Writing to the Local Council

I learned a lesson at last night's city council meeting which I would like to share with other citizens so they will not make the same mistake. When I inquired about an e-mail that I had sent to the council on March 10, Mayor Batchelor indicated that council members had not responded to my March 10 e-mail asking for a General Plan meeting or other city-venue meeting to discuss the proposed Morning View project which has the potential to effect every neighborhood in Dixon because they were concerned about a Brown Act violation if any council member replied copying two or more members of the council. I was glad to know this because it is easily correctable. A quick check with our local Brown Act expert, Ourania Riddle, indicated citizens should place the following statement on any e-mail or correspondence you send to the council. This assures that the Brown Act is followed: "Note: Council members who are copied on this email are cautioned to not "reply to all" as that may generate a Brown Act serial meeting violation. Just reply only to the sender of this e-mail. Replying to your constituent does not violate the Brown Act. This morning I sent the a new e-mail with the above statement. Following is the text of the e-mail I sent to the council on March 10. Dear Dixon City Council: I am writing to request a meeting of General Plan Committee or other venue for public dialogue. I was startled by the following information from Mike Smith, IBEW LU 180 Business Development Manager appeared in a local newspaper, dated January 27: “The City of Dixon also has worked to perform as part of the development process for the studio (note: newspaper article author is referring to a proposed movie studio). The housing being displaced by the studio has to be accounted for elsewhere in Dixon so the housing element is in compliance. Part of Dixon’s general plan states development will pay it’s own way. Therefore, for the housing element work Dixon must collect from the developer. One of the easy ways to do this is via reimbursement agreement. I have been working on the housing element options and to get the project back on schedule, David Doswell recommended an approach and Morning View asked for approval of the reimbursement agreement so the City of Dixon can move forward.” The Housing Element is part of the General Plan. California State Law Requires that there be a substantial amount of public input into the General Plan, particularly its housing elements. It seems to me that this subject requires immediate action to find out what is happening on the Housing Element which is due later next year. I have two major worries. The first is an appearance of a conflict of interest in having the developer revise the housing element. The second is a matter of reasonable timing. That is all aspects of the Housing Element require citizen participation. I believe the General Plan committee, or an alternative venue, must meet and develop an organized and scheduled public participation and comment process. Other questions include: Who besides Mike Smith and Dave Doswell are working on the Housing Element. In other words, what is the status of the review? What is the city’s plan to get this item back on track? How will all citizens be involved? Further, relevant to an appearance of a conflict of interest: the statement that “The work for the Housing element work, Dixon must collect from the developer.” I understand that the General Plan requires that development pay is own way. This is normally done by the developer paying for permits, infrastructure, fees, etc. It stands to reason that a developer ought not be charged with developing the goals or requirements that they are supposed to meet. Shirley Humphrey Dixon Citizen P.S. I will let you know if any of the council members responds now that I have addressed the mayor's concern.