Dixon City Council to Consider

"Procedural Changes" to Stifle Input

from Councilmember & Public

Measure L to Wins Handily

Dixon Sewer Fees Will Be Rolled Back

See full Story

Jack Batchelor Elected to City Council

Mike Gomez Now Holds 51 Vote

Lead Over Vice-Mayor Gil Vega

for Second Council Seat

See full Story

County Measure J Defeated

Dixon Farmers Relieved

Developers Kicked in Over $25,000

to Defeat Dixon Measure L

See full Story

Sewer Forum Yields Technology Options

See full Story

Is Dixon No Longer Really "Lambtown?"

by Ivy Schtapf

At its meeting last week, the Dixon City Council heard the appeal of the planning commission’s action to deny a conditional use permit to Natalie Angelman for her pet sheep, Pepper. Pepper was the star of the nativity scene during Dixon’s tree lighting ceremony.

Preliminary statements by the council were mainly questions of City Attorney Michael Dean. New councilman Mike Gomez asked, "What do I do if I am having difficulty understanding the findings?" Mayor Mary Ann Courville wanted clarification of the two types of uses. Smith asked if the sheep was legal before the passing of the zoning ordinance requiring a conditional use permit. No definitive answers were given by Dean except on Courville’s technical question.

Attorney Bill Bernheim of Davis representing the Angelmans first touted his community involvement in Dixon, then addressed Pepper’s viability outside of the only home she has ever known as being improbable. He questioned the veracity of the Wentz family who claimed they couldn’t use their yard or keep their windows open. Bernheim claimed to have videotape of both actions occurring.

Also questioned was the timing of the complaint as the Angelmans had first filed a complaint against the barking of the Wentz’s dog. Bernheim claimed that both Melissa Murphy of the Reporter and Brianna Boyd of the Tribune had to move their interviews to the front yard because of the dog’s barking.

Jason Wentz was next to testify. He disputed the Angelmans’ claim that Pepper was at the home from May of 2001. Wentz stated the Angelmans had a pig first, then brought in the lamb. He produced a picture with an April 2003 date showing a lamb he identified as Pepper. His other contention was that a cleaning solution that was used resulted in his family choking inside their home.

Civic activist Michael Ceremello questioned the Wentz’s motivation along with the fact that one of the two co-complainants didn’t live anywhere close. He questioned why the Wentz’s next door neighbors didn’t complain and why the complaint forms were identical down to the misspelling of Rehrmann Drive as Rhearman. He stated that he had personally visited Pepper’s pen and smelled only minor odors - the same to which Community Development Director David Dowswell had referred in his report.

Ceremello then chastized planning commissioners Yvonne McCluskey and Dan Ayala over their statements claiming "horrendous odors." He noted that fellow commissioner Doug Uhlik said exactly the opposite. Ceremello finished by reminding the council that Dixon’s code still allows up to 4 sheep to be legally kept in a person’s yard and it directly conflicts with the recently passed single family zoning ordinance.

When the subject went to council discussion, Gomez stated that "there are alternative options we haven’t explored" and he didn’t believe there were enough facts to corroborate the written findings before him. Batchelor however found "no persuasive evidence" to overturn the commission’s decision. He said it wasn’t about "the lamb in Lambtown, it is about the ordinance."

Alexander questioned both parties on items ranging from the use of bleach to property values. He asked whether smells were different in the summer than the winter, if the pictures were dated properly, and if the sheep pen could be moved. Alexander ended by stating he was looking for a "win-win solution". After a brief intermission, Alexander asked Wentz if he would look at other options including revisiting the situation in 6 months, to which Wentz replied, "No".

Courville went down a path she has trodden before. While continuing to claim that large animals have no place in tract home backyards, she claimed the "sheep has become a nuisance" but the nuisance can be abated. Seeing that she did not have the support to remove the sheep, Courville said she was willing to give finding options a try. She suggested relocation of the pen accompanied by removing dirt she claims is saturated with urine from both backyards.

Later in the evening Courville again gave differing views of how to handle the sheep’s presence. On one hand she suggested making it the mascot for the new high school, then insisted on "tightening up the animal ordinance" to prevent any more such cases coming before the council. It was at this point that Batchelor joined his peers recommending regrading the properties for proper drainage and moving the pen to as remote location as possible.

With the entire council in agreement, a vote was taken to give Pepper a 6 month conditional use permit. Final language will be provided at a later date.

Return to Summary Headlines

Return to top of page

Return to IV Home Page

by Ivy Schtapf

Dixon’s new city council comprised of recently elected councilmen Michael Gomez and Jack Batchelor III along with holdovers Steve Alexander, Michael Smith, and mayor Mary Ann Courville had quite the full evening last Tuesday, December 12th. No chance for a slow start was given with an agenda packed with items ranging from ADA considerations to Pepper the sheep. In fact, the depth of discussion on a variety of subjects meant the council wasn’t able to complete everything before them.

Before the meeting, Councilman Smith was interviewed by a local television crew on the subject of Dixon Downs. Earlier that day the Dixon Citizens for Quality Growth (DCQG) turned in over 1300 signatures attempting to qualify a referenda vote on the remaining two of four actions approving the race track. The two referenda on the resolutions have already been qualified and action to either rescind the approval or place the measures on the ballot must occur at the next regularly scheduled council meeting. It is unknown whether the County Registrar of Voters will have certified the referenda on the ordinances by that time so they can both be heard at once.

The actual meeting started off with public comment by Gail Preston and Mary Ann Montague about the Downs, while Chamber of Commerce President Gordon Hammond bemoaned the actions against Dixon Downs and voiced his hopes that the council would gain back the authority he felt they had lost. Ourania Riddle and Michael Ceremello, both members of the Dixon Chapter of the Solano County Taxpayers Association asked for the council to begin the process on developing an acceptable solution to solve the wastewater treatment predicament.

The city is currently under a Cease and Desist Order (CDO) by the State Water Resources Board. The board and the city agreed to a solution which would triple sewer rates and essentially continue the same treatment but at a remote location while stopping percolation of effluent where it now occurs.

Mayor Courville stated that the council couldn’t discuss this as it wasn’t on the agenda but claimed that all members of the council had approached the city manager about beginning action. It was decided to hold a workshop some time in January. This date has now been identified as Monday, January 22nd.

The next item to be heard was the selection of a Vice Mayor. Councilman Alexander had been touting a rotating 1 year term for the position. After a discussion of options, Councilman Smith was nominated after agreeing to hold the position for only one year.

The issue of compliance by the City with the federal Americans with Disabilities Act was removed from the consent calendar and discussed at length. Details of that discussion are in an article on the back page of this issue. At stake is the speed at which the City improves sidewalks to make them passable by the disabled, and the costs which individual property owners will have to pay for sidewalk repairs - 50% of the cost, with the City paying the other 50%.

The Council also heard an appeal of the Planning Commissions decision to require a Dixon resident to remove a pet sheep named Pepper from her property. Pepper has been raised at the home since it was a new-born lamb, and was the "star" of the recent Downtown Dixon Christmas festival. The details of that discussion, and the 6 months probationary approval for Pepper to remain at home, are also published in a separate article on page 8 of this issue.

The time was now past 11 and the council decided to postpone hearing the general plan review and discussing procedural guidelines. Alexander pushed on with his item on "new ideas and innovative ways to select commission members."

This discussion was split between considerations of the mayor’s allowed authority to appoint and the council’s ability to attend the interviews. While nothing prohibits the council from interviewing applicants in public, the mayor objected on the grounds that it would be intimidating to some. It was eventually decided to allow one councilman attend the private interviews the mayor conducts.

Later on in the week the Independent Voice was made aware of emails arguing these points and a final response from Terry Francke, an attorney with Calaware which promotes open government and first amendment rights.

Francke was quoted as saying, "The ability to sit through a public interview, complete with comments from the community, is probably a pretty good predictor of the ability to tolerate the give and take of discourse in a public forum if the person is appointed. Aside from these general considerations, the Planning Commission in particular is so vital to the business and residential interests of the community that under no circumstances should it be populated by anything but the most open process."

The meeting then proceeded into closed session over four cases of existing litigation. The meeting was adjourned around midnight.

At their regular meeting held Tuesday, December 12, the Dixon City Council, directed city staff to set up a workshop in early January to discuss the sewer upgrade issue.

The workshop will develop procedures for further public discussions, and how the city will address the wastewater predicament.

The action was taken at the request of the Dixon Chapter of the Solano County Taxpayers Association (DC-SCTA),

 "The Dixon Chapter  is committed to continue our research, be involved  and work with the city and waterboard  to resolve this issue," said Ourania Riddle, secretary of the taxpayers group.

The consent calendar at last week’s City Council meeting saw the Americans with Disabilities Act, the ADA, back in the limelight. Ceremello led off by discussing the item, which was the award of a contract for the second phase of curb cuts, and combining it with a later item on sidewalk repair. Ceremello felt that the items could have been funded and accomplished sooner if the council had not approved of last year’s budgeted salary increases which total $1.7 million.

Citizens Acting for the Rights of the Disabled (CARD) members, Byron Chapman, Ron Wilson, and John Grahl reiterated the timeliness points but also pointed out the omissions of the first phase which impacted Wilson directly. City Engineer Royce Cunningham explained that the final two quadrants would go to bid in early 2007 and the missed curb cuts could be remedied as part of any of these projects.

on Sewer Upgrade Issue

by Dave Scholl, Publisher, Dixon's Independent Voice

Council Called on Spending Decisions

Dixon Sewer Fees Will Be Rolled Back

Dixon voters by a 58.96% to 41.04% margin have voted to roll back the tripled sewer fee hikes recently imposed by the Dixon City Council.

The vote total as of 4:00 pm Tuesday, November 14, is 2,737 votes for Measure L - which rolls back the fees, versus 1,905 votes against.

Jack Batchelor Elected to City Council.

In Major Upset, Challenger

Mike Gomez Holds 51 Vote Lead Over Incumbent Vice-Mayor Gil Vega

Jack Batchelor was easily elected to an open seat on the Dixon City Council with 1,849 votes - leading the field of seven candidates.

In a major turn-around from preliminary results, Challenger Mike Gomez leads incumbent Vice-Mayor Gil Vega by 51 votes as the counting of absentee and provisional ballots came in.

These unofficial results are as of 4:00 pm Tuesday, November 14.

Vega held a 29 vote lead for re-election to the Council over Gomez in preliminary results Tuesday night, but that lead vanished as absentee ballots turned in at the polls were counted.

According to the Solano County Registrar of Voters, over 10,000 voters county-wide turned in a absentee ballots at the polls. These voters had applied for and received their absentee ballots prior to election day, but had not mailed them. Such voters are allowed to turn in their ballots at any polling place in the county on election day.

Provisional ballots are those cast at polling places by persons who may not have been eligible to cast ballots. Most were voters who had requested absentee ballots, but had not mailed them in. Voting lists at precincts include notes as to who has received absentee ballots. Such voters cast provisional ballots, subject to verification that they had not also submitted their absentee ballots.

The office of the Solano County Registrar of Voters has stated the final count probably will be completed on Monday, November 13.

At this point, Gomez has 1,666 votes, while Vega has 1615. When Vega ran for re-election four years ago, he received 2,311 votes.

If the results hold, the new City Council will be be markedly different from the current one in its approach to issues.

Both Vega and Batchelor supported the tripling of sewer fees - which the electorate defeated by a 59% to 41% margin. They both also support the Dixon Downs Racetrack.

Gomez opposed the sewer fee hike and has been skeptical of Dixon Downs.

Both Batchelor and Vega have supported the Dixon Downs racetrack proposal.

Batchelor based his campaign on his record of civic activity on the School Board, Rotary Club and numerous other groups. He promised to work for better communications between the City Council and staff and the public. He has also promised to listen respectfully to all sides of the issues - and seek consensus as much as possible, not just on the council, but with the public.

This is Gomez's first foray into elective office. He has held numerous position in state government, including with the state legislature as an analyst and in law enforcement.

Vega pointed to his leadership on the Council, asking the voters to look around them and see the progress the city has made while he has been on the council

Ironically, the most staunch opponent of the racetrack turned out to be a "spoiler." A split in the "reform" vote between four candidates with that viewpoint allowed Batchelor to lead the field while garnering a minority of the ballots cast.

Batchelor garnered the votes of about 46% of those who cast ballots in the election. While 40.1% voted for Vega - just slightly less than the percentage who voted against Measure L. (Each voter could cast two votes for City Council.)

The four "reformers" - Mike Gomez, David Dingman, Mike Ceremello and Kay Fulfs Caylor - so far have received a combined total of 4,321 votes - 53.74% of votes cast.

The "stay the course" candidates - Batchelor and Vega - received a combined 3,335 votes - 43.02% of all votes cast.

The balance, 3.24% of the votes, went to write-ins.

The total for write-in candidates is 261 votes. As Ted Hickman is the only person who qualified as a write-in candidate, it can be assumed that most of those votes were for him.

So far, challenger Mike Ceremello received 1,140 votes - about 1,400 less votes than he received when he ran for Mayor two years ago.

Part of that drop can be attributed to a last minute "hit-piece" paid for by developers - but mostly to a drop in the number voters casting ballots.

In the 2004 Mayor contest, over 5,800 ballots were cast, versus only about 3,900 ballots cast last Tuesday. 

City Treasurer David Dingman has received 821 votes; and Kay Fulfs Cayler 700 votes.

Turn-out was also a factor. Four years ago the winners - Vega and Lorne Ferrero - each won over with over 2,000 votes. (Vega 2,311, Ferrero, 2,293.)

Total ballots cast this year were about 1,000 less than in 2004 - also a non-presidential year - despite the population growth in Dixon since that time.

Another surprising key factor was the number of voters who voted on Measure L - the roll back of sewer fees - but did NOT vote for a City Council candidate, or only voted for one candidate instead of two. Just under 3,900 voters cast ballots for council, while 4,642 cast votes for or against Measure L.

That difference of over 700 voters could have made the difference among the top four vote-getters.

Dixon area farmers were relieved when results of Tuesday's election showed Solano County Measure J was narrowly defeated. Unofficial results as of Thursday night showed 52.4% of ballots for the NO side, and 47.6% voting YES.

The measure was supported by former County Supervisor Duane Kromm and other political leaders in the bigger cities in the county.

The farmers opposing the measure were put at a disadvantage when they missed the deadline to file arguments against the measure for publication in the election information booklets mailed by the county elections department to all registered voters.

The farmers filed a legal action to have their arguments included, but were turned down by the judge who heard the motion.

If passed, Measure J would have required a county-wide election for county zoning of any rural properties. That restriction would have been imposed for thirty years.

Farmers argued they would be prevented from adjusting their agricultural practices necessary to make farming profitable. They also argued that giving voters in Vallejo and other cities veto power for 30 years over agricultural land use decisions 40 miles away in Dixon was unjust and unreasonable.  

by Michael Ceremello

While local business owners and a city councilman were busy putting up signs opposing Measure L, which needs a YES vote to roll back sewer rate increases, the proponents of the Measure, the Dixon Chapter of the Solano County Taxpayers Association questioned the use of funds donated by outsiders, all of whom are developers.

Leading the list of contributors is Brookfield development out of Danville with a $15,000 donation. Contra Costa Land Investment of Martinez and RHCA Investment of Walnut Creek each donated $3,000. MacDonald Realty gave $1,000 and although they have a local address, their principal and owner is a resident of Davis.

Brookfield has the most to lose if their development south of town is held up by the city further dragging their feet in coming to an equitable solution. However, building is not scheduled to occur until 2008.

According to an anonymous source, Brookfield is a Canadian company based in Toronto, also home to Magna Entertainment Corporation which just last week received council approval to build Dixon Downs. The source stated "Brookfield Asset Management (BAM) owns 50% of Brookfield Homes (at least they did in December 2005). BAM is one of the stocks recommended by the Motley Fool in ‘Stocks 2006.’ According to Bill Mann who wrote the article on BAM the company ‘generates much of its gains by buying assets cheap and selling them dear...’ "

If Measure L is successful, it will force the city to look at other options for solving its wastewater treatment plant problems of capacity and salinity. Capacity is a dual responsibility of current rate payers and new development only if the city’s proposed solution of lining the current ponds and transporting effluent water elsewhere is followed. If proposed solutions, by both the city’s consultants and the DC-SCTA, are adopted, this need would be eliminated for the current rate payer.

Salinity is the key issue to solving both problems for the current rate payer. If salinity can be reduced, percolation at the current site can continue. It can be achieved in a number of ways. The city is conducting trace element studies in an attempt to prove that the groundwater directly under the percolation ponds is not being affected. Consultants recently gave the city an alternate solution, that of a "Biolac" treatment system, at a significantly lower cost. Simple elimination of water softeners or adding water to take the place of what evaporates would also solve the problem. Additionally, the DC-SCTA believes that partial salt removal at the well head would also solve the salinity issue.

While these may be viewed as positives by the community at large, Measure L’s opponents correctly point out detrimental effects primarily relegated to developers and new businesses wishing to locate in Dixon. Until the wastewater issue is resolved, new development may be prohibited as capacity is not available. However, capacity can be expanded unless the State Water Board refuses to allow this until the salinity problem is addressed. This option has not been addressed at any of the forums the city has sponsored.

The arguments offered up by the opponents are not viewed as being even remotely valid by the DC-SCTA. President Ed Coffelt stated in response to the mailer the opponents sent out this week, that "the arguments don’t hold water."

"Comparing Dixon to Hollister, which had a moratorium placed on it for not complying for 3 years, is quite different from Dixon where we are looking for the best solution. We are only refusing to be forced to do something that makes no sense and which will cost Dixonites far more than we should be paying. The most ludicrous statement is that the City’s solution will save citizens millions of dollars, when in fact it will cost us at least $21 million more in financing."

Coffelt also informs the citizens of Dixon, "We are looking out for the rate payers best interests. We are all from Dixon. We won’t ask our citizens to fund a high powered campaign. It is just more waste."

Measure L will be voted on November 7th. A YES vote will repeal the sewer rate increase. A NO vote will allow the tripling of rates to occur in the next couple of years.

Sewer Rate Forum Yields

Technology Options

The city sponsored $55,000 consultant series of forums addressing all aspects of the sewer treatment plant planned upgrades continued Wednesday, October 18^th with three experts on technology options. The State regulatory environment and financing were prior topics and one final forum is planned on impacts if the Measure L initiative is approved to roll back the recently increased fee rates which eventually will be tripled. Once again, there was only sparse attendance by the public.

Ron Crites, Rob Beggs, and George Tchobanoglous spoke on the issues and potential options for solving Dixon’s wastewater problems of capacity and salinity. The same caveats were evident again as in earlier forums.

Beggs pointed out that "background groundwater salinity (is) not clearly established". He also had graphs showing that salinity has decreased to below the level required by the State from its historically higher values. Beggs spoke of the "tracer element study" currently being conducted but not due back until January 2007 as providing better information as to whether the city’s solution remains valid.

Another chart Beggs provided demonstrated three obvious sources of salinity which could be reduced. Source water was the largest contributor, followed by water softeners, and evaporation which concentrates salt. Solutions were given to all of these including drilling deeper wells, eliminating automatic flushing water softeners, and diluting effluent with surface water such as irrigation water. Left out of these solutions was desalination at the source which was addressed by Tchobanoglous later.

Throughout this discussion, it was pointed out that the effluent almost meets the current State requirements for salinity already. The consultants all pointed out that total salt removal is unnecessary. With a reduction in salt levels, it also calls into question the $40 million project proposed by the city.

Tchobanoglous spoke on several types of treatment plants including a "sequencing batch reactor" and a "Biolac process". His concentration at this point was on treating the effluent. Costs for the Biolac process appeared to be substantially less at $18 million with $10 million of that in required headwork’s improvements only some of which is the responsibility of current rate payers.

During his portion, Tchobanoglous recommended against the city’s strategy of lining ponds as extremely costly. Crites likewise cautioned, "The background groundwater quality assessment is continuing. That assessment must be completed before rational decisions can be made on pond lining or acceptable location of percolation." (emphasis added)

During the question and answer period, it was pointed out that reducing salinity at the source, where the water is pumped out of the ground, would eliminate any need for the city’s solution. Tchobanoglous countered that due to the city not having one source but many, it would be expensive to do this but not impossible. At the end, he added that the city may want to weigh the overall health benefits from doing this.

It was also pointed out that eliminating either the salinity from water softeners or evaporation would solve the salinity problem by members of the Dixon Chapter of the Solano County Taxpayers Association. In a letter released to all local papers before this meeting, the Chapter endorsed efforts to remove salts from the incoming water as a "long term" solution.

The Chapter has not backed down from pushing their initiative which requires a YES vote to repeal the rate increase. They continue to believe the city must be forced to find and use a better solution. As many of these options presented this night were never brought before the public, the Taxpayers points are continuing to gain credibility and validity.

In a development which occurred over the weekend, an unknown group has begun to put up campaign signs opposing the initiative claiming that it is "irresponsible and will cost us all more". It is unknown whether these opponents attended this forum where the figures refute their argument.

Dixon is Lambtown in Name Only

Big Stink Raised Over Backyard Lamb

Return to IV Home Page