Community Update

Use of Federal and Taxpayer Funds

The Use of Taxpayers
and Federal Funds

In response to the article in the Sept. 8th,
Tribune which was written by the Administrator of the Chamber of Commerce regarding
the transportation center where two inaccurate statements were cited and Mary
Savage was “called on the carpet” for those statements.  The chamber administrator acknowledged that it
still owns their building located at East Mayes Street.

Let’s take a look at the issues; first, leasing a taxpayer-financed
station is not a personal issue with the chamber, but an issue of fairness and
good business practices when the taxpayers paid and in return are not getting
the value for their money. The (replica) transportation station was built with
taxpayer “Government Money.” Our recollection is that the initial cost was in
the neighborhood of $2,000,000 for the station and parking lot, and the city receives
$1/month in rent. In other cities, we see quite different examples.  The city of Windsor rents its train station
for $8,000.00 per year, and the city of Truckee receives $38,000 in rent each
year. Then you have only to ask yourself, “why then has this incongruity been
allowed here?”

Has the city been practical in the use of two million
dollars of taxpayer funds? Has the city achieved a good return with the use of
city “tax” funds?  Would you give the
city $2,000,000 to invest for you?  The
city should have been an astute business body and should have been collecting
rent for all the necessary funds to maintain the property in full operational
condition.

The city is responsible for all repairs over $250 and for
landscaping and lighting for the 100+ parking spaces. In approximately 2026,
the roof and heating/air conditioning system will need to be replaced and the
building will need to be painted, (probably much sooner), and the parking lot
will need to be repaved. Is the city prepared for the long term maintenance or
maybe there is an expectation that the taxpayers will continue to pay the bill?

In
the original grant proposal (2004-2005) for
the transportation station, Dixon city officials said the "building will be used for
transit administration/operations and commuter information in the short
term." The documents further state that the building will be staffed by
"transit dispatch staff". No mention was made in the proposal about
leasing the building to anyone at any price. Despite the claims in the grant
proposal, transit staff has never been housed in the so-called train station
building, but the building has been continuously leased to the Chamber. The
current lease runs through 2016. No RFP was ever issued.  It is curious that in
the October 11, 2006 city council minutes,
discussion was noted regarding leasing the transportation station to the
chamber of commerce, well before the May
6, 2007 grand opening of the transportation station.

The
federal guidelines provide that when the city changed away from the proposal to
use city employees to staff the transit station as agreed upon, they were
required to ask FHWA (Federal Highway Administration) for approval for a change
in use. No record appeared showing the city officials submitted such a change
request. Further, federal regulations require that if the city cannot use the
building they must get fair market rent for the building. This appears to be a
gift of public funds, a breach of contract and a sweetheart deal with our tax
dollars.

The chamber of commerce can return to its former building, a
building that it owns. A building where the chamber is collecting rent and
demonstrating astute business sense. In this event the City Transit Department
could readily be housed at the transportation station straight away and the
facility could be utilized as an expansion place as city staff feels is
appropriate. By housing the transit staff in the building and parking Readi –
Ride buses outside the building, when not in use, new residents and visitors
would immediately know where to go for transit information.

It is true that the chamber does not charge rent for the
meeting room nor should it charge rent for a city owned building financed with
federal funds paid for by the taxpayers. In proper business management the
chamber should have been required to pay the market rate rental fee and to meet
the lease agreement. In the lease agreement, the city council notified the
public that the chamber would staff the facility Monday through Friday from
(9:00am to 5:00pm).

The representative writing on behalf of the chamber has
stated that “but we have at times even opened it after hours for special sign
ups of different community groups.” This appears to violate the lease agreement
and it is shocking that the organizers of a local group were unsuccessful in
accessing the use of the building for holding 
meetings. Were all the community groups in the community notified that
the chamber would allow after hours meetings? Under what circumstances would
this occur? Was this practice widely advertised and was it also agreed to by
the city? There is now an established “past practice.”

This is a federally funded building, which falls under
federal civil rights laws. Local groups that were not notified or were turned
down to use the building after hours are eligible to file a discrimination
complaint with the Office of Civil Rights. We do not recall ever seeing
any promotion from the city that the chamber meeting room is available free of
charge, nor that exceptions can be made to the policy for use of the building
in off hours. In checking the city and chamber websites, the Senior
Multipurpose Center is listed as rentable, but the transportation center has no
notice posted.

Building a (replica of the old train station) Transportation
Station and renting it to the chamber of commerce for $1.00 per month is not a
bargain as it does not benefit the citizens of Dixon. If it is the judgment of
this council to continue renting a taxpayer funded building at the far below
market value for a rental, then there is no incentive for any of us to pass any
bond measures put before the voters of Dixon now or in the future that would
increase our taxes.

Mary Zuniga Savage

Shirley Humphrey