10/13/2025
Interesting communication received by the city that somehow didn't end up in the agenda packet under "communications." Wonder why?
To: The City of Isleton
Isleton Mayor David Kent
Isleton City Council
P.O. Box 716
Isleton, CA 95641
Subject: Formal Demand for Immediate Resolution Prior to Litigation
Dear City of Isleton,
We represent Jon Petras, the owner of 38 Main Street, Isleton, CA 95641,
APN: 157-0034-019-0000 (“Property”). The Property is currently leased to Isleton Station Laundry which opened June 2025.
This letter serves as formal notice regarding the improperly invoiced sewer bills which began in 2021 and continues to the present day regarding the Property. Despite multiple attempts over the years by my client to resolve this matter amicably, no meaningful progress has been made. Isleton City Managers for the past three years have promised to bill the property in accordance with Isleton Municipal Code (“IMC”), yet the monthly bill remains at $400 which has not been an accurate reflection of IMC for at least a decade.
If this issue is not fully resolved within thirty (30) days from the date of this
correspondence, I have been instructed by my client to take all further legal avenues available to him without further notice. We will seek recovery of all costs incurred, including attorney’s fees, and punitive damages, as well as any other relief deemed appropriate by the court.
Furthermore, please be advised that any individual within City Hall who is determined to have participated in, approved, or negligently allowed the conduct giving rise to this dispute will be personally named as a defendant in the lawsuit.
This letter is sent in good faith with the intent to provide one final opportunity for resolution before we taken any and all legal avenues available to my client. My client remains open to settlement discussions provided that substantial corrective action is taken immediately.
The corrective action prior my client is seeking is for the City of Isleton (“Isleton”) to issue a $2,628.24 credit for all billing related to sewer bills for the Property prior to November 1, 2025 and going forward for Isleton not bill 38 Main Street for sewer fees in excess of $92.88 per month, which is the maximum sewer fee passed on September 9, 2025 by Isleton City Council.
My client will not make sewer fee payments until the credit depleted, or my client demands repayment. The reasons for the $2,628.24 credit are detailed below.
In the fiscal year of July 1, 2021-June 30, 2022, my client’s tenant failed to pay some of their sewer bill. The tenant at the time had been paying Isleton directly and the previous tenants had been paying Isleton directly. Amongst the various conversations my client had with Isleton over the years before discovering that the property had a lien attached for unpaid sewer bills it had been clearly stated to Isleton that the tenant was the responsible party for the sewer bill of the Property. No notice was given to my client of either the delinquent payments nor the notice
of the pending lien against the Property for $2,000 in July 2022 by Isleton. Pursuant to IMC §9.04.290 the lien should not have been placed on the Property because my client had given Isleton notice to charge the tenants of the Property. Mr. Petras paid this $2,000 lien not realizing it had been added to the tax bill.
In the fiscal year of July 1, 2022 to June 30, 2023 my client’s tenant failed to pay any sewer bills. Additionally, the business was closed and zero water was used. Isleton never notified my client that the sewer bill was delinquent, and Isleton did not notify my client that a lien was going to attach to the Property again. Pursuant to IMC §9.04.290 no lien should have been placed on the Property because my client had given the City notice of the tenants responsibility for paying the sewer bill of the Property.
In July 2023, at the time of this second proposed but unnotified lien, my client was made aware that the Property was on the lien list by a neighbor and subsequently discovered the $2,000 lien placed in error the previous year. Charles Bergson, the Isleton City Manager at that time, agreed that the lien was listed in violation of the IMC, that my client would have a $2,000 credit for sewer charges for the Property from the prior lien that had been unknowingly paid, and moving forward the Property would be billed at $72 per month like many other commercial
properties in Isleton until the laundromat reopened. However, Isleton continued to bill my client $400 per month for the sewer. My client paid those bills for 5 months in order to secure permits that were needed to repair the Property in order to reopen the laundromat. This was another $2,000 paid in FY23/24 against a bill that should only have been $864.
In spite of promises to waive the improper lien against my client for FY22/23 a lien was sent to the county for $800 in 2023 and paid because it was not noticed that it had been added to the tax bill.
In July 2024, another lien posted against the Property at the rate of $400 per month for the sewer in spite of conversations with the current City staff about the above agreements and payments. This lien seems to have been dropped when protested but the bills continued at $400 in spite of communications pointing out IMC provisions and prior agreements with Isleton City Managers.
The Laundromat was closed from July 2022 until June 2025. My client’s responsibility is for 23 months at $72 per month from July 2023 when the previous tenant had been legally separated from their lease, and the water use was more than zero until the laundromat reopened June 2025. As such, my client would owe $1,656 for sewer access to the City thru May 2025 against advance payments of $4,800.
Since June 2025 my client should be charged $110 per month for sewer access pursuant to IMC §9.12.100, as there are 11 washing machines in the Property. The rate for commercial properties of $92.88 per month was passed September 9, 2025 by Isleton City Council with a commencement date of September 1, 2025. Thus, my client would owe $515.76 for June thru October 2025.
My client has paid $4,800 for sewer access but should have only paid $2,171.76.
Therefore, my client requests that he be given a credit of $2,628.24 that is used for his sewer services until fully depleted at which point he pay any and all valid charges.
My client wishes to resolve this situation amicably but will take any and all legal avenues available to him if this issue is not able to be resolved.
Date: October 8, 2025
Brian M. Wagner
11 Embarcadero West, Suite 140
Oakland, CA 94607
510-272-0200 x 318
Attorney for Jon Petras
