  |
Judge Elliot Daum (2006 file photo)
By LORI A. CARTER
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
A Sonoma County judge on Tuesday ordered changes to language submitted by proponents of a sewer-rate rollback on Petaluma’s November ballot, ruling the wording was inaccurate and misleading in five instances.
The ruling came just in time because county elections officials had to submit ballots to the printer by the end of the work day.
Judge Elliot Daum sided with lawyers for the city of Petaluma on each of their challenges to wording submitted by former councilman Bryant Moynihan, who wrote the ballot language in support of Measure U.
Measure U asks voters whether they want to roll back sewer rates to 2006 levels. Its supporters argue the city misspent millions of dollars on the Ellis Creek wastewater treatment plant and improperly raised customer rates to pay for it. The plant went into operation last year.
The city argues that rolling back rates could send the city into bankruptcy and force it to default on millions of dollars in loans agreed upon for the project.
Despite the judge’s conclusions, Moynihan and his group, Petalumans for Fair Utility Rates, said they were pleased with the ruling.
“The changes are of little consequence to the effectiveness of the overall arguments,” Moynihan said.
City Councilwoman Tiffany Renee said Moynihan has a “pattern of distorting the truth.”
“When voters know the facts, they will understand how detrimental the passage of Measure U could be for Petaluma,” she said.
Daum said the city proved “by clear and convincing evidence” that percentages and other financial figures Moynihan used in his arguments were false and misleading, violating the state’s election code.
Moynihan argued that sewer rates increased 100 percent over the past five years, an average of 20 percent a year. City attorneys said the average year-over-year increase during the same period for various rate structures was about 14.3 percent.
Daum ruled the ballot should say the city raised rates an average of 15 percent per year over a five-year period.
Moynihan also wrote that the city allowed the cost of a new plant to skyrocket from $34 million initially to $160 million. The city said the smaller figure was misleading because it was for a lesser project that was never considered by the city.
Hyperbole is permissible in ballot language, City Attorney Eric Danly said, but he argued Moynihan’s wording was factually false and shouldn’t be allowed. Daum removed the lesser figure.
Daum also ruled for the city on two issues related to how much Petaluma intends to borrow for future projects. Moynihan claimed the city’s figures show it intends to borrow $50 million, while the city said it plans to borrow about $27 million, about $10 million of which will be used on a wastewater recycling project.
The judge ruled that the pro-Measure U argument can only use the $10 million figure.
Daum struck from the argument a statement that said it is “not fair to make today’s ratepayers fully service” a state loan that helped finance the project, ruling that it, too, was false.
Danly said about a third of the cost is to be paid for by future development.
Measure U qualified for the ballot after Petalumans for Fair Utility Rates gathered enough signatures to put it to a vote. A broader measure two years ago, which would have rolled back both sewer and water rates, failed at the ballot.
A rollback initiative similar to Measure U passed in Rohnert Park in 2008, where city leaders are now saying the city is spending $10,000 a day from its sewer reserve fund to make up the difference. They say the reserve will be exhausted by the end of the year, when they will have to dip into the general fund.
Petaluma’s sewer rates, which average $63 a month, are in the middle of Sonoma County’s nine cities. In 2011, the rates are anticipated to be about $80 a month. A rollback to 2006 levels would cut bills to about $43.
Subscribe by Email
Follow us on Twitter
They only raised the rates by 75%, not 100%. Big difference. Exactly how will new development be paying for 1/3 of the cost of the expansion? What new development? They shouldn’t have built such an enormous facility when they had no reasonable way to pay for it. The bankrupcy scare is morally bankrupt. Roll the rates back Petalumans. Call their bluff.
@ Paying Attention – You simply are not paying attention! Should a citizen be able to lie on a balot statment? Should a citizen be able to provide misleading and incorrect information on a ballot statement? Is lying part of a citizens duty? The City should be using City money to protect the interest of the City. The bully here is Bryant as he is trying this thing again even after being told loud and clear two years ago NO on Measure K. Rohnert Park was not scamming, they were simply charging the cost to operate the facility.
PAY ATTENTION! Really, PAY ATTENTION!
City Councilwoman should not be able to insult a citizen for doing his duty by paying attention.
They are bullies and how much of the citizen’s money did the city council use on this law suit?
RP is complaining that the rollback is costing THEM $10,000 a day – do they realize that is how much they were scamming from the residents each day?
That money means food on the table to many RP citizens.