State freezes funds for sewer plant construction
Grants, loans pulled from Colfax due to rate protest
The state water resources control board informed Colfax City Council members Tuesday night that all state grant and loan funds for construction of the Colfax wastewater treatment plant have been frozen. This could prevent completion of the nearly finished plant by the November deadline and subject the city to hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines as well as other far-reaching consequences. The state board took this action because of the defeat of the recently proposed sewer rate increases, said James Maughan, assistant deputy director of state’s Division of Financial Assistance. The board “interpreted” the rate rejection as evidence the city cannot repay the $5.3 million “state revolving fund” (SRF) loan it has received for the construction of the plant, according to Maughan. Furthermore, the state can also require the repayment of a $2 million grant. And the city will also face massive fines, penalties and interest, he stated. The sewer rate increases proposed earlier this summer were narrowly defeated by a majority protest of property owners. The owners exercised their right under the provisions of California Proposition 218 to reject an increase in taxes or assessments. The sewer rate increases, proposed May 15, consisted of three separate fees: base user rate, inflow-and-infiltration, and lift stations. The defeat of the base rate was the deal breaker for the state. The SRF loan contract stipulates the city will collect enough revenue from the base user rate to pay off the 20-year, 2.4-percent loan. The proposed base user rate would have increased fees from $60 to $87 a month. This increase would have covered the cost of meeting the city’s obligation to repay the loan. For weeks, leaders of the ratepayer revolt have been advocating offsetting the proposed rate increase by cutting the city’s general fund budget. Budget cut suggestions have included firing senior city staff and/or eliminating the city’s contract with the Placer County Sheriff’s Department. The only problem with that idea is that it’s not legal. “You can’t cut the [general fund] budget … to pay for the sewer,” Jean Ibbeson explained to the several dozen clearly distressed citizens at Tuesday night’s meeting at Sierra Vista Center. Ibbeson and Karen McBride of the nonprofit Rural Community Assistance Corp(RCAC), offered their organization’s help during the meeting. “You’ve got to finish the treatment plant,” Ibbeson stressed. “If you don’t pass the [base user] rate increase, the problem will get worse.” Councilman Josh Alpine added that using general fund revenues to pay for sewer enterprise fund costs would open the city up to litigation for misappropriation of funds. Although he offered no guarantees, Maughan said the board might release $600,000 in funds necessary to finish construction of the treatment plant — if the city can present a revenue plan that demonstrates it will collect enough fees to pay off the 20-year loan on schedule. Essentially, this means the city will have to propose a sewer rate increase again and have that proposal in the works by the board’s Sept. 16 meeting in Sacramento. The cadre of rate protesters openly vowed to defeat a rate increase a second time. There were also murmured threats of recall of any council members who voted to roll out a second rate increase proposal. Nevertheless, resolute council members directed city staff to come up with a variety of new rate increase proposals that might be more acceptable to property owners than the first proposal. Because of the looming deadline and strict requirements of Proposition 218, the council set a meeting for Tuesday, Sept. 4 to decide what to do so a revenue plan could be presented to the state board by Sept. 16. Because the state water board’s announcement caused so much consternation — and because some members of the audience ignored Mayor Sherrie Blackmun’s repeated requests to keep their comments short and to the point — the council meeting continued the scheduled public hearing on the city’s latest proposed general fund budget to the next council meeting.
Keywords
Colfax wastewater treatment plant
|
Change Location:
|
Rate protestor cadre becoming their own worst enemy:
I hope the citizens of the Colfax community put as much effort into opposing the local school districts measure Q as they do opposing the sewer rate increase. For reasons ranging from a spiraling economy, significant across the board costs increases, and just plain poor planning to name a few, they should.
I will be the first to stand up and say that I oppose and will be voting NO on measure Q. I can appreciate those in opposition to the sewer rate increase. However, there is a monumental difference between the two proposed assessments. The difference is the school bond, in my opinion, is not needed and can be turned down without repercussion…plain and simple. Failure to pay for the sewer, however, will lead to catastrophic consequences.
After attending council meetings for the past month, its obvious by the continued hostility directed towards the council and repetitive line questioning by those in attendance that most are simply not connecting the all dots. As of this last meeting the behavior of some have become rude again. This is unfortunate because current leadership stands in contrast to the previous, which recently vacated. Just how short is their memory span? The current council has been more then gracious in allowing everyone who wishes to speak do so and continues to freely extend the opportunity to give every one more then enough time to be heard. They wanted the opportunity to speak and be heard…they got it. They asked for the meetings not to go so long and reprioritize the agenda…they got that too. The problem is they’re becoming their own nuisance. If they were attending any other city council meeting they would NOT have been given as much opportunity as current leadership has given them to speak during meetings. Furthermore, their rude comments and behavior would have gotten them escorted from the building.
Everyone’s questions are valid and deserve to be answered, but there is an appropriate time when to ask them. If they’re angry because the meetings are continuing on so late and little is accomplished then they should look no further then themselves. When it is public comment time, comment. Not question and answer. When it’s open to public questions for LAFCO representative (or any other representative for that matter), ask questions pertaining to disincorporation (or the topic which that representative is there for), NOT the budget or something else. I have watched the council every meeting repeatedly ask those in attendance to follow the agenda and approach the council with pertinent questions when the specific topic is reached. I have yet to witness everyone follow this. Their continued demand to speak and be heard on the topic of their choice whenever they desire, without time constraint, is what causes the meetings to drag on. NOT lack of focus by the council.
Again, I understand their anger and frustration, but directing it towards the council is misplacing it. The council, for the benefit of the taxpayers, has brought in representatives to provide information regarding questions and possible solutions to the I & I problem. The consistent message is the residence are going to pay. You can accept the $27/month more increase and pay now, or you’re going to pay an astronomical amount later. Disincorporation is not going to absolve you from paying. The county does not want and is not going to assume control of the plant. And last but not least, and probably the most significant and misunderstood, you CANNOT co-mingle funds. You can cut every service the city provides. You can have a million dollars in an account. But between illegality and bad business practice it opens the city up for further problems. The city CPA doesn’t want to go to jail. This isn’t to say that the budget shouldn’t be reviewed and some reorganization and cutting take place. But this can only go so far and they fail to realize it wont go as far as they would like. Ask yourself this, how much has the current lawsuit from the Edwards cost the taxpayers?
If you’re looking where to direct you’re anger look no further then the water resources board. The question was asked if they were responsible for setting the amount and requesting the rate increase which the Executive Officer replied “No”. I have to laugh at this. The water board has increased the standards seven times since the inception of the clean water act in 1972. With each increase the water board comes in and dictates to local jurisdictions that they will meet these new standards. And they order you will do so at your own financial expense. They provide no subsidy. It doesn’t make any difference what a previous city manager told you six years ago. What he told you at that time was most likely correct. However, has the board increased the standard since that time? I’m willing to bet they have. So, with this in mind I ask you, who do you think pays for implementation of these increased standards?
As I have mentioned earlier, I understand and empathize with those who oppose the rate increase. Whatever you wish to call it it’s a tax. One the state is indirectly “ordering” you to pay and leaving local elected officials to bear the brunt of your anger. The next time you vote for something that sounds good like clean water ask yourself how much you’re willing to pay for it cause ultimately YOU WILL PAY. If you don’t like this wait till the new air quality standard AB36 gets imposed this fall. When the trickle down reaches you, you’ll really scream.