No: Measure U is bad for Petaluma

<p>Here we go again. Two years ago, Petaluma voters defeated misguided Measure K by a vote of 55 percent “no” to 45 percent “yes.” Measure U is far more extreme than Measure K because it rolls back sewer rates by over 45 percent and doesn't even provide for annual increases for inflation.</p><p>In its first full fiscal year, Measure U would reduce wastewater revenues from $23.9 million to $12.7 million. Even if needed capital improvements are canceled, this doesn't come close to paying both debt payments ($10.6 million) and normal operating costs ($10.1 million). </p><p>Measure U would almost certainly force Petaluma to default on $128 million in loans for the new sewer plant. There is no plausible argument that the wastewater utility can pay its bills under the reduced revenues that Measure U would produce. Indeed, one of Measure U's supporters, Bryant Moynihan, is advocating that the city of Petaluma file for bankruptcy. Measure U could force the city to do just that.</p><p>The new sewer plant is completed, replacing the worn-out 70-year-old plant. The time to argue about its design has passed. Petaluma's new sewer plant underwent rigorous value engineering to reduce costs. It's a great accomplishment. </p><p>The money to build the new plant has been spent. The only issue now is whether Petaluma will repay the loans. Measure U's proponents imply that Petaluma can just stiff the state of California and banks on the $128 million borrowed for the plant. That isn't true, and the city's General Fund will have to repay the funds if the sewer utility cannot.</p><p>New development is required to pay its fair share. The new Target center alone will pay $767,000 in sewer hookup fees.</p><p>Even if the city cancels the recycled water pipelines that Measure U's proponents criticize, Measure U could bankrupt the city of Petaluma.</p><p>Three-quarters of Petaluma's General Fund budget supports police, fire and parks, so these would face further harmful cuts if Measure U passes.</p><p>Petaluma's sewer rates are near the average for this region. The idea that voters can reduce sewer rates by over 45 percent without causing major mayhem is pure wishful thinking.</p><p>In fact, Measure U's passage would probably trigger an expensive court battle to sort out the mess. Petaluma is legally obligated to set wastewater rates at levels sufficient to both operate the sewer utility and repay its loans. Strong legal arguments could cause a judge to overturn Measure U because it impairs creditors' rights in violation of the United States and California constitutions. Alternatively, the city retains the authority to impose new rates to comply with legal obligations. Thus, if Measure U passes, Petaluma could incur substantial attorney's fees just to restore the current rates.</p><p>Measure U, and Measure K two years ago — both sponsored by Bryant Moynihan — have collectively cost the city of Petaluma $454,000 in ballot and financing costs, and attorney and professional fees. That's money the city would not have had to spend if measures K and U hadn't been proposed. It's time to tell Moynihan to stop wasting rate-payer dollars and pampering his ego with his expensive, redundant and misguided initiatives.</p><p>Even the Sonoma County Taxpayers' Association urges a “no” vote on Measure U because it's too extreme.</p><p><i>(Bill Kortum is president emeritus of Sonoma County Conservation Action. Paul Gilman is president of the Police Officers Association of Petaluma. Mike Healy is a member of the Petaluma City Council.)</i></p><p>Here we go again. Two years ago, Petaluma voters defeated misguided Measure K by a vote of 55 percent “no” to 45 percent “yes.” Measure U is far more extreme than Measure K because it rolls back sewer rates by over 45 percent and doesn't even provide for annual increases for inflation.</p><p>In its first full fiscal year, Measure U would reduce wastewater revenues from $23.9 million to $12.7 million. Even if needed capital improvements are canceled, this doesn't come close to paying both debt payments ($10.6 million) and normal operating costs ($10.1 million). </p><p>Measure U would almost certainly force Petaluma to default on $128 million in loans for the new sewer plant. There is no plausible argument that the wastewater utility can pay its bills under the reduced revenues that Measure U would produce. Indeed, one of Measure U's supporters, Bryant Moynihan, is advocating that the city of Petaluma file for bankruptcy. Measure U could force the city to do just that.</p><p>The new sewer plant is completed, replacing the worn-out 70-year-old plant. The time to argue about its design has passed. Petaluma's new sewer plant underwent rigorous value engineering to reduce costs. It's a great accomplishment. </p><p>The money to build the new plant has been spent. The only issue now is whether Petaluma will repay the loans. Measure U's proponents imply that Petaluma can just stiff the state of California and banks on the $128 million borrowed for the plant. That isn't true, and the city's General Fund will have to repay the funds if the sewer utility cannot.</p><p>New development is required to pay its fair share. The new Target center alone will pay $767,000 in sewer hookup fees.</p><p>Even if the city cancels the recycled water pipelines that Measure U's proponents criticize, Measure U could bankrupt the city of Petaluma.</p><p>Three-quarters of Petaluma's General Fund budget supports police, fire and parks, so these would face further harmful cuts if Measure U passes.</p><p>Petaluma's sewer rates are near the average for this region. The idea that voters can reduce sewer rates by over 45 percent without causing major mayhem is pure wishful thinking.</p><p>In fact, Measure U's passage would probably trigger an expensive court battle to sort out the mess. Petaluma is legally obligated to set wastewater rates at levels sufficient to both operate the sewer utility and repay its loans. Strong legal arguments could cause a judge to overturn Measure U because it impairs creditors' rights in violation of the United States and California constitutions. Alternatively, the city retains the authority to impose new rates to comply with legal obligations. Thus, if Measure U passes, Petaluma could incur substantial attorney's fees just to restore the current rates.</p><p>Measure U, and Measure K two years ago — both sponsored by Bryant Moynihan — have collectively cost the city of Petaluma $454,000 in ballot and financing costs, and attorney and professional fees. That's money the city would not have had to spend if measures K and U hadn't been proposed. It's time to tell Moynihan to stop wasting rate-payer dollars and pampering his ego with his expensive, redundant and misguided initiatives.</p><p>Even the Sonoma County Taxpayers' Association urges a “no” vote on Measure U because it's too extreme.</p><p><i>(Bill Kortum is president emeritus of Sonoma County Conservation Action. Paul Gilman is president of the Police Officers Association of Petaluma. Mike Healy is a member of the Petaluma City Council.)</i></p><p>Here we go again. Two years ago, Petaluma voters defeated misguided Measure K by a vote of 55 percent “no” to 45 percent “yes.” Measure U is far more extreme than Measure K because it rolls back sewer rates by over 45 percent and doesn't even provide for annual increases for inflation.</p><p>In its first full fiscal year, Measure U would reduce wastewater revenues from $23.9 million to $12.7 million. Even if needed capital improvements are canceled, this doesn't come close to paying both debt payments ($10.6 million) and normal operating costs ($10.1 million). </p><p>Measure U would almost certainly force Petaluma to default on $128 million in loans for the new sewer plant. There is no plausible argument that the wastewater utility can pay its bills under the reduced revenues that Measure U would produce. Indeed, one of Measure U's supporters, Bryant Moynihan, is advocating that the city of Petaluma file for bankruptcy. Measure U could force the city to do just that.</p><p>The new sewer plant is completed, replacing the worn-out 70-year-old plant. The time to argue about its design has passed. Petaluma's new sewer plant underwent rigorous value engineering to reduce costs. It's a great accomplishment. </p><p>The money to build the new plant has been spent. The only issue now is whether Petaluma will repay the loans. Measure U's proponents imply that Petaluma can just stiff the state of California and banks on the $128 million borrowed for the plant. That isn't true, and the city's General Fund will have to repay the funds if the sewer utility cannot.</p><p>New development is required to pay its fair share. The new Target center alone will pay $767,000 in sewer hookup fees.</p><p>Even if the city cancels the recycled water pipelines that Measure U's proponents criticize, Measure U could bankrupt the city of Petaluma.</p><p>Three-quarters of Petaluma's General Fund budget supports police, fire and parks, so these would face further harmful cuts if Measure U passes.</p><p>Petaluma's sewer rates are near the average for this region. The idea that voters can reduce sewer rates by over 45 percent without causing major mayhem is pure wishful thinking.</p><p>In fact, Measure U's passage would probably trigger an expensive court battle to sort out the mess. Petaluma is legally obligated to set wastewater rates at levels sufficient to both operate the sewer utility and repay its loans. Strong legal arguments could cause a judge to overturn Measure U because it impairs creditors' rights in violation of the United States and California constitutions. Alternatively, the city retains the authority to impose new rates to comply with legal obligations. Thus, if Measure U passes, Petaluma could incur substantial attorney's fees just to restore the current rates.</p><p>Measure U, and Measure K two years ago — both sponsored by Bryant Moynihan — have collectively cost the city of Petaluma $454,000 in ballot and financing costs, and attorney and professional fees. That's money the city would not have had to spend if measures K and U hadn't been proposed. It's time to tell Moynihan to stop wasting rate-payer dollars and pampering his ego with his expensive, redundant and misguided initiatives.</p><p>Even the Sonoma County Taxpayers' Association urges a “no” vote on Measure U because it's too extreme.</p><p><i>(Bill Kortum is president emeritus of Sonoma County Conservation Action. Paul Gilman is president of the Police Officers Association of Petaluma. Mike Healy is a member of the Petaluma City Council.)</i></p><p>Here we go again. Two years ago, Petaluma voters defeated misguided Measure K by a vote of 55 percent “no” to 45 percent “yes.” Measure U is far more extreme than Measure K because it rolls back sewer rates by over 45 percent and doesn't even provide for annual increases for inflation.</p><p>In its first full fiscal year, Measure U would reduce wastewater revenues from $23.9 million to $12.7 million. Even if needed capital improvements are canceled, this doesn't come close to paying both debt payments ($10.6 million) and normal operating costs ($10.1 million). </p><p>Measure U would almost certainly force Petaluma to default on $128 million in loans for the new sewer plant. There is no plausible argument that the wastewater utility can pay its bills under the reduced revenues that Measure U would produce. Indeed, one of Measure U's supporters, Bryant Moynihan, is advocating that the city of Petaluma file for bankruptcy. Measure U could force the city to do just that.</p><p>The new sewer plant is completed, replacing the worn-out 70-year-old plant. The time to argue about its design has passed. Petaluma's new sewer plant underwent rigorous value engineering to reduce costs. It's a great accomplishment. </p><p>The money to build the new plant has been spent. The only issue now is whether Petaluma will repay the loans. Measure U's proponents imply that Petaluma can just stiff the state of California and banks on the $128 million borrowed for the plant. That isn't true, and the city's General Fund will have to repay the funds if the sewer utility cannot.</p><p>New development is required to pay its fair share. The new Target center alone will pay $767,000 in sewer hookup fees.</p><p>Even if the city cancels the recycled water pipelines that Measure U's proponents criticize, Measure U could bankrupt the city of Petaluma.</p><p>Three-quarters of Petaluma's General Fund budget supports police, fire and parks, so these would face further harmful cuts if Measure U passes.</p><p>Petaluma's sewer rates are near the average for this region. The idea that voters can reduce sewer rates by over 45 percent without causing major mayhem is pure wishful thinking.</p><p>In fact, Measure U's passage would probably trigger an expensive court battle to sort out the mess. Petaluma is legally obligated to set wastewater rates at levels sufficient to both operate the sewer utility and repay its loans. Strong legal arguments could cause a judge to overturn Measure U because it impairs creditors' rights in violation of the United States and California constitutions. Alternatively, the city retains the authority to impose new rates to comply with legal obligations. Thus, if Measure U passes, Petaluma could incur substantial attorney's fees just to restore the current rates.</p><p>Measure U, and Measure K two years ago — both sponsored by Bryant Moynihan — have collectively cost the city of Petaluma $454,000 in ballot and financing costs, and attorney and professional fees. That's money the city would not have had to spend if measures K and U hadn't been proposed. It's time to tell Moynihan to stop wasting rate-payer dollars and pampering his ego with his expensive, redundant and misguided initiatives.</p><p>Even the Sonoma County Taxpayers' Association urges a “no” vote on Measure U because it's too extreme.</p><p><i>(Bill Kortum is president emeritus of Sonoma County Conservation Action. Paul Gilman is president of the Police Officers Association of Petaluma. Mike Healy is a member of the Petaluma City Council.)</i></p>