Elected officials took the oath of office at the Dec. 17 meeting of the Dixon City Council. From left are city Treasurer Simon LeBleu, Councilmember Don Hendershot, Vice-Mayor Kevin Johnson and Mayor Steven Bird. Photo provided by the City of Dixon

DIXON, CA (MPG) - The swearing-in of officials from the recent election was conducted at the Dec. 17 Dixon City Council meeting. Mayor Steven Bird, Vice-Mayor Kevin Johnson and Councilmember Don Hendershot were all re-elected to serve another four-year term on the City Council, and Simon LeBleu was re-elected as city treasurer for another four-year term. 

Vice-Mayor Johnson said it is a “true honor” to serve and thanked the public for their support. 

“Thank you to all my supporters and the people of Dixon who put their trust in me to represent them for another term,” Bird said.

During public comment, a Dixon resident called out the City Council for the Dec. 12 emergency meeting during which City Council certified the recent election results. Council called an emergency meeting to meet the state’s deadline for implementing the passage of Measure J, a one-cent local sales tax approved by Dixon voters. 

The resident said that the emergency meeting was “illegal” and that such meetings should be reserved for a true emergency that “severely impacts public health or safety.” He said that he would report the meeting and file a lawsuit against the city. 

Councilmember Jim Ernest addressed the public comment, stating that the emergency meeting “saved the city $750,000, from what I understand,” because the city otherwise would have had to wait another fiscal quarter before implementing Measure J. 

The resident said, “That’s the estimated sales tax that you’re going to steal from the people of the City of Dixon and people coming down the road. That being said, you don’t seem to understand: The meeting was illegal because it was not an emergency. It’s not an emergency because you want to collect money from people.”

City Council then considered a construction agreement with Bartley Pump for emergency repairs to Valley Glen well, with a cost of $166,943. Repairs at this well site began in February 2023, with an initial approved cost of $182,000. However, during the course of work, more issues became apparent and there is now an additional cost to complete the necessary repairs. 

 “We don’t have an option not to have the well,” Vice-Mayor Johnson said.

While the repairs are costing more than anticipated, Johnson said, other options would have been significantly more expensive.

“Let’s get it fixed and working and safe for the community,” Johnson said.

City Council voted unanimously to approve the repair costs for the Valley Glen well. 

Bird presented a recommendation to fill a vacancy on the Dixon Planning Commission to complete the term ending next June. The city received two applications for the position and Bird recommended appointing longtime Dixon resident Bill Allard, who has an extensive background in construction and in real estate. 

City Council voted unanimously to appoint Allard to fill the Planning Commission vacancy. 

Council also considered a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) with engineering firm Brown & Caldwell to provide review and oversight of future Hexavalent Chromium (Chrome VI) treatment pilot testing, in order to meet a new state mandate. 

Jordan Santos, junior engineer for the City of Dixon, explained that the California State Water Resources Control Board adopted a new Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for chromium in drinking water. The new level went into effect in October 2024 and the City of Dixon’s water system is currently out of compliance. The city is under a three-year state-mandated timeline to implement the required treatments. 

Under the proposed contract, Brown & Caldwell will help the city look at effective treatment options and the potential costs of implementation at each well site. Santos said the process will involve very small-scale tests of “specific treatment technologies to see how they function with Dixon’s water and how we would hypothetically implement said infrastructure into our water system.”

Three potential treatment options are approved by the state and all will likely cost millions of dollars per well site, Santos said, so the process will also look at how that cost would impact Dixon ratepayers.

“It’s a fairly bleak situation for a small agency like us,” said Santos. “We have to be pragmatic about this. We have to understand fully what the state is requiring of us.” 

Johnson added that the City of Dixon is part of a lawsuit against the state, challenging the unfunded mandate.

“It’s worth the effort, because this is completely overbearing on our community,” said Johnson. “If the state wants to mandate it, then they can’t place this on communities where it could potentially double water bills.”

If the lawsuit is successful, Johnson said, the state would be prohibited from enforcing the mandate or at least would be required to provide grant funding to help cover the costs. 

In the course of the lawsuit, Santos said, the City of Dixon will be asked how much this mandate will actually cost, and that question can’t be answered at this time. So, to assist in the litigation, Dixon needs to undergo this process to show the actual costs of implementation and impact on ratepayers. 

The proposed $22,100 contract with Brown & Caldwell will mostly be covered by existing funding for treatments within the water operations budget, with an additional $2,100 budget adjustment requested. 

The Council voted unanimously to approve the budget adjustment and the Professional Services Agreement with Brown & Caldwell.  

The next Dixon City Council meeting is scheduled for 7 p.m. Jan. 7.