Here we go again – which ‘facts’ do we buy? The propaganda in my RP sewer bill says that RP’s average is $38 and the lowest.

I looked at my bill and it is twice as much – and we are very conservative.

Check with your friends/families in other Sonoma County cities. I question these figures.

9  1

While the city denies the loss in pressure, it isn’t too hard to see: sprinklers for my yard that used to cross over each other three or four feet now come up short and I get dead spots in the lawn.

And of course, as more homes are brought online, then the city puts more pressure on us to conserve our dwindling resource. So, since it’s dwindling, why the push for more and more homes, and big developments like Sonoma Mountain, adding a school with 500 students, etc. And none of us have forgotten that upcoming casino, right?

10  2

He has had a spur under the saddle with RP on their sewer rates for a long time and he is giving them what for.

We need more people who are just plain fed up, to go to the meetings and let these local polititians hear just how insane their proposals are and how fed up we are as taxpayers.

Give them hell John.

15  3

15  1

People are waking up to your scams.

16  2

Rohnert Park officials have spent untold money on trying to not only fight Measure L before it came to a vote, but even more money trying to undo the will of the voters, and now, will spend even more again trying to convince the naive/gullible/sympathetic that the city will collapse without higher sewer rates. They feel robbed, and by hook or crook, they fully intend to get “their” money back. If a city relies on generating the necessary revenue for its survival from piping human waste, maybe it has no business existing in the first place, and those in charge should be the ones the people should be flushing away instead.

16  3

However, there can be no doubt that existing residents are being forced to subsidize infrastructure for developers. Sections 13.42.030 and 13.42.035 provide that ordinary sewer use rates include the cost of expanding the sewer system. The city council doesn’t want to change this. Measure L was intended to force an end to this practice and, I believe, largely succeeded.

Consider that developers pay no impact fee until a building permit is issued, and sewer and water infrastructure have to be in place before a building permit can be issued. Even if the sewer connection fee is adequate, somebody has to finance the infrastructure between the start of construction of the infrastructure and the issuance of he building permit. That “somebody” is the existing residents of the City of Rohnert Park.

12  3

While a reference to filling up an RV’s water tank is a good example of water not going down the ‘sewage drain’ and yet residents are paying a fee for just that, a better example is now many gallons of water do residents use to water their lawns and tomato plants? All that water that never sees the treatment plant is assessed a sewer fee on your bill.

12  1

12  4

“… the City of Rohnert Park had $2,017,432 in “excess revenues” from public utilities in the fiscal year ending June 30, 2010.”

14  4

15  4

17  2

In good contiousness can you REALLY expect people to believe what you are saying, when there IS proof that the city itself posted in the Community Voice that there IS excess revenues? Sorry to say… I really don’t care WHO is on your Sewer Group. It stinks to high heaven. And frankly the people aren’t going to drink the groups Kool-aid.

12  5

4  4

This committee is a fraud and a sham. The city had no intention of forming a body that would objectively investigate its sewer finances. They only wanted the committee as fig leaf to cover up their attempt to cancel an election result that they don’t like. Apparently most people see this effort for what it really is. The last thing the city wants is to have the voters endorse Measure L a second time by defeating its effort to repeal it. Therefore, I expect the city council to vote to raise sewer rates without getting voter approval in violation of state law as discussed by the California Supreme Court in Bighorn Desert View Water Agency v Verjil (2006) 39 Cal 4th 205, 219-220.

17  5

11  21

Sleazy at best, criminal at worst.

17  4

19  4

23  12

It is also unfortunate that the article does not mention the financial statement that the City of Rohnert Park published on page 9 of the November 12, 2010 edition of The Community Voice representing that the City of Rohnert Park had $2,017,432 in “excess revenues” from public utilities in the fiscal year ending June 30, 2010.(I emailed Jeremy a copy of that statement right after I got off the phone with him.)If the City of RP is losing $10,000 a day on sewer as it claims, it is overcharging enough for water and garbage to cover that loss and make a $2 million profit as well.

24  9