Grant Program Income This fund is used for reinvestment into housing programs from program income
generated by past CDBG grants.
Safe Routes to School Established to account for the revenues and expenditures associated with a
CalTrans funded project to improve the pedestrian corridor to the Lakeport
Unified School sites.
HOME Grant Program Income This fund is used for reinvestment into housing programs from program income
generated by past HOME grants.
General Capital Projects This fund is used to track specific capital projects funded from various other
governmental and fiduciary funds. Most notably this fund is used to account for
the Downtown Main Street revitalization project.
108
109
Combining Balance Sheet
Nonmajor Special Revenue and Capital Projects Funds, Continued
June 30, 2019
BSCC Law
Parkland Prop 172 Lakeport Enforcement
Dedication Gas Tax Public Safety Housing Subvention
ASSETS
Cash and investments $ ‐ $ 275,113 $ 110,068 $ 34,358 $ 82,326
Receivables:
Intergovernmental ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Loans/Notes ‐ ‐ ‐ 371,111 ‐
Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Total assets $ ‐ $ 275,113 $ 110,068 $ 405,469 $ 82,326
LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCES
Liabilities:
Accounts payable $ ‐ $ 1,818 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐
Due to other funds ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Advances from other funds 175,140 ‐ ‐ 114,341 ‐
Total liabilities 175,140 1,818 ‐ 114,341 ‐
Fund Balances:
Nonspendable:
Loans receivable ‐ ‐ ‐ 371,111 ‐
Restricted:
Law enforcement ‐ ‐ 110,068 ‐ 82,326
Housing programs ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Economic development programs ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Transportation infrastructure ‐ 273,295 ‐ ‐ ‐
Assigned:
Capital projects ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Housing and community assistance ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Unassigned (deficit) (175,140) ‐ ‐ (79,983) ‐
Total fund balances (175,140) 273,295 110,068 291,128 82,326
Total liabilities and fund balances $ ‐ $ 275,113 $ 110,068 $ 405,469 $ 82,326
110
Parkside Parallel/Bevins
CDBG Grant Tenth Street Lakeport Blvd South Main St Traffic Storm Lakeshore Storm
2018 Drainage Improvement Improvement Mitigation Maintenance Damage Repair
$ ‐ $ 86,700 $ 118,878 $ 31,890 $ 17,556 $ 20,295 $ ‐
12,905 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
$ 12,905 $ 86,700 $ 118,878 $ 31,890 $ 17,556 $ 20,295 $ ‐
1,360 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 1,275

12,905 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
14,265 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,275
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ 86,700 118,878 31,890 17,556 20,295 ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
(1,360) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ (1,275)
(1,360) 86,700 118,878 31,890 17,556 20,295 (1,275)
$ 12,905 $ 86,700 $ 118,878 $ 31,890 $ 17,556 $ 20,295 $ ‐
(continued)
111
Combining Balance Sheet
June 30, 2019
CDBG Grant HOME Grant
m Storm Lakeshore Blvd Program Safe Routes Program
Drainage HSIPL (Safety) Income to School Income
ASSETS s
Cash and investments $ 136,223 $ 21,325 $ 40,447 $ ‐ $ 289,450
Receivables:
Intergovernmental ‐ ‐ ‐ 6,187 ‐
Loans/Notes ‐ ‐ 803,665 ‐ 1,305,347
Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Total assets $ 136,223 $ 21,325 $ 844,112 $ 6,187 $ 1,594,797
LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCES
Liabilities:
Accounts payable $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 1,000 225 ‐
Due to other funds ‐ ‐ ‐ 6,915 ‐
Advances from other funds ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Total liabilities ‐ ‐ 1,000 7,140 ‐
Fund Balances:
Nonspendable:
Loans receivable ‐ ‐ 803,665 ‐ 1,305,347
Restricted:
Law enforcement ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Housing programs ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 289,450
Economic development programs ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Transportation infrastructure ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Assigned:
Capital projects 136,223 21,325 ‐ ‐ ‐
Housing and community assistance ‐ ‐ 39,447 ‐ ‐
Unassigned (deficit) ‐ ‐ ‐ (953) ‐
Total fund balances 136,223 21,325 843,112 (953) 1,594,797
Total liabilities and fund balances $ 136,223 $ 21,325 $ 844,112 $ 6,187 $ 1,594,797
112
Non‐major
General Governmental
Capital Proejcts Totals
$ 674,817 $ 1,939,446
‐ 19,092
‐ 2,480,123
‐ ‐
$ 674,817 $ 4,438,661
‐ 5,678
‐ 19,820
‐ 289,481
‐ 314,979
‐ 2,480,123
‐ 192,394
‐ 289,450
‐ ‐
‐ 548,614
674,817 832,365
‐ 39,447
‐ (258,711)
674,817 4,123,682
$ 674,817 $ 4,438,661
(concluded)
113
Combining Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances
Nonmajor Special Revenue Funds
BSCC Law
Parkland Prop 172 Lakeport Enforcement
Dedication Gas Tax Public Safety Housing Subvention
REVENUES:
Intergovernmental revenue $ ‐ 109,436 $ 30,579 $ ‐ $ ‐
Use of money and property ‐ 1,424 567 1,426 428
Total revenues ‐ 110,860 31,146 1,426 428
EXPENDITURES:
Current:
Public works ‐ 1,818 ‐ ‐ ‐
Housing and support programs ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Economic development ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Capital outlay ‐ ‐ ‐ 40,239 ‐
Total expenditures ‐ 1,818 ‐ 40,239 ‐
EXPENDITURES ‐ 109,042 31,146 (38,813) 428
Bond proceeds ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Transfers in ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Transfers out ‐ ‐ (29,500) ‐ ‐
Total other financing
sources and uses ‐ ‐ (29,500) ‐ ‐
REVENUES AND OTHER FINANCING
SOURCES OVER (UNDER)
EXPENDITURES AND OTHER
FINANCING (USES) ‐ 109,042 1,646 (38,813) 428
Beginning of year (175,140) 164,253 108,422 329,941 81,898
End of year $ (175,140) $ 273,295 $ 110,068 $ 291,128 $ 82,326
114
Parkside Parallel/Bevins
CDBG Grant Tenth Street Lakeport Blvd South Main St Traffic Storm Lakeshore Storm
2018 Drainage Improvement Improvement Mitigation Maintenance Damage Repair
$ 12,905 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 200,182

‐ 451 613 168 93 104 ‐
12,905 451 613 168 93 104 200,182
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 246,182

14,265 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ 7,549 ‐ ‐ ‐
14,265 ‐ ‐ 7,549 ‐ ‐ 246,182
(1,360) 451 613 (7,381) 93 104 (46,000)
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 99,778
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 99,778
(1,360) 451 613 (7,381) 93 104 53,778
‐ 86,249 118,265 39,271 17,463 20,191 (55,053)

$ (1,360) $ 86,700 $ 118,878 $ 31,890 $ 17,556 $ 20,295 $ (1,275)
(continued)
115
Combining Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances
HOME Grant
m Storm Lakeshore Blvd CDBG Grant Safe Routes Program
Drainage HSIPL (Safety) Program Income to School Income
REVENUES:
Intergovernmental revenue $ ‐ $ 330,228 $ 360 $ 8,010 $ ‐
Use of money and property 706 109 9,009 ‐ 12,249
Total revenues 706 330,337 9,369 8,010 12,249
EXPENDITURES:
Current:
Public works ‐ ‐ ‐ 7,613 ‐
Housing and support programs ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,931
Economic development ‐ ‐ 17,380 ‐ ‐
Capital outlay ‐ 312,038 46,998 ‐ ‐
Total expenditures ‐ 312,038 64,378 7,613 1,931
EXPENDITURES 706 18,299 (55,009) 397 10,318
Bond proceeds ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Transfers in ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Transfers out ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
sources and uses ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
FINANCING (USES) 706 18,299 (55,009) 397 10,318
Beginning of year 135,517 3,026 898,121 (1,350) 1,584,479
End of year $ 136,223 $ 21,325 $ 843,112 $ (953) $ 1,594,797
116
Non‐major
General Governmental
Capital Projects Totals
$ ‐ $ 691,700
‐ 27,347
‐ 719,047
‐ 255,613
‐ 16,196
‐ 17,380
459,557 866,381
459,557 1,155,570
(459,557) (436,523)
1,134,374 1,134,374
‐ 99,778
‐ (29,500)
1,134,374 1,204,652
674,817 768,129
‐ 3,355,553
$ 674,817 $ 4,123,682
(concluded)
117
NONMAJOR GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS BUDGET COMPARISONS
118
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances ‐ Budget to Actual
Parkland Dedication Fund
Variance with
Budgeted Amounts Final Budget
Original Final Actual Positive (Negative)
REVENUES:
Intergovernmental revenue $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐
Use of money and property ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Total revenues ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
EXPENDITURES:
Current:
Economic development ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Total expenditures ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
EXPENDITURES ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Transfers out ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
sources and uses ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
FINANCING (USES) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Beginning of year (175,140) (175,140) (175,140) ‐
End of year $ (175,140) $ (175,140) $ (175,140) $ ‐
119
Gas Tax Fund
Variance with
REVENUES:
Intergovernmental revenue $ 108,347 $ 108,347 $ 109,436 $ 1,089
Use of money and property 500 500 1,424 924
Total revenues 108,847 108,847 110,860 2,013
EXPENDITURES:
Current:
Public works 95,000 95,000 1,818 93,182
Total expenditures 95,000 95,000 1,818 93,182
EXPENDITURES 13,847 13,847 109,042 (91,169)
FINANCING (USES) 13,847 13,847 109,042 (91,169)
Beginning of year 164,253 164,253 164,253 ‐
End of year $ 178,100 $ 178,100 $ 273,295 $ (91,169)
120
Prop 172 Public Safety Fund
Variance with
REVENUES:
Intergovernmental revenue $ 29,500 $ 29,500 $ 30,579 $ 1,079
Use of money and property ‐ ‐ 567 567
Total revenues 29,500 29,500 31,146 1,646
EXPENDITURES:
Current:
Public safety 29,500 29,500 ‐ 29,500
Total expenditures 29,500 29,500 ‐ 29,500
EXPENDITURES ‐ ‐ 31,146 (27,854)
Transfers out (29,500) (29,500) (29,500) ‐
sources and uses (29,500) (29,500) (29,500) ‐
FINANCING (USES) (29,500) (29,500) 1,646 (27,854)
End of year $ 78,922 $ 78,922 $ 110,068 $ (27,854)
121
Lakeport Housing Fund
Variance with
REVENUES:
Use of money and property $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 1,426 $ 1,426
Other revenues ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Total revenues ‐ ‐ 1,426 1,426
EXPENDITURES:
Current:
Housing and support programs 0 0 0 ‐
Capital outlay ‐ ‐ 40,239 (40,239)
EXPENDITURES ‐ ‐ 1,426 1,426
Transfer in ‐ ‐ 0 ‐
FINANCING (USES) ‐ ‐ 1,426 1,426
Beginning of year ‐ ‐ 329,941 329,941
End of year $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 331,367 $ 331,367
122
BSCC Law Enforcement Subvention Fund
Variance with
REVENUES:
Use of money and property 0 0 428 428
Total revenues ‐ ‐ 428 428
EXPENDITURES:
Current:
Public safety 14,000 14,000 0 14,000
Capital outlay ‐ 30,000 ‐ ‐
EXPENDITURES (14,000) (44,000) 428 (13,572)
FINANCING (USES) (14,000) (44,000) 428 (13,572)
End of year $ 67,898 $ 37,898 $ 82,326 $ (13,572)
123
CDBG Grant 2018
Variance with
REVENUES:
Intergovernmental revenue $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 12,905 $ 12,905
Use of money and property ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Total revenues ‐ ‐ 12,905 12,905
EXPENDITURES:
Current:
Housing and support programs ‐ ‐ 14,265 (14,265)
Total expenditures ‐ ‐ 14,265 (14,265)
EXPENDITURES ‐ ‐ (1,360) 27,170
FINANCING (USES) ‐ ‐ (1,360) 27,170
Beginning of year ‐ ‐ 0 ‐
End of year $ ‐ $ ‐ $ (1,360) $ 27,170
124
Tenth Street Drainage Fund
Variance with
REVENUES:
Taxes:
Sales $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐
EXPENDITURES:
Current:
Public works ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
EXPENDITURES ‐ ‐ 451 451
FINANCING (USES) ‐ ‐ 451 451
End of year $ 86,249 $ 86,249 $ 86,700 $ 451
125
Lakeport Blvd Improvement Fund
Variance with
REVENUES:
EXPENDITURES:
Current:
End of year $ 118,265 $ 118,265 $ 118,878 $ 613
126
South Main Street Improvement Fund
Variance with
REVENUES:
EXPENDITURES:
Current:
Capital outlay ‐ ‐ 7,549
Total expenditures ‐ ‐ 7,549 ‐
EXPENDITURES ‐ ‐ (7,381) 168
FINANCING (USES) ‐ ‐ (7,381) 168
End of year $ 39,271 $ 39,271 $ 31,890 $ 168
127
Parkside Traffic Mitigation Fund
Variance with
REVENUES:
Taxes:
Sales $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐
EXPENDITURES:
Current:
Beginning of year ‐ ‐ 17,463 17,463
End of year $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 17,556 $ 17,556
128
Parallel/Bevins Storm Maintenance Fund
Variance with
REVENUES:
Taxes:
Sales $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐
EXPENDITURES:
Current:
End of year $ 20,191 $ 20,191 $ 20,295 $ 104
129
Lakeshore Storm Damage Repair Fund
Variance with
REVENUES:
Taxes:
Sales $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐
Intergovernmental revenue 180,000 180,000 200,182 20,182
Total revenues 180,000 180,000 200,182 20,182
EXPENDITURES:
Current:
Public works 200,000 200,000 246,182 (46,182)
Total expenditures 200,000 200,000 246,182 (46,182)
EXPENDITURES (20,000) (20,000) (46,000) 66,364
Transfers in ‐ ‐ 99,778 99,778
sources and uses ‐ ‐ 99,778 99,778
FINANCING (USES) (20,000) (20,000) 53,778 166,142
Beginning of year (55,053) (55,053) (55,053) ‐
End of year $ (75,053) $ (75,053) $ (1,275) $ 166,142
130
Storm Drainage Fund
Variance with
REVENUES:
Use of money and property $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 706 $ 706
EXPENDITURES:
Current:
Public works 10,000 10,000 ‐ 10,000
Capital outlay 20,000 20,000 0 20,000
EXPENDITURES (30,000) (30,000) 706 (29,294)
FINANCING (USES) (30,000) (30,000) 706 (29,294)
End of year $ 105,517 $ 105,517 $ 136,223 $ (29,294)
131
Lakeshore Blvd HSIPL (Safety) Fund
Variance with
REVENUES:
Intergovernmental revenue $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 330,228 $ ‐
Total revenues ‐ ‐ 330,337 ‐
EXPENDITURES:
Capital outlay ‐ ‐ 312,038 (312,038)
EXPENDITURES ‐ ‐ 18,299 312,038
FINANCING (USES) ‐ ‐ 18,299 312,038
End of year $ 3,026 $ 3,026 $ 21,325 $ 312,038
132
CDBG Grant Program Income Fund
Variance with
REVENUES:
Taxes:
Sales $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐
Intergovernmental revenue 360
Use of money and property ‐ ‐ 9,009 9,009
EXPENDITURES:
Capital outlay 0 0 46,998 (46,998)
Total expenditures 25,000 25,000 64,378 (39,378)
EXPENDITURES (25,000) (25,000) (55,009) 39,378
Transfer in ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
FINANCING (USES) (25,000) (25,000) (55,009) 39,378
End of year $ 873,121 $ 873,121 $ 843,112 $ 39,378
133
Safe Routes to School Fund
Variance with
REVENUES:
Taxes:
Sales $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐
Total revenues ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
EXPENDITURES:
Current:
Public works ‐ ‐ 7,613 (7,613)
EXPENDITURES ‐ ‐ (7,613) 7,613
FINANCING (USES) ‐ ‐ (7,613) 7,613
End of year $ 898,121 $ 898,121 $ 890,508 $ 7,613
134
HOME Grant Program Income Special Revenue Fund
Variance with
REVENUES:
Use of money and property $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 12,249 $ 12,249
EXPENDITURES:
Housing and support programs 10,000 10,000 1,931 8,069
Total expenditures 10,000 10,000 1,931 8,069
EXPENDITURES (10,000) (10,000) 10,318 (8,069)
FINANCING (USES) (10,000) (10,000) 10,318 (8,069)
Beginning of year 1,584,479 1,584,479 1,584,479 ‐
End of year $ 1,574,479 $ 1,574,479 $ 1,594,797 $ (8,069)
135
AGENCY FUNDS
Agency funds are used to account for resources held by the City in a purely custodial capacity for other governments,
individuals, or private organizations. The City's agency funds include the following:
Fund Description
Special Deposit Agency Fund Resources held for outside parties that are not available for spending by the
City.
Other Post‐Employment Benefits Resources for other post‐employment benefits (OPEB) are managed and
(OPEB) Agency Fund maintained in this fund. This includes City contributions to retiree health
(medical, dental, vision, etc.)
136
Combining Fiduciary Assets and Liabilities
Agency Funds
June 30, 2019
Special Deposit OPEB
Agency Fund Agency Fund Totals
ASSETS
Cash and investments $ 417,550 $ (18,448) $ 399,102
Receivables:
Accounts and other ‐ 19,183 19,183
Total assets $ 417,550 $ 735 $ 418,285
LIABILITIES
Accounts payable $ 237 $ ‐ $ 237
Refundable deposits and trust liabilities 417,313 735 418,048
Total liabilities $ 417,550 $ 735 $ 418,285
137
Combining Fiduciary Changes in Assets and Liabilities
Agency Funds
Balance Balance
July 1, 2018 Additions Deductions June 30, 2019
Special Deposit Fund
Assets:
Cash and investments $ 416,639 $ ‐ $ 911 $ 417,550
Receivables:
Accounts and other 4,356 ‐ (4,356) ‐
Interest 739 ‐ (739) ‐
Total assets $ 421,734 $ ‐ $ (4,184) $ 417,550
Liabilities:
Accounts payable $ 191 $ 237 $ (191) $ 237
Refundable deposits and trust liabilities 421,543 ‐ (4,230) 417,313
Total liabilities $ 421,734 $ 237 $ (4,421) $ 417,550
OPEB Fund
Assets:
Cash and investments $ 6,684 $ ‐ $ (25,132) $ (18,448)
Accounts and other ‐ 19,183 ‐ 19,183
Total assets $ 6,684 $ 19,183 $ (25,132) $ 735
Liabilities:
Accounts payable $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐
OPEB trust obligation 6,684 ‐ (5,949) 735
Total liabilities $ 6,684 $ ‐ $ (5,949) $ 735
138
STATISTICAL SECTION
This part of the City of Lakeport's comprehensive annual financial report presents detailed information as a context for
understanding what the information in the financial statements, footnotes, and required supplementary information says
about the City's overall financial health.
Schedules Content Page(s)
Financial Trends These schedules contain trend information to help the reader 140‐148
understand how the City's financial performance and well‐being have
changed over time.
Revenue Capacity These schedules contain information to help the reader assess the City's 150‐154
ability to generate revenues. Property taxes, sales and use taxes,
charges for services, licenses, permits and fees, and intergovernmental
revenue are the City's most significant revenue sources.
Debt Capacity These schedules contain information to help the reader assess the 156‐160
affordability of the City's current levels of outstanding debt and the
City's ability to issue additional debt in the future.
Demographic and Economic These schedules offer demographic and economic indicators to help the 162‐163
Information reader understand the environment within which the City's financial
activities take place.
Operating Information These schedules contain service and infrastructure data to help the 164‐166
reader understand how the information in the City's financial report
relates to the services the City provides and the activities it performs.
Sources: Unless otherwise noted, the information in these schedules is derived from the comprehensive annual financial
report for the relevant year. Information was available beginning with the year ended June 30, 2004, for the financial
trend schedules.
139
Net Position by Component
Fiscal year ended June 30 (last ten fiscal years)
(Accrual basis of accounting)
(In thousands)
2010 2011 2012

Governmental activities
Net investment in capital assets $ 164 $ 1,278 $ 6,352
Restricted ‐ 2,603 5,463
Unrestricted 8,950 6,790 2,618
Total governmental activities net position $ 9,114 $ 10,671 $ 14,433
Business‐type activities
Net investment in capital assets $ 8,216 7,606 $ 7,510
Restricted ‐ 797 2,413
Unrestricted 2,297 1,839 604
Total business‐type activities net position $ 10,513 $ 10,242 $ 10,527
Primary government
Net investment in capital assets $ 8,380 $ 8,884 $ 13,862
Restricted ‐ 3,400 7,876
Unrestricted 11,247 8,629 3,222
Total primary government net position $ 19,627 $ 20,913 $ 24,960
$16,000
$14,000
$12,000
$10,000
$8,000
$6,000
$4,000
$2,000
$‐
2010 2011 2012 2013
Governmental activities Business‐type activities
Source: City Finance Department
140
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
$ 6,299 $ 6,060 $ 9,444 $ 9,627 $ 12,024 $ 12,297 $ 13,385

7,388 3,796 4,180 1,537 1,034 845 1,041
1,223 2,769 (2,823) (801) (1,238) (1,877) (1,147)
$ 14,910 $ 12,625 $ 10,801 $ 10,363 $ 11,820 $ 11,265 $ 13,279
$ 7,291 $ 6,726 $ 7,485 $ 8,844 $ 10,503 $ 9,186 $ 7,150

2,194 3,253 3,827 580 500 785 785
1,386 692 (3,760) (2,483) (1,615) (64) 2,109
$ 10,871 $ 10,671 $ 7,552 $ 6,941 $ 9,388 $ 9,907 $ 10,044
$ 13,590 $ 12,786 $ 16,929 $ 18,471 $ 22,527 $ 21,483 $ 20,535

9,582 7,049 8,007 2,117 1,534 1,630 1,826
2,609 3,461 (6,583) (3,284) (2,853) (1,941) 962
$ 25,781 $ 23,296 $ 18,353 $ 17,304 $ 21,208 $ 21,172 $ 23,323
2014 2015 2016 2017 2019
141
(In thousands)
2010 2011 2012

Expenses:
General government $ 3,364 $ 1,955 $ 737
Community development ‐ 358 268
Roads and infrastructure 735 1,476 1,344
Sanitation ‐ ‐ 421
Housing and support programs ‐ 174 511
Redevelopment/economic development ‐ 200 293
Public safety 1,831 1,785 1,529
Parks and recreation 323 313 282
Interest on long term debt 302 309 359
Total governmental activities expenses 6,555 6,570 5,744
Water utility 1,356 1,413 1,550
Sewer utility 2,476 2,289 2,408
Total business‐type activities expenses 3,832 3,702 3,958
Total primary government expenses 10,387 10,272 9,702
Program revenues:
Charges for services:
General government 575 330 ‐
Roads and infrastructure 2 41 ‐
Public safety 103 25 ‐
Parks and recreation ‐ ‐ 26
Operating grants and contributions 680 816 298
Capital grants and contributions 391 1,146 783
Total governmental activities program revenues 1,751 2,440 1,699
Charges for services:
Water utility 1,242 1,176 1,439
Sewer utility 1,716 1,623 1,934
Capital grants and contributions ‐ ‐ 360
Total business‐type activities program revenues 2,958 2,799 3,733
Total primary government program revenues 4,709 5,239 5,432
Net (Expense)/Revenue:
Governmental activities (4,804) (4,130) (4,045)
Business‐type activities (874) (903) (225)
Total primary government net expense (5,678) (5,033) (4,270)
142
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
$ 887 $ 830 $ 775 $ 962 $ 969 $ 873 $ 1,217

283 242 307 451 410 314 319
1,151 1,226 1,418 893 906 1,375 1,222
439 452 438 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
18 134 83 108 21 501 2,751
11 82 39 237 137 113 97
1,542 1,664 1,713 1,959 1,986 1,917 2,043
382 327 534 437 433 404 704
8 4 ‐ 42 78 93 143
4,721 4,961 5,307 5,089 4,940 5,590 8,496
1,596 1,759 1,808 2,523 1,247 1,793 2,261

2,363 2,481 2,536 3,342 2,737 2,240 3,142
3,959 4,240 4,344 5,865 3,984 4,033 5,403
8,680 9,201 9,651 10,954 8,924 9,623 13,899
4 4 22 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

20 22 22 30 ‐ 49 50
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 87 76 28
511 467 469 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
7 7 4 46 2 1 2
‐ ‐ ‐ 5 ‐ ‐ ‐
199 ‐ 686 463 321 285 3,452
429 ‐ 2,687 1,994 599 784 531
1,170 500 3,890 2,538 1,009 1,195 4,062
1,471 1,691 1,826 2,062 2,190 2,379 2,302

1,683 2,480 2,787 2,812 2,696 3,009 2,823
38 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,097 ‐ ‐
3,192 4,171 4,613 4,874 5,983 5,388 5,125
4,362 4,671 8,503 7,412 6,992 6,583 9,188
(3,551) (4,461) (1,417) (2,551) (3,931) (4,395) (4,433)

(767) (69) 269 (991) 1,999 1,355 (278)
(4,318) (4,530) (1,148) (3,542) (1,932) (3,040) (4,711)
143
Changes in Net Position, Continued
(In thousands)
2010 2011 2012
General Revenues and Other Changes
in Net Position:
Sales tax 935 3,753 1,948
Property taxes 2,547 ‐ 835
Transient occupancy taxes 89 ‐ 82
Other taxes ‐ 300 82
Franchise fees 113 ‐ 132
Fines, forfeitures, and penalties ‐ ‐ ‐
Use of money and property 58 25 141
Other revenues 503 1,610 405
Sale of land held for resale ‐ ‐ ‐
Transfers in (out) ‐ ‐ ‐
Extraordinary gain ‐ ‐ 4,181
Special items ‐ ‐ ‐
Total governmental activities 4,245 5,688 7,806
Property taxes 329 383 369
Other revenues ‐ 210 104
Transfers in (out) ‐ ‐ ‐
Total business‐type activities 370 632 509
Total primary government 4,615 6,320 8,315
Changes in Net Position:
Governmental activities (559) 1,558 3,761
Business‐type activities (504) (271) 284
Total primary government $ (1,063) $ 1,287 $ 4,045
Note: The City implemented Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement No. 68 and
No. 71 (GASB 54 and GASB 71) for fiscal year ended June 30, 2015. The implementation resulted
in a prior period adjustment of $6,305,808 for Governmental activities and $690,158 for Business‐
type activities.
144
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
2,176 2,371 2,039 2,091 2,520 3,384 3,751

928 860 852 873 918 932 870
85 95 58 200 228 62 198
95 70 92 412 400 653 520
225 277 200 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ 39 41 ‐ 19 23 27
194 205 299 148 146 54 147
324 97 260 397 146 1,807 935
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ (2,418) ‐ (33) 193 ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ (1,974) 820 ‐ ‐
4,027 1,596 3,841 2,114 5,390 6,915 6,448
426 ‐ ‐ 310 415 317 290

41 38 41 37 50 49 125
645 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ 33 (15) ‐ ‐
1,112 38 41 380 450 366 415
5,139 1,634 3,882 2,494 5,840 7,281 6,863
476 (2,865) 2,424 (437) 1,458 2,519 2,014

345 (31) 310 (611) 2,448 1,721 137
$ 821 $ (2,896) $ 2,734 $ (1,048) $ 3,906 $ 4,240 $ 2,151
145
Fund Balances of Governmental Funds
(Modified accrual basis of accounting)
(In thousands)
2010 2011 2012

General Fund
Nonspendable $ ‐ $ 408 $ 1,541
Restricted ‐ ‐ ‐
Committed ‐ ‐ 1,470
Assigned ‐ 133 ‐
Unassigned 1,727 2,394 ‐
Total general fund $ 1,727 $ 2,935 $ 3,011
All Other Governmental Funds
Nonspendable $ 2,287 $ 2,404 $ 2,859
Restricted 4,731 2,603 2,383
Committed ‐ ‐ 360
Assigned 150 2,041 297
Unassigned (1,630) (298) (321)
Total all other governmental funds 5,538 6,750 5,578
Total all governmental funds $ 7,265 $ 9,685 $ 8,589
$12,000
$10,000
$8,000
$6,000
$4,000
$2,000
$‐
2010 2011 2012 2013
General Fund All Other Governmental Funds
146
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
$ 1,511 $ 1,087 $ 374 $ 329 $ 294 $ 289 $ 289

‐ 23 14 21 21 10 10
‐ 182 362 421 421 ‐ ‐
1,821 2,021 2,165 2,062 2,172 3,310 3,310
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 337 341 843
$ 3,332 $ 3,313 $ 2,915 $ 2,833 $ 3,245 $ 3,951 $ 4,453
$ 2,639 $ 516 $ ‐ $ 3,012 $ 2,992 $ 2,623 $ 2,480

3,237 3,773 4,165 1,516 1,013 834 1,030
373 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
7 ‐ 427 777 351 2,038 3,479
(387) (387) (1,212) (271) (281) (273) (259)
5,869 3,902 3,380 5,034 4,075 5,223 6,731
$ 9,201 $ 7,215 $ 6,295 $ 7,867 $ 7,320 $ 9,175 $ 11,184
2014 2015 2016 2017 2019
147
Changes in Fund Balances of Governmental Funds
(Modified accrual basis of accounting)
(In thousands)
Revenues 2010 2011 2012

Taxes $ 1,071 $ 3,753 $ 2,943
Licenses, permits, and franchises 3,684 271 134
Fines and forfeitures 155 29 29
Intergovernmental revenue 58 1,407 859
Charges for services 504 477 619
Other revenues 503 1,610 100
Total revenues 5,996 7,572 4,849
Expenditures
Current
General government 3,820 1,557 606
Roads and infrastructure 813 1,432 833
Housing and support programs ‐ 174 511
Redevelopment/economic development ‐ ‐ 293
Public safety 1,997 1,645 1,529
Parks, buildings, and ground 259 313 292
Capital outlay 589 1,262 192
Debt service
Cost of issuance ‐ ‐ ‐
Principal retirement 121 107 168
Interest 277 289 235
Total expenditures 7,876 7,106 5,348
Reconciliation of Governmental Revenues
Less Expenditures to Fund Equity
Revenues over (under) expenditures (1,880) 467 (499)
Other financing sources (uses):
Proceeds from sale of capital assets ‐ ‐ ‐
Proceeds from capital lease 319 ‐ ‐
Proceeds from issuance of debt ‐ ‐ ‐
Payments to PERS side fund ‐ ‐ ‐
Pass‐through obligations ‐ (186) ‐
SERAF payments ‐ (64) ‐
Housing loans ‐ 2,082 409
Extraordinary gain (loss) ‐ ‐ (1,006)
Transfers in 756 4,719 2,959
Transfers out (756) (5,037) (2,959)
Total other financing sources (uses) 319 1,514 (597)
Net change in fund balances $ (1,561) $ 1,981 $ (1,096)
Debt service as a percentage of noncapital expenditures 6.0% 7.7% 9.0%
$2,500
$2,000
$1,500
$1,000
$500
$‐
$(500)
$(1,000)
$(1,500)
$(2,000)
2010 2011 2012
Net change in fund balances $(1,561) $1,981 $(1,096)
148
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
$ 3,285 $ 3,397 $ 3,045 $ 3,244 $ 3,739 $ 4,463 $ 4,900
225 277 283 315 327 567 439
18 39 41 18 19 23 27
194 205 299 463 921 1,069 3,983
629 579 686 148 146 54 147
542 500 517 80 88 126 79
305 97 174 2,391 146 1,807 935
5,198 5,094 5,045 6,659 5,386 8,109 10,510
799 710 856 796 671 901 903

295 244 311 401 410 314 319
891 948 1,096 737 1,066 1,641 1,678
439 452 438 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
30 136 83 96 21 156 2,751
23 84 39 211 137 113 97
1,553 1,666 1,721 1,784 1,920 1,844 1,946
484 329 536 365 355 323 621
‐ 8 931 531 2,388 354 1,027
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

64 67 ‐ 92 175 171 148
8 4 ‐ 42 78 93 143
4,586 4,648 6,011 5,055 7,221 5,910 9,633
612 446 (966) 1,604 (1,835) 2,199 876
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3 ‐ ‐

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ 1,974 1,095 ‐ 1,134
‐ ‐ ‐ (1,974) ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ (345) ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
146 39 49 65 760 2,765 129
(146) (39) (16) (98) (567) (2,765) (129)
‐ ‐ 33 (33) 1,291 (345) 1,134
$ 612 $ 446 $ (933) $ 1,571 $ (544) $ 1,854 $ 2,010
1.8% 1.7% 0.0% 3.3% 6.0% 5.1% 3.6%
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2019

$612 $446 $(933) $1,571 $(544) $2,010
149
Assessed Value and Actual Value of Taxable Property
(In thousands)
City Redevelopment Agency Lakeport Municipal Sewer

Taxable Taxable Taxable Total
Year Secured Unsecured Assessed Secured Unsecured Assessed Secured Unsecured Assessed Direct Tax
Ended Property Property Value Property Property Value Property Property Value Rate
2010 461,343 23,351 484,694 195,841 12,547 208,388 448,022 23,234 471,256 1.000
2011 459,145 23,783 482,928 194,025 11,772 205,797 446,871 23,674 470,545 1.000
2012 455,541 22,237 477,778 192,400 11,522 203,922 443,492 22,159 465,651 1.000
2013 452,910 21,527 474,437 191,685 11,425 203,110 441,346 21,454 462,800 1.000
2014 447,317 21,936 469,253 188,055 11,643 199,698 436,127 21,865 457,992 1.000
2015 445,221 22,547 467,768 188,819 12,405 201,224 433,872 22,459 456,331 1.000
2016 449,070 21,098 470,168 190,570 12,008 202,578 437,842 21,020 458,862 1.000
2017 448,318 21,389 469,707 192,454 12,276 204,730 437,231 21,317 458,548 1.000
2018 469,113 23,294 492,407 200,752 12,578 213,330 457,774 23,222 480,996 1.000
2019 486,304 23,876 510,180 208,062 13,157 221,219 474,826 23,807 498,633 1.000
Note: In 1978, the voters of the State of California passed Proposition 13 which limited property taxes to a total maximum rate of 1%
based upon the assessed value of the property being taxed. Each year, the assessed value may be increased by an "inflation factor"
(limited to a maximum of 2%). With few exceptions, property is only reassessed at the time that it is sold to a new owner. At that point,
the new assessed value is reassessed at the purchase price of the property sold. The assessed valuation data shown above represents
the only data currently available with respect to the actual market value of taxable property and is subject to the limitations described
above.
Note: As of February 1, 2011, the Lakeport Redevelopment Agency was dissolved by the State of California. Property taxes formerly
allocated to the Agency are now done so to satisfy existing debt obligations administered by its successor, the City of Lakeport.
1,400,000
1,200,000
1,000,000
800,000
600,000
400,000
200,000
‐
City Redevelopment Agency Lakeport Municipal Sewer
Source: Lake County Auditor‐Controller
150
Direct and Overlapping Tax Rates
(Rate per $1,000 of assessed value)
Direct Rates Overlapping Rates
Lakeport Unified Mendocino
Basic Total High School Community Total
Year Ended Rate Direct Bond College Tax Rate
2010 1.00000 1.00000 0.04275 0.02300 1.06575
2011 1.00000 1.00000 0.03767 0.02300 1.06067
2012 1.00000 1.00000 0.44340 0.02300 1.46640
2013 1.00000 1.00000 0.04261 0.00977 1.05238
2014 1.00000 1.00000 0.04628 0.02400 1.07028
2015 1.00000 1.00000 0.04464 0.02300 1.06764
2016 1.00000 1.00000 0.11494 0.02500 1.13994
2017 1.00000 1.00000 0.10699 0.02200 1.12899
2018 1.00000 1.00000 0.10867 0.02100 1.12967
2019 1.00000 1.00000 0.09191 0.02100 1.11291
Note: Jurisdictions within Lake County have the authority to tax properties within their jurisdictions. Properties lying within multiple
jurisdictions therefore can be assessed by multiple jurisdictions. The overlapping debt statement presents the debt for all jurisdictions
with territory overlapping the City. Debt of overlapping jurisdictions is allocated based upon the assessed value of that jurisdiction
within City as compared to total assessed value for that jurisdiction. In 1978, California voters passed Proposition 13, which sets the
property tax rate at a 1.00% fixed amount. This 1.00% is shared by all taxing agencies whose boundaries include the subject property.
In addition to the 1.00% fixed amount, property owners are charged taxes as a percentage of assessed property values for the
payment of Kelseyville Unified School Bonds, Lucerne Elementary School Bond, Lake Sanitation Bonds, County Service Area #6,
Callayomi Water, Clearlake Oaks Water, Konocti Unified School Bond, Middletown Unified School Bond, Upper Lake High School Bond,
Lakeport Unified High School Bonds, Yuba Community College Bonds, and Mendocino Community College.
151
Property Tax Collections and Levies
(In thousands)
Collected within the
Fiscal Year of the Levy Total Collections to Date
Taxes Levied Collections
Year for the Percentage in Subsequent Percentage
Ended Fiscal Year Amount of Levy Years Amount of Levy
2010 $ 532 $ 532 100% ‐ $ 532 100%
2011 529 529 100% ‐ 529 100%
2012 524 524 100% ‐ 524 100%
2013 520 520 100% ‐ 520 100%
2014 514 514 100% ‐ 514 100%
2015 515 515 100% ‐ 515 100%
2016 512 512 100% ‐ 512 100%
2017 526 526 100% ‐ 526 100%
2018 545 545 100% 545 100%
2019 532 532 100% 532 100%
Note: Amounts reported and collected under the Teeter Plan, in which all taxes are distributed to the City in the year of the levy with
the County retaining any interest or penalties on uncollected balances.
$545
$540
$535
$530
$525
$520
$515
$510
$505
$500
$495
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Series3 Series5
152
Principal Property Tax Payers
Last fiscal year and ten years ago
(In thousands)
2018‐19 2009‐10
Assessed Percent Assessed Percent
Property Owner Valuation Rank of Total Valuation Rank of Total
Safeway, Inc. $ 18,508 1 30.24% $ ‐ ‐ 0.00%
Arton, Inc. 6,297 2 10.29% 3,140 6 19.59%
California Aviv, LLC 6,774 3 11.07% ‐ ‐ 0.00%
Lany Lakeport Limited Partnership 6,008 4 9.82% 6,593 1 41.13%
Jeanrenaud Henri & Jeanrenaud Barbara O 6,015 5 9.83%
Bruno's Property Management, LLC 5,923 6 9.68% 4,140 4 25.83%
Pontus Vault Portfolia LLC 4,098 7 6.70%
Shoreline Mini Storage LLC 3,542 8 5.79% ‐ ‐ 0.00%
1 1st Street LLC 2,019 9 3.30% ‐ ‐ 0.00%
Jackson Ave Propeties LLC 2,021 10 3.30%
Total $ 61,205 100.00% $ 16,029 100.00%
Note: The amounts shown above include assessed value data for both the City and the Redevelopment Agency (RDA). Information
prior to the years above was not maintained by the City.
Source: Lake County Auditor‐Controller's Office
153
Top 25 Principal Sales Tax Remitters (listed alphabetically)
Last fiscal year and previous five years
2019 2018 2017 2016

Bruno's Foods Bruno's Foods Bruno's Foods Bruno's Foods
Burger King Restaurants Burger King Restaurants Burger King Restaurants Burger King Restaurants
Chevron Service Stations Chevron Service Stations Chevron Service Stations Chevron Service Stations

CVS Pharmacy CVS Pharmacy CVS Pharmacy CVS Pharmacy
Dollar Tree Stores Dollar Tree Stores Dollar Tree Stores Dollar Tree Stores
Enterprise Rent‐A‐Car Eureka Oxygen Company Express Service Stations Express Service Stations

Eureka Oxygen Company Express Service Stations Grocery Outlet Grocery Outlet
Express Service Stations Grocery Outlet Jimmy's Deli Hillsdale Honda/Yamaha

Grocery Outlet K Mart Stores K Mart Stores K Mart Stores
K Mart Stores Kentucky Fried Chicken Kathy Fowler Chevy Pontiac GMC Kathy Fowler Chevy Pontiac GMC
Kentucky Fried Chicken Matt Mazzei Chevrolet Kathy Fowler Chrysler Jeep Dodge Kathy Fowler Chrysler Jeep Dodge
Lake Parts McDonald's Restaurants Kentucky Fried Chicken Kentucky Fried Chicken

Matt Mazzei Chevrolet NAPA Auto Parts Matt Mazzei Chevrolet McDonald's Restaurants
McDonald's Restaurants New Trend Wireless McDonald's Restaurants NAPA Auto Parts

O'Meara Bros. Brewing Company O'Meara Bros. Brewing Company NAPA Auto Parts O'Meara Bros Brewing Restaurant
O'Reilly Auto Parts O'Reilly Auto Parts O'Reilly Auto Parts O'Reilly Auto Parts
Park Place Restaurant Park Place Restaurant Park Place Restaurant Park Place Restaurant

Renee's Café Plaza Paint & Supplies of Lakport Renee's Café Renee's Café
Round Table Pizza Redwood Oil Company Round Table Pizza Round Table Pizza
Safeway Stores Renee's Café Safeway Stores Safeway Stores

Shell Service Stations Round Table Pizza Shell Service Stations Shell Service Stations
Taco Bell Safeway Stores Taco Bell Taco Bell
US Cellular Taco Bell West Lake Auto Center Tower Mart Service Stations
Verizon Wireless Tesoro Service Stations New Trend Wireless West Lake Auto Center

West Lake Auto Center West Lake Auto Center Z Wireless New Trend Wireless
Note: The lists above include both public and private entities and, therefore, the dollar values have been omitted because t
information. Rankings are determined by the sales dollar volume.
154
2015 2014 2013
Bruno's Foods Bruno's Foods Bruno's Foods
Burger King Restaurants Burger King Restaurants Burger King Restaurants
Chevron Service Stations Chevron Service Stations Chevron Service Stations

CVS Pharmacy CVS Pharmacy CVS Pharmacy
Dollar Tree Stores Dollar Tree Stores Dollar Tree Stores
Express Service Stations Express Service Stations Express Service Stations

Grocery Outlet Grocery Outlet Grocery Outlet
Hillsdale Honda/Yamaha Hillsdale Honda/Yamaha Hillsdale Honda/Yamaha

Jimmy's Deli K Mart Stores K Mart Stores
K Mart Stores Kathy Fowler Chevy Pontiac GMC Kathy Fowler Chevy Pontiac GMC
Kathy Fowler Chevy Pontiac GMC Kathy Fowler Chrysler Jeep Dodge Kathy Fowler Chrysler Jeep Dodge
Kathy Fowler Chrysler Jeep Dodge Mackey Tire Center Kentucky Fried Chicken

Kentucky Fried Chicken McDonald's Restaurants Lake Parts
McDonald's Restaurants NAPA Auto Parts Mackey Tire Center

NAPA Auto Parts New Trend Cellular McDonald's Restaurants
O'Reilly Auto Parts O'Reilly Auto Parts New Trend Cellular
Park Place Restaurant Park Place Restaurant O'Reilly Auto Parts

Renee's Café Renee's Café Park Place Restaurant
Round Table Pizza Round Table Pizza Renee's Café
Safeway Stores Safeway Stores Round Table Pizza

Shell Service Stations Shell Service Stations Safeway Stores
Taco Bell T&T On the Lake Restaurant T&T On the Lake Restaurant
Tower Mart Service Stations Taco Bell Taco Bell
West Lake Auto Center Tower Mart Service Stations Tesoro Service Stations

Z Wireless West Lake Auto Center Tower Mart Service Stations
the information is not public
155
Ratios of Outstanding Debt by Type
Last ten fiscal years
General Special Tax Total

Fiscal Year Ended Obligation Capital Revenue Assessment Alloctaion Outstanding
June 30, Bonds Leases Bonds Bonds Bonds Debt
Fiduciary
Governmental Activities: Business‐type Activiites: Activities:
2010 $ ‐ $ 248,000 $ 6,238,000 $ 4,113,000 $ 5,460,000 $ 16,059,000
2011 ‐ 191,000 6,082,000 4,010,000 5,410,000 15,693,000
2012 88,000 131,000 6,999,000 3,905,000 5,360,000 16,483,000
2013 ‐ 67,000 6,769,000 3,795,000 5,305,000 15,936,000
2014 ‐ ‐ 7,233,000 3,680,000 5,245,000 16,158,000
2015 ‐ ‐ 10,250,000 3,560,000 5,185,000 18,995,000
2016 1,882,000 ‐ 8,675,587 3,435,000 5,120,000 19,112,587
2017 2,802,000 ‐ 9,395,000 2,854,000 4,810,000 19,861,000
2018 2,631,000 ‐ 12,638,000 2,800,000 4,655,000 22,724,000
2019 3,652,000 ‐ 15,747,000 2,648,000 3,950,000 25,997,000
Note: Information presented is for the Lake County Region, except for population and unemployment data, since separate
data is not available for the City of Lakeport.
Sources:
(1)
California Department of Finance
(2)
U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis
(3)
U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis: Personal Income Summary
(4)
Bureau of Labor Statistics
(5)
State of California Employment Development Department Labor Market Information
156
Percentage of
Personal Debt
Income Population Per Capita
0.19% 4,753 $ 3,379

0.21% 4,622 $ 3,395
0.20% 4,705 $ 3,503
0.29% 4,713 $ 3,381
0.29% 4,807 $ 3,361
0.26% 4,762 $ 3,989
0.28% 4,765 $ 4,011
0.28% 4,786 $ 4,150
0.28% 4,699 $ 4,836
0.25% 4,784 $ 5,434
157
Ratios of General Bonded Debt Outstanding
Last ten fiscal years
General Less: Amounts Percentage of Estimated

Fiscal Year Ended Obligation Available in Debt Actual Taxable Value
June 30, Bonds(1) Service Fund(2) Total of Property (3) Per Capita (4)
2010 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ 0.0% $ ‐
2011 ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.0% ‐
2012 ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.0% ‐
2013 ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.0% ‐
2014 ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.0% ‐
2015 ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.0% ‐
2016 1,882,000 ‐ 1,882,000 0.4% 395
2017 2,802,000 ‐ 2,802,000 0.6% 585
2018 2,631,000 ‐ 2,631,000 0.5% 560
2019 3,652,000 ‐ 3,652,000 0.7% 763
(1)
This ids the general bonded debt of the general fund, net of original issuance discounts and premiums
(2)
This is the amount restricted for debt service principal payment
(3)
See the Schedule of Assessed Value and the Estimated Actual Value of Taxable Property
(4)
Population data can be found in the Schedule of Demographic and Economic Statistics
158
Direct and Overlapping Debt
Fiscal year ended June 30, 2019
(In thousands)
2018 Assessed Valuation (in thousands) $ 510,180
% Applicable Debt 6/30/19
Overlapping Tax and Assessment Debt:
Mendocino‐Lake Community College District ‐ GO Bonds 4.64% $ 3,349,707
Lakeport Unified School District ‐ GO Bonds 41.30% 7,301,042
2004 Tax Allocation Bonds, Series B 100% 580,000
Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the
City of Lakeport ‐ Series 2016 Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds 100% 4,530,000
Total overlapping tax and assessment debt $ 15,760,749
Direct General Fund Debt:
Mendocino‐Lake Community College District ‐ Capital Lease 4.65% $ 30,172
USDA Police Station Bond 100% 1,062,000
City of Lakeport Municipal Financing Authority Lease Revenue Bonds 100% 1,170,000
City of Lakeport Pension Obligation Bonds 100% 2,385,997
Total direct general fund debt 4,648,169
(1)
Combined total debt $ 20,408,918
Ratios to 2015‐2016 Assessed Valuation:
Total Overlapping Tax and Assessment Debt 3.61%
Total Combined Debt 4.52%
(1)
Excludes tax and revenue anticipation notes, enterprise revenue, and mortgage revenue bonds.
Note: The overlapping debt statement presents the debt for all jurisdictions with territory overlapping the City. Debt of overlapping
jurisdictions is allocated based upon the assessed value of that jurisdiction within the City as compared to total assessed value for
that jurisdiction.
159
Legal Debt Margin Information
Fiscal year ended June 30 (last ten fiscal ye
(In thousands)
2010 2011 2012 2013
Assessed value $ 461,343 $ 459,145 $ 455,541 $ 452,910

Conversion percentage 25% 25% 25% 25%
Adjusted assessed value 115,336 114,786 113,885 113,228
Debt limit percentage 15% 15% 15% 15%
Debt limit 17,300 17,218 17,083 16,984
Total net debt applicable to limit ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Legal debt margin $ 17,300 $ 17,218 $ 17,083 $ 16,984
Total net debt applicable to the limit
as a percentage of debt limit 0% 0% 0% 0%
Note: The Government Code of the State of California provides for a legal debt limit
of 15% of gross assessed secured tax valuation. However, this provision was enacted
when assessed valuation was based upon 25% of market value. Effective with the
1981‐82 fiscal year, each parcel is now assessed at 100% of market value (as of the
most recent change in ownership for that parcel). The computations shown above
reflect a conversion of the assessed value for each fiscal year from the current full
valuation perspective to the 25% level that was in effect at the time that the legal
debt margin was enacted by the State of California for local governments located
Note: The City does not have any outstanding general obligation
160
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
$ 447,317 $ 445,221 $ 449,070 $ 448,318 $ 469,113 $ 486,304

25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25%
111,829 111,305 112,268 112,080 117,278 121,576
15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15%
16,774 16,696 16,840 16,812 17,592 18,236
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
$ 16,774 $ 16,696 $ 16,840 $ 16,812 $ 17,592 $ 18,236
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
161
Demographic and Economic Statistics
Last ten calendar years
Personal Income Per Capita Unemployment

Year Population (1) (in thousands) (2) Personal Income (2) Rate (%) (3)
2010 4,753 $ 1,916,957 $ 29,760 9.9% (4)
2011 4,622 2,107,287 32,543 10.2% (4)
2012 4,705 2,146,801 33,375 8.6% (4)
2013 4,713 1,768,039 46,477 7.3% (4)
2014 4,807 1,817,010 47,401 5.7% (4)
2015 4,762 1,939,528 49,985 6.7% (5)
2016 4,765 2,061,337 52,651 6.7% (5)
2017 4,786 2,197,492 55,987 6.4% (5)
2018 4,699 2,662,533 64,246 5.0% (5)
2019 4,784 2,780,363 64,382 4.9% (5)
Population Per Capita Personal Income
$50,000
5,000
4,800 $40,000
4,600 $30,000
4,400 $20,000
4,200 $10,000
4,000
$0
Average Unemployment Rate
12.0%
10.0%
8.0%
6.0%
4.0%
2.0%
0.0%
Note: Information presented is for the Lake County Region, except for population and unemployment data, since separate data is
not available for the City of Lakeport.
Sources:
(1)
California Department of Finance
(2)
U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis
(3)
U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis: Personal Income Summary
(4)
Bureau of Labor Statistics
(5)
State of California Employment Development Department Labor Market Information
162
Principal Employers
Current and Ten Years Ago
2018‐19 2009‐10
Percent of Top 10 Percent of Top 10
Employer Employees Rank Employment (%) Employees Rank Employment (%)
County of Lake 982 1 27.5% 866 1 23.3%

Konocti Unified School District 449 2 12.6% 358 3 9.6%
Sutter Lakeside Hospital 403 3 11.3% 450 2 12.1%
Robinson Rancheria Resort & Casino 320 4 9.0% 300 7 8.1%
Twin Pine Casino 281 5 7.9% 249 9 6.7%
Calpine Corp. 280 6 7.8% 352 5 9.5%
Wal‐Mart 243 7 6.8% 303 6 8.2%
Kelseyville Unified School District 230 8 6.4% ‐ ‐ 0.0%
Middletown Unified School District 195 9 5.5% ‐ ‐ 0.0%
Running Creek Casino 185 10 5.2% ‐ ‐ 0.0%
Konocti Vista Casino ‐ 0.0% 228 10 6.1%
St Helena Hospital ‐ 0.0% 354 4 9.5%
Shannon Ranches Inc ‐ 0.0% 250 8 6.7%
Total 3,568 100.0% 3,710 100.0%
Note: Information presented is for the Lake County Region, Major Lake County Employers, since separate data is not available for the
City of Lakeport.
Source: Lake County Marketing Program
Source: Lake County Marketing Program
163
Full‐time and Part‐time City Employees by Function
Fiscal year ended June 30 (last ten calendar years)
Function 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
General government 11 7 8 9 9 8 6 8 9 9
Public safety 15 17 14 16 15 14 4 12 15 15
Public works (non‐utilities) 18 9 9 12 12 7 22 11 10 10
Parks and recreation 15 10 10 13 1 15 4 2 2 2
Utilities 17 9 11 6 6 9 13 7 8 8
Community development 5 9 10 6 4 5 8 4 5 5
Total 81 61 62 62 47 58 57 44 49 49
Full‐time and Part‐time City Employees by Function
FY 2016
FY 2019
Utilities General government
General government
Community
16% General
development
government Public safety
Public safety
Utilities 9% General
16% 18%
government Public works (non‐
Public works (non‐
18% utilities)
utilities)
Parks and recreation
Parks and recreation
Utilities
Utilities
Public safety
Public safety
27%27%
Parks and
Parks and Public works
recreation Public works
recreation (non‐utilities)
5% (non‐utilities)
5% 25%25%
164
Capital Asset Statistics by Function
Function 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Police :
Stations 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Public works:
Streets (miles) 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30
Streetlights 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221
Parks and recreation:
Parks 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Pools 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Community centers 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Water:
Treatment facilities 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Sewer:
Pump stations 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
Sources: City Police, Community Development, and Public Works departments
165
Capital Asset Statistics
(In thousands)
2010 2011 2012

Land $ 399 $ 729 $ 729
Construction‐in‐progress 428 ‐ ‐
Buildings and structures 2,619 2,619 2,619
Improvements/CIP 3,138 4,465 4,475
Equipment and vehicles 1,533 1,533 1,533
Total 8,117 9,346 9,356
Buildings and structures 950 1,003 1,055
Improvements/CIP 548 641 732
Equipment and vehicles 747 823 998
Total 2,245 2,467 2,785
Total governmental net capital assets $ 5,872 $ 6,879 $ 6,571
Land $ 1,775 $ 1,775 $ 2,475
Construction‐in‐progress ‐ 1,840 1,840
Buildings and structures ‐ 1,840 1,840
Total 30,286 32,215 33,639
Buildings and structures 497 533 570
Total 11,969 12,739 13,561
Total business‐type net capital assets $ 18,317 $ 19,476 $ 20,078
166
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
$ 653 $ 653 $ 1,653 $ 1,653 $ 1,653 $ 1,653 $ 1,769

‐ ‐ ‐ 452 452 369 16
2,695 2,695 5,173 5,240 5,240 5,588 6,500
4,475 4,475 4,697 4,776 4,776 7,428 7,612
1,533 1,566 1,585 1,621 1,621 1,998 2,243
9,356 9,389 13,108 13,742 13,742 17,036 18,140
1,110 1,165 1,284 1,403 1,403 1,675 1,846

847 961 1,075 1,201 1,201 1,518 1,714
1,100 1,203 1,305 1,390 1,390 1,547 1,656
3,057 3,329 3,664 3,994 3,994 4,740 5,216
$ 6,299 $ 6,060 $ 9,444 $ 9,748 $ 9,748 $ 12,296 $ 12,924
$ 2,475 $ 2,475 $ 2,475 $ 2,475 $ 2,475 $ 2,475 $ 2,475

1,840 1,840 3,129 6,342 6,342 568 131
1,840 1,840 1,840 1,852 1,852 9,955 9,955
27,129 27,593 27,022 27,101 27,101 27,950 28,518
552 785 1,444 1,474 1,474 1,609 1,999
33,836 34,533 35,910 39,244 39,244 42,557 43,078
1,309 643 679 716 716 992 1,231

12,457 13,939 14,704 15,468 15,468 17,022 17,817
518 529 611 694 694 872 1,008
14,284 15,111 15,994 16,878 16,878 18,886 20,056
$ 19,552 $ 19,422 $ 19,916 $ 22,366 $ 22,366 $ 23,671 $ 23,022
167
168
CITY OF LAKEPORT, CALIFORNIA
SINGLE AUDIT REPORTS
FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2019
Single Audit Reports
Table of Contents
Page(s)
Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards ....................................................................................... 1
Notes to Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards ......................................................................... 2
Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting and on

Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial
Statements Performed in Accordance With
Government Auditing Standards.................................................................................................. 3-4
Report on Compliance For Each Major Federal Program; Report on

Internal Control Over Compliance; and Report on Schedule of
Expenditures of Federal Awards Required by the Uniform Guidance ........................................ 5-6
Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs ..................................................................................... 7-8

Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Pass-through
Federal Entity Federal
Federal Grantor/Pass-through CFDA Identification Expenditures Expenditures Total
Grantor/Program or Cluster Title Number Number ARRA* Non-ARRA Expenditures
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Direct Program:
Disaster Grants -Public Assistance 97.036 - 53,124 53,124
Total U.S. Department of Homeland Security - 53,124 53,124
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Pass through programs from:
State of California Department of Housing and
Community Development
Community Development Block Grant 14.228 17-CDBG-9883 - 79,003 79,003
HOME Investment Partnership Programs 14.239 16-HOME-10931 2,734,528 2,734,528
Total U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development - 2,813,531 2,813,531
U.S. Department of Transportation

Pass through Program From:
State of California Department of Transportation
Emergency Repair 20.205 01924806L - 200,183 200,183
Highway Safety Improvement Progtam 20.205 2030010550 335,228
Total U.S. Department of Transportation - 535,411 535,411
U.S. Department of Justice

Direct Program:
Bullet Proof Vest Program 16.607 - 1,727 1,727
Total U.S. Department of Justice - 1,727 1,727
Total Federal Expenditures $ - $ 3,403,793 $ 3,403,793
* ARRA indicates American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
The accompanying notes to the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards

are an integral part of this supplementary information.
1
Notes to the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
1. BASIS OF PRESENTATION
The accompanying Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards includes the federal grant activity of
the City and is presented on the accrual basis of accounting. The information in this schedule is
presented in accordance with the requirements of Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations Part 200,
Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit requirements for Federal Awards
(Uniform Guidance). Therefore, some amounts presented in this schedule may differ from amounts
presented in, or used in the preparation of, the basic financial statements.
2. DESCRIPTION OF MAJOR PROGRAMS
HOME Investment Partnerships Program (CFDA #14.239)
To expand the supply of affordable housing, particularly rental housing, for low and very low income
Americans; to strengthen the abilities of State and local governments to design and implement strategies for
achieving adequate supplies of decent, affordable housing; and to extend and strengthen partnerships
among all levels of government and the private sector, including for-profit and nonprofit organizations, in
the production and operation of affordable housing.
3. INDIRECT COST ELECTION
The City has not elected to use the 10% de minimis indirect cost rate allowed under the Uniform
Guidance.
2
REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING AND ON
COMPLIANCE AND OTHER MATTERS BASED ON AN AUDIT OF FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT AUDITING
STANDARDS
Independent Auditor’s Report
The Honorable City Council

City of Lakeport
We have audited, in accordance with the auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America
and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards issued by the
Comptroller General of the United States, the financial statements of the governmental activities, the business-
type activities, each major fund, the aggregate remaining fund information and the budgetary comparison
information of the City of Lakeport, California (City), as of and for the year ended June 30, 2019, and the
related notes to the financial statements, which collectively comprise the City’s basic financial statements, and
have issued our report thereon dated March 2, 2020.
Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements, we considered the City’s internal control over
financial reporting (internal control) to determine the audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances
for the purpose of expressing our opinions on the financial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an
opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the
effectiveness of the City’s internal control.
A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or
employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct,
misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in
internal control, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the entity’s financial
statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected on a timely basis. A significant deficiency is a
deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control that is less severe than a material weakness, yet
important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance.
Our consideration of internal control was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph of this section
and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control that might be material weaknesses or
significant deficiencies. Given these limitations, during our audit we did not identify any deficiencies in internal
control that we consider to be material weaknesses. However, material weaknesses may exist that have not been
identified.
www.jjacpa.com
Compliance and Other Matters
As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the City’s financial statements are free from material
misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and
grant agreements, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the determination of
financial statement amounts. However, providing an opinion on compliance with those provisions was not an
objective of our audit, and accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The results of our tests disclosed no
instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be reported under Government Auditing
Standards.
Purpose of this Report
The purpose of this report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control and compliance and
the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity’s internal control or on
compliance. This report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing
Standards in considering the entity’s internal control and compliance. Accordingly, this communication is not
suitable for any other purpose.
]]TVcT? \ÇvA
Dublin, CA
REPORT ON COMPLIANCE FOR EACH MAJOR FEDERAL PROGRAM; REPORT ON
INTERNAL CONTROL OVER COMPLIANCE; AND REPORT ON SCHEDULE OF
EXPENDITURES OF FEDERAL AWARDS REQUIRED BY THE UNIFORM GUIDANCE
Independent Auditor’s Report
The Honorable City Council

City of Lakeport
Report on Compliance for Each Major Federal Program
We have audited the City of Lakeport, California’s (City) compliance with the types of compliance requirements described
in the OMB Compliance Supplement that could have a direct and material effect on each of the City’s major federal
programs for the year ended June 30, 2019. The City’s major federal programs are identified in the summary of auditor’s
results section of the accompanying schedule of findings and questioned costs.
Management’s Responsibility
Management is responsible for compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of its federal
awards applicable to its federal programs.
Auditor’s Responsibility
Our responsibility is to express an opinion on compliance for each of the City’s major federal programs based on our audit
of the types of compliance requirements referred to above. We conducted our audit of compliance in accordance with
auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America; the standards applicable to financial audits contained
in Government Auditing Standards, is-sued by the Comptroller General of the United States; and the audit requirements of
Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit
Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance). Those standards and the Uniform Guidance re-quire that we plan
and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether noncompliance with the types of compliance
requirements referred to above that could have a direct and material effect on a major federal program occurred. An audit
includes examining, on a test basis, evidence about the City’s compliance with those requirements and performing such
other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.
We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion on compliance for each major federal program.
However, our audit does not provide a legal determination of the City’s compliance.
Opinion on Each Major Federal Program
In our opinion, the City complied, in all material respects, with the types of compliance requirements referred to above that
could have a direct and material effect on each of its major federal programs for the year ended June 30, 2019.
www.jjacpa.com
Report on Internal Control Over Compliance
Management of the City is responsible for establishing and maintaining effective internal control over compliance with the
types of compliance requirements referred to above. In planning and performing our audit of compliance, we considered the
City’s internal control over compliance with the types of requirements that could have a direct and material effect on each
major federal program to determine the auditing procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances for the purpose of
expressing an opinion on compliance for each major federal program and to test and report on internal control over
compliance in accordance with the Uniform Guidance, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness
of internal control over compliance. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal
control over compliance.
A deficiency in internal control over compliance exists when the design or operation of a control over compliance does not
allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and
correct, noncompliance with a type of compliance requirement of a federal program on a timely basis. A material weakness
in internal control over compliance is a deficiency, or combination of deficiencies, in internal control over compliance,
such that there is a reasonable possibility that material noncompliance with a type of compliance requirement of a federal
program will not be prevented, or detected and corrected, on a timely basis. A significant deficiency in internal control over
compliance is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control over compliance with a type of compliance
requirement of a federal program that is less severe than a material weakness in internal control over compliance, yet
important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance.
Our consideration of internal control over compliance was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph of this
section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control over compliance that might be material
weaknesses or significant deficiencies. We did not identify any deficiencies in internal control over compliance that we
consider to be material weaknesses. However, material weaknesses may exist that have not been identified.
The purpose of this report on internal controls over compliance is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal
control over compliance and the results of that testing based on the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Accordingly,
this report is not suitable for any other purpose.
Report on Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards Required by the Uniform Guidance
We have audited the financial statements of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, each major fund, the
aggregate remaining fund information, and the budgetary comparison information of the City of Lakeport, California (City)
as of and for the year ended June 30, 2019, and the related notes to the financial statements, which collectively comprise the
City’s basic financial statements. We issued our report thereon dated March 2, 2020, which contained unmodified opinions
on those financial statements. Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming opinions on the financial statements that
collectively comprise the basic financial statements. The accompanying schedule of expenditures of federal awards is
presented for purposes of additional analysis as required by the Uniform Guidance and is not a required part of the basic
financial statements. Such information is the responsibility of management and was derived from and relates directly to the
underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial statements. The information has been subjected
to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the financial statements and certain additional procedures, including
comparing and reconciling such information directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the
basic financial statements or to the basic financial statements themselves, and other additional procedures in accordance
with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America. In our opinion, the schedule of expenditures of
federal awards is fairly stated in all material respects in relation to the basic financial statements as a whole.
]]TVcT? \ÇvA
Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs
Section I – Summary of Auditor’s Results
Financial Statements
Type of auditor’s report issued Unmodified
Internal control over financial reporting:
 Material weakness(es) identified? No
 Significant deficiency(ies) identified? None reported
Noncompliance material to financial statements noted? No
Federal Awards
Internal control over major programs:
 Material weakness(es) identified? No
 Significant deficiency(ies) identified? None reported
Type of auditor’s report issued on compliance for major programs: Unmodified

City of
Any audit findings disclosed that are required to be reported in
accordance with 2 CFR 200.516(a)? No
Identification of major programs:
CFDA Number Name of Federal Program or Cluster
14.239 HOME Investment Partnerships Program
Dollar threshold used to distinguish

between Type A and Type B programs: $750,000
Auditee qualified as low-risk auditee? No
7
Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs, Continued
Section II – Financial Statement Findings
No matters were reported.
Section III – Federal Award Findings and Questioned Costs
No matters were reported.
Section IV – Status of Prior Year Audit Findings
No prior year audit findings
Section V – Corrective Action Plan
There were neither current year findings nor questioned costs (see Section III above).
8
CITY OF LAKEPORT
City Council
STAFF REPORT
RE: AB 1600 Annual Update MEETING DATE: 03/17/2020
SUBMITTED BY: Nicholas Walker, Finance Director
Adopt the attached resolution to reaffirm the necessity of development impact fees.
AB 1600 requires the City to produce an annual report on the status of each separate account or fund
established for development impact fees. The primary purpose of the annual report is to show the necessity of
the continued imposition of development impact fees. Every fifth year the City also is required to make certain
findings with respect to the monies collected for development impact fees. Additionally, the five-year report
must show what has been done with the fees that have been collected.
To be in full compliance with state law, the City must:
1. Spend or commit development impact fees within five years of collecting them, or
2. Adopt a resolution that makes a finding that a reasonable relationship remains between the current need
for the fees and the purpose for which they were proposed originally.
The City currently collects three different types of impact fees which are described in the attached report.
Below are the findings for those impact fees that required accumulation beyond five years.
i. A storm drainage impact fee (also known as an impervious surface fee) has been accumulated beyond five
years to fund storm drain improvements, typically associated with road maintenance and repair. The collection
of this fee and use of the proceeds are critical in maintaining an effective storm drainage system and meeting
the capital improvement requirements of that system imposed on the City by its NPDES permit.
ii. A water expansion fee has been accumulated beyond five years to fund capital projects related to increasing
the capacity and service delivery to City residents directly resulting from new development and other projects
that impact the water treatment and distribution system. The collection of this fee is vitally important to
ensuring the City can meet the health and safety needs of its citizens as it grows and expands.
iii. A sewer expansion fee has been accumulated beyond five years to fund capital projects related to
increasing the capacity and service delivery to City residents directly resulting from new development and other
Meeting Date: 03/17/2020 Page 1 Agenda Item #IV.H.

projects that impact the sewer collection and treatment system. The collection of this fee is vitally important to
ensuring the City can meet the health and safety needs of its citizens as it grows and expands.
Under AB 1600 the City is required to make available to the public a report on development impact fees. The
report must be available within 180 days of the close of the fiscal year and must include:
1. A brief description of the type of development impact fee in the account/fund;
2. The amount of the fee;
3. Beginning and ending balances of the account/fund, the amount of the fees collected and the interest
earned;
4. Identification of each public improvement on which fees were expended;
5. The amount of expenditures on each improvement;
6. If the agency determines that sufficient funds have been collected to complete financing on an incomplete
public improvement, an approximate date by which construction of the public improvement will commence;
7. A description of any interfund transfer or loan; and
8. The amount of refunds paid, if any, from a particular fund.

The annual AB 1600 Development Fee Report for fiscal year ended June 30, 2019 will be made available to the
public in March, 2020.
OPTIONS:
1. Adopt the associated resolution reaffirming the need of the relevant development fees collected by the
City.
2. Do not adopt but provide direction to staff.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None Undetermined Budgeted Item? Yes No
Affected fund(s): General Fund Water OM Fund Sewer OM Fund Other: Storm Drain
Improvement Fund, Water Expansion Fund, Sewer Expansion Fund
Comments: The fiscal impact of this item relates to the continued collection of revenue from these impact fees
and their use, the expenditures for which have been adopted by Council in the City’s annual budget.
SUGGESTED MOTIONS:
Move to adopt the proposed resolution to reaffirm the necessity of AB 1600 development impact fees.
Attachments: 1. Resolution No. __________

2. AB 1600 Development Impact Fee Report for the Year Ended June 30, 2019
Meeting Date: 03/17/2020 Page 2 Agenda Item #IV.H.

RESOLUTION NO. ______ (2020)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LAKEPORT TO REAFFRIM THE NECESSITY OF DEVELOPMENT
IMPACT FEES
WHEREAS, The City of Lakeport is required to make certain finding every five years with respect to
the unexpended fund balance of certain development impact fee funds pursuant to California Government
Code Section 66001; and
WHEREAS, the documents reflecting the balance in each development impact fee fund or account,
accrued interest in said fund or account, and the amount of expenditure by public facility for the fiscal year
have been made available for public review as required by Code Section 66006; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lakeport as follows:
Section 1. That the recitations above are true and correct.
Section 2. That the following findings are made as required under Government Code Section 66001:
i. The purpose to which each development impact fee is to be put has been identified.
ii. There is a continued need for the improvements and that there is a reasonable
relationship between the fee and the impacts for development for which the fees are
collected.
iii. The sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete the financing of capital
projects have been identified and will be deposited into the appropriate account upon
receipt or during the normal Capital Improvement Program budget cycle.
Section 3. That these findings are based on information provided in the City of Lakeport operating
budget and Five-Year Capital Improvement Program for the fiscal year 2019-20 and the AB
1600 report for the fiscal year 2018-19 on file with the City Clerk.
The foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted at a regular joint meeting of the City Council on the
17th day of March, 2020, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAINING:
ABSENT:
____________________________________
GEORGE SPURR Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
KELLY BUENDIA, City Clerk
CITY OF LAKEPORT
ANNUAL REPORT OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES

(AB 1600 REPORT)
YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2019

PREPARED BY
FINANCE DEPARTMENT

City of Lakeport
Annual Report on Development Impact Fees, Per Government Code 66000
AB 1600 Statement
Analysis of Changes in Fund Balance

STORM WATER SEWER
DRAINAGE FEE EXPANSION FEE EXPANSION FEE
(414) (502) (602)
Beginning Balance, 07/01/2018 $ 135,517 $ 215,888 $ 1,030,484
REVENUE
Fees - 18,582 51,467
Interest Earnings 706 202 5,126
Other Revenue - 1,933 4,303
Transfers In - - -
706 20,717 60,896
EXPENDITURES
Utilities - Water - 31,031 -
Utilities - Sewer - - 15,623
Public Works/Engineering - 131,159 -
Administration - - -
Debt service - - -
Transfers Out - - -
- 162,190 15,623
Excess Revenue Over/(Under) 706 (141,473) 45,273

Expenditures
Ending Balance, 06/30/2019 $ 136,223 $ 74,415 $ 1,075,757
Expenditures by Project
FY 2017-18 % Funded with
Development
Fee
STORM DRAINAGE IMPACT
Storm drain replacement and repair - 100.00%
Total $ -
WATER EXPANSION
Expansion projects 162,190 100.00%
Total $ 162,190
SEWER EXPANSION
Expansion projects 15,623 100.00%
Total $ 15,623
Description of Fees
The AB 1600 Development Fee is used only for the construction and the expansion of infrastructure to
accommodate growth, not for operating or maintenance costs. Revenue will be used to maintain infrastructure
standards for three capital types:
Storm Drainage Impact
Water Expansion
Sewer Expansion
Storm Drainage Impact AB 1600 development fees are used to fund the design and construction of storm water
drainage infrastructure improvements required to mitigate the impact of new development, specifically with the
installation of impervious surfaces, such as parking lots, side walks, etc.
Water Expansion AB 1600 development fees are used to fund the design and construction of water supply, water
treatment, and water distribution system infrastructure improvements required to mitigate the impact of new
development.
Sewer Expansion AB 1600 development fees are used to fund the design and construction of wastewater
treatment and collection infrastructure improvements required to mitigate the impact of new development.
Impact and Expansion Fee Schedule
Storm Drainage Impact: $0.10 per square foot of new impervious surface (City Resolution # 1401 (84)).
Water Expansion: $6,923.00 for a standard 3/4" meter with an escalating cost for larger meters.
Sewer Expansion: $12,717.00 per unit in the sewer assessment district (CLMSD) South and $7,456.42, per SFD, in CLMSD North.
Prepared by
Finance Department
City of Lakeport AB 1600 Annual Report
CITY OF LAKEPORT
City Council
Lakeport Industriall Development Authority
STAFF REPORT
RE: 2019 California Building Code Adoption MEETING DATE: 03/17/2020
SUBMITTED BY: Kevin M. Ingram, Assistant City Manager

The City Council is being asked to initiate proceedings and set a public hearing on April 7, 2020 for the
consideration of an ordinance adopting the 2019 California Building Code along with additional revisions to the
Lakeport Municipal Code removing references to obsolete building codes.
The California Building Standards Commission updates the State building codes (California Code of Regulations,
CCR, Title 24) every three years. The 2019 codes were published on July 1, 2019 and became applicable to all
building permit applications on or after January 1, 2020. The California Building Standards Code consists of the
following 12 parts (Part 7 is vacant):
• Part 1, California Administrative Code (CAC)

• Part 2, California Building Code (CBC)
• Part 2.5, California Residential Code (CRC)
• Part 3, California Electrical Code (CEC)
• Part 4, California Mechanical Code (CMC)
• Part 5, California Plumbing Code (CPC)
• Part 6, California Energy Code (CEEC)
• Part 7, (Currently Vacant)
• Part 8, California Historical Building Code (CHBC)
• Part 9, California Fire Code (CFC)
• Part 10, California Existing Building Code (CEBC)
• Part 11, California Green Building Code (CALGreen)
• Part 12, California Reference Standards Code
The proposed ordinance will incorporate the 2019 California Building Code through the revision of Section
15.04.010 of the Lakeport Municipal Code. In addition staff is recommending several amendments to various
sections of the Lakeport Municipal Code which reference old building codes. These revisions include changes to
the following Chapters: 8.22, 8.32, 13.04, 13.20, 15.04, 15.05, 15.08, 17.04, 17.12, 17.20, 17.22, 17.23, 17.24,
17.28, 17.37 and 17.52.
Future revisions to the California Building Code will only necessitate a revision to Section 15.04.010.
Meeting Date: 03/17/2020 Page 1 Agenda Item #IV.I.

OPTIONS:
1. Introduce the proposed amendments and revisions to the Lakeport Municipal Code adopting the 2019
California Building Code and removing references to obsolete building codes and schedule a public hearing
for April 7, 2020.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Comments: None
SUGGESTED MOTIONS:
Move to introduce the proposed amendments and revisions to the Lakeport Municipal Code adopting the 2019
California Building Code and removing references to obsolete building codes and schedule a public hearing for
April 7, 2020.
Attachments: 1. Draft Ordinance Adopting 2019 California Building Code
Meeting Date: 03/17/2020 Page 2 Agenda Item #IV.I.

ORDINANCE NO. ________(2019)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKEPORT
MODIFYING TITLES 8, 13, 15 & 17 AND AMENDING CHAPTERS 8.22, 8.32,
13.04, 13.20, 15.04, 15.05, 15.08, 17.04, 17.12, 17.20, 17.22, 17.23, 17.24,
17.28, 17.37 & 17.52 OF THE LAKEPORT MUNICIPAL CODE ADOPTING BY
REFERENCE THE 2019 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODES INCLUDING 2019
CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, 2019 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE,
2019 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE, 2019 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL
CODE, 2019 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE, 2019 CALIFORNIA
PLUMBING CODE, 2019 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE, 2019 CALIFORNIA
HISTORICAL CODE, 2019 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE, 2019 CALIFORNIA
EXISTING BUILDING CODE, 2019 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING
STANDARDS CODE, 2019 CALIFORNIA REFERENCED STANDARDS CODE,
2018 INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, 2018
INTERNATIONAL SWIMMING POOL AND SPA CODE, AND 1997 UNIFORM
HOUSING CODE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKEPORT DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Section 15.04.010 of 15.04, Construction Codes, of the Lakeport
Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows, with the additions marked by bold italics
text in red font and deletions marked by struck through text:
The following codes are hereby adopted by reference and shall apply in the city of
Lakeport: 2019 California Administrative Code; 2019 California Building Code, Volumes
1 & 2, and Appendices I and J; 2019 California Residential Code and Appendices H and
J; 2019 California Electrical Code; 2019 California Mechanical Code; 2019 California
Plumbing Code; 2019 California Energy Code; 2019 California Historical Code; 2019
California Fire Code; 2019 California Existing Building Code; 2019 California Green
Building Standards Code; 2019 California Referenced Standards Code; 2018
International Property Maintenance Code; 2018 International Swimming Pool and Spa
Code; 1997 Uniform Housing Code, published by the International Conference of
Building Officials as referenced by the California Department of Housing and
Community Development and pursuant to the provisions of Sections 17958, 17958.5,
17958.7, 17958.9 and 17959 of the California Health and Safety Code 2001 Building
Standards Administrative Code; 2001 California Building Code, Volumes I and II; 2001
California Electrical Code; 2001 California Mechanical Code; 2001 California Plumbing
226154.1
Code; 2001 California Energy Code; 2001 California Elevator Safety Construction Code;
2001 California Historical Building Code; 2001 California Fire Code; 2001 California Code
for Building Conservation; 2001 California Reference Standards Code all of which were
copyrighted in 2002 by the California Building Standards Commission; and the 1997
Uniform Sign Code; 1997 Uniform Housing Code; 1997 Uniform Code for the Abatement
of Dangerous Buildings; and the 1997 Uniform Swimming Pool, Spa, and Hot Tub Code.
(Ord. 819 §1, 2002) Where the California Building Standards Codes regulations listed
above differ from any provisions of the International or Uniform Codes, the California
Buildings Standards Codes shall prevail. As used in this Municipal Code, “California
Building Standards Code” means any and all applicable codes listed in this section and
adopted by reference.
SECTION 2. Definition of Nuisance in Section 8.22.020 of Chapter 8.22,

Abatement of Nuisances, of the Lakeport Municipal Code is hereby amended as
follows, with the additions marked by bold italics text in red font and deletions
marked by struck through text:
“Nuisance” means anything which is injurious to health, including, but not limited to,
the illegal sale of controlled substances, or is indecent or offensive to the senses, or an
obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable
enjoyment of life or property, or unlawfully obstructs the free passage or use, in the
customary manner, of any navigable lake, or river, bay, stream, canal, or basin, or any
public park, square, street, or highway, is a nuisance.
A “nuisance” shall also mean:
1. Any public nuisance known under common law or equity; or
2. Any attractive nuisance which may prove dangerous or detrimental to any

person; or
3. Any condition that is dangerous to human life, unsafe, or detrimental to the

public health or safety, including the accumulation of trash or junk and the
existence of dangerous buildings as defined under the currently adopted
California Building Standards Code as referenced in Section 15.04.010 of this
Code Uniform Building Code for the abatement of dangerous buildings.
SECTION 3. Section 8.32.010.A of 8.32, Definitions, of the Lakeport Municipal

Code is hereby amended as follows, with the additions marked by bold italics text in red
font and deletions marked by struck through text:
226154.1
A. Wherever the word “chief of fire prevention” is used in the currently adopted
California Building Standards Code as referenced in Section 15.04.010 of this Code
Uniform Fire Code, it shall be held to mean the fire chief.
SECTION 4. Section 8.32.010.B of 17.04, of 8.32, Definitions, of the Lakeport

B. Wherever the term “corporation counsel” is used in the currently adopted

Uniform Fire Code, it shall be held to mean the attorney for the city.
SECTION 5. Section 8.32.010.C of 17.04, of 8.32, Definitions, of the Lakeport

C. Wherever the word “jurisdiction” is used in the currently adopted California
Building Standards Code as referenced in Section 15.04.010 of this Code Uniform Fire
Code, it shall be held to mean the city fire department.
SECTION 6. Section 8.32.010.D of 17.04, of 8.32, Definitions, of the Lakeport

D. “California Building Standards Code” “Uniform Fire Code” refers to the currently
adopted California Building Standards Code as referenced in Section 15.04.010 of this
Code most recent version of the Uniform Fire Code adopted by the city.
SECTION 7. Section 8.32.010.E of 17.04, of 8.32, Definitions, of the Lakeport

E. The definitions contained in the currently adopted California Building Standards

Code as referenced in Section 15.04.010 of this Code Uniform Fire Code shall apply to
this section until specifically amended in this section. (Ord. 662 §§1, 3, 1986)
SECTION 8. Section 8.32.020.A of 8.32, Purpose of provisions, of the Lakeport

A. The purpose of this chapter is to provide regulations establishing minimum

standards for water supply and automatic fire extinguishing systems where
such standards are not specifically covered by the currently adopted
Code Uniform Fire Code. Where specific standards are provided by the
currently adopted California Building Standards Code as referenced in
Section 15.04.010 of this Code Uniform Fire Code and provide a greater
226154.1
degree of fire protection than the provisions of this section, those standards
shall apply.
SECTION 9. Section 8.32.020.B of 8.32, Purpose of provisions, of the Lakeport

B. In those cases where the currently adopted California Building Standards Code as
referenced in Section 15.04.010 of this Code Uniform Fire Code does not provide
specific standards, the terms of this section shall apply.
SECTION 10. Section 8.32.060.C of 8.32, Automatic sprinkler systems and

alarms - Requirements, of the Lakeport Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows,
with the additions marked by bold italics text in red font and deletions marked by
struck through text:
C. Portions of buildings separated by one or more area separation walls shall be

considered as separate buildings for the purpose of determining the automatic sprinkler
system and alarm system requirements, provided that the area separation walls are in
compliance with the currently adopted California Building Standards Code as
referenced in Section 15.04.010 of this Code Section 505 and other applicable sections
of the 1982 Uniform Building Code.
SECTION 11. Section 13.04.111 of 13.04, Water pressure regulator required, of

the Lakeport Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows, with the additions marked
by bold italics text in red font and deletions marked by struck through text:
Each connection to the city water system serving a building shall have a water pressure
regulator to limit the static water pressure at the building being served to a maximum of
eighty pounds per square inch in accordance with the currently adopted California
Building Standards Code as referenced in Section 15.04.010 of this Code Section 608.2
of the 1998 California Plumbing Code. The water pressure regulator shall be located
between the required shutoff valve and the service to the building. The water pressure
regulator shall be installed, owned and maintained by the owner of the property being
served. (Ord. 801, 1999)
SECTION 12. Section 13.20.020 of 13.20, Definitions, of the Lakeport Municipal

"California Plumbing Code" means written guidelines, regulations and ordinances

governing the plumbing criteria for type and use of plumbing systems as currently
Code in the state of California and its political subdivisions.
226154.1
SECTION 13. Section 13.20.320.G.1 of 13.20, Monitoring, of the Lakeport
G. Approved Repair Methods and Materials for Privately Owned Sewer Laterals.
1. Materials used in the repair or replacement of existing private sewer laterals

which have failed to pass an inspection and/or test shall be made of pipe materials,
fittings, couplings, and other joining materials which have been approved for use
pursuant to the current edition of the California Plumbing Code currently adopted
at the time of the inspection and/or testing, and as modified and specified in these
standards.
SECTION 14. Section 13.20.310.D.1 of 13.20, Application to install a FOG

pretreatment system, of the Lakeport Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows,
with the additions marked by bold italics text in red font and deletions marked by struck
through text:
D. Design Requirements for Grease Interceptors.
1. As per the currently adopted California Building Standards Code as referenced

in Section 15.04.010 of this Code California Plumbing Code requirements, grease
interceptors shall be constructed of impervious materials capable of withstanding
abrupt and extreme changes in temperatures, shall be of substantial construction,
watertight, and equipped with easily removable covers. The grease interceptor shall
contain a baffle system, which adequately diverts and slows the flow to avoid short-
circuiting. Grease interceptors located in roadways or parking lots shall be traffic
rated.
SECTION 15. Section 15.04.010 of 15.04, Adopted, of the Lakeport Municipal

The following codes are hereby adopted by reference and shall apply in the city of
Lakeport: the currently adopted California Building Standards Code as referenced in
Section 15.04.010 of this Code 2001 Building Standards Administrative Code; 2001
California Building Code, Volumes I and II; 2001 California Electrical Code; 2001
California Mechanical Code; 2001 California Plumbing Code; 2001 California Energy
Code; 2001 California Elevator Safety Construction Code; 2001 California Historical
Building Code; 2001 California Fire Code; 2001 California Code for Building
Conservation; 2001 California Reference Standards Code all of which were copyrighted
in 2002 by the California Building Standards Commission; and the 1997 Uniform Sign
Code; 1997 Uniform Housing Code; 1997 Uniform Code for the Abatement of
226154.1
Dangerous Buildings; and the 1997 Uniform Swimming Pool, Spa, and Hot Tub Code.
(Ord. 819 §1, 2002)
SECTION 16. Section 15.05.010 of 15.05, Adoption of Appendix Chapter 1 of the

Uniform Code for Building Conservation, of the Lakeport Municipal Code is hereby
repealed:
The certain Appendix chapter 1 of the Uniform Code for Building Conservation, referred
to in this chapter as the Conservation Code, is adopted and enacted as the standard for
strengthening unreinforced or inadequately reinforced masonry buildings and is made a
part of this chapter by reference with the same force and effect as if fully set forth in
this chapter. (Ord. 696 (part), 1990)
SECTION 17. Section 15.05.011 of 15.05, Modification of Conservation Code, of

the Lakeport Municipal Code is hereby repealed:
The Appendix Chapter 1 of the conservation code is modified as follows:
A. Section A102 is deleted;
B. Section A105 is deleted;
C. Subsection (a) of Section A106 is amended to read as follows:
Analysis and Design. Every structure required to be analyzed, either

by ordinance or voluntarily, shall be analyzed and measures shall be
specified which will allow the structure to resist minimum total lateral
seismic forces assumed to act nonconcurrently in the direction of
each of the main axes of the structure in accordance with the
following equation:
V=Z(I)(KCS) W (A1-1)
The value of KCS need not exceed the values set forth in Table No. Al-
A based on the seismic zone as determined by the Building Code. The
value of Z shall be the value specified in Table No. Al-B. The I factor
shall be as specified in Table No. Al-C. The value of W shall be as set
forth in the Building Code.
(Ord. 696 (part), 1990)
SECTION 18. Section 15.05.020 of 15.05, Building code, of the Lakeport

226154.1
All references to the building code shall mean the currently adopted California Building
Standards Code as referenced in Section 15.04.010 of this Code. 1985 Edition of the
Uniform Building Code as adopted by the city. (Ord. 696 (part), 1990)
SECTION 19. Section 15.05.040.A.4 of 15.05, Definitions, of the Lakeport

4. Historical qualified historical buildings shall comply with the currently adopted
California Building Standards Code as referenced in Section 15.04.010 of this Code.
State Historical Building Code established under Part 8, Title 24 of the California
Administrative Code.
SECTION 20. Section 15.05.050.F of 15.05, Mandatory measures, of the

Lakeport Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows, with the additions marked by
bold italics text in red font and deletions marked by struck through text:
F. Every legal owner of an identified potentially hazardous building shall do the

following by January 1, 1995. If the building has unreinforced masonry parapets,
cornices, and/or brick veneer adjacent to a public right-of-way as defined in the Uniform
Building Code, the owner shall:
1. Remove or secure all parapets;
2. Remove or secure all cornices;
3. Remove or secure all masonry veneer extending higher than four feet above
grade.
Plans and specifications for the removal and/or securing of unreinforced masonry
parapets, cornices and veneers shall be prepared by a state licensed structural engineer
or a civil engineer who is experienced in structural design. No removal of parapets shall
occur unless permitted by the currently adopted California Building Standards Code as
referenced in Section 15.04.010 of this Code.
Uniform Building Code or Uniform Fire Code. Permits for the removal of parapets,
cornices and veneer may be issued without the requirements for plans being signed by a
registered engineer provided that all health and safety issues as set forth in the currently
Code Uniform Building Code are addressed.
SECTION 21. Section 15.08.010.B of 15.08, Elevator installation, of the

Lakeport Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows, with the additions marked by
226154.1
The construction of the elevators shall meet the requirements of the currently adopted
California Building Standards Code as referenced in Section 15.04.010 of this Code.
Uniform Building Code.
SECTION 22. Section 17.04.060.J.3 of 17.04, Development standards, of the

Lakeport Municipal Code is hereby amended to state, with the additions marked by
3. All dwellings shall be attached to a permanent concrete foundation system pursuant

to the currently adopted California Building Standards Code as referenced in Section
15.04.010 of this Code.Uniform Building Code. Dwellings in mobilehome
parks/subdivisions may utilize alternative permanent foundation systems.
SECTION 23. Section 17.12. 060.D of 17.12, Development standards, of the

D. Setbacks. Subject to compliance with the currently adopted California Building

Standards Code as referenced in Section 15.04.010 of this Code Uniform Building Code,
zero setbacks from property lines are allowed. Setbacks shall be as determined by the
planning commission or staff in the review of a proposed project.
SECTION 24. Section 17.20.040.A.9 of 17.20, Erosion control measures, of the

9. Comply with the grading requirements of the currently adopted California
Building Standards Code as referenced in Section 15.04.010 of this Code California
Building Code and associated codes.
SECTION 25. Section 17.22.020.F.3 of 17.22, Zoning permit performance

standards, of the Lakeport Municipal Code is hereby amended to state, with the
additions marked by bold italics text in red font and deletions marked by struck through
text:
3. The accessory office shall be securely attached to the ground, footing or

foundation in accordance with the provisions of the currently adopted California
Building Standards Code as referenced in Section 15.04.010 of this Code Uniform
Building Code.
SECTION 26. Section 17.22.020.F.5 of 17.22, Development standards, of the

5. The accessory office shall be of a modular, commercial coach, mobile, or frame

construction type and shall conform to the requirements of the currently adopted
226154.1
Uniform Building Code in terms of access, doorway width, hall width, exits,
occupancy load, etc. Provision of restroom facilities, plumbing, and electrical
utilities shall also be in conformance with the currently adopted California Building
Standards Code as referenced in Section 15.04.010 of this Code Uniform Building
Code.
SECTION 27. Section 17.23.060.F of 17.23, Parking development standards, of

the Lakeport Municipal Code is hereby amended to state, with the additions marked by
F. The calculation and design of handicap accessible parking spaces required shall be
pursuant to the requirements of the currently adopted California Building Standards
Code as referenced in Section 15.04.010 of this Code Uniform Building Code and the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
SECTION 28. Section 17.23.060.G.1 of 17.23, Parking development standards, of

1. All parking lots, spaces, maneuvering areas, turn-arounds, and driveways shall
be paved with a minimum of two inches of asphalt concrete over four inches of
compacted aggregate base or similar material in accordance with the standards set
forth in the currently adopted California Building Standards Code as referenced in
Section 15.04.010 of this Code Uniform Building Code.
SECTION 29. Section 17.23.060.J of 17.23, Parking development standards, of

J. Within the CBD zoning district, the following special parking standards shall apply:
Owners or lessees with existing structures within the CBD who construct new floor area,
expand by converting existing floor area, and/or intensify the occupancy load (as
defined by the currently adopted California Building Standards Code as referenced in
Section 15.04.010 of this Code California Building Code) of an existing building, and
whose location limits the development of on-site parking as required by this chapter
may be permitted to obtain a development permit, and not be required to provide the
required on-site parking spaces, unless there is adequate on-site area available for
parking lot expansion or development. A deviation of parking application must be
considered and approved by the planning commission in such cases. For all other
projects, payment of an in-lieu of parking fee is an alternative. Said in-lieu fees shall be
set by resolution of the city council.
SECTION 30. Section 17.24.110.A.5 of 17.24, Development standards and

guidelines, of the Lakeport Municipal Code is hereby amended to state, with the
226154.1
text:
5. The construction and operation of the residential use shall comply with the
requirements of the currently adopted California Building Standards Code as
referenced in Section 15.04.010 of this Code Uniform Building and Fire Codes. The
commission may require conditions in the approval of the project in order to
protect the health, safety, and welfare of the commercial and residential occupants
of the subject building and adjacent structures.
SECTION 31. Section 17.24.110.B.6 of 17.24, Development standards and

text:
6. Fire and safety improvements shall be required per the currently adopted
Uniform Building Code based upon the intensity of use and construction materials
used in each bed and breakfast inn. All bed and breakfast inns shall install approved
smoke detectors and fire extinguishers, where required, and shall provide an
evacuation plan in each guest room. Other improvements that may be required
include a fully automatic fire detection system, a fire sprinkler system, fire escapes,
and other facilities as determined by the planning commission upon
recommendation of the fire department or the building official.
SECTION 32. Section 17.24.110.D.6 of 17.24, Development standards and

text:
6. Fire and safety improvements shall be required per the currently adopted
Uniform Fire Code. All rooming and boarding houses shall install approved smoke
detectors and fire extinguishers, where required, and shall provide an evacuation
plan in each tenant room. Other improvements that may be required include a fully
automatic fire detection system, a fire sprinkler system, fire escapes, and other
facilities as determined by the planning commission upon recommendation of the
fire department or the building official.
SECTION 33. Section 17.24.110.F.5 of 17.24, Development standards and

text:
226154.1
5. Fire Safety Requirements. A minimum of one fire extinguisher and one smoke
detector shall be maintained in good working order on the premises. These devices
shall meet the standards of the State Fire Marshal and the Lakeport fire
department. The use shall comply with the standards of the currently adopted
Uniform Fire Code and Uniform Building Code as to the number of exits, and areas
devoted to the use shall be constructed in compliance with the specifications of the
Lakeport fire department as to the floor or floors on which the day care is to be
provided.
SECTION 34. Section 17.24.110.I.7 of 17.24, Development standards and

text:
7. Restroom Facilities. Restroom and shower facilities shall be provided in

accordance with the currently adopted California Building Standards Code as
referenced in Section 15.04.010 of this Code Uniform Building Code.
SECTION 35. [Reserved]
SECTION 36. Section 17.24.110.J.9 of 17.24, Development standards and

text:
9. Restroom Facilities. Restroom and shower facilities shall be provided in

accordance with the currently adopted California Building Standards Code as
referenced in Section 15.04.010 of this Code Uniform Building Code.
SECTION 37. Section 17.24.110.L.6.b of 17.24, Development standards and

text:
b. Compliance with the standards of the City Fire Code, currently adopted
Code State Fire Code, Uniform Fire Code, and Uniform Building Code relative to
the number of entries and exists to the building and other fire safety features.
SECTION 38. Section 17.24.110.M.12 of 17.24, Development standards and

text:
226154.1
12. The proposed residential care facility or large residential care home shall
comply with the requirements of the currently adopted California Building
Standards Code as referenced in Section 15.04.010 of this Code California Building
Code, including approval by the Lakeport County fire protection district indicating
conformance with the fire code.
SECTION 39. Section 17.28.010.F of 17.28, Purpose and intent, of the Lakeport
Municipal Code is hereby amended to state, with the additions marked by bold italics
F. Fire and Explosion Hazards. All activities involving, and all storage of, flammable
and/or explosive materials shall be provided with adequate safety devices against the
hazard of fire and/or explosion and adequate fire fighting and fire suppression
equipment and devices standard in the industry as required by the currently adopted
Uniform Fire Code.
SECTION 40. Section 17.28.010.M of 17.28, Purpose and intent, of the Lakeport
M. Projection of Eaves and Canopies. Architectural features on primary buildings such

as cornices, eaves, or canopies may not extend closer than three feet to any side lot line.
Eaves and canopies may extend a maximum of three feet into the required front or rear
yard area. Architectural features in commercial zoning districts may extend beyond the
property line assuming that requirements comply with the currently adopted California
Building Standards Code as referenced in Section 15.04.010 of this Code fire safety
regulations and Uniform Building Code requirements are complied with.
SECTION 41. Section 17.28.010.O.4 of 17.28, Purpose and intent, of the Lakeport
4. Retaining walls are permitted along all property lines for the purpose of
retaining natural grade or engineered fill areas subject to the issuance and approval
of a building permit in compliance with the currently adopted California Building
Standards Code as referenced in Section 15.04.010 of this Code Uniform Building
Code. All retaining walls in excess of four feet in height measured from the footing
shall be designed by a civil or structural engineer. Retaining walls of any height may
be constructed adjacent or along all property lines without setback requirements.
SECTION 42. Section 17.28.010.Q.1 of 17.28, Purpose and intent, of the Lakeport
226154.1
1. All decks shall have a rail for safety in accordance with the requirements of the
currently adopted California Building Standards Code as referenced in Section
15.04.010 of this Code Uniform Building Code.
SECTION 43. Section 17.28.010.T of 17.28, Purpose and intent, of the Lakeport
T. Swimming Pools. Swimming pools in residential districts shall be constructed on the

rear one-half of all lots or fifty feet from the front property line, whichever is less. Pools
shall not be located closer than five feet to any rear lot line or side lot line. On the street
side of a corner lot, no pool shall be located closer than ten feet to such street-side lot
line. Filter and heating systems shall not be located any closer than five feet to any
property line and shall be enclosed within sound and visual structures. Fenced
enclosures, in accordance with the currently adopted California Building Standards
Code as referenced in Section 15.04.010 of this Code Building Code, shall be provided
around swimming pools.
SECTION 44. Section 17.28.010.BB of 17.28, Purpose and intent, of the Lakeport
BB. Fabric Covered Carports and Accessory Sheds. All fabric covered carports, sheds, or
similar facilities shall comply with city setback requirements in the zone in which they
are located. Unless the facility is considered a structure under the currently adopted
Building Code, no building permit shall be required for their placement. Fabric covered
facilities shall be properly maintained, cleaned, and repaired as necessary. There shall
be no electricity or other utilities provided to fabric covered carports, sheds, or similar
facilities.
SECTION 45. Section 17.37.010 of 17.37, Purpose and applicability, of the

To promote consistency and precision in the interpretation of the zoning ordinance. The
meaning and construction of words and phrases as set forth shall apply throughout the
zoning ordinance, except where the context of such words and phrases clearly indicates
a different meaning or construction. Definitions contained in the currently adopted
Uniform Building Code shall be applicable except when in conflict with definitions
contained in the zoning ordinance, in which case the zoning ordinance definitions shall
prevail. (Ord. 796 Att. A(part), 1999)
226154.1
SECTION 46. Section 17.52.040.O.6 of 17.52, Purpose and applicability, of the
6. Sign Construction. All signs and their installation shall comply with all currently
adopted California Building Standards Code as referenced in Section 15.04.010 of
this Code applicable building and electrical codes.
SECTION 47 . Severability: Should any provision of this Ordinance, or its

application to any person or circumstance, be determined by a court of competent
jurisdiction to be unlawful, unenforceable or otherwise void, that determination shall
have no effect on any other provision of this Ordinance or the application of this
Ordinance to any other person or circumstance and, to that end, the provisions hereof
are severable.
SECTION 48 . CEQA. The project is exempt from environmental review per CEQA
Guidelines under the General Rule (Section 15061(b)(3)). The project involves updates
and revisions to existing regulations. The proposed code amendments are consistent with
California Law, specifically Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. It can be seen
with certainty that the proposed Municipal Code text amendments will have no significant
negative effect on the environment.
SECTION 49 . Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days
after adoption as provided by Government Code section 36937.
SECTION 50 . Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and
adoption of this Ordinance and shall give notice of its adoption as required by law.
Pursuant to Government Code section 36933, a summary of this Ordinance may be
published and posted in lieu of publication and posting the entire text.
INTRODUCED and first read at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 17th day of
March, 2020, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
FINAL PASSAGE AND ADOPTION by the City Council of Lakeport occurred at a meeting
thereof held on the 7th day of April, 2020, by the following vote:
AYES:
226154.1
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
___________________________
GEORGE SPURR, MAYOR
ATTEST:
_____________________________
KELLY BUENDIA, City Clerk
City of Lakeport
226154.1
CITY OF LAKEPORT
City Council
STAFF REPORT
RE: Adoption of the Lake County Master Broadband Plan MEETING DATE: 03/17/2020
SUBMITTED BY: Kevin M. Ingram, Assistant City Manager

The City Council is being requested to review and adopt the Lake County Master Broadband Plan as
prepared by the Upstate California Connect Consortium and CSU Chico, Geographic Information Center.
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION:

An advanced communications network such as broadband, or high speed internet, is a critical 21st
century infrastructure and a key technology for economic competiveness, education, public health and
safety. Broadband access and digital literacy skills have become a necessity in the daily lives of modern
society and fundamental to our economy.
Rural areas such as Lake County have lagged behind more urban areas in the provision of broadband
and/or high speed internet service. Bridging this divide has been a high priority for many civic and
governmental organizations throughout the County. The completion of a broadband feasibility study is
noted specifically as a key improvement element within the City’s Economic Development Strategic
Plan. Improvement of Broadband Services was also identified as ‘Champion Project’ by the Lake
County Chamber of Commerce. The recently completed Pathway to Prosperity Plan, that forms the
basis of the Lake Economic Development Corporation (Lake EDC) mission, identifies the creation of
better access to high speed internet through broadband as a fundamental tenant of future economic
growth, sustainability and community resiliency.
To address this need, the Lake EDC partnered with the Upstate California Connect Consortium and CSU
Chico, Geographical Information Center to develop the Lake County Master Plan. The plan aims to
provide a comprehensive assessment of the current landscape of broadband services for residential
and business customers, as well as recommendations for improving broadband coverage and service
speeds, developing and implementing local government policies that can ease and support broadband
infrastructure deployments, and improving broadband service adoption.
A key element to the plan is the development of an accurate baseline of existing broadband and
internet service in Lake County. Federal broadband reporting standards are only available at the
census block level. As such, if high speed broadband/internet service is provided to even one (1)
customer within a census block that whole area is considered to have access to high speed
internet/broadband service. This system of reporting has led to the illusion that access to high speed
Meeting Date: 03/17/2020 Page 1 Agenda Item #IV.A.1.

internet/broadband service is more prevalent in Lake County than what truly exists. The development
of a true picture of the existing broadband/internet landscape within this plan is a critical piece to
demonstrating the need for greater service in Lake County and makes available a greater range of
funding sources to address the problem.
The plan includes outlines proven best practices aimed at improving internet/broadband coverage and
speeds as well developing a strategy for developing and expanding internet/broadband providers. The
plan also includes recommendations policies and programs that should be considered by the County
and cities of Lakeport and Clearlake aimed at reducing technical barriers for new broadband
infrastructure developments. These include, but are not limited to: development of a dig once policy,
making publically owned assets available, streamlining the permit and authorization process, and
consider the development of a telecommunications element within the General Plan. The City of
Lakeport has already taken action in the implementation of some of these recommendations including
the adoption of a dig once ordinance and adoption of a more comprehensive telecommunications
ordinance which includes a streamlined process for the utilization of the public right-of-way for the
provision of broadband and telecommunications services.
A complete copy of the Lake County Master Broadband Plan is attached to this staff report.
OPTIONS:
1. Following review, make a motion to adopt the Lake County Master Broadband Plan.
2. Take no action or take action to deny the Lake County Master Broadband Plan.
Alternatively, the City Council could provide other direction.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None Budgeted Item? Yes No
Budget Adjustment Needed? Yes No If yes, amount of appropriation increase:
Affected fund(s): General Fund Water OM Fund Sewer OM Fund Other: RDA
SUGGESTED MOTION:
Motion to adopt the Lake County Master Broadband Plan as prepared by the Upstate California Connect
Consortium and CSU Chico, Geographical Information Center.
Attachments: 1. Lake County Master Broadband Plan
Meeting Date: 03/17/2020 Page 2 Agenda Item #IV.A.1.

Lake County Master Broadband Plan
Telecommunications Infrastructure
Upstate California Connect Consortium
CSU Chico, Geographical Information Center
November 2019
Lake County Master Broadband Plan
Telecommunications Infrastructure
Upstate California Connect Consortium

California State University, Chico
Geographical Information Center
Elaborated by
Jason Schwenkler, Geographical Information Center Director
David Espinoza, Upstate California Connect Consortium Manager/Broadband Specialist (lead author)
Courtney Farrell, Project Manager
Susan Strachan, Project Manager
Tyler Boyle, Senior GIS Analyst
Alice Patterson, Project Analyst
Dan Lucero, Assistant III
Luke Scholl, Technical Editor
2
1 Contents
1 Contents ................................................................................................................................................ 3
2 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................... 5
3 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 6
3.1 Broadband Importance and Applications in Rural Northern California........................................ 7
3.2 Broadband Definition (Federal and State) and California Coverage Goal .................................. 10
3.3 Broadband Demand Drivers........................................................................................................ 12
4 Current Broadband Landscape in the County of Lake ........................................................................ 14
4.1 Broadband Services Availability (Served, Underserved and Unserved Areas) ........................... 14
4.1.1 Wireline and Fixed Wireless Service Availability ................................................................ 15
4.1.2 Advertised Download Speed Availability by ISP.................................................................. 17
4.1.3 Measured Broadband Service and Download Speed Availability ....................................... 26
4.2 Broadband Services Adoption..................................................................................................... 28
4.3 Broadband Service Pricing and Speed Offer ............................................................................... 29
4.4 Middle-Mile Service Availability.................................................................................................. 30
5 Broadband Service Coverage and Infrastructure Expansion Recommendations ............................... 33
5.1 Eligible Areas for Federal and State Broadband Infrastructure Grants ...................................... 33
5.1.1 Eligible Areas for CPUC CASF Broadband Infrastructure Grants ......................................... 33
5.1.2 Eligible Areas for USDA Reconnect Program ...................................................................... 34
5.2 Local Partner Input and Priority Areas Selection for Broadband Projects .................................. 37
5.2.1 Input from Local Partners to Identify Broadband Needs .................................................... 37
5.2.2 Economic Development Strategy for Lake County – Dr. Eyler’s Report ............................. 38
5.2.3 Priority Areas Selection for Broadband Deployments ........................................................ 39
5.2.4 Broadband Technology Options for Broadband Deployments ........................................... 39
5.3 Partnership with Caltrans Projects along State Highways .......................................................... 41
6 Policy Recommendations to Support Broadband Infrastructure Deployment................................... 43
6.1 Policy Issues and Considerations ................................................................................................ 43
6.1.1 Ease for Broadband Infrastructure Deployments ............................................................... 43
6.1.2 Priority Areas for Broadband Infrastructure Deployments ................................................ 43
6.1.3 Partnerships for Broadband Infrastructure Projects .......................................................... 44
6.1.4 Promote Broadband Services Adoption to Foster Economic Development ....................... 44
6.2 Policies for Promoting and Improving Telecommunications Infrastructure .............................. 44
6.2.1 Dig-once Policy .................................................................................................................... 45
6.2.2 Develop Conduit Specifications .......................................................................................... 45
3
6.2.3 Master Lease Agreement .................................................................................................... 46
6.2.4 Streamline Application Process and Permit Fees ............................................................... 46
6.3 Sample Telecommunications Element for County or City General Plans ................................... 46
7 Recommendations to Improve Broadband Service Adoption ............................................................ 50
8 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 51
9 Appendices .......................................................................................................................................... 53
9.1 Appendix A - Broadband Service Benchmarks ............................................................................ 53
9.1.1 Downstream/Upstream Broadband Speeds (Mbps) .......................................................... 53
9.1.2 Supplemental Benchmark Metrics ...................................................................................... 53
9.2 Appendix B: Middle-, Second- and Last-Mile Broadband Technologies ..................................... 53
9.2.1 Wireline Broadband ............................................................................................................ 55
9.2.2 Fixed Wireless Broadband .................................................................................................. 56
9.2.3 Mobile Broadband .............................................................................................................. 57
9.2.4 New Technologies for Middle- and Last-Mile ..................................................................... 58
9.3 Appendix C: Lakeport Broadband Availability ............................................................................ 59
9.4 Appendix D: Clearlake Broadband Availability............................................................................ 71
10 Glossary ........................................................................................................................................... 83
4
2 Executive Summary
The following Master Broadband Plan for Lake County aims to provide a comprehensive
assessment of the current landscape of broadband services for residential and business customers, as well
as recommendations for improving broadband coverage and service speeds, developing and
implementing local government policies that can ease and support broadband infrastructure
deployments, and improving broadband service adoption.
The broadband assessment includes both wireline and fixed wireless services offered by Internet
service providers (ISPs) and uses publicly available data from the California Public Utilities Commission
(CPUC) and its California Broadband Interactive Map. The assessment includes detailed footprints and
available downstream speeds reported by each ISP, and CPUC methods used to provide feedback or
validation of such reported speeds. Current levels of aggregated broadband service adoption
(subscribership) are presented along with current Internet service pricing.
The recommendations for improving coverage and speeds, based on current ISPs’ coverage and
technology characteristics, focus on upgrading, expanding, or launching broadband networks and services
to reach areas of interest (i.e., unserved residential and business areas) in Lake County. This section
presents two potential funding sources to carry out broadband infrastructure deployments, the California
Advanced Services Fund (CASF) program and the USDA Reconnect Program, along with maps of eligible
areas for these grants. To define potential project areas for these grants, this section also present a
collaborative approach based on local partner or stakeholder input.
The recommendations for developing and implementing local policies focus on reducing technical
and economic barriers for new broadband infrastructure deployments (i.e., dig-once policy and conduit
standard development), making publicly owned assets available, and streamlining the permit and
authorization process in public right-of-way. This section also recommends updating the County General
Plan and incorporating a Telecommunications Element in order to include specific goals, policies, and
actions that can support and promote broadband infrastructure and services expansion.
Finally, the recommendations for improving broadband adoption include forming partnerships
with existing organizations and programs to establish credibility and identifying best practices for
outreach, implementation, follow-through, and success.
5
3 Introduction
The County of Lake is a rural county in Northern California, and is roughly 100 miles north of the
Bay Area (Figure 1), with a 2015 population of 64,665 residents across two incorporated cities, numerous
smaller census-designated places (CDPs) and other rural communities. Lake County is centered around
Clear Lake, the largest natural lake entirely within California. Lake County has a large agricultural
community, and is home to many vineyards and wineries. Major agricultural commodities include grapes,
pears, and walnuts1. Lake County was founded on May 20, 1861. The county seat, Lakeport, was
incorporated April 30, 1888.
Lake County has a wide variety of industries, some of which include Adobe Creek Orchards, and
Calpine, which is the United States’ largest producer of natural gas and geothermal electricity and
operates three geothermal power plants in Lake County; when taken together these plants account for
roughly 10 percent of the renewable electricity generated in California. There are also many historic and
natural attractions such as Clear Lake State Park, Anderson Marsh State Historic Park, and the Historic
Courthouse Museum.
Figure 1. County of Lake in California
The County of Lake also faces some challenges. The county tends to fare lower than the California
average in terms of income, poverty, and educational attainment indicators. In 2017, the median
household income in Lake County was $36,132, 43 percent lower than California’s median income of
1
County of Lake website: http://www.co.Lake.ca.us/
6
$63,783. The county also faces a high level of poverty, with 20.7 percent of residents considered
impoverished compared to only 14.3 percent statewide. Whereas 32 percent of all California citizens aged
25 and over hold four-year college degrees or higher, only 16.2 percent of this age group in Lake County
holds four-year degrees.
Section 3.1 Broadband Importance and Applications in Rural Northern California describes
different approaches where broadband can help to improve the aforementioned indicators in Lake
County. The following subsection presents definitions of broadband adopted by the California Public
Utility Commission (CPUC) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
3.1 Broadband Importance and Applications in Rural Northern California

Education
High-speed access is integral in connecting teachers to students, parents and educational
resources. The rural digital divide diminishes access to educational opportunities, resources and sources
of academic and professional support2. Without adequate high-speed connectivity, rural schools and
students are challenged to obtain skills and information needed for success. Teachers and administrators
also benefit from the capabilities associated with access to high-speed Internet service. Many rural school
teachers and administrators cite connectivity limitations as the primary obstacle to effectively using
technology in the classroom3. Additionally, students may lack broadband (or any) connectivity at home,
putting them at a disadvantage when completing assignments that require online access and interaction.
As more bandwidth intensive material moves online—such as educational videos, interactive learning
tools, and video conferencing tools for teachers—connection speed is quickly becoming a major issue for
rural educators4. By eliminating these barriers through expanded access, schools can provide curriculums
that are currently unavailable due to limited resources or lack of subject-matter experts. Four of the forty-
four schools located in Lake County are currently unserved by California’s K–12 High-Speed Network5;
with speeds of 10 Mbps download or below, and with two schools having less than 2 Mbps download.
Health Care
The health care sector is emerging as a heavy user of telecommunications services. Improved
imaging techniques produce large data files and moving these files between providers requires substantial
capacity. A location that does not have the telecommunications capacity for efficiently uploading and
downloading large imaging files may find health care providers deciding either not to locate there or
limiting the services provided there6. Telehealth is a care delivery mode that can provide access to
specialists for treatment of multiple conditions. It can provide more effective and efficient health care
delivery by connecting physicians with physicians and patients with physicians7. The evidence for
technologies that lower costs, connect remote populations, and expand the reach of urban-centered
medical expertise is strong. Access to reliable, sufficient and affordable broadband is increasingly
2
Howley, C., Kim, K., & Kane, S. (2012, June). Broadband and Rural Education: An Examination of the Challenges,
Opportunities, and Support Structures that Impact Broadband and Rural Education.
3
Ibid.
4
Ibid.
5
K12HSN Datalink – Listing by District. https://datalink.k12hsn.org/listing/11. Accessed: 2/7/18.
6
Kuttner, H. (2012). Broadband for Rural America: Economic Impacts and Economic Opportunities. Broadband for
Rural America: Economic IEconomic Summit on the Future of Rural Telecommunications. Washington, DC.
7
Kvedar, J. C. (2014, February). Connected Health: A Review of Technologies and Strategies to Improve Patient Care
with Telemedicine and Telehealth. Health Affairs, 33(2), 194-199.
7
important to providing high-quality health care, and it has become an essential infrastructural need for all
hospitals and health systems8. The California Telehealth Network (CTN) offers two primary services: a
secure, private health care network with subsidies for monthly costs and CTN Connect, which provides
web-based videoconferencing. Lake County does not currently participate in the California Telehealth
Network (CTN)9.
Agriculture
Rural broadband planning has historically excluded the importance of fast, reliable Internet access
for agricultural areas. The rise of “precision agriculture” combined with increasing interest in the use of
“telematics” and “big data” for agriculture, raises the question of how available broadband connectivity
is for U.S. farms10. Simply defined, precision agriculture is the application of information technology to
farm-level production operations and management decision-making. Precision agriculture also offers
opportunities for improved farming efficiency, food safety and enhanced environmental sustainability11.
Broadband is increasingly becoming the backbone for innovative technological tools farms and ranchers
use to maintain greater control over crop and livestock production, processing, distribution, and storage
resulting in greater efficiencies, lower prices, safer growing conditions, safer foods and reduced
environmental and ecological impact. Little information is available about the adoption of precision
agriculture technologies in Lake County. A UC Cooperative Extension Office is located in Lakeport and can
provide information to growers on use of the technologies.
Manufacturing
According to the National Association of Manufacturers, manufacturers leverage the Internet to
compete in global markets, deploy new technologies, connect their workforce and customers, reduce
costs, cut waste, enhance the environment and create safer, more reliable products12. Manufacturing
establishments in rural areas are involved in a variety of sectors: value-added food production, natural
resource processing, infrastructure management and clean-energy facilities. For these industries,
adequate broadband service has been documented as necessary for food supply chain management,
mining safety and transportation and logistics13. No program currently tracks broadband-enabled
manufacturing.
Economic Development
Broadband availability is positively related to employment growth. This relationship is stronger in
areas with lower population density consistent with the theory that smaller or more isolated areas may
benefit more from high-speed connections, giving businesses in these areas access to larger markets14.
8
Rural Health Information Hub. (2017). Retrieved from https://www.ruralhealthinfo.org/topics/health-
information-technology. Retrieved from https://www.ruralhealthinfo.org/.
9
California Telehealth Network - Participating Sites. https://www.caltelehealth.org/participating-sites Accessed
February 21, 2018.
10
Whitacre, B., Gallardo, R., & Strover, S. (2014, June). Broadband's contribution to economic growth in rural areas
- Moving towards a causal relationship.
11
Aubert, B., Schroeder, A., & Grimaudo, J. (2012). IT as enabler of sustainable farming: An empirical analysis of
farmers' adoption decision of precision agriculture technology.
12
National Association of Manufacturers. (2017). Retrieved from www.man.org.
13
Xu, L., Wu, H., & Shancang, L. (2014, November). Internet of Things in Industries: A Survey. IEEE Transactions on
Industrial Informatics, 10(4).
14
Kolko, J. (2010). Does Broadband Boost Local Economic Development. Public Policy Institute of California, San
Francisco. Retrieved from http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/r_110jkr.PDF
8
Moving from no broadband providers to one to three providers (the FCC categorizes instances of 1 to 3
providers as a single statistic in its reporting) was associated with an increase in employment growth of
roughly 6.4 percent between 1999 and 200615. Available broadband speed is also a factor in economic
growth. Research shows that offering the minimum broadband service to all businesses and residents is
not enough to close the rural digital divide. Poverty levels are about 2 to 6 percentage points lower in
rural counties with high download speeds compared to otherwise similar counties16. There is a causal
relationship between broadband adoption in rural areas (defined as county-level adoption rates >60
percent) and higher levels of median household income growth and reduced unemployment when
compared with similar counties that do not meet the threshold17.
Workforce Development
Broadband increases learning opportunities in rural communities through online education.
Distance, online, and hybrid instruction provide access to learning for individuals who cannot always be
physically present in a traditional classroom setting or who may not be available at the specific times
classes are being offered. According to the Pew Research Center18, 54 percent of Americans go online to
look for job-related information and 45 percent have applied for a job online. Employers need broadband
to access online training and classes to improve their employees’ skills. Many businesses do not have the
budgets to send employees to professional development or are too small to send an employee away from
operations. Bringing professional development in-house eliminates those challenges. In a fall, 2015
assessment of the geographic distribution of CSU, Chico distance and online education students, two
students out of 191 were located in Lake County (Lakeport and Cobb). The ZIP Code of the student located
in Lakeport was mapped as 97 percent likely to be served at, what was then, the state standard of 6 Mbps
download/2 Mbps upload and 94 percent likely to be served at the federal standard of 25 Mbps
download/3 Mbps upload, while the ZIP Code of the student in Cobb was mapped as 59 percent likely to
be served at, what was then, the state standard of 6 Mbps download/2 Mbps upload and 50 percent likely
to be served at the federal standard of 25 Mbps download/3 Mbps upload. The speed at which the actual
students’ homes were served is unknown.
Tribal Communities
American Community Survey data shows that residents of tribal lands often lack basic infrastructure
and telecommunications services. Tribal lands are among the most underserved areas in terms of
broadband service, often due to remote and challenging terrain, low incomes, lack of expertise with
telecommunications and barriers associated with bureaucratic government programs (U.S. Government
Accountability Office, 2016)19 (Morran, 2016). As a result, the economic, educational and communication
benefits associated with broadband are largely absent for most people living on tribal lands (Broadband
for Tribal, n.d.).
Emergency Services
Scarcity of broadband capacity in rural areas limits emergency services’ communication capacity
and response capability. Cutting-edge technologies are critical for public safety communications allowing
15
Ibid.
16
Whitacre, B., Mark, T., & Griffin, T. (2014). How COnnected are Our Farms. Choices: The Magazine of Food,
Farm, and Resources Issues.
17
Ibid.
18
Pew Research Center Internet & Technology. (2015). Retrieved from www.pewinternet.org/2015/11/19/1-the-
internet-and-job-seeking/
19
https://www.gao.gov/
9
first responders to send and receive critical voice, video and data to save lives, reduce injuries, prevent
crime and terror and notify community members about emergencies and disasters. Rural geographies are
in need of integrated and interoperable systems to increase capacity, security and accessibility among
emergency responders. The current anchor institutions database for Lake County shows twenty-two
public safety locations in Lake County. The Upstate Broadband Consortium is currently working to confirm
and update the locations of public safety facilities and their access to broadband for its counties. AT&T
Mobility has been awarded a federal contract to deploy FirstNet, a public safety broadband network.
3.2 Broadband Definition (Federal and State) and California Coverage Goal
The term "broadband" commonly refers to high-speed Internet access that is always on and faster
than traditional dial-up access (56 kbps). In this subsection, we present federal and state definitions of
broadband and statistics of served, underserved and unserved areas based on these definitions.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) defines advanced telecommunications capability
(broadband) primarily in terms of downstream and upstream speeds, as this is a particularly useful metric
for analyzing the deployment of these services. In the 2015 Broadband Progress Report20, the FCC updated
the definition of broadband to 25 Mbps downstream and 3 Mbps upstream (previously defined as 4 Mbps
downstream and 1 Mbps upstream). In 2017, the California legislature changed the definition of unserved
areas to areas where broadband is offered at slower speeds than 6 Mbps downstream and 1 Mbps
upstream21. For more details on broadband service benchmarks see Section 9.1 Appendix A - Broadband
Service Benchmarks.
According to the FCC’s 2016 Broadband Progress Report22, nationwide there is a population of
33,981,660 (10 percent of the total population) without access to fixed broadband at current FCC
broadband speed rates (25 Mbps downstream/3 Mbps upstream). Based on residence area, 10,551,623
residents without access are located in urban areas, and 23,430,037 are located in rural areas, accounting
for 4 percent and 39 percent of the urban and rural population, respectively. At the state level, there is a
population of around 2 million people (5 percent of the state population) without access to fixed
broadband services at FCC speed rates. Breaking down this population by residence area, 920,182 of these
residents are in urban areas (2 percent of urban population) and 1,096,984 are in rural areas (61 percent
of rural population). Regarding tribal lands in California, 29,052 people (51 percent of the population)
have no access to fixed broadband. This report also shows that only 37 percent of the United States’, and
43 percent of California’s populations have adopted broadband.
The California Public Utilities Commission’s (CPUC) latest broadband service availability data23, as
of December 2017 and released on December 2018, provided statistics regarding recent availability for
wireline (DSL, cable modem and fiber-to-the-home), and fixed wireless broadband services. Table 1 and
Table 2 show the broadband availability by technology in California based on the CPUC’s definitions of
20
Federal Communications Commission (FCC). (2015, January). 2015 Broadband Progress Report. Retrieved June
2017, from https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-10A1.pdf
21
California Legislative Information (CALEG). (2017, October). AB-1665 Telecommunications: California Advanced
Services Fund. Retrieved Dec 2017, from
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB1665.
22
23
California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). California Broadband Validation Methods: Round 2017. Data as of
Dec. 31st, 2016.
10
served (at least 6 Mbps downstream and 1 Mbps upstream), unserved (less than 6 Mbps downstream or
1 Mbps upstream), and no service (no availability or no available data) areas. The State of California’s goal
is to provide access to 98 percent of California households24.
Table 1. California Households Served by Broadband Technology 2017 (CPUC 2018)
Total Unserved Households Unserved Households

Served Households
Households with Slow Service with No Service
Wireline 13,113,840 12,505,598 95.4% 115,598 0.9% 492,645 3.8%
Fixed Wireless 13,113,840 450,718 3.4% 32,519 0.2% 12,630,604 96.3%
Combined 13,113,840 12,649,624 96.5% 92,128 0.7% 372,088 2.8%
Table 2. California Rural and Urban Households Served by Technology 2017 (CPUC 2018)
Statewide Urban Households Rural Households

Households Served Served Served
Wireline 95.4 % 97.7% 53.6%
Fixed Wireless 3.4% 1.9% 30.8%
Combined 96.5 % 97.8% 72.5%
DIGITAL DIVIDE INDEX

The Digital Divide Index (DDI) is a measurement of technological equality in access to and adoption
of broadband that provides metrics by census tract and county. A higher DDI indicates an area that suffers
more severely from the digital divide. Table 3 provides the overall DDI, along with some of the underlying
statistics for Lake County, with Sacramento and Santa Clara counties provided for comparison25. Lake
County exhibits a higher DDI than the other two counties, along with a higher percentage of population
without access to the FCC’s broadband speed, and lower advertised speed offers. This table also shows
lower levels of broadband penetration (connections) in Lake County.
Table 3. 2015 Digital Divide Index Data
2015 Digital Divide Index Data

Lake Sacramento Santa Clara
Overall Digital Divide Index 52 33 26
Per. of pop. with no access to fixed broadband (25/3)* 16 2 0
Avg. advertised fixed download speed 25 36 46
Avg. advertised fixed upload speed 4 9 13
Fixed residential connections per 1,000 homes (10/1)** 40.0–59.9% 60.0–79.9% 60.0–79.9%
*25 Mbps download/3 Mbps upload is the criterion access to broadband.
**10 Mbps download/1 Mbps upload is the speed for which adoption is assessed.
24
Pub. Util. Code section 281(b)(1) states; “The goal of the program is, no later than December 31, 2015, to
approve funding for infrastructure projects that will provide broadband access to no less than 98 percent of
California households.”
25
2015 Digital Divide Index. Starkville, MS: MSU Extension Service Intelligent Community Institute.
http://ici.msucares.com/sites/ici.msucares.com/files/2015_ddi.pdf Accessed 2/7/18.
11
3.3 Broadband Demand Drivers
This subsection presents applications that, in recent years, have driven up broadband demand both
in terms of customer and speed demands. There is an increasing reliance on broadband to perform
multiple functions, and instances of consumers within a single household routinely using multiple
applications simultaneously. According to the FFC's 2015 Broadband Progress Report26, the following
applications are the main drivers for broadband demand:
 Video services: Video services provide a wide range of options including video streaming, video
on demand (VoD), IP TV, video games and video conferencing. According to the 2014 Sandvine
Report, real-time entertainment such as video streaming is responsible for over 67 percent of
downstream bytes during peak periods27. Table 4 shows downstream speeds for video services
recommended by three technology companies. Based on 2014 consumer statistics, approximately
77 percent of households in the United States have at least one high-definition television (HDTV)
set, and about 46 percent of all households have multiple HDTVs.28 Video conferencing is also
facing increasing levels of usage, such as for telemedicine and distance education.
Table 4. Recommended downstream speeds for video services
Service Downstream Recommendation

HD video 5 Mbps Netflix
Ultra HD quality video 25 Mbps Netflix
720p video 6 Mbps Apple
1080p HD video 8 Mbps Apple
HD video 5 Mbps DISH
 Data services: According to the 2014 Sandvine report, web-browsing is responsible for
approximately 10 percent of downstream data traffic during peak period Internet use. Data
transfer is another application that is growing in demand and is commonly used in telecommuting.
Downstream speeds impact the time websites take to fully load, and the time files take to transfer
from servers to user's devices.
 Voice services: Voice services have been replacing traditional telephone service by allowing users
to make phone calls using broadband connections; also called VoIP technology. According to the
2014 FCC Local Competition Report, residential VoIP subscribers increased from 19.7 million in
December 2008 to 37.7 million in December 2013.29 VoIP applications require a minimum of 100
kbps downstream and upstream speeds to enable real-time voice communications.
26
Federal Communications Commission (FCC). (2015, February 4). 2015 Broadband Progress Report and Notice of
Inquiry on Immediate Action to Accelerate Deployment. Federal Communications Commission Hearing,
Washington, D.C., FCC 15-10, 21-25.
27
Sandvine Intelligent Broadband Networks, Global Internet Phenomena Report, 2H 2014 at 5 (2014),
https://www.sandvine.com/downloads/general/global-internet-phenomena/2014/2h-2014-global-
internetphenomena-report.pdf (2014 Sandvine Report).
28
See Press Release, Leichtman Research Group, The Majority of TV Sets Used in U.S. Households are Now HDTVs,
4K Ultra HDTV in Early Stages of Development (Mar. 7, 2014),
http://www.leichtmanresearch.com/press/030714release.html.
29
Industry Analysis and Technology Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, Local Telephone Competition: Status as
of December 31, 2013 at 14 (Oct. 2014),
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2014/db1016/DOC-329975A1.pdf.
12
 Social networking and cloud applications: Social networking applications have increased in
demand and, as of 2015, approximately 73 percent of adults online use a social networking site
of some kind30. Cloud computing has also risen in demand due to its capability to allow users to
store and access data and information (photos, music, emails, documents, etc.) over the Internet.
 Machine-to-machine applications: Machine-to-machine applications include smart meters, video
surveillance, health care monitoring, transportation and package/asset tracking. In 2013, Cisco
Systems reported that 33 percent of IP traffic originated with non-PC devices, but predicted that
by 2018 the non-PC share of total IP traffic would grow to 57 percent.
This section provided broadband definitions and current context, both nation and statewide, to
assist with understanding the importance of expanding broadband infrastructure deployments and
adoption programs in the County of Lake, and its cities and rural communities. The importance relies on
the broadband capability to expand the reach of programs in the fields of education, health care,
agriculture, manufacturing, economic and workforce development, tribal communities, and emergency
services, among others. This section also presented demand drivers for broadband services, including
video, data, voice, social networking, cloud, and machine-to-machine application. The following section
presents the current broadband landscape in Lake County based on CPUC’s broadband service availability
data.
30
Maeve Duggan & Aaron Smith, Social Media Update 2013, Pew Res. Internet Project (Dec. 30, 2013),
http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/12/30/social-media-update-2013/.
13
4 Current Broadband Landscape in the County of Lake
This section provides a comprehensive assessment of the broadband landscape in the County of
Lake including both wireline and fixed wireless services offered by Internet service providers (ISPs) for
residential and business customers. The assessment uses publicly available broadband availability data
from the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and its California Broadband Interactive Map31. It
includes detailed footprints and available downstream speeds reported by each ISP, along with CPUC
methods used to provide feedback or validation of such reported speeds (i.e., CalSPEED and CPUC Public
Feedback Form). The assessment also presents aggregated broadband service adoption levels
(subscribership), Internet service pricing, and availability of high-capacity middle-mile infrastructure.
4.1 Broadband Services Availability (Served, Underserved and Unserved Areas)

This subsection presents the advertised broadband service availability in the County of Lake,
based on the CPUC's broadband availability data as of December 2017 (released on December 2018). The
advertised service availability data are collected by the CPUC from a majority of broadband service
providers in the State. Most of the broadband availability is provided by last-mile broadband service
providers32. Coverage data for wireline and fixed wireless providers are reported at the census block level.
The data are mapped and validated for accuracy using CPUC’s broadband validation methods33. For this
report, broadband availability data plots are generated from the California Interactive Broadband Map34.
Broadband service availability for Lakeport and Clearlake is available in Sections 9.3 Appendix C:
Lakeport Broadband Availability and 9.4 Appendix D: Clearlake Broadband Availability.
Table 5 shows the major residential and business Internet service providers in the County of Lake
and the technology used to provide services, from DSL, cable and fiber optics, to terrestrial fixed wireless.
Table 5. Technology offerings by Internet service provider in Lake County
Internet Service Provider Service Type Technologies Offered

Allstream Business US Inc. Business Only • Other Copper Wireline
• Asymmetric xDSL
AT&T California Residential & Business
• ADSL2, ADSL2+
DigitalPath, Inc. Residential & Business • Terrestrial Fixed Wireless
EarthLink Business, LLC Business Only • Asymmetric xDSL
• Other Copper Wireline
Level 3 Business Only
• Fiber to the end user
MCI Business Only • Other Copper Wireline
• Cable Modem DOCSIS 3.0
Mediacom California LLC Residential Only
• Cable Modem DOCSIS 3.1
North Coast Internet Residential & Business • Terrestrial Fixed Wireless
31
CPUC’s California Interactive Broadband Map: http://www.broadbandmap.ca.gov/
32
For a detailed description of last-mile broadband technologies see Appendix B: Middle-, Second- and Last-Mile
Broadband Technologies.
33
California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). California Broadband Validation Methods: Round 2017. Data as of
Dec. 31st, 2016.
34
CPUC’s California Interactive Broadband Map available in http://www.broadbandmap.ca.gov/.
14
• Other Copper Wireline
US TelePacific Corp. Business Only
• Fiber to the end user
Valley Internet Residential & Business • Terrestrial Fixed Wireless
4.1.1 Wireline and Fixed Wireless Service Availability
Wireline Service Availability

Figure 2 shows wireline served areas and downstream speeds in Lake County as of December
2017. For more details on the technical capabilities and limitations of wired technologies, see Section 9.2
Appendix B: Middle-, Second- and Last-Mile Broadband Technologies. Figure 2 shows that the highest
available downstream speeds (1–2 Gbps) are mostly located around Clear Lake as well as in the
communities of Hidden Valley Lake and Middletown in the southern part of the county (purple areas).
Speeds of 10 to 25 (green areas) can be found in the community of Cobb and the surrounding areas, as
well as in the community of Nice. Other areas with downstream speeds lower than 10 Mbps (brown, light-
brown, and yellow areas) are scattered throughout the county, with the largest areas located south of
Lakeport and Kelseyville, as well as in the southeast of the county.
Figure 2. Wireline served status (December 2017) in Lake County under CPUC standard
15
Fixed Wireless Service Availability
Figure 3 shows the fixed wireless downstream speeds of Lake County as of December 2017.
Depending on the location of towers, access points or base stations, and line-of-sight (no visible
obstructions) to customer premises, fixed wireless service can cover wide areas, and in this case, most of
the valley in the County of Lake. However, accurate coverage is difficult to estimate due to environmental
factors such as trees, buildings and topography, each of which can affect availability of the fixed wireless
service. The coverage shown represents best efforts to visualize terrestrial fixed wireless coverage. For
more details on the technical capabilities and limitations of fixed wireless technologies, see Section 9.2
Appendix B: Middle-, Second- and Last-Mile Broadband Technologies.
Figure 3 shows that wireless downstream speeds of 10-50 Mbps (green and light-green areas) can
be found scattered throughout Lake County. Fairly large portions of North Lakeport, Lucerne, Spring
Valley, and Clearlake Riviera have wireless service, while only small portions of Lakeport, Cobb,
Middletown, Hidden Valley Lake, Lower Lake, and Clearlake currently have fixed wireless service. Several
unincorporated areas in the south and west of the county also have fixed wireless access with speeds of
10 to 50 Mbps, while a few smaller areas in the northwest and southeast have speeds of only 6 to 10
Mbps (brown areas).
Figure 3. Fixed wireless served status in Lake County (December 2017) under CPUC standard
16
Table shows the reported broadband coverage under the CPUC standard (6 Mbps/1 Mbps) of the
major residential Internet service providers (wireline and fixed wireless) in Lake County by housing units,
population, and census blocks. Of the wireline providers, Mediacom serves the most housing units and
population, 74.6 percent and 76.2 percent, respectively. AT&T also has fairly extensive coverage in the
county, but with ubiquitous downstream speeds of 1 Mbps or less, AT&T’s broadband offerings do not
meet the CPUC’s standard for served status. Of the fixed wireless providers, DigitalPath and Valley
Internet serve the most housing units and population, 19.7 percent and 8.9 percent, and 18.6 percent and
9.6 percent, respectively. North Coast Internet also provides fixed wireless broadband in Lake County,
serving 5.9 percent of housing units and 6 percent of the county’s population.
Table 6. Main Internet service providers coverage (December 2017) under the CPUC standard (6 Mbps
downstream and 1 Mbps upstream)
Housing Units Population Census Blocks
Served Unserved Served Unserved Served Unserved
Residential Wireline Provider
0 34560 0 65081 0 5164

AT&T California
(0%) (100%) (0%) (100%) (0%) (100%)
25793 8767 49584 15497 1104 4060

Mediacom California LLC
(74.6%) (25.4%) (76.2%) (23.8%) (21.4%) (78.6%)
Residential Fixed Wireless Provider
6801 27759 12084 52997 500 4664

DigitalPath, Inc
(19.7%) (80.3%) (18.6%) (81.4%) (9.7%) (90.3%)
2054 32506 3882 61199 136 5028

North Coast Internet
(5.9%) (94.1%) (6%) (94%) (2.6%) (97.4%)
3082 31478 6244 58837 367 4797

Valley Internet
(8.9%) (91.1%) (9.6%) (90.4%) (7.1%) (92.9%)
4.1.2 Advertised Download Speed Availability by ISP
AT&T California
AT&T offers residential and business services in Lake County using a mix of asymmetric xDSL,
ADSL2 and ADLS2+ technologies. Figure 4 shows broadband speeds offered by AT&T (as of December
2017) with ADSL2 and ADSL2+ technologies. AT&T offers speeds of 10 to 25 Mbps (light-green areas)
throughout most of Lakeport, Nice, Clearlake, Upper Lake, Clearlake Oaks, and Kelseyville. Similar speeds
are offered in roughly fifty percent of Cobb and Hidden Valley Lake. AT&T also serves the southern portion
of North Lakeport with speeds that vary from 200 Kbps to 25 Mbps (green, brown, light-brown, and yellow
areas. AT&T also offers varying speeds up to 25 Mbps in several unincorporated regions in the south and
west of the county.
17
Figure 4. Broadband service speed offered by AT&T California in Lake County (December 2017)
Mediacom California
Mediacom offers cable Internet service to residential and business customers. Figure 5 shows
speeds offered by Mediacom in Lake County (December 2017). Mediacom advertised 1 to less than 2 Gbps
download speeds (purple areas) in areas within and surrounding Clearlake, Lower Lake, Clearlake Oaks,
Lucerne, Nice, Upper Lake, Lakeport, North Lakeport, Soda Bay, Kelseyville, Clearlake Riviera, Hidden
Valley Lake, Middletown and a small area within Cobb.
18
Figure 5. Broadband service speed offered by Mediacom in Lake County (December 2017)
Valley Internet
Valley Internet offers Internet service to residential and business customers. Figure 6 shows
speeds offered by Valley Internet in Lake County (December 2017). Valley Internet advertised 25 to less
than 50 Mbps download speeds (green areas) in portions of Lakeport, North Lakeport, Clearlake, Clearlake
Rivera, and surrounding areas. With speeds over 25 Mbps, these areas are considered served under both
CPUC and FCC standards. Valley Internet also advertised speeds ranging from 6 to less than 25 Mbps (light-
green and brown areas) in portions of Lucerne, Hidden Valley Lake, and Upper Lake.
19
Figure 6. Residential broadband service speed offered by Valley Internet in Lake County (December 2017)
DigitalPath
DigitalPath offers broadband service to residential and business customers through a terrestrial
fixed wireless network. Figure 7 shows speeds offered by DigitalPath in Lake County (December 2017).
Accurate coverage of fixed wireless providers is difficult to estimate due to environmental factors such as
trees, buildings and topography, which can affect availability of fixed wireless service. The coverage shown
represents best efforts to visualize DigitalPath’s coverage. This provider offers downstream speeds of 10
to less than 25 Mbps (light-green areas) in portions of Clearlake, Clearlake Oaks, North Lakeport, Lower
Lake, Cobb, and throughout most of Lucerne.
20
Figure 7. Broadband service speed offered by DigitalPath in Lake County (December 2017).

North Coast Internet offers broadband service to business and residential customers in Lake
County through a terrestrial fixed wireless network. Figure 8 shows broadband service speeds provided
by North Coast Internet of 25 to less than 50 Mbps (green areas) in parts of Clearlake Riviera, Lakeport,
North Lakeport, and in several unincorporated areas near Lakeport, North Lakeport, and Kelseyville.
21
Figure 8. North Coast Internet broadband service coverage in Lake County (December 2017).
Level 3 Communications
Level 3 offers copper wireline and fiber-optic service to business customers in Lake County, shown
in Figure 9. Level 3 reports fiber-optic connections of more than 2 Gbps in an unincorporated area to the
east of Clearlake Oaks (black areas).
22
Figure 9. Level 3's business-class broadband service coverage in Lake County (December 2017)
Earthlink Business
Earthlink is a business-class only broadband service provider and uses asymmetric xDSL, copper
wireline and cable modem technologies. This provider offers speeds of 1 to less than 3 Mbps (light-brown
areas) in areas within Lakeport and Clearlake, shown in Figure 10.
23
Figure 10. Broadband service speed offered by Earthlink in Lake County (December 2017).
U.S. TelePacific
U.S. TelePacific is a business broadband service provider, which offers fiber-to-the-end-user and
copper wireline connectivity. This provider serves businesses in three areas within Lakeport with speeds
of 100 to less than 500 Mbps (blue areas) and 50 to less than 100 Mbps (dark-green areas). Figure 11
shows business-class broadband service provided by U.S. TelePacific.
24
Figure 11. Broadband service speed offered by U.S. TelePacific in Lake County (December 2017).
MCI
MCI is a business-class broadband service provider. Based on CPUC data, MCI uses copper wireline
technology. This provider offers speeds of 1 to less than 3 Mbps service (light-brown area) in an area
within Clearlake, shown in Figure 12.
25
Figure 12. Broadband service speed offered by MCI in Lake County (December 2017).
4.1.3 Measured Broadband Service and Download Speed Availability
The CPUC encourages Internet service customers to provide feedback (validation) of the coverage
and speeds reported by ISPs in order to improve the accuracy of broadband availability data in California.
The CPUC has made available the following methods35 to provide such feedback:
 CalSPEED application for mobile and desktop

 Online survey
 Public Feedback Form (hard copy survey)
The CalSPEED application is a professional-level broadband testing tool that allows conducting
performance testing of both fixed and mobile broadband services. This application was developed at
California State University, Monterey Bay and is used by the CPUC for measuring and validating broadband
coverage from any broadband subscriber location. CalSPEED can be downloaded from www.calspeed.org.
35
CPUC Broadband Availability Public Feedback:
https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/Broadband_Availability_and_Public_Feedback/
26
The broadband testing results are displayed in the user device and then sent to a CPUC server for
displaying on the California Broadband Availability Map36. CalSPEED measures broadband performance
parameters, such as downstream and upstream speeds, latency, and jitter (see detailed definitions in
Section 9.1 Appendix A - Broadband Service Benchmarks). Results of CalSPEED can be used to validate
broadband service availability in a specific geographic region and update the served or unserved (slow
service or no service) status.
Figure 13. CalSPEED desktop versions available in www.calspeed.org
Figure 14 shows current CalSPEED results for fixed broadband services in Lake County (as of June
2018). Clearlake has seven measurement points showing speeds ranging from 1 to less than 50 Mbps.
Lakeport has 6 points showing speeds ranging from 6 to less than 50 Mbps. Clearlake Riviera, Kelseyville,
Soda Bay, and North Lakeport have three points, Hidden Valley Lake has two points, Upper Lake, Nice,
Clearlake Oaks, Middletown, and Cobb each have one point, and there are another nine points across
Lake County. The speed test results in Clearlake Riviera, Kelseyville, North Lakeport and other areas show
speeds ranging from <200 kbps to <50 Mbps. The current number of measurements (forty-two points)
does not yet allow for proper validation of broadband availability in the county. More measurement
points are required to assess levels of broadband availability for wireline and fixed wireless broadband
providers.
Other methods, developed and made available by the CPUC, for coverage and speed validation
are the CPUC Public Feedback Form Survey and Online Survey. Links for both surveys can be found at the
following link: https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/Broadband_Availability_and_Public_Feedback/.
36
California Public Utility Commission (CPUC). Broadband Availability Map. http://www.broadbandmap.ca.gov/.
27
Figure 14. CalSPEED fixed test results for the County of Lake
4.2 Broadband Services Adoption

Residential broadband adoption is defined as the number of consumer broadband subscriptions
divided by the total number of households within a defined geographic unit. Data regarding broadband
subscriptions are confidential but the CPUC does publish a limited set of broadband adoption statistics by
census tract. Figure 15 shows adoption rates in Lake County. The CPUC withholds data from some parts
of the county (no colored areas) to protect confidentiality of the individual service providers, due to one
service provider having over 80 percent of the area’s subscriptions, or an area having fewer than three
service providers, in accordance with guidelines developed by the United States Department of
Commerce.
28
Figure 15. Broadband adoption rates in Lake County
Broadband adoption rates in the County of Lake range from 40 percent to >80 percent. The
highest adoption rates of >80 percent are in Middletown, Soda Bay, Clearlake Riviera, and in and around
Hidden Valley Lake. The rest of the county has adoption rates of 40 percent to 80 percent.
4.3 Broadband Service Pricing and Speed Offer

Figure 16 shows broadband service pricing in the County of Lake from October 2017. The figure
presents downstream broadband speed offers and price per Mbps37 (as a standardized pricing unit) for
residential service ISPs such as AT&T, 101 Netlink, Mediacom, DigitalPath, North Coast Internet, and
Internet Free Planet. Repeated ISP labels are due to offering multiple speed tiers in the county.
37
The price per Mbps is calculated by dividing monthly Internet plan price by downstream speed in Mbps offered in
such plan.
29
Figure 16. Broadband service pricing (speed offer and cost per Mbps) in Lake County (Sept 2017)
The following summarizes pricing trends broken down by downstream speed:

1. For downstream speeds of 768 kbps to 3 Mbps, price per Mbps ranges from $10 to $39.1.
2. For a downstream speed of 6 Mbps (CPUC) to 6.5 Mbps, price per Mbps ranges from $5 to $22.3.
3. For downstream speeds of 10 Mbps to 25 Mbps, price per Mbps ranges from $1.7 to $10.3.
4. For downstream speeds of 60 Mbps to 100 Mbps, price per Mbps ranges from $0.5 to $0.7.
These figures and pricing trends indicate the following:
1. Most residential plans in Lake County offer downstream speeds at or below 10 Mbps.
2. Price per Mbps decreases as downstream speed offers increase, which indicates that broadband
technologies providing higher speeds have an overall better service pricing.
4.4 Middle-Mile Service Availability

This subsection presents middle-mile infrastructure (fiber-optic-based backbones) available in the
County of Lake. The middle-mile segment provides high-speed and high-capacity transport and
transmission of data communications from an aggregation point (i.e., central office, cable headend or
wireless switching station) to an Internet point of presence (POP). Availability, affordability and access to
middle-mile infrastructure are critical for planning of last-mile broadband infrastructure projects, and
30
providing either wireline or fixed wireless services to residential and business customers. For a detailed
description on middle-mile broadband technologies see Section 9.2 Appendix B: Middle-, Second- and
Last-Mile Broadband Technologies.
It is important to note that fiber-optic carriers usually do not provide or report information of
their fiber-optic routes. The route information presented in this subsection was collected over the past
few years from unofficial discussions with ISP’s personnel and local government staff with knowledge of
fiber-optic deployments in the county. The Upstate California Connect Consortium is currently working
with ISPs and the CPUC to update and validate fiber-optic routes in rural Northern California.
Figure 17 shows the middle-mile infrastructure (fiber-optic-based backbones) in Lake County

offered by AT&T and Level 3. AT&T’s backbone passes through the county north of Clear Lake and through
the community of Upper Lake. Level 3 has a backbone that travels along the northeast shores of Clear
Lake through the communities of Upper Lake, Nice, Lucerne, and Clearlake Oaks. Potential last-mile
projects located along or near these backbones may negotiate agreements for accessing their high-speed
and high-capacity fiber-optics.
31
Figure 17. Middle-mile infrastructure reported in Lake County
32
5 Broadband Service Coverage and Infrastructure Expansion
Recommendations
This section presents recommendations for expanding, upgrading or launching broadband service
in Lake County. Based on CPUC broadband availability data, subsection 5.1 Eligible Areas for Federal and
State Broadband Infrastructure Grants presents eligible areas for broadband infrastructure grants for
two funding sources, the CPUC California Advanced Services Fund (CASF) and USDA Reconnect Program.
Subsection 5.2 Local Partner Input and Priority Areas Selection for Broadband Projects describes critical
input from local governments, ISPs, and community based organizations to define priority areas for
broadband infrastructure projects. After defining priority areas for projects, the next step is assessing
potential funding sources including ISP’s private investment, ISPs applying to State or Federal grants, or
establishing public-private partnerships between local government and ISPs. Finally, subsection 5.3
Partnership with Caltrans Projects along State Highways presents the current state regulatory
framework which allows for partnerships to install broadband infrastructure along Caltrans projects in
State highways.
5.1 Eligible Areas for Federal and State Broadband Infrastructure Grants
5.1.1 Eligible Areas for CPUC CASF Broadband Infrastructure Grants
AB 1665, approved by the Governor on October 2017, extends the date of the California Advanced
Services Fund (CASF) goal (deploying broadband Internet service at speeds of 6/1Mbps to 98 percent of
household in each consortium region) from 2015 to 2022 and authorizes the CPUC to collect an additional
$300 million to the CASF Broadband Infrastructure Grant Account38. On December 2018, the CPUC
approved the new rules for the Infrastructure Grant Account (Proceeding R1210012). As per the new rules,
the CPUC is allowed to fund all or a portion of a project, on a case-by-case basis. To determine the funding
level (ranging from 60% to 100%) for a project, the Commission will consider the following factors:
 Baseline (60%): Areas served at speeds below 6 Mbps downstream and 1 Mbps upstream.
 Areas with only dial-up or no Internet connectivity (up to +40%)
 Low-income service (median household income no greater than $50,200) (up to +40%)
 Location and accessibility of the area meeting two of the following five characteristics (up to +10%):
1. Rugged or difficult terrain (e.g., mountains, desert, national or state forest);
2. Unincorporated community;
3. More than 10 miles from the nearest hospital;
4. More than 10 miles from the nearest state or federal highway; and/or
5. Rural census block, as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau.
 Existence of communication facilities that may be upgraded to deploy broadband (up to +10%)
 Project makes a significant contribution to achieving the program goal (up to +10%)
Eligible applicants for the CASF Infrastructure Account grant includes:
 Entities with a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) that qualify as a “telephone
corporation” as defined under Public Utilities (Pub. Util.) Code section 234;
38
CPUC Decision 18-12-018 Appendix 1 – Broadband Infrastructure Account Requirements Guidelines and
Application Materials.
http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M250/K330/250330089.PDF
33
 Wireless carriers who are registered with the Commission (i.e., hold a Wireless Identification
Registration (WIR))—wireless carriers need not obtain a CPCN to qualify for CASF funding;
 Non-telephone corporations that are facilities-based broadband service providers—the Commission
uses the NTIA definition of a facilities-based broadband service provider, which is generally defined
as any entity providing Internet access service or middle mile transport, over its own fixed or wireless
facilities to residence, businesses, or other institution;
 A local governmental agency if no other eligible entity applied.
Figure 18 shows eligible areas in Lake County for the 2019 CASF infrastructure grants application
cycle. Under the current CASF program, grant cycles run until 2022. This assessment of eligible areas is
based on 2018 CPUC broadband availability data (as of Dec 2017)39. This figure shows eligible areas at the
baseline funding level of 60% (red areas), and 100% (orange, yellow, and green areas). The latter for dial-
up only, low income, or a combination of both types of areas.
5.1.2 Eligible Areas for USDA Reconnect Program
The USDA ReConnect Program40 is a pilot program that offers federal financing and funding
options in the form of loans ($200M), grants ($200M), and loan/grant combinations ($200M) to facilitate
broadband deployment in areas that don’t currently have sufficient access to broadband (10 Mbps/1
Mbps). This pilot program allows applicants to deploy broadband infrastructure to provide high-speed
Internet e-Connectivity to as many rural premises as possible, including homes, community facilities for
health care and public safety, schools, libraries, farms, ranches, factories, and other production sites.
For a geographic area to be eligible to receive funds from this pilot program, it must meet two criteria41:
1. It must be rural: Service areas are not located in a city, town, or incorporate area that has a
population greater than 20,000 or an urbanized area adjacent to a city or town with a population
greater than 50,000 people. Eligible areas must be completely contained within a rural area or
composed of multiple rural areas.
2. Most households must currently have insufficient Internet service: At least 90 percent of
households in the proposed area must not have sufficient access to broadband service (fixed
terrestrial broadband service at 10 Mbps downstream and 1 Mbps upstream).
Eligible applicants for the USDA Reconnect Program must be able to supply retail broadband to customers.
Applicant include:
 Cooperatives, non-profits, or mutual associations
 For-profit corporations or limited liability companies
 States, local governments, or any agency, subdivision, instrumentality, or political subdivision thereof
 A territory or possession of the U.S.
 An Indian tribe
Figure 19 shows eligible areas in Lake County for USDA Reconnect Program grants for the 2019
application cycle. Further funding cycles are expected in 2020 and coming years.
39
Eligible areas for the 2020 application cycle and forward will be based on latest releases of CPUC broadband
availability data. i.e., 2019 data release (as of Dec 2018) and forward.
40
U.S. Department of Agriculture – ReConnect Loan and Grant Program. https://www.usda.gov/reconnect
41
Additionally, no part of the proposed area may overlap with the service area of a company that has
received a broadband loan from the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) as defined in this Funding Opportunity
Announcement (FOA).
34
Figure 18. Eligible areas in Lake County for CPUC CASF infrastructure grants.
35
Figure 19. Eligible areas in Lake County for USDA Reconnect Program grants.
36
5.2 Local Partner Input and Priority Areas Selection for Broadband Projects
5.2.1 Input from Local Partners to Identify Broadband Needs
The input from local partners is critical to identify and quantify potential project areas for
broadband expansion or upgrades. Local partners have the ability to work closely with the community
and have firsthand knowledge of broadband related needs, or can support efforts to gather information
of such needs (i.e., conducting surveys, forum, or workshops). Critical local partners in Lake County include
but are not limited to:
 Lake County local government
 Lakeport local government
 Clearlake local government
 Lake County Economic Development Corporation
 Lake County Office of Education
 Lake County Business Associations
 Lake County Chamber of Commerce
 Lake County Association of Realtors
 Lake County Winegrape Commission
 Lake County Winery Association
 Lake County Tribal Nations
 Lake County community action organizations
 Lake County family service providers
 Lake County Family Resource Center
 Cobb Area Council
 City of Clearlake Chamber of Commerce
 Lucerne Area Revitalization Association
 Mendocino College Lake Center
 New Paradigm College
 North Coast Opportunities
 Redwood Community Services
 Woodland Community College Lake Campus
The input from local partners should be quantified and aggregated in order to identify broadband
needs and priority geographic areas for broadband deployments. These areas might include but are not
limited to:
 Unserved residential areas
 Unserved or underserved business and industrial areas
 Unserved or underserved community based organizations
 Unserved or underserved community anchor institutions
After identifying priority geographic areas for broadband deployments, these areas need to be
entered and plotted in digital maps (i.e., using GIS software, Google Earth or other mapping tool). These
digital maps and files will allow to incorporate these priority geographic areas in a comprehensive analysis
which will also include CPUC’s broadband availability data, among other geospatial data.
37
5.2.2 Economic Development Strategy for Lake County – Dr. Eyler’s Report
Between June and October of 2017, five community forums were held in Lakeport and Clearlake.
The forum topics included economic development themes such as what draws businesses to Lake County,
what is missing to help businesses grow, what improvements Lake County can make to attract businesses,
and what is missing to help businesses stay in the county. Many of the answers centered on the need to
include broadband infrastructure and utility improvements for businesses to stay and grow and that
broadband infrastructure is lacking as a component of general infrastructure altogether. The clear
indication from these forums is the fact that broadband technology is important in supporting local
business needs and that it is a necessary component to attract and retain local businesses. 42 Much of the
data collected from these forums allow for a look into the perceptions and attitudes of local business
owners and community members. The findings from these forums were included in Dr. Eyler’s report:
Economic Development Strategy for Lake County.
In Dr. Eyler’s report, several recommendations were made regarding the types of broadband
service that would benefit Lake County, funding opportunities, and specific comments relating to Lakeport
and Clearlake. The first recommendation that Dr. Eyler laid out was that Lake County should consider
incorporating broadband and wireless Internet strategies. As outlined in the recommendations, funding
opportunities should be pursued through government agencies such as the USDA. This report also
mentions broadband infrastructure improvement as a short-term goal. Regarding this recommendation,
it needs to be noted that Lake County should seek funding opportunities that are available within the
short term and that the county should be proactive in applying for such funding in the short-term. The
previous subsection on this Master Broadband Plan covers two potential funding sources for broadband
deployments, the USDA Reconnect Program and CASF Infrastructure Grants.
In regard to the Cities of Lakeport and Clearlake, the report highlighted that the lack of broadband
infrastructure in these communities is a significant weakness and threat to the vitality and success of these
communities. 43 Lastly, the report mentions broadband as a metric to watch in order to monitor the vitality
and quality of life of the region.44 To monitor this metric, data are available at the census block level from
the California Public Utilities Commission.
The local partner and community input gathered during these five forums and the
recommendations presented in Dr. Eyler’s report demonstrate the importance of gathering local input to
identify common issues and challenges, and strategizing potential solutions in the short and long term.
Using a similar approach, the Upstate California Connect Consortium is currently holding meetings
and working together with some of the local partners listed above in order to gather input on specific
geographical areas in need of broadband expansion or upgrades, including but not limited to unserved
residential areas, unserved or underserved business and industrial areas, and unconnected community
based organizations and community anchor institutions, among others.
42
Eyler, Robert. “Lake County Economic Development Strategy: Planning Process and Community Forums.” 2017.
43
Eyler, Robert. ”Lake County Economic Development Strategy: Economic Development Planning Efforts and CEDS
in Progress.” 2017.
44
Eyler, Robert. “Lake County Economic Development Strategy: Metrics to Watch.” 2017.
38
5.2.3 Priority Areas Selection for Broadband Deployments
The priority areas selection process for broadband deployment includes using the identified
priority geographic areas, CPUC broadband availability data, census data, among other relevant input. For
the case of carrying out broadband deployments using grants (or subsidies), input of eligible areas for
Federal or State broadband infrastructure grants need to be included in the selection process. This
selection process might include criteria such as the following:
 Location of a priority area

 Eligibility for State or Federal Grants, and highest possible funding level
 Existing nearby broadband coverage and infrastructure
 Population and household density
 The number of businesses, anchor institutions (i.e., local government buildings, health care
centers, education facilities, etc.), and public safety locations
 Median household income
The next step is to make this information available to ISPs interested in carrying out broadband
deployments in these areas using private funding, federal or state subsidies, or through public-private
partnerships.
5.2.4 Broadband Technology Options for Broadband Deployments
For the potential project areas, options for expanding, upgrading or launching broadband service
might include using wired or fixed wireless technologies.
Wireline broadband includes digital subscriber line (DSL), cable modem and fiber-to-the-home.
These technologies are primarily deployed in urban and suburban areas, and in some cases DSL can also
reach rural areas. Deployment and coverage limitations of these technologies include access to right-of-
way or poles, and high costs associated to rolling underground lines or aerial deployments. Presented
below are options, based on ISPs’ wireline technologies, to improve current coverage and speed levels of
broadband service:
 Upgrade copper infrastructure and service: The copper infrastructure, also called public service
telephone network (PSTN), enables xDSL, ADSL2, ADSL2+, and VDSL broadband services. PSTN
upgrades allow coverage expansion; however, depending on the infrastructure status (i.e.,
equipment condition, copper lines and distance), speed upgrades may only be able to reach up to
a few Mbps or, in the best case scenario, only up to couple tens of Mbps.
 Expansion of cable network infrastructure and service: Cable technology currently offers among
the highest downstream speeds (up to 500 Mbps or Gbps). Expanding its footprint can make these
high speeds available to more customers.
 Launching fiber-to-the-building (FTTB) or fiber-to-the-home (FTTH) services: These services are
currently unavailable in Lake County; however, they could be launched in specific profitable
market areas offering gigabit speeds.
Upgrading PSTN, expanding cable or launching FTTB/H would require deploying infrastructure like
underground conduit or aerial cabling, cabinets, energy systems, networking equipment, etc. Table 6
shows estimated broadband deployment costs from projects previously funded by the CPUC California
39
Advanced Services Fund (CASF). The table shows the average cost per household based on wireline (DSL
and FTTH) CASF projects, including minimum and maximum cost ranges per household.
Table 6. Average costs per household of CASF infrastructure grant awards by project type45: upgrades
using existing infrastructure and new fiber-to-the-home build.
Weighted
Min. Max.
Average
Cost Cost
Project Technology Speed Cost
per HH per HH
per HH
($) ($)
($)
Upgrades Using Existing Infrastructure ADSL2+,
25Mbps/1.5Mbps $1,080 $894 $2,446
(Both ILECs and non-ILEC providers) VDSL
Upgrades Using Existing Infrastructure 50Mbps/50Mbps
FTTH $1,119 $1,013 $1,183
(Both ILECs and non-ILEC providers) 1Gbps/1Gbps
New Fiber-To-The-Home Build
FTTH 1Gbps/1Gbps $16,005 $11,505 $25,753
(Predominantly aerial installations)
Fixed wireless broadband technologies include 802.11 Wi-Fi standard (unlicensed spectrum), LTE
(unlicensed, lightly licensed, and licensed spectrum), and TVWS (unlicensed spectrum on a secondary
basis) among other technology options (proprietary FDD or TDD OFDM-based solutions). These
technologies are primarily deployed in areas where wireline technologies have incomplete coverage, such
as some suburban and most rural areas. Deployment and coverage limitations of these technologies come
from obstructions (terrain/vegetation) between the antenna at the customer premises and the access
point or base station located at a pole or tower.
Fixed wireless technologies are the most feasible and viable technology solutions to expand
current coverage of broadband service to unserved rural areas under harsh geographical conditions (i.e.,
mountains, hills or forests). Table 7 uses estimated broadband deployment costs for fixed wireless from
the CPUC California Advanced Services Fund (CASF). This table shows the average, minimum and
maximum costs per household based on CASF projects using fixed wireless.
Table 7. Average costs per household of CASF infrastructure grant awards46: fixed wireless.
Average Total Project Range Min. Range Max.

Project
Cost per HH ($) Cost per HH ($) Cost per HH ($)
Fixed Wireless Deployments $1,285 $960 $1,645
Each wireless technology has intrinsic characteristics that directly impact upfront and
maintenance costs, such as operation frequency, propagation through vegetation and obstacles, capacity
per base station/access point (BS/AP), and available spectrum, among others. For example, TVWS, which
operates at the lowest band (470MHz-698MHz) among these technology options, has better propagation
45
From Supporting Materials for May 25 (page 75) Communications Division Staff Workshop on CASF Reform
ftp://ftp.cpuc.ca.gov/Telco/CASF/Reports%20and%20Audits/CASF%20Workshop%20May%2025th.pdf.
Additionally, cost information was also gathered directly from the CPUC resolutions mentioned on page 75.
46
From Supporting Materials for May 25 (page 72) Communications Division Staff Workshop on CASF Reform
ftp://ftp.cpuc.ca.gov/Telco/CASF/Reports%20and%20Audits/CASF%20Workshop%20May%2025th.pdf
40
and achieves larger coverage from one site than 900MHz, 2.4GHz, and 5.8GHz. However, based on
capacity, Wi-Fi 2.4GHz and 5.8GHz and fixed LTE provide higher speeds per BS/AP, and as a result, can
offer higher speeds per customer. Thus, to determine the best technology fit for a specific scenario,
further technical and cost assessments would be required.
For the case of business and industrial customers, since these customers require higher levels of
speed, reliability, resilience and quality of service than residential customers, technologies used to provide
business-class broadband service mostly include cable, fiber optics and high-throughput fixed wireless.
Middle-mile carriers must be able to provide fiber-optic service. Fixed wireless providers must be able to
provide high-throughput point-to-point radio links. The best technology fit for business and industrial
customers will depend on specific broadband needs and requirements, and the associated costs of such
services. However, due to the high-speed capacity and reliability of the fiber-optic service it is the
preferred choice for business- and industrial-class customers. Although, in some cases, deploying a
dedicated fiber line to a business located a few miles from the middle-mile route or carrier facilities can
result in expenses in the range of tens of thousands of dollars.
For either of the above technology options (DSL, fiber optics, cable or fixed wireless), local
governments can help to create incentives and promote upgrading, expansion, or launching broadband
services by making it easier and less expensive to deploy broadband infrastructure. Section 6 Policy
Recommendations to Support Broadband Infrastructure Deployment describe policies which can help
to achieve this goal.
5.3 Partnership with Caltrans Projects along State Highways
An approach that can help to identify potential cost-effective broadband projects in Lake County
is to partner with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in order to coordinate installation
of broadband infrastructure along Caltrans projects in State highways. These projects can be carried out
especially in areas that are currently unserved or underserved by ISPs. This subsection presents the
current framework that can allow for this coordination and collaboration.
California Governor’s Executive Order S-23-06 (PDF) Twenty-First Century Government47 directed
the establishment of the California Broadband Task Force, of which the California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) is a member, in order to bring together public and private stakeholders to better
facilitate broadband installation, identify opportunities for increased broadband adoption, and enable
access to and deployment of new advanced communication technologies.
California Assembly Bill 154948 (Wood, Chapter 505, Statutes of 2016) requires that Caltrans,
during the planning phase of specified Caltrans-led highway construction projects, notify broadband
deployment companies and organizations on its website of transportation projects that involve
construction methods suitable for the installation of broadband. Upon notification from Caltrans,
companies or organizations working on broadband deployment may collaborate with Caltrans to install a
broadband conduit as part of a project. The bill also requires Caltrans, in consultation with Broadband
47
http://www.cetfund.org/files/executive_order_s2306_20061128.pdf
48
Assembly Bill No. 1549. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB1549
41
Stakeholders, to develop guidelines49 to facilitate the installation of broadband conduit on State highway
right-of-way on or before January 1, 2018.
There are two methods by which broadband stakeholders may work with Caltrans in order to
deploy conduit inside the State highway right-of-way, through a Stand-Alone Encroachment Permit
Project or a Planned Transportation Partnering Project. In both cases, broadband stakeholders must
complete Encroachment Permits in order to proceed. If broadband stakeholders prefer to complete the
planning, design, and installation of their conduit alone and using contractors of their choice, they may
apply for a Stand-Alone Encroachment Permit.
If broadband stakeholders would prefer to work more closely with Caltrans during the planning,
design, and installation of their conduit, they may apply for a Planned Transportation Partnering Project.
Broadband Stakeholders in Lake County may find information regarding current Caltrans projects here:
https://dot.ca.gov/caltrans-near-me/district-1/d1-projects. Stakeholders must contact and coordinate
with the Caltrans district single point of contact to determine if the Caltrans planned project of their choice
involves construction methods that suit broadband conduit installation. As a part of the partnering
process, conduit planning, design, and construction are to be completed by Caltrans chosen contractor.
49
Caltrans, User Guide: Incorporating Wired Broadband Facility on State Highway Right-of-Way (2018).
https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/documents/wired-broadband-facility-user-guide-1st-ed-signed.pdf
42
6 Policy Recommendations to Support Broadband Infrastructure
Deployment
This section presents policy recommendations for supporting and promoting broadband
infrastructure and services expansion and upgrades in Lake County, which can help to create additional
incentives (on top of Federal or State grants) for ISPs to carry out broadband projects. The proposed local
policies focus on reducing technical and economic barriers for new broadband infrastructure deployments
(i.e., dig-once policy and conduit standard development), making publicly owned assets available, and
streamlining the permit and authorization process in public right-of-way. This section also recommends
updating the County General Plan and incorporating a Telecommunications Element in order to include
specific goals, policies, and actions that can support broadband expansion.
6.1 Policy Issues and Considerations
6.1.1 Ease for Broadband Infrastructure Deployments
Local governments should promote and support expansion of high-capacity middle-mile (fiber-
optic backbone) and high-speed last-mile (wireline and wireless) networks to reach residential, business
and industrial broadband customers in both urban and rural areas. The County of Lake, and its cities and
rural communities can reach out to ISPs to provide ubiquitous, reliable and high-speed broadband
Internet access. For that purpose, permit and authorization processes should provide detailed guidance
and timely responses to requests for broadband infrastructure deployments and installation of
telecommunications equipment. Additionally, the county, cities and rural communities can implement
policies aimed to reduce barriers and streamline permit processes for broadband infrastructure
deployments and facilities upgrades. It is also important to find a balance between proper land use
designations and growing needs for broadband services in the county, as optimal locations for wireline
and/or wireless network infrastructure may be in areas unassigned to telecommunications infrastructure
deployments.
6.1.2 Priority Areas for Broadband Infrastructure Deployments
Lake County, its cities and rural communities should identify priority areas for broadband
deployments based on local needs (i.e., for residential, business and industrial services) and/or low
attention from ISPs. Local governments should work with public entities, non-government organizations,
and business associations, among other interested parties, to identify priority areas and develop
strategies for addressing broadband needs. In the case of residential broadband services, needs may
include broadband services like work-related applications for distance education, telehealth applications,
high-quality entertainment and Internet-of-things applications. High-speed and high-quality services are
paramount for local businesses to thrive in the growing digital economy. High-quality broadband provides
access to a variety of competitive suppliers regardless of geographical location, as well as automated
logistics and coordination systems across production and distribution processes, advertising to
nationwide and global markets, and direct communication between companies and customers. The
identified priority areas may be unserved areas or areas where very high speeds are needed for businesses
and where such needs should accommodate growth over the next decade.
43
6.1.3 Partnerships for Broadband Infrastructure Projects
Local governments should support ISPs to expand broadband infrastructure through development
of a comprehensive data set of available broadband-related city-owned assets (called a broadband asset
inventory), and providing this information to the public through an online map viewer. The assets can
include towers or tall buildings that may be used to deploy wireless infrastructure, rights-of-way to run
underground conduit and fiber-optic cables. Local governments should also evaluate options for
establishing partnerships with one or more ISPs to support the deployment of infrastructure in order to
provide cutting-edge residential, business and industrial broadband services. Public/private partnerships
can help ISPs reduce capital expenditures when government entities own infrastructure constructed with
grant funds, which is then leased to private for-profit ISPs for operation. Developing technologies can
facilitate consumer choice among ISPs in such a framework. The county and cities can support deployment
of the last-mile element (to reach final customers) using high-speed broadband technologies which may
include but are not limited to fiber optics, cable, Wi-Fi, LTE, TVWS, 4G and 5G mobile wireless, millimeter-
wave. New deployments should also accommodate future expansion of infrastructure for growing
broadband customer and speed demands, changes in technology and future utility providers. Partnerships
can also be established with public utilities (i.e., PG&E) and state organizations (i.e., Caltrans) to find
efficiencies and synergies when deploying infrastructure in public right-of-way (PROW). For example,
developing a partnership with PG&E to explore options for ISPs to lease space on electric poles to run
aerial fiber-optic cables, and working with Caltrans to deploy conduit as part of coming highway and road
projects.
6.1.4 Promote Broadband Services Adoption to Foster Economic Development
Local governments within Lake County should collaborate with community partners to promote
broadband adoption wherever it is available. Broadband adoption can be defined as a residential
subscription to high-speed Internet, but can go beyond that definition to include digital inclusion, which
also incorporates the skills and equipment necessary to fully utilize such connections. Elements of a broad-
based adoption program include low-cost subscriptions, digital literacy training and low-cost computers50.
Adoption provides customers for ISPs deploying in rural areas and supports education, health care,
agriculture, manufacturing, economic and workforce development, tribal communities, and emergency
services.
6.2 Policies for Promoting and Improving Telecommunications Infrastructure
This subsection presents a summary of recommended policies that can guide use of municipal
resources and promote expansion of modern broadband Internet services. These policies support
expansion and upgrading of broadband infrastructure and services in Lake County, its cities and rural
communities by reducing infrastructure deployment costs and permitting delays for private ISPs. They
also promote cooperation between public works departments, public utilities and ISP's broadband
infrastructure projects to find synergies and achieve cost efficiencies. For example, enabling coordination
among public utilities carrying out excavation projects and ISPs seeking to deploy underground conduit
and fiber, or allowing ISPs access to and leasing public assets for expanding broadband coverage would
promote the reduction of upfront deployments costs, which would be a strong incentive for ISPs to expand
service. These policies are based on best practices from cities and counties in California (i.e., City of
50
Rhinesmith, Colin. “Digital Inclusion and Meaningful Broadband Adoption Initiatives.” Evanston, IL: Benton
Foundation, January 2016. benton.org/broadband-inclusion-adoption-report. Accessed 5/15/18
44
Morgan Hill51 and County of Santa Cruz52). Additionally, some of these recommendations are based on
policies and ordinances of other counties and cities such as the City of San Jose and City and County of
San Francisco.
6.2.1 Dig-once Policy
Depending on the approach taken regarding dig-once policies, they can help local governments
and utility companies to work together to maximize access to excavation projects and open trenches in
public right-of-way and to optimize resources for installation of conduit as part of county or city projects.
A white paper by the Columbia Telecommunications Corporation (CTC) summarizes the range of
approaches for dig-once policies53:
 Requiring an excavator who applies for a permit in the public right-of-way to notify utilities and
other relevant entities (e.g., telecom companies and ISPs) about the excavation project and
provide them with the opportunity to install infrastructure.
 Requiring an excavator to install empty conduit for future use (also called "shadow conduit"
installation policy). Depending on the policy, the excavator or the jurisdiction can then lease that
excess conduit capacity.
 Undertaking a longer-term process, coordinating multi-year plans with excavators.
During meetings with local government officials in the Northern California region, a common
point of discussion was deciding when laying conduit was technically and financially feasible without
interfering with timelines and operations on the main excavation project. Addressing this topic requires
evaluating several factors and conducting a feasibility analysis covering the following points:
 Technical feasibility, maximizing available resources and reaching high-priority areas;
 Developing a technical specification for the dig-once conduit; and
 Developing an engineering cost model to estimate the incremental costs of the dig-once conduit.
6.2.2 Develop Conduit Specifications
Conduit specifications allow local governments, utility companies and ISPs to estimate costs of
adding conduit in an excavation project in public rights-of-way, and carry out efficient planning and
deployment of fiber optics on standard conduit deployments. These specifications can be developed and
implemented in cities and would achieve higher efficiencies if adopted in a county or across an entire
region. Conduit specifications include requirements and recommendations such as size, type and material
of the conduit, conduit installation and placement in the trench parameters, depth and distance from
utility infrastructure, vault installation parameters, and minimum distance between vaults or manholes,
51
Tellus Venture Associates, Blum, S., City of Morgan Hill 2035 General Plan – Telecommunications Infrastructure
Final Report. 12 September 2016.
http://www.tellusventure.com/downloads/morgan_hill/morgan_hill_telecommunications_infrastructure_final_re
port_12sep2016.pdf
52
California Broadband Council. (2014, January 15). California Broadband Council-Overcome local barriers to
deployment and adoption. Retrieved from County of Santa Cruz-Recommended Actions to Expand Broadband:
http://broadbandcouncil.ca.gov/uploadedFiles/Content/News/Santa%20Cruz%20County%20Broadband%20Updat
e.1-28-2014.pdf
53
Columbia Telecommunications Corporation. (2017, April). ctc technology & energy. Retrieved from Technical
Guide to Dig-Once Policies: http://www.ctcnet.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/CTC-White-Paper-Dig-Once-
20170414.pdf
45
among others. These specifications must be reviewed by public works departments to assess feasibility
and practicality of such installations in specific geographic areas.
6.2.3 Master Lease Agreement
The purpose of this lease agreement is to reduce processing time and the complexity of leasing a
local government’s broadband-related assets. A lease agreement allows for the installation, operation and
maintenance of ISPs’ telecommunications equipment on city-owned assets. To maximize effectiveness of
a master lease agreement, the local government needs an up-to-date inventory of assets, which might
include land, public rights-of-way, conduit, buildings, utility poles, light standards, towers, and any other
property on which wireless or wireline broadband infrastructure could be located. For example, base
stations can be installed atop municipal buildings or towers, and/or fiber-optic cable can be rolled out in
underground conduit or utility poles. This inventory should be publicly available for ISPs to review so they
can assess the assets they may want to lease, based on their broadband deployment planning. The
agreement should include fee structures, agreement duration, renewal terms, access and responsibilities
of the parties, and co-location rights, among other legal requirements.
6.2.4 Streamline Application Process and Permit Fees
Streamlining processes to deploy broadband infrastructure allows faster expansion of broadband

infrastructure and services. Additionally, charging at-cost permit fees might contribute to a competitive
broadband service pricing in the region. In the context of rural Northern California, with its lower
population densities, geographically spread out households and, in some cases, harsh geography,
broadband deployment and operation are more expensive than in urban areas. This results in higher
broadband prices and lower speed offers. Some ISPs in the Northern California region identified county
and/or city asset leases and permit fees as significant operating expense drivers. Some options to address
these issues include charging discretionary planning permits at cost and removing requirements for
broadband infrastructure within the public right-of-way to obtain a discretionary land use permit. Other
identified issues to address include land use regulations and land use permits for certain broadband
facilities (i.e. cabinets, racks, wireless facilities) within public right-of-way.
6.3 Sample Telecommunications Element for County or City General Plans
This sample Telecommunications Element for a General Plan presents goals, policies and actions
that can guide use of municipal resources and develop internal municipal processes to promote expansion
of broadband infrastructure and services in the local jurisdiction.
46
GOALS, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS
Goal T-1: Promote broadband-based services to increase county operational efficiency
Goal T-2: Promote efficient expansion of broadband infrastructure to provide high-speed
broadband Internet service
 Goal T-1: Promote Broadband-Based Services to Increase County Operational Efficiency

o Policy T-1.1 (Promote Deployment of Broadband Services in Public Facilities) – Promote
deployment of broadband services to provide broadband-based municipal services.
 Action T-1.1.1 – Promote inclusion of broadband facilities in all public buildings,
major transportation projects and all public works projects.
o Policy T-1.2 (Develop Standards) – Develop standards for preparing future construction
and development of broadband facilities and services.
 Action T-1.2.1 – Develop broadband building and wiring standards to support
broadband in new construction and buildings.
 Action T-1.2.2 – Develop broadband requirements for new public, commercial,
residential and industrial projects.
o Policy T-1.3 (Online Municipal Services) – Promote and make all municipal services
available online.
 Action T-1.3.1 – Enable all municipal services in the county’s portal.
 Goal T-2: Promote Efficient Expansion of Broadband Infrastructure to Provide High-Speed
Broadband Internet Service
o Policy T-2.1 (Develop a Strategic Broadband Plan) – Develop a strategic plan for
supporting expansion of high-speed broadband infrastructure and services for residential,
business and industrial customers and anchor institutions.
 Action T-2.1.1 – Work with public entities, non-government organizations, and
business associations, among other interested parties, to asses priority areas for
broadband expansion and/or upgrades and broadband related needs of
residential, business and industrial customers and community anchor institutions
(education, public services, public safety, and health care).
 Action T-2.1.2 – Based on the priority areas and broadband needs assessments,
develop a master plan to address them including objectives, strategies, partners,
resources, and timelines, among other important planning elements.
o Policy T-2.2 (Dig-Once Policy) – Promote collaboration among public works departments,
utility companies and Internet service providers to find project planning synergies to
optimize resources for installation of conduit and/or fiber optics as part of county
projects.
 Action T-2.2.1 – Develop and implement a local dig-once ordinance by assessing
the potential role of local governments and different dig-once policy approaches
(i.e., open trench, shadow conduit, excess capacity utilization, etc.).
 Action T-2.2.2 – Develop standards for deploying conduit and lateral connections.
This will allow cost estimation of adding conduit in an excavation project in public
47
rights-of-way, and efficient planning and deployment of fiber on standard conduit
deployments.
o Policy T-2.3 (Access to Public Assets and Develop a Master Lease) – Assess feasibility of
allowing ISPs to lease public assets (public rights-of-way, land, buildings, ducts, conduit,
poles, towers, etc.) for deployment, upgrade and/or expansion of broadband networks.
 Action T-2.3.1 – Develop an up-to-date inventory of broadband related county-
owned assets and community anchor institutions which might include land, public
rights-of-way, conduit, buildings, utility poles, light standards, towers, and any
other property.
 Action T-2.3.2 – Make the asset inventory available in geographic information
system (GIS) format and make it publicly available through an online map viewer
and data tables.
 Action T-2.3.3 – Develop and implement a master lease aimed to reduce
processing time and complexity for leasing county or city broadband-related
assets. The agreement must include standard terms such as fee structures,
agreement duration, renewal terms, access and responsibilities of the parties,
and co-location rights, among other legal requirements.
 Action T-2.3.4 – Develop specific procedures to grant access and/or leasing assets
in a fair and transparent manner to all interested ISPs.
o Policy T-2.4 (Streamline Permit and Authorization Processes) – Ensure transparent and
fair permit and authorization processes for all ISPs. Streamline process to deploy
broadband infrastructure to allow faster and timely expansion of broadband
infrastructure and services in the county.
 Action T-2.4.1 – Review and assess current municipal permit and authorization
application processes for deployment of broadband infrastructure, including
requirements, steps, timelines, and costs associated with the applications.
 Action T-2.4.2 – Update permit and authorization processes when, based on the
assessment, efficiencies and faster processes can be achieved.
 Action T-2.4.3 – Require digital plan files in GIS format for all upcoming works in
PROWs and new developments (i.e., utilities, developers, contractors and
others).
o Policy T-2.5 (Assess Partnerships for Infrastructure Deployments) – Assess the
establishment of strategic partnerships with ISPs to support infrastructure and broadband
services expansion.
 Action T-2.5.1 – Assess the potential role of the county as partner to support
broadband service expansion.
 Action T-2.5.2 – Explore partnerships with state agencies (i.e., Caltrans) to
achieve interagency coordination.
o Policy T-2.6 (Develop a Database of Upcoming Public Infrastructure Projects) – Generate
a database of upcoming public infrastructure projects (i.e., water, sewer, roads, paving,
etc.) in public rights-of-way, including location, routes and estimated timelines.
48
 Action T-2.6.1 – Identify and track upcoming public infrastructure projects and
generate a database.
 Action T-2.6.2 – Make the upcoming public infrastructure project database
available in geographic information system (GIS) format through an online map
viewer.
o Policy T-2.7 (Promote Validation of Broadband Service Availability and Speed) –
Promote crowd validation of broadband service availability and speed for anchor
institution, residential, business and industrial broadband services.
 Action T-2.7.1 – Promote downloading and using the CalSPEED (or similar
professional tools) for validating broadband service coverage and speed of
broadband services.
49
7 Recommendations to Improve Broadband Service Adoption
While broadband access is critical, adoption of broadband services is equally as important. Many
community residents in Lake County, its cities and rural communities need assistance finding low-cost
Internet service, obtaining a computer and learning pertinent skills to navigate the online world
successfully. Efforts to meet these needs will help the region to combat the inequitable distribution of
broadband to rural areas, referred to as the “digital divide.” The digital divide is often more broadly
defined as the discrepancy between the availability of technology among socioeconomic or racial/ethnic
groups. The divide limits rural residents’ access to education, workforce training, health care and civic
engagement.
Providing equipment and training opportunities will allow users to effectively understand and
learn how broadband can improve their ability to conduct business, excel in school, manage their finances,
participate in telehealth, apply for jobs, receive vocational training and function effectively in a digital
world. These skills are critical to educational and career success and are accessible to more advantaged
families but can be out of reach for disadvantaged communities due to socioeconomic challenges (e.g.,
educational background, time impacts of multiple jobs and long commutes).
Communities and organizations seeking to connect users with equipment and access to
curriculums should establish partnerships with existing organizations and programs to establish credibility
and identify best practices for outreach, implementation, follow-through and success.
Broadband also transforms the way small businesses operate, communicate with employees, and
interact with customers. Broadband is an important tool for achieving strategic goals, improving
competitiveness and efficiency, reaching customers, and interacting with vendors. Businesses use
broadband connections to improve efficiency and productivity, both in their internal processes and their
interactions with customers. The capability of and opportunities provide by broadband can translate into
profits and producer surplus to businesses with a portion of the gains being passed to consumers.
Many businesses throughout the region do not have access to the speeds necessary to conduct
day-to-day business. Because of this limited capacity, many smaller businesses are unaware of the growth
potential that is attainable if they had better broadband. Economic development organizations, workforce
agencies and chambers of commerce are examples of groups that can provide training and information
to business owners to increase adoption and plan for growth and sustainability.
50
8 Conclusion
This Master Broadband Plan for Lake County aimed to provide the following:
 A comprehensive assessment of the current landscape of fixed broadband services for residential
and business customers
 Recommendations for upgrading, expanding and launching broadband infrastructure and services
 Recommendations for developing and implementing local government policies that support
broadband infrastructure deployments
 Recommendations for improving broadband adoption through establishing partnerships with
existing organizations and programs.
The recommendations for improving broadband service coverage and infrastructure expansion
for residential and business customers include assessing existing Federal or State grants (funding) to carry
out broadband deployments, including the California Advanced Services Fund (CASF) and the USDA
Reconnect Program. These existing subsidies will greatly help to accelerate broadband infrastructure
expansion, in addition to ISP’s private investment. In some cases, public-private partnerships can also be
a model to explore for local governments. The next step is to work with local partners and broadband
stakeholders to gather input on broadband needs and priority geographical areas for broadband
expansion and upgrades. These needs be quantified and mapped in order to carry out a comprehensive
analysis ranking potential projects; which later need to be summarized in project profiles to be shared
with ISPs interested in carrying out these projects.
The recommendations for improving broadband infrastructure focused on upgrading DSL
infrastructure, expanding cable model service, and launching FTTH/B service. This section presented
estimated deployment costs using deployment cost data from past projects funded by the CPUC California
Advanced Services Fund (CASF). Depending on actual conditions and specific geographic areas, actual
deployment costs may differ for these cost estimations per household. These cost estimations are
provided as a first step toward assessing potential alternatives for expanding broadband service to
unserved areas and other geographic areas of interest in Lake County.
Common technologies used to provide broadband to business-class customers include cable, fiber
optics and high-throughput fixed wireless. Middle-mile carriers must be able to provide fiber-optic service.
Fixed wireless providers must be able to provide high-throughput point-to-point radio links. The best
technology fit for business and industrial customers will depend on specific broadband needs and
requirements and associated costs of such services.
The Upstate California Connect Consortium is actively working with Internet Service Providers
(ISPs), local governments in the County of Lake, its cities and rural communities to evaluate a broad range
of alternatives to expand broadband infrastructure and services in the county for residential, local
government, business and industrial customers. These alternatives include, but are not limited to, the
California Advanced Service Fund (CASF), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Economic Development
Administration (EDA), Corporation for Education Network Initiatives in California (CENIC), and California
Telehealth Network (CTN), among others.
The recommendations for developing and implementing local policies focused on reducing
barriers for new broadband infrastructure deployments and streamline permit and authorization process
in public right of ways. The main policies include the following: a dig-once policy, technical conduit
specifications, and master lease agreements. Additionally, it is recommended that cities and the county
51
streamline application processes and permit fees. Finally, a sample of a Local Government General Plan-
Telecommunications Element is also presented as a reference.
The recommendations for improving broadband adoption included establishing partnerships with
existing organizations and programs to establish credibility and identify best practices for outreach,
implementation, follow-through and success. Additionally, economic development organizations,
workforce agencies and chambers of commerce were examples of groups that can provide training and
information to business owners to increase adoption and to plan for growth and sustainability.
Finally, this plan also recommended launching a CalSPEED and CPUC Public Feedback Form
campaign for residential and business customers to download and use this application and form to
validate actual broadband service coverage and speeds provided by ISPs. The Upstate California Connect
Consortium is currently working with Lake County and its communities on deploying CalSPEED to
businesses and residences.
52
9 Appendices
9.1 Appendix A - Broadband Service Benchmarks
9.1.1 Downstream/Upstream Broadband Speeds (Mbps)
The FCC defines broadband (advanced telecommunications capability) primarily in terms of

downstream and upstream speeds of 25 Mbps and 3 Mbps54, respectively. The CPUC also uses speed as a
metric to evaluate broadband service coverage, defining underserved areas as areas where broadband is
offered at slower speeds than 6 Mbps downstream and 1 Mbps upstream55.
9.1.2 Supplemental Benchmark Metrics
The FCC currently does not adopt non-speed performance metrics in their broadband progress
reports (although it recognizes the importance of low latency and high consistency in providing advanced
telecomm capability) due to a current lack of comprehensive data on factors other than speed. The
following are supplemental broadband benchmarks described in the FCC's 2016 Broadband Progress
Report, which in the future will help evaluating quality-of-service in a more comprehensive manner.
Latency (ms)
Latency is defined as a measurement of the time it takes a data packet to travel through the network. It
significantly impacts the performance of interactive, real-time applications, including VoIP, online gaming,
videoconferencing, and VPN platforms.
Consistency
Consistency has the potential to significantly impact whether a service delivers broadband to consumers
with meaningful access to interactive advanced services including VoIP, telemedicine, and online
education applications using high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video telecommunications.
Packet Loss
The Measuring Broadband America program denotes a packet as lost if the latency exceeds 3 seconds or
if the packet is never received. Packet losses might affect the perceived quality of phone calls or video
conferencing.
9.2 Appendix B: Middle-, Second- and Last-Mile Broadband Technologies

This subsection describes current and new broadband technologies used by ISPs for middle-,
second- and last-mile broadband networks. For this report, the definitions of middle-, second- and last-
mile network segments follow the basic network structure from the FCC's Broadband Availability Gap
Paper56 (Figure 20). Based on an initial assessment of last-mile broadband networks and providers in the
54
55
California Public Utility Commission (CPUC). (2012, May). Forth Annual DIVCA Report. Retrieved June 2017, from
http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/uploadedFiles/CPUC_Public_Website/Content/Utilities_and_Industries/Communications
__Telecommunications_and_Broadband/Service_Provider_Information/Video_Franchising/4thDIVCAReportforYea
rEndingDec2010.pdf
56
Federal Communications Commission (FCC). (2010, April). The Broadband Availability Gap - OBI Technical Paper
NO.1. Retrieved from https://transition.fcc.gov/national-broadband-plan/broadband-availability-gap-paper.pdf
53
County of Lake and regional Internet fiber-optic carriers, it is assumed that most broadband networks in
the county consist only of middle- and last-mile network segments; therefore this study does not include
the second-mile network segment. The second-mile segment is mostly used in the case of fixed wireless
broadband services, which aggregate traffic from several sparsely located towers deployed in cascade
configuration.
The middle-mile segment provides transport and transmission of data communications from an
aggregation point (i.e., central office, cable headend or wireless switching station) to an Internet point of
presence. The last-mile segment provides transport and transmission of data communications from a
broadband modem provided by a local ISP to the first aggregation point in the network (i.e., remote
terminal, wireless tower, or HFC node).
Figure 20. Basic network structure from the FCC's Broadband Availability Gap Paper
Commonly deployed middle-mile transport technologies include fiber optics, microwaves and
satellite links. In 2010, the majority of central offices (approximately 95 percent) and nearly all cable nodes
connected to the Internet through fiber-optic links. Once the transport requirement reaches 155 Mbps
and above, the only effective transport mode is using a fiber-optic-based transmission backbone.
Microwave and other terrestrial wireless technologies are well suited only when aggregated data is of a
few hundred Mbps and relatively short middle-mile runs of 5 to 25 miles. However, microwave backhaul
may be a critical transport component in the second-mile segment in the case of fixed wireless networks.
The following subsections describe most current technologies used for last-mile networks
including wireline, wireless and mobile technologies. It also describes new and innovative technologies,
including some that are still in the testing stage and are not commercially available yet.
54
9.2.1 Wireline Broadband
Wireline broadband includes digital subscriber line (DSL), cable modem and fiber-to-the-home.
These technologies are primarily deployed in dense urban areas. Deployment and coverage limitations of
these technologies include access to right-of-way and the high costs of rolling underground lines.
Digital Subscriber Line (DSL)
DSL is defined as broadband service provided over traditional copper telephone lines (without
disrupting regular telephone calls) already installed in homes and businesses. According to the FCC's 2016
Broadband Progress Report57, this technology is the second most common service type comprising
roughly 29 percent of the fixed broadband market. DSL offers the following speeds58:
a) DSL with loops of over 12,000 feet: Uses ADSL2/ADSL2+ to provide rates of 6 Mbps downstream
and 1 Mbps upstream. To provide faster speeds, DSL operators can bond loops (over 30 Mbps if
sufficient number of copper loops are available) and continue to shorten loop lengths (see loops
of 5,000 feet or 3,000 feet).
b) DSL with loops of over 5,000 or 3,000 feet: Typically uses VDSL2 to provide 35 Mbps downstream
and 6 Mbps upstream over loops of 3,000 feet, and 20 Mbps downstream and 4 Mbps upstream
over loops of 5,000 feet.
Limitations of this technology include speed sensitivity related to distance from central offices,
lack of expansion of traditional telephone lines resulting in a lacking DSL footprint growth, and not
providing higher data rates for growing speed demands of 50 Mbps, 100 Mbps and higher.
Cable Modem
Uses coaxial cables already installed by cable television operators to deliver video and sound.
Cable modem can provide at least 1.5 Mbps and up to tens of Mbps and a few Gbps (cable networks
upgraded to DOCSIS 3.1) downstream59, and a few Mbps to 1 Gbps upstream. This technology provides
the most common fixed broadband service in the United States accounting for around 59 percent of all
fixed broadband customers. Benefits of this technology include large coverage areas for consistently fast
speeds with low packet loss and latency. Limitations include low numbers of or single cable broadband
providers in most areas.
Fiber Optics
Fiber-optic technology converts electrical signals carrying data to light and sends the light through
transparent glass fibers of a few microns in size. Fiber-based service can provide downstream speeds of
around 20 Mbps to a few Gbps and upstream speeds of around 5 Mbps to a few hundred Mbps. There
are three basic types of FTTP deployments: point-to-point (P2P) networks, active Ethernet networks and
57
58
59
Federal Communications Commission (FCC). (2010). National Broadband Plan. Retrieved from FCC-National
Broadband Plan: https://www.fcc.gov/general/national-broadband-plan
55
passive optical networks (PON). PON makes up more than 94 percent of the residential FTTP (fiber-to-the-
premises) deployments in the United States60.
Benefits of fiber include consistently high speeds and transmitting across large distances without
signal degradation. Limitations include the requirement of new infrastructure, in contrast to DSL and cable
modems using already deployed telephone and cable television infrastructure.
9.2.2 Fixed Wireless Broadband
Fixed wireless broadband includes Wi-Fi, WiMAX and LTE. These technologies are primarily
deployed in areas where wireline technologies do not have complete coverage, such as rural areas.
Deployment and coverage limitations of these technologies include obstructions (i.e. terrain and/or
vegetation) between the antenna at the customer premises and the access point or base station located
on a pole or tower. These obstructions can prevent or disrupt communications in fixed wireless radio links
by causing attenuation, scattering, diffraction and absorption of electromagnetic waves.
Wi-Fi
Wi-Fi (IEEE 802.11 Standard) operates in unlicensed bands (2.4 GHz and 5.8 GHz) and was
originally designed for wireless local area networks (WLANs) to enable communication among devices and
stations in a range from tens to a few hundred feet; however, in the last few years, equipment
manufacturers developed Wi-Fi based long-range solutions able to span several miles of coverage. Wi-Fi
can provide aggregated data rates of up to 600 Mbps61 allowing it to provide downstream speeds of a few
Mbps to tens of Mbps. Benefits of Wi-Fi include the low cost of access points (APs) and customer premise
equipment (CPEs) due to large economies of scale achieved by this technology. Limitations include
potential interference leading to signal degradation due to operating in a widely used, unlicensed
spectrum.
WiMAX
WiMAX (IEEE 802.16 Standard) emerged as a high-capacity and long-range technology (up to 30
miles) for the provision of fixed and mobile broadband services to wireless metropolitan area networks
(WMAN), and operates using licensed and the unlicensed bands. WiMAX was one of the technologies
chosen by the ITU for providing IMT-Advanced services or 4G mobile services62. It achieves aggregated
data rates up to 350 Mbps allowing it to provide speeds up to tens of Mbps downstream to customers.
Limitations include low varieties of base stations (BSs) and CPEs due to most mobile operators and
equipment manufactures shifting to LTE due to larger worldwide adoption of this technology for 4G
mobile services.
LTE
Long-Term Evolution (LTE) was designed by the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) for
mobile communications in densely populated areas (see mobile broadband). LTE has also been used to
60
61
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). (n.d.). IEEE Standards Association. (IEEE) Retrieved from
http://standards.ieee.org/
62
Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE). (n.d.). IEEE 802.16™: Broadband Wireless Metropolitan Area
Networks (MANs). (IEEE Standards Association) Retrieved from
http://standards.ieee.org/about/get/802/802.16.html
56
provide fixed broadband services in rural areas. LTE can achieve aggregated data rates up to 300 Mbps
allowing it to provide speeds up to tens of Mbps downstream to customers. For benefits and limitations
see LTE in the Mobile subsection.
9.2.3 Mobile Broadband
Mobile broadband includes packet-based data technologies such as 2G (GPRS, EDGE and
CDMA2000), 3G (WCDMA, HSDPA, HSPA and CDMA2000 EV-DO), and 4G (LTE and WiMAX). Although
evolution of these technologies has made mobile broadband services much more versatile and useful to
consumers by providing mobility and portability, there are important differences between mobile and
fixed broadband. Mobile transmissions, due to using wireless spectrum, operate under environmental
factors that can impact consistent coverage and speeds. These technologies are primarily deployed in
densely populated urban areas and, in a smaller scale, in rural areas. Coverage limitations of mobile
broadband come from obstructions (i.e. terrain and/or vegetation) between base stations located on
towers and mobile devices, and availability and access to the licensed spectrum.
Legacy Technologies (2G and 3G)
These mobile technologies include packet-based data services that evolved from the GSM and
CDMA mobile technologies. For GSM, these technologies include: GPRS and EDGE (100–130 kbps data
rates), UMTS or WDCMA (220–320 kbps), HSPA (several Mbps). For CDMA these technologies include:
CDMA2000 (307 kbps), CDMA2000 EV-DO (3.1 Mbps). Limitations of these legacy technologies include
low speeds in comparison to new-generation mobile broadband and wireline and fixed wireless
broadband.
4G Long-Term Evolution (LTE)
Long-Term Evolution (LTE) was designed by the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) for
mobile communications in densely populated areas and can achieve aggregated data rates up to 300
Mbps allowing to provide speeds up to tens of Mbps downstream and a few Mbps upstream to customers.
The 3GPP group has released several versions of the LTE standard, from the first release (Rel-8 in 2008)
to LTE-Advanced (Rel-11)63. LTE was one of the technologies chosen by the ITU to provide IMT-Advanced
services or 4G mobile services, and operates in the same bands as its predecessor GSM, in addition to
other bands. The most common LTE bands range from 700 MHz to 3.8 GHz. Benefits of this technology
include data rates in some cases comparable to wireline and fixed wireless broadband services and flexible
network design allowing combination of macro- and microcell sites to cover demand needs of specific
geographical areas. Limitations include the purchasing new devices that support LTE service and plans
that might include data caps.
4G WiMAX
WiMAX was one of the technologies chosen by the ITU to provide IMT-Advanced services or 4G
mobile services64. It achieves aggregated data rates up to 350 Mbps allowing speeds up to tens of Mbps
downstream for customers. Limitations include low varieties of base stations (BSs) and CPEs due to most
63
3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP). 3GPP A Global Initiative. (3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP))
Retrieved from http://www.3gpp.org/technologies/keywords-acronyms/98-lte
64
Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE). IEEE 802.16™: Broadband Wireless Metropolitan Area
Networks (MANs). (IEEE Standards Association) Retrieved from
http://standards.ieee.org/about/get/802/802.16.html
57
mobile operators and equipment manufactures shifting to LTE due to larger worldwide adoption of this
technology for 4G mobile services.
9.2.4 New Technologies for Middle- and Last-Mile
Millimeter-wave
Technology operating in millimeter waves is currently used for high-speed backhauling (point
to point) to connect cell sites or access points in order to provide high-speed Internet65. There is
assigned licensed and unlicensed spectrum for millimeter-wave technology. The unlicensed
millimeter-wave spectrum operates in the 60 GHz band (57–66 GHz), offering 7 GHz of bandwidth,
and the licensed millimeter-wave operates in the 71 to 76 GHz and 81 to 86 GHz, offering bandwidth
from 10 to 80 MHz, although for shorter distances. Equipment working on these bands is affected by
heavy atmospheric absorption, which limits range of operations, but also unwanted interference.
Millimeter-wave can achieve up to 2.5 Gbps for a mile-long point-to-point radio link.
Unmanned Aircrafts
The initiative of using solar-powered unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), also known as drones,
flying 12 miles above the ground to provide Internet service in unserved areas is currently led by
Google and Facebook. In April 2014, Google acquired Titan Aerospace and started the Project
SkyBender, which is currently testing drones using millimeter-wave technology to transmit at data
rates higher than 4G LTE66. In March 2014, Facebook acquired Ascenta, a UK-based drone
manufacturer, and is also currently testing solar-powered drones using free-space optics (high-
powered laser beams) to achieve high-data-rate transmissions67. It is likely that both Google and
Facebook will use these narrow-beam and high-frequency technologies (millimeter-wave and lasers)
as high-capacity backhauls and other mobile and fixed wireless technologies (mentioned above) to
connect final customers. The idea of using unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) or drones to deploy a
backhaul network is innovative and promising, but it is still in a design and testing stage with no
current commercial deployments.
Unmanned Super-Pressure Balloons
Delivering broadband services using super-pressure balloons travelling in the stratosphere is
a Google X initiative known as the Project Loon. This project will allow customers in rural and remote
areas to connect to the balloons’ network (in the stratosphere 12 miles above the ground) and then
to the Internet68. In the stratosphere, there are many layers of steady winds which vary in direction
and speed. The balloons will travel to the needed location or route by rising or descending into a layer
of wind blowing in the desired direction. To provide the broadband service, the signal from
65
Dehos, C., Gonzalez, J., De Domenico, A., Ktenas, D., & Dussopt, L. (2014). Millimeter-Wave Access and
Backhauling: The Solution to the Exponential Data Traffic Increase in 5G Mobile Communications Systems? IEEE
Communications Magazine, 88--95.
66
Heilman, D. (2016, February 1). Google's SkyBender Drones Could Deliver 5G Internet. (Sci-Tech Today) Retrieved
June 2017, from http://www.sci-tech-today.com/story.xhtml?story_id=13100C1INE20
67
Miners, Z. (2015, July 30). Meet Aquila, Facebook's unmanned Internet drone. (PCWorld) Retrieved June 2017,
from http://www.pcworld.com/article/2955212/software-social/facebook-aims-to-launch-unmanned-drone-by-
yearend.html
68
X (Google X) - Project Loon. Project Loon. (X (Google X)) Retrieved from https://x.company/loon/
58
customer’s devices connect to a balloon network in the stratosphere, and then down to the global
Internet on Earth, just as satellite services work at much higher altitudes, using free space optical
(lasers) for the backhaul and radio frequency equipment to access radio links. For the access radio
links, the Loon project has conducted tests in rural areas in New Zealand, California and Brazil using
both unlicensed ISM and licensed LTE bands. In 2014, the Loon project expressed interest in using
LTE bands and working in partnership with operators and telecommunications companies due to the
potential to achieve universal access targets mandated by countries in a cost-effective manner in the
short-term, while fiber-optic backbone and terrestrial networks are being deployed in the long-term.
Gigabit Satellite
This type of broadband technology is currently offered by the company O3b69 which stands
for "Other 3 Billion". This company provides satellite communication backhaul service offering low
latencies (less than 150 Mbps) and data rates comparable to fiber-optic technology. O3B has a
constellation of 12 satellites with a ground period of 360 minutes using the Ka-band, providing a
coverage of 45 degrees north/south latitudes. The satellites provide 10 beams per region (7 regions),
totaling 70 remote beams for the entire constellation. The latency is less than 150 milliseconds due
to the use of Medium Earth Orbit (MEO) satellites. The maximum available aggregated throughput
per beam (over a single transponder) is 1.6 Gbps (800 Mbps x 2) and each beam provides coverage
of 400 miles.
Television White Spaces (TV White Spaces)
White Spaces can be defined as part of the spectrum available for a radio communication
application at a given time, in a given geographical area, on a non-interfering/non-protected basis
with regard to primary and other services. The TV White Spaces technology (IEEE 802.11af and IEEE
802.22 Standards) operates in white spaces of the broadcast television spectrum (from 54 MHz to
862 MHz)70. It was designed for wireless local area networks (WLANs) with a range up to a few miles
and wireless regional area networks (WRANs) with a range up to several tens of miles. TVWS can
achieve aggregated data rates of a few tens of Mbps allowing it to provide downstream speeds of a
few Mbps. The TVWS technology has the advantage of enhanced propagation features due to the use
of frequencies bellow 1 GHz, allowing for the penetration of walls, vegetation, moderate hills and
other obstacles.
9.3 Appendix C: Lakeport Broadband Availability

Figure 21 shows wireline served areas and downstream speeds in Lakeport as of December 2017. For
more details on the technical capabilities and limitations of wired technologies, see Section 9.2 Appendix
B: Middle-, Second- and Last-Mile Broadband Technologies. Figure 21 shows that the highest available
downstream speeds (1–2 Gbps) are mostly concentrated in the center of town (purple areas). Speeds of
10 to 25 (light-green areas) can be found in the southern portions of Lakeport as well as smaller scattered
69
O3b Networks. O3b Networks - Our Technology. Retrieved June 2017, from
https://www.o3bnetworks.com/announcement.php
70
Pietrosemoli, E., & Zennaro, M. (2013). TV White Spaces - A pragmatic Approach. ICTP-The Abdus Salam
International Centre forTheoretical Physics.
59
areas in the center of town. Downstream speeds lower than 10 Mbps (brown areas) are found in a small
area in western edge of town. There are also small pockets in the northern edge and center of town that
do not show any broadband service.
Figure 21. Wireline served status (December 2017) in Lakeport under CPUC standard

Figure 22 shows the fixed wireless downstream speeds of Lakeport as of December 2017.
Figure 22 shows that wireless downstream speeds of 25-50 Mbps (green areas) can be found in
an area in the north of Lakeport, as well as in a small area in the southeast of town.
60
Figure 22. Fixed wireless served status in Lakeport (December 2017) under CPUC standard
AT&T California
AT&T offers residential and business services in Lakeport using a mix of asymmetric xDSL, ADSL2
and ADLS2+ technologies. Figure 23 shows broadband speeds offered by AT&T (as of December 2017)
with ADSL2 and ADSL2+ technologies. AT&T offers speeds of 10 to 25 Mbps (light-green areas) throughout
most of Lakeport; however, there are large areas in the north, west, and smaller areas scattered
throughout the center of Lakeport with downstream speeds below 10 Mbps (dark-brown, brown, and
light-brown areas).
61
Figure 23. Broadband service speed offered by AT&T California in Lakeport (December 2017)
Mediacom California
speeds offered by Mediacom in Lakeport (December 2017). Mediacom advertised 1 to less than 2 Gbps
download speeds (purple areas) throughout much of Lakeport; however, there are scattered areas in the
central and northern portions of town without service, as well as larger areas near the southern edge of
town without service.
62
Figure 24. Broadband service speed offered by Mediacom in Lakeport (December 2017)
Valley Internet
speeds offered by Valley Internet in Lakeport (December 2017). Valley Internet advertised 25 to less than
50 Mbps download speeds (green areas) in the southeast corner of Lakeport, as well as a few very small
areas near the northern edge of town.
63
Figure 25. Broadband service speed offered by Valley Internet in Lakeport (December 2017)
DigitalPath
fixed wireless network. Figure 26 shows speeds offered by DigitalPath in Lake County (December 2017).
DigitalPath does not currently provide service within the Lakeport city limits.
64
Figure 26. Broadband service speed offered by DigitalPath in Lakeport (December 2017).

North Coast Internet offers broadband service to business and residential customers in Lakeport
through a terrestrial fixed wireless network. Figure 27 shows broadband service speeds provided by North
Coast Internet of 25 to less than 50 Mbps (green areas) in an area in the northern portion of the Lakeport.
65
Figure 27. North Coast Internet broadband service coverage in Lakeport (December 2017).
Level 3 offers copper wireline service to business customers in Lakeport, shown in Figure 28. Level
3 reports copper wireline connections of more than 25 to less than 50 Mbps (green areas) in the southeast
corner of Lakeport.
66
Figure 28. Level 3's business-class broadband service coverage in Lakeport (December 2017)
Earthlink Business
areas) in portions of central and east Lakeport, shown in Figure 29.
67
Figure 29. Broadband service speed offered by Earthlink in Lakeport (December 2017).
U.S. TelePacific
copper wireline connectivity. This provider serves businesses in three areas within Lakeport with speeds
of 100 to less than 500 Mbps (blue areas) and 50 to less than 100 Mbps (dark-green areas). Figure 30
shows business-class broadband service provided by U.S. TelePacific.
68
MCI
MCI is a business-class broadband service provider. Based on CPUC data, MCI uses copper
wireline technology. This provider offers speeds of 1 to less than 3 Mbps service (light-brown area) in an
area of central Lakeport, shown in Figure 31.
69
Figure 31. Broadband service speed offered by MCI in Lakeport (December 2017).
Allstream Business
Allstream is a business-class broadband service provider. Based on CPUC data, Allstream
Business uses copper wireline technology. This provider offers speeds of 1 to less than 3 Mbps service
(light-brown area) in an area of western Lakeport, shown in Figure 31.
70
Figure 32. Broadband service speed offered by MCI in Lakeport (December 2017).
9.4 Appendix D: Clearlake Broadband Availability

Figure 33 shows wireline served areas and downstream speeds in Clearlake as of December 2017. For
more details on the technical capabilities and limitations of wired technologies, see Section 9.2 Appendix
B: Middle-, Second- and Last-Mile Broadband Technologies. Figure 33 shows that the highest available
downstream speeds (1–2 Gbps) are located through much of the center of Clearlake (purple areas).
Scattered areas in the center of town have access to speeds of 10 to less than 25 Mbps (green areas).
Other areas with downstream speeds lower than 10 Mbps (brown, light-brown, and yellow areas) are
scattered throughout the city, but are more prominent near the northern and southern edges of town.
There are also several scattered areas, as well as larger areas near the northern and eastern extremes of
Clearlake that are currently without broadband service.
71
Figure 33. Wireline served status (December 2017) in Clearlake under CPUC standard

Figure 34 shows the fixed wireless downstream speeds of Lake County as of December 2017.
Figure 34 shows that wireless downstream speeds of 10-50 Mbps (green and light-green areas) within a
few scattered areas in Clearlake. A fairly large area in the northwest of Clearlake is currently served with
speeds of 10 to less than 25 Mbps (light-green area), while several smaller areas in the center of Clearlake
are served with speeds of 25 to less than 50 Mbps (green area).
72
Figure 34. Fixed wireless served status in Clearlake (December 2017) under CPUC standard
AT&T California
AT&T offers residential and business services in Clearlake using a mix of asymmetric xDSL, ADSL2 and
ADLS2+ technologies. Figure 35 shows broadband speeds offered by AT&T (as of December 2017) with
ADSL2 and ADSL2+ technologies. AT&T offers speeds of 10 to 25 Mbps (light-green areas) in a large area
in the center of Clearlake. As one moves further north or south away from the center of town, AT&T’s
speeds drop below 10 Mbps (dark-brown, brown, light-brown, and yellow areas).
73
Figure 35. Broadband service speed offered by AT&T California in Clearlake (December 2017)
Mediacom California
speeds offered by Mediacom in Clearlake (December 2017). Mediacom advertised 1 to less than 2 Gbps
download speeds (purple areas) throughout most of Clearlake; however, there are large areas in the north
and south, as well as scattered areas in the center of town that are currently not served by Mediacom.
74
Figure 36. Broadband service speed offered by Mediacom in Clearlake (December 2017)
Valley Internet
speeds offered by Valley Internet in Clearlake (December 2017). Valley Internet advertised 25 to less than
50 Mbps download speeds (green area) in a small area in the center of town.
75
Figure 37. Residential broadband service speed offered by Valley Internet in Clearlake (December 2017)
DigitalPath
fixed wireless network. Figure 38 shows speeds offered by DigitalPath in Clearlake (December 2017). This
provider offers downstream speeds of 10 to less than 25 Mbps (light-green areas) in an area in the
northwest of Clearlake and in a small area in the center of town.
76
Figure 38. Broadband service speed offered by DigitalPath in Clearlake (December 2017).

North Coast Internet offers broadband service to business and residential customers in Clearlake
through a terrestrial fixed wireless network. Figure 39 shows broadband service speeds provided by North
Coast Internet of 25 to less than 50 Mbps (green areas) in number of small areas near the center of town
and in the northeast.
77
Figure 39. North Coast Internet broadband service coverage in Clearlake (December 2017).
Level 3 offers copper wireline and fiber-optic service to business customers in Lake County, but
does not currently provide service in Clearlake, shown in Figure 40.
78
Figure 40. Level 3's business-class broadband service coverage in Clearlake (December 2017)
Earthlink Business
areas) in two regions of central Clearlake, shown in Figure 41.
79
Figure 41. Broadband service speed offered by Earthlink in Clearlake (December 2017).
U.S. TelePacific
copper wireline connectivity. This provider serves businesses along the coast of Clear Lake and two small
areas near the center of Clearlake with speeds ranging from 1 to less than 3 Mbps (light-brown areas).
U.S. Telepacific also provides faster speeds of 3 to less than 6 Mbps in a larger area in the south of
Clearlake (orange area). Figure 42 shows business-class broadband service provided by U.S. TelePacific.
80
MCI
MCI is a business-class broadband service provider. Based on CPUC data, MCI uses copper
wireline technology. This provider offers speeds of 1 to less than 3 Mbps service (light-brown area) in an
area within central Clearlake, shown in Figure 43.
81
Figure 43. Broadband service speed offered by MCI in Clearlake (December 2017).
82
10 Glossary
25/3 Mbps: An Internet connection with a download speed of 25 megabits per second and an upload
speed of 3 megabit per second. Also, the speed at which the FCC considers an Internet connection to be
broadband.
6/1 Mbps: An Internet connection with a download speed of 6 megabits per second and an upload speed
of 1 megabit per second. Also, the speed at which the State of California considers an Internet connection
to be broadband.
ADSL2+: The next step up from standard ADSL that generally provides a faster Internet speeds. AT&T is
currently the only ISP offering ADSL2+ in Lake County.
Asymmetric DSL: A DSL line where the upload speed is different from the download speed. Usually the
download speed is much greater. Providers of asymmetric DSL include AT&T and Earthlink Business.
Backbone: A high-speed line or series of connections that forms a major pathway within a network.
Bandwidth: The capacity for data transfer of an electronic communications system.
bps: A measurement of how fast data is moved from one place to another via a network or Internet
connection.
Broadband: High-speed Internet access that is always on and faster than the traditional dial-up access.
Broadband Assets: Government owned assets that may assist in the deployment of broadband
infrastructure. Examples include towers or tall buildings that may be used to deploy wireless
infrastructure and rights-of-way to run underground conduit and fiber-optic cables.
Cable Modem DOCSIS (Data Over Cable Service Interface Specification): An international
telecommunications standard that permits the addition of high-bandwidth data transfer to an
existing cable TV system. Mediacom California is currently the only cable Internet provider in Lake County.
Cloud computing: The use of a network of remote servers hosted on the Internet to store, manage, and
process data. An alternative to the established practice of storing and processing data on a dedicated
server or computing machine.
Coverage: The geographical areas in which an ISP provides Internet connections.

CPUC: The California Public Utilities Commission. The CPUC regulates services and utilities, protects
consumers, safeguards the environment, and assures Californians' access to safe and reliable utility
infrastructure and services. The essential services regulated include electric, natural gas,
telecommunications, water, railroad, rail transit, and passenger transportation companies.
Digital Divide: A measurement of technological equality in access to and adoption of broadband that
provides metrics by census tract and county.
Download: An act or instance of transferring something (such as data or files) from a usually large
computer to the memory of another device (such as a smaller computer) over a network or Internet
connection.
Downstream: Data sent from a network service provider to a customer via the Internet.
83
DSL (Digital Subscriber Line): A category of technologies that transmit digital data over telephone lines.
Providers of DSL include AT&T and Earthlink Business.
FCC: The Federal Communications Commission. The Federal Communications Commission regulates
interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable in all 50 states,
the District of Columbia and U.S. territories. An independent U.S. government agency overseen by
Congress, the Commission is the federal agency responsible for implementing and enforcing America’s
communications law and regulations.
Fiber-optic cable: A type of cable used for very high speed data transmission.
Fiber-to-the-premises/fiber-to-the-home (FTTP/FTTH): The installation and use of optical fiber from
a central point directly to individual buildings such as residences, apartment buildings and businesses to
provide high-speed Internet access.
Fixed broadband: High-speed data transmission to homes and businesses using technologies such as T1,
cable, DSL and FiOS. The term excludes the cellular data market.
Fixed wireless: The operation of wireless communication devices or systems used to connect two fixed
locations with a radio or other wireless link.
Gbps (gigabits per second): A measurement, in terms of gigabits, of how fast data is moved from one
place to another via a network or Internet connection. A gigabit equals 1,000 megabits.
ILEC (Incumbent local exchange carrier): A local telephone company which held the regional
monopoly on landline service before the market was opened to competitive local exchange carriers, or
the corporate successor of such a firm.
Internet-of-things: The interconnection via the Internet of computing devices embedded in everyday
objects, enabling them to send and receive data.
IPTV: The delivery of television content over Internet networks.

ISP (Internet Service Provider): An institution/business that provides access to the Internet. Examples
of ISPs include AT&T, Netlink 101, Mediacom California, etc.
Kbps (kilobits per second): A measurement, in terms of kilobits, of how fast data is moved from one
place to another via a network or Internet connection.
Last-mile: The last segment of the connection between a communication provider (e.g., telephone
company central office, ISP) and the customer (usually residential, but sometimes commercial).
Latency: A measurement of the time it takes a data packet to travel through the network. It significantly
impacts the performance of interactive, real-time applications, including VoIP, online gaming,
videoconferencing, and VPN platforms.
Long-Term Evolution (LTE): A fourth generation (4G) mobile communications standard for the high-
speed wireless Internet connection of mobile devices (smartphones, tablets, etc.)
Machine to machine: Direct communication between devices through network or Internet connections.
Mbps (megabits per second): A measurement, in terms of megabits, of how fast data is moved from
one place to another via a network or Internet connection. A megabit equals 1,000 kilobits.
84
Middle-mile: The network infrastructure that connects last mile networks to other network service
providers, major telecommunications carriers, and the greater internet.
No service: According to the CPUC standard, areas where broadband is offered at slower speeds than 6
Mbps downstream and 1 Mbps upstream.
OFDM (Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplex): A form of transmission that uses a large number
of close spaced carriers that are modulated with low rate data.
P2P: A network allowing two or more computers to communicate directly without having to use a router
or other centralized server.
Packet Loss: The Measuring Broadband America program denotes a packet as lost if the latency exceeds
3 seconds or if the packet is never received. Packet losses might affect the perceived quality of phone calls
or video conferencing.
Point of presence: An access point to the Internet and a physical location that houses servers, routers,
etc. Also, an interconnection point within fiber-optic networks.
Public Right of Way (PROW): The right to cross property to go to and from another parcel. The right of
way may be a specific grant of land or an "easement," which is a right to pass across another's land. The
mere right to cross without a specific description is a "floating" easement. Some rights of way are for
limited use such as repair of electric lines or for deliveries to the back door of a store.
Served: According to the CPUC standard, areas where broadband is offered at speeds of at least 6 Mbps
downstream and 1 Mbps upstream. According to the FCC standard, areas where broadband is offered at
speeds of at least 25 Mbps downstream and 3 Mbps upstream.
Telecommuting: Working from home through the use of the internet, email, and by telephone.
Telemedicine: The use of telecommunication and information technology to provide clinical health care
from a distance.
Throughput: How much stuff you can send through a connection. Throughput is what people usually
mean when they use the term "bandwidth" and it is usually measured in bits-per-second (bps) A full page
of English text is about 16,000 bits. A common configuration of DSL allows downloads at speeds of up to
1.544 megabits (not megabytes) per second, and uploads at speeds of 128 kilobits per second.
TVWS (TV White Space): A form of wireless technology that takes advantage of unused TV channels
between the active ones in the VHF and UHF spectrum to transmit data.
Unserved: According to the FCC standard, areas where broadband is offered at slower speeds than 25
Mbps downstream and 3 Mbps upstream.
Upload: To transfer (something, such as data or files) from a computer or other digital device to the
memory of another device (such as a larger or remote computer) over a network or Internet connection.
Upstream: Data transferred from a customer to a server via the Internet.

USDA: The United States Department of Agriculture.
85
VDSL (Very-high-bit-rate digital subscriber line): A digital subscriber line technology that provides
faster data transmission than asymmetric digital subscriber line. AT&T is currently the only ISP offering
VDSL in Lake County.
Video on demand (VoD): A system in which viewers choose their own filmed entertainment, by means
of a PC or interactive TV system, from a wide selection.
VoIP technology: A technology that allows you to make voice calls using a broadband Internet
connection instead of a regular (or analog) phone line.
86
CITY OF LAKEPORT
City Council
STAFF REPORT
RE: Review and adoption of 2020/21 SB 1 Project List for the City MEETING DATE: 3/17/2020
of Lakeport
Douglas Grider, Public Works Director
SUBMITTED BY:

The City Council is being asked to review and adopt the presented resolution and project list proposed to be
funded with monies generated by the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 for fiscal year 2020-21 in the
estimated amount of $90,770.
On April 28, 2017, the Governor of California signed Senate Bill 1 (SB 1), known as the Road Repair and
Accountability Act of 2017. SB 1 increases gasoline and diesel taxes and vehicle registration fees to address basic
road maintenance and rehabilitation needs on both state highways and local streets and roads.
Monies generated through SB 1, will be deposited by the State Controller into a Road Maintenance and
Rehabilitation Account (RMRA). A portion of this funding will be apportioned by formula to eligible cities and
counties, including Lakeport pursuant to California Streets and Highways Code Section (SHC) 2032 (h).
Since SB 1 emphasizes accountability and transparency in transportation funding, programming and use of the
new funds is contingent on recipient cities and counties providing annual reporting. Per SHC 2034 (a) (1) prior to
receiving and RMRA funding each fiscal year, cities and counties must submit a list of projects to be funded with
the RMRA funds to the California Transportation Commission no later than May 1st of each year.
The California League of Cities prepared RMRA estimates based upon the most recent State Department of
Finance statewide revenue projections estimates the City of Lakeport will received $90,770 in RMRA revenue for
the fiscal year 2020-21.
Staff proposes that the anticipated funds for fiscal year 2020-21 be utilized and dedicated to the Second Street
Rehabilitation Project. This project includes the reconstruction of a section of Second Street between North Main
Street and Park Street along with the replacement of curb, gutter and sidewalk to meet current ADA standards.
Funds from last year will be added to this years funds in order to increase available funding for the project. Any
remaining monies will be dedicated to miscellaneous roadway maintenance and rehabilitation activities citywide.
OPTIONS:
1. Adopt the proposed SB 1 resolution and project list for fiscal year 2020-21.
2. Direct staff to make modifications or revisions to the proposed SB 1 Project List.
Meeting Date: 03/17/2020 Page 1 Agenda Item #VI.C.1.

3. Take no action or take action to deny the proposed SB 1 Project List. Alternatively, the City Council could
provide other direction.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None Budgeted Item? Yes No
Note: Funds to be included in City of Lakeport 2020-21 budget.
SUGGESTED MOTION:
Move to adopt the proposed resolution approving the City of Lakeport SB 1 Project List for fiscal year 2020-21
and direct staff to submit to the California Transportation Commission.
Attachments: 1. Resolution
2. Project List
3. Projected Revenues Sheet
Meeting Date: 03/17/2020 Page 2 Agenda Item #VI.C.1.

RESOLUTION NO. ______ (2020)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKEPORT

ADOPTING A LIST OF PROJECTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020-21 FUNDED BY SB 1: THE
ROAD REPAIR AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 1 (SB 1), the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (Chapter
5, Statutes of 2017) was passed by the Legislature and Signed into law by the Governor in April
2017 in order to address the significant multi-modal transportation funding shortfalls
statewide; and
WHEREAS, the City must adopt a list of all projects proposed to receive funding from the
Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA), created by SB 1 by resolution, which
must include a description and the location of each proposed project, a proposed schedule for
the project’s completion, and the estimated useful life of the improvement; and
WHEREAS, the City, will receive an estimated $90,770 in RMRA funding in Fiscal Year
2020-21 from SB 1; and
WHEREAS, this is the fourth year in which the City is receiving SB 1 funding and will
enable the City to continue essential road maintenance and rehabilitation projects, safety
improvements, repairing and replacing aging bridges, and increasing access and mobility
options for the traveling public that would not have otherwise been possible without SB 1; and
WHEREAS, the City Council solicited public input from local residents at its regular
meeting of March 17, 2020 in the determination of the community’s transportation
priorities/project list; and
WHEREAS, the City consulted its 2015 Pavement Management Program Report to
develop the SB 1 project list to ensure revenues are being used on the most high-priority and
cost-effective projects that also meet the communities priorities for transportation investment;
and
WHEREAS, the 2016 California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment
found that the City’s streets and roads are in poor condition and this revenue will aid in the
increase of the overall quality of the City’s local road system; and
WHEREAS, revenue from RMRA over the next decade, together with other local revenue
sources such as Measures I and Z, will aid the City in increasing the overall quality of our local
road system; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, ORDERED AND FOUND by the City Council of the
City of Lakeport, State of California, as follows:
1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct.

2. The fiscal year 2020-21 list of projects planned to be funded with Road
Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account revenues are attached hereto as Exhibit
A, which includes the Second Street Reconstruction Project between Main and
Park Streets. This project will be useful for at least 8-15 Years. The anticipated
schedule is to have construction completed by November 2020.
3. The Clerk shall cause this resolution and attached project list (Exhibit A) to be
transmitted to the California Transportation Commission under Streets and
Highways Code section 2034, subdivision (a)(1).
The foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City
Council on the 17th day of March 2020, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAINING:
ABSENT:
___________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
State of California--California Transportation Commission
Senate Bill (SB) 1 Proposed Project List Form
Local Streets and Roads Program
Agency Name: Agency Contact:

FY
Douglas Grider
Lakeport
(707) 263-3578
LoCode: 5076 dgrider@cityoflakeport.com 20/21
Summary of Proposed Project List

Estimated Useful
Estimated Completion Date:
Life
Project
Project Title Project Description Project Location
No. Pre-
Construction Min. Max.
Construction
Reconstruct existing roadway and replace Second Street between

Second Street
curb, gutter & sidewalk to meet current ADA Main Street and Park
Reconstruction
PP01 standards. Street 8/1/2020 10/1/2020 8 15
Miscelleneous roadway Mill and fill, dig-outs, pot-hole repairs and
Citywide
PP02 maintenance activities thin lift overlays. N/A N/A N/A N/A
PP03
PP04
PP05
PP06
PP07
PP08
PP09
PP10
PP11
PP12
PP13
PP14

Lakeport City Council Agenda Packet

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lakeport City Council Agenda Packet

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AGENDA

REGULAR MEETING OF THE LAKEPORT CITY COUNCIL

VI. COUNCIL BUSINESS:

A. Assistant City Manager

VII. CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS:

• County Health officials are communicating with State and Federal

• Employers: Encourage teleconferencing, encourage employees to stay

• Resources: The Health Department will give weekly updates to the

SUBMITTED BY: Margaret Silveira, City Manager

PURPOSE OF REPORT: Information only Discussion Action Item

WHAT IS BEING ASKED OF THE CITY COUNCIL/BOARD:

Meeting Date: 03/17/2020 Page 1 Agenda Item #IV.C.

Meeting Date: 03/17/2020 Page 2 Agenda Item #IV.C.

RESOLUTION NO. 2679 (2018)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKEPORT RATIFYING THE

WHEREAS, Chapter 2.28 of the Lakeport Municipal Code, adopted as Ordinance

WHEREAS, the Governor of the State of California proclaimed a state of emergency in

IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the Director of Emergency Services’

SUBMITTED BY: Margaret Silveira, City Manager

PURPOSE OF REPORT: Information only Discussion Action Item

WHAT IS BEING ASKED OF THE CITY COUNCIL/BOARD:

Meeting Date: 03/17/2020 Page 1 Agenda Item #IV.D.

Meeting Date: 03/17/2020 Page 2 Agenda Item #IV.D.

SUBMITTED BY: Margaret Silveira, City Manager

PURPOSE OF REPORT: Information only Discussion Action Item

WHAT IS BEING ASKED OF THE CITY COUNCIL/BOARD:

Meeting Date: 03/17/2020 Page 1 Agenda Item #IV.E.

Meeting Date: 03/17/2020 Page 2 Agenda Item #IV.E.

225 PARK STREET

Paid By:LAKE COUNTY OFFICE OF ED - ADVOCACY WALK & CHILDREN'S FESTIVAL

We have no issues with this event.

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 7:58 AM Hilary Britton <hbritton@cityoflakeport.com> wrote:

Thank you for your input.

Deputy City Clerk/Records Supervisor

225 Park Street

Lakeport, CA 95453

(707) 263-5615 x102

No concerns from Transit! Thank you!

Director Regional Operations

"Providing Quality Coordinated Transportation and community services since 1980"

Direct: (707) 994-3384 ext 5

Please consider the environment before printing this email.

>>> Hilary Britton <hbritton@cityoflakeport.com> 2/26/2020 7:58 AM >>>

Thank you for your input.

Good afternoon Hilary,

SUBMITTED BY: Nicholas Walker, Finance Director

PURPOSE OF REPORT: Information only Discussion Action Item

WHAT IS BEING ASKED OF THE CITY COUNCIL/BOARD:

Attachments: 1. Auditor Communications Letter to Those Charged with Governance

Meeting Date: 03/17/2020 Page 1 Agenda Item #IV.G.

COMMUNICATION WITH THOSE CHARGED WITH GOVERNANCE AND

JUNE 30, 2019

Our Responsibility in Relation to the Financial Statement Audit

Planned Scope and Timing of the Audit

Qualitative Aspects of the Entity’s Significant Accounting Practices

Significant Accounting Policies

Significant Accounting Estimates

Financial Statement Disclosures

Significant Difficulties Encountered during the Audit

We encountered no significant difficulties in dealing with management relating to the performance of

In addition, professional standards require us to communicate to you all material, corrected

Disagreements with Management

Representations Requested from Management