League of Women Voters of California Education Fund
	Sonoma County, CA November 4, 2008 Election
	Measure L Reduce Sewer Rates City of Rohnert Park 8,424 / 52.8% Yes votes ...... 7,533 / 47.2% No votes See Also: Index of all Measures

Arguments For Measure L

Arguments Against Measure L

We have been left holding the bag for developers. In 2006 the city council enacted Rohnert Park Municipal Code section 13.42.030 which provides in relevant part: "... service charges for its use shall be calculated and changed from time to time in sufficient amounts to operate and maintain the city sewer system and to provide for the expansion of the system...". Only developers need an expanded sewer system, but we have to pay for it. In 2005 the city borrowed money on the municipal securities market to build a new sewer pipe. However, there has been no significant new development of the east side. The city council thought nothing of burdening existing ratepayers. Now the city denies that we are being forced to subsidize developers. The prospectus says that the city will have "net revenue after debt service" of $3,966,000 in fiscal 2007/2008. The city claims that this is not really a "profit" and that the city cannot use the money for anything but sewer. If so, what purpose is served by having the city accumulate this money year after year? This measure would reduce sewer rates to the levels of fiscal 2005/2006. The city would still be making "net revenue after debt service" every year using the figures in the prospectus. You can see the full text of the prospectus and ordinance on our website: http://www.rpucc.org. The income figures are on page 33 of the prospectus. The statement of purpose for the wastewater main is on page 23. s/ John F. Hudson, Attorney/B Section Resident s/ Harry "Chip" Worthington, Pastor s/ Cheryl Fonseca, Homemaker and Student s/ Larry Resnick, Engineer/B Section s/ Stephen N. Bosshard, Retired Police Officer Rebuttal to Arguments For We would like you to consider facts that the proponents are not talking about. For example, how has sewer fee rollbacks worked in other cities? In 2006, the voters in the City of Dixon rolled back their sewer rates. On January 25, 2008, the City of Dixon was fined $220,000 by the Regional Water Quality Control Board citing failure to comply with required milestones established in 2005. The City of Dixon is now spending all of its reserves and is facing long-term debt because of the rollback. Do you want Rohnert Park to be in the same dire financial condition as the City of Dixon who is now considering a measure to repeal their rollback? The truth is Rohnert Park residents are paying less in sewer fees than the residents of Healdsburg, Cotati, and Santa Rosa. Who is going to pay for the Rohnert Park sewer bonds already sold if you roll back the sewer fees? The residents of Rohnert Park will have to pay. They will have to pay for the lawsuits as well as the damages that will come from the sewer pipe failures. It will be a lot more than the sewer fees you are paying today. Proponents want you to think developers have a sweetheart deal at your expense. This is not true. Developers have already paid over $5.1 million dollars in fees for their future sewer needs. By law they are required to pay new sewer fees for any new houses they build. Do not turn Rohnert Park into another city facing bankruptcy. Vote No on Measure L. s/ Amy Ahanotu, Co-Chair, Protect Rohnert Park Committee s/ Jake Mackenzie, Mayor, Rohnert Park s/ Susan Adams, Co-Chair, Protect Rohnert Park Committee s/ Len Carlson, Seniors Advocate s/ Michael Harrow, Former Finance Director, City of Rohnert Park

Vote No on Measure L. It is nothing more than a political ploy of a select few to gain attention at your expense. Their attempt to roll back the rate increase would likely bankrupt the City of Rohnert Park. Remember the 2005-2006 New Year's flood in our city? What you might not know is Rohnert Park narrowly missed having raw sewage spill out onto our streets during that flood. The City had borrowed money on future sewer fees (today's fees) to build a new sewer line to replace a deteriorating one. The new sewer line was completed just prior to the flood. Even though it had not been tested, the City turned on the new sewer line to avoid a health crisis. It was just in time because the old sewer line ruptured. Because of the fees we are paying now, raw sewage did not spill out onto our streets. Vote No on Measure L. It will end Rohnert Park's ability to operate the sewer system safely. Vote No on Measure L--or--Rohnert Park will likely be forced to default on its contractual obligations to the Santa Rosa Subregional System which receives and processes our sewage. Vote No on Measure L. Rohnert Park will not have sufficient reserves to cover losses from rolling back the sewer fees and will have to make cuts to citizen services. Will Rohnert Park be forced to cut back on the operation of our parks and recreation system, our senior center or reducing public safety to the minimum levels allowed by law? Public health law requires the City to provide adequate sewer services. We cannot look for someone else to pay for our raw sewage disposal. That's our job. The unintended consequences of Measure L are disastrous and it places us in harm's way. Protect Rohnert Park! Vote No on Measure L. s/ Amy Ahanotu, Co-Chair, Protect Rohnert Park Committee s/ Jake Mackenzie, Mayor, Rohnert Park s/ Susan Adams, Co-Chair, Protect Rohnert Park Committee s/ Len Carlson, Seniors Advocate s/ Michael L. Harrow, CPA, Former Finance Director, City of Rohnert Park Rebuttal to Arguments Against Even if everything our opponents say about preventing a health crisis with the new sewer pipes is true, this measure will not effect it. Nobody is going to rip the new sewer pipes out of the ground because we roll back sewer rates. The real issue is whether the city can operate and maintain the sewer system with the Measure L rates. Based on the figures in the prospectus, we believe that it can. Measure L would reduce rates to January 1, 2006 levels. Dixon (Solano County) faced a tripling of sewer rates when Brookfield Homes went there to build "Dixon Downs." Dixon voters rolled back the tripling of sewer rates. The toilets still flush in Dixon. Dixon is not bankrupt. Our sewer rates nearly doubled when Brookfield Homes came to Rohnert Park to build the "University District" on the northeast side. We are only trying to do what the voters in Dixon did, not "get attention" as our opponents argue. Visit our website to see the documents mentioned in our arguments: http://www.rpucc.org s/ Harry Chip Worthington, Pastor s/ Larry Resnick, Engineer/B section s/ John F. Hudson, Attorney/B section resident s/ Cheryl A. Fonseca, Homemaker & Student s/ Stephen N. Bosshard, Retired police officer