About two out of three people who responded to the Argus-Courier’s online poll Oct. 29, 2009 said they oppose a sewer rate rollback initiative that will be on the November 2010 ballot.
About three out of four said that the results of a city-authorized study of the current rates, now under way, would have an effect on how they would vote on the initiative.
The survey also asked what factors people would consider when deciding how to vote on the initiative, with respondents given a choice of multiple answers.
Here are some of the comments by those who responded to the survey:
——
“We voted this down once and we were right that time. It is an insult to the people of Petaluma and an abuse of the initiative process to bring this back. This is a sad one-man vendetta.”
——
“We need to be fiscally conservative while also adequately funding a sustainable and reliable water system. New development projects should be responsible for covering the fixed/variable and short/ long term costs of participation. Revenue from sewer and water should not be allocated to any unrelated programs or projects. Additionally, I would like to see more investment in the re-use of treated wastewater and greywater.”
——
“We have an obligation to pay for our new state-of-the-art wastewater treatment facility. Unfortunately, due to reticence to upgrade in prior years, the city had to build a completely new facility. In the past, ratepayers got away with fees that didn’t cover replacement or future upgrades and we now have to play financial catch-up. That said, we have a plant that will meet the city’s needs for many years to come. The rollback initiative is ludicrous. You have to pay for the services you receive, whether as general plan funds or user fees.”
——
“We are running a deficit. We need to keep the tax base intact. In fact, we need to raise rates on the top income earners.”
——
“Water is the next gasoline robbery. Rates are bound to increase as we misuse or overuse existing resources. Sustainable resource management is paramount to avert severe cutbacks or rates going through the roof. Recycling wastewater means what goes down the sewer (paid for by consumers) will be re-used and charged a second time to consumers. Residents on fixed incomes are allowing lawns to die and still have to pay sewer rates based on usage — rates assume about half of your water goes to sewer. This seems out of proportion and a bit of a gouge since wastewater is supposed to be recovered.”
——
“The residents of Petaluma need to acknowledge that their water/sewer bills are in the mid range for other cities in the county, even with the proposed increases. The deal that the council has made to pay for the new water treatment plant works well for the community. Rates are comparable and you have a new treatment facility that will serve the community into the future. When other cities don’t have enough water to irrigate their parks and open space, Petaluma will be a shining example.”
——
“The project is good for our environment, properly funded and worth the expense. It is somewhat disheartening that the opposition did not hear clearly the voice of the electorate, and choose instead to advance their myopic vision of accountability and fiscal restraint.”
——
“Rolling back the rates will bankrupt Petaluma. The new sewage treatment plant, which was a necessary upgrade, has to be paid for. It’s time to pay for what we have. It’s also time to restrict development so as not to overuse the water we can get. We need to save our money to update the infrastructure from our water source to Petaluma.”
——
“I will vote no. This is crazy, wasted money, time and energy. We are used to the rate now. They will just raise it after if this passes. Just don’t raise it for five years. Keep it the same. Pay for what you get.”
——
“My recent two-month water/sewer bill was $350. When my water bill is higher than my PG&E bill I know there’s a problem. I’ll be voting yes.”
——
“I will vote no. This is crazy, wasted money, time and energy. We are used to the rate now. They will just raise it after if this passes. Just don’t raise it for five years. Keep it the same. Pay for what you get.”
——
“I don’t agree with the unethical approach of some who do not want to pay for the sewer plant that the city built. I believe the community must honor its obligations. However, this time around I have less interest in fighting the initiative when I see that the current city council will not take needed action to improve its fiscal health.”
——
“This initiative is ridiculous! Moynihan doesn’t have valid methods of making up the shortfall. What is up with him?”
——
“Any of us who work for city government know how much waste there is. I’m voting yes.”
——
“Stop wasting our time and money with this, Mr. M!”
——
“People refer to the area as ‘The Killing Fields.’ That isn’t going to bring people to Petaluma.”