Editor’s Note: This letter was read aloud by Dixon City Attorney Doug White at the Measure S Special Meeting on Thursday, December 17, 2020.

To: Mayor Steve Bird and Council Members: Jim Ernest, Don Hendershot, Kevin Johnson, Scott Pederson

We, the undersigned, received, in our home address, an undated letter from the City Manager stating “on behalf of the City Council” he is “giving the opportunity to the Proponents of Measure S to prepare a presentation for the City Council and the members of the public…” The letter continued its direction that “The presentation should focus on your recommendations and suggestions for addressing the deficiencies in the City’s water system, including a viable plan for funding the necessary improvements.” 

Given the recent election, and resulting changes to the Dixon City Council that will not be sworn in until December 15, 2020, we are confused about exactly whose authority the City Manager has acted under with his letter. The Brown Act states that "Special meetings may be called at any time by the presiding officer…or by a majority of the members..." (Gov.Code §54954.2).  As such, it appears to us that the City Manager has no authority himself under the law to call for a special council meeting. 

We are unaware of any direction given by the outgoing Council that a special meeting be held, or that the City Manager acted on the Council’s behalf in this regard, as he noted in his letter. If there was such a direction, we then question the appropriateness of an outgoing council directing the actions of an incoming council. We would appreciate information or clarifications from you related to this issue.

While we are looking forward to working with you on every issue that affects the City, we are not prepared, at this time, to do the City’s job and clean up the mess created by the City Council and City Administration. After the City hired consultants and forced unreasonable rates onto the ratepayers for the past two years, the City Manager now demands ratepayers do the work of paid consultants and city staff to come up with viable options for funding the water system? And to give the proponents less than 1 week to prepare is totally unreasonable, especially during the holidays. You work for us not the other way around.

We hope this is not an example as to how the new council will perform the public’s business. God help Dixon if this is the plan. 

One of the common underlying concerns expressed by persons signing the Initiative petition was a major lack of trust in the City Council and City Administration related to the management and operation of the City water system.  

ON NOVEMBER 3, 2020, THE VOTERS SPOKE LOUD AND CLEAR. Measure S did not pass “with a majority vote.” An overwhelming majority of the voters (72%) voiced their displeasure with the City’s water rates. 

Our position on the Water issue was clearly stated in the text of the initiative and in our Argument in Support of Measure S. 

As stated in the initiative petition “The People of the City of Dixon call on the City to undertake a new, sincere and comprehensive look at adopting water rates that reflect the Water District’s legitimate costs of providing water service without creating huge new debt obligations by selling bonds or subsidizing future development. 

Any future rate setting process should respect the participation of all ratepayers by (a) providing impartial, accurate information regarding the impact of the proposed new rates; (b) providing all ratepayers a reasonable opportunity to participate and does not effect of suppressing ratepayer/voter involvement; (c) be cognizant of the impact of any rate increase on businesses and families, particularly to the large number of fixed and low income households in this community; and (d) adopting rates that are rational and justified by the City of Dixon Water District’s operational costs related to delivery of water services, and infrastructure maintenance and improvement needs.”

As stated in our Argument in Support of Measure S “Measure S will restore the PEOPLE’S VOICE at City Hall. City leaders refused to listen to your concerns or responded to inquiries and they raised your water rates – without your consent using questionable practices during the Prop 218 protest process. 

Passage of Measure S will hold them accountable. 

City leaders did not justify why the three wells need to be replaced, including providing the results of any downhole video inspections and engineering assessments. They did not even explain why well rehabilitation measures, such as swaging, lining, hydraulic and chemical treatment, pump modification, or the use of in-well sand separators cannot be used to extend the service life of the wells in a cost-effective manner.” 

The voters overwhelmingly endorsed our position and over seventy two percent (72%) voted YES on Measure S. We did our job, now do yours.  

Our response to the City Manager’s letter to us is that it is HIS job, and thus that of the City’s, to work with ratepayers, address their questions and concerns, and then identify adequately justified and properly documented measures for Dixon’s water system. This is something that the City Manager and the Council have neglected to do over the past two years at the significant detriment to the city.

In the interest of moving ahead we believe the City must, at a minimum, take the following long overdue measures to provide transparency and accountability, build ratepayer trust, identify properly investigated and technically justified measures for the City’s water system, and THEN work to build consensus on what fiscal measures are appropriate to support them.

All ratepayer questions and concerns expressed at the two council member neighborhood meetings should be documented and responded to in a public document posted on the City’s website. A draft version of the document for ratepayer comment should be posted first. A final version of it should be developed and posted after the 30-day ratepayer comment period has been completed.

The questions and concerns presented in the Solano County Taxpayer Association’s letter of December 10, 2018 to the City should be answered in a public document and posted on the City’s website together with the Association’s original letter to the City. 

Comments expressed by ratepayers at a November 19, 2019 meeting with Dixon’s Director of Public Works, Joe Leach in relation to the need for detailed physical and engineering assessments of major components of Dixon’s water system, including each of the City’s older production wells, should be documented and responded to on the City’s website. Such assessments, beyond just the City’s limited consideration of age and outward appearance in many cases, are essential for ascertaining the actual condition of these components, determining whether or not rehabilitation or replacement measures are appropriate, and evaluating the necessary timing for any necessary rehabilitation or replacement actions. 

Fiscal questions and inconsistencies noted by ratepayers at that same meeting, and at Council meetings that followed, should also be documented and properly responded to on the City’s website.

The City should account for all revenues generated by the rate increases enacted by the Council on April 1, 2019. The City should also detail any water system impact fees collected for development over the past two years. This accounting should include any expenditures of these funds and the fiscal reserve accumulated to date. The City also needs to inform ratepayers about any plans it has to use monies from the fiscal reserve in 2021. All of this information should be posted on the City’s website and kept up to date.

Once an adequate engineering condition assessment of the City’s water system infrastructure has been completed, and any system component rehabilitation or replacement measures have been properly justified, the City should determine the appropriateness of staggering the timing of any such measures. If technically appropriate, a staggered approach could be used to reduce or eliminate the need for financing and reduce short- and long-term impacts on ratepayers.

In addition to addressing the above points, the new Council must conduct itself in a professional, respectful, and dignified manner as an essential part of regaining ratepayer trust. It is our understanding that an individual council member whose term extends into the new Council reportedly, in a statement on a public website, referred to the proponents of Measure S as political extremists. If this is true, such a statement is unfair, prejudicial, bigoted, and constitutes bullying. It is also very unbecoming of someone holding public office.  

The new Council and City Administration now have the opportunity to right the many wrongs of the recent past and establish trust. Water system ratepayers need their questions answered and must be convinced that the City actually knows what it's doing, that the nature and timing of any system rehabilitation measures are fully justified, any rate increase is appropriate and fair, and that the City will strive to act professionally and legally in the future.

The Council must begin today, by answering all the questions asked in the last two years, and work earnestly with ratepayers, and attain consensus on what needs to be done. We are looking forward to working with you. If you are not willing to work with the citizens you represent, we know what to do and will do it again. 

Yours in Community Service,

Harry Savage 

Michael Jones 

Shari Borkin 

Dorothy Kroll