Virtually every immediately past, present and future Colfax city official spent last week campaigning in favor of two proposed sewer fee increases.

An equally determined group of residents attempted to collect enough protest letters to defeat the rate increases for the second time in the last five months.

The stakes couldn’t be higher. If the rate increases are defeated as a result of tonight’s Proposition 218 public hearing, the city will default on as much as $9 million in loans and grants as well as deferred fines.

Furthermore, the city would face additional fines and litigation for failing to meet state and federal mandates. There are other long-term consequences.

Over the past several months, state and local officials, as well as experts on wastewater rate issues, have repeatedly warned that if the proposed rate increases are rejected under the provisions of California Proposition 218, sewer fees will only go unpredictably higher than the currently proposed rates.

Protesters gathered form letters

Although they have been present at numerous public meetings where the consequences of a rate increase defeat have been detailed, most protesters told the Record they are convinced there is a better way.

Even though they were trying to defeat the two rate increases, paradoxically, most agreed the proposed $27 base rate increase is necessary to pay the city’s outstanding debts for the construction of the new wastewater treatment plant.

In interviews Tuesday at Sierra Market, the protesters passionately claimed they were working in the best interests of the city.

A Mink Creek resident who would only identify herself as Debbi said, “We’re doing what we feel is best for the whole city of Colfax.”

According to rate protest leader Cathy West, about 10 people had been actively going door-to-door soliciting property owners to sign form protest letters.

The group also actively talked to customers in front of Sierra Market, both by the doors and in the parking lot.

West, Debbi, Nicole Norris, Ivy Fenske and Elan Vitkoff gathered at Sierra Market Tuesday morning when they learned Donna Barkle, incoming councilwoman, was handing out city-sponsored informational flyers and a reporter was taking pictures.

City leaders fought back

“They’re going to be challenged,” vowed Councilman Josh Alpine Monday. “We plan to examine all the protest letters.”

Over the past week, the Record has confirmed Alpine, Barkle, council members Suzanne Roberts and Ken Delfino; former council members Sharon Gieras and Jim Albright; and incoming City Treasurer Melba Delfino had hit the streets, Internet and phones trying to convince people not to sign the protest letters.

Aside from what they see as a devastating threat to the very survival of Colfax, the city leaders were motivated by complaints from their constituents.

The complaints ranged from aggressive tactics by the protesters in badgering people to sign the protest letters to outright misrepresentation of the facts about the rate increase.

“They’re giving false information to people,” homeowner Sandy Wentz told the Record Tuesday. “They’re very friendly … and people are believing it.”

Wentz and her husband Roland have attended most meetings regarding the rate increase over the past five months.

Some people changed their minds

Ken Delfino, Barkle and Gieras all confirmed they had spoken with a few property owners who wanted to withdraw their protest letters either because they felt pressured into signing them or because they were given incorrect or misleading information.

City Attorney Scott Browne had not returned calls as of press time, but Tuesday, the best advice Councilman Delfino, City Manager Joan Phillipe and rural development specialist Jean Thompson-Ibbeson had was for people to inform the city in writing why they wished to withdraw their protest.

Ideally, withdrawal letters should have been submitted no later than the close of the Proposition 218 public hearing Wednesday night.

Nevertheless, people who feel they have legitimate reasons to withdraw their letters should continue to submit them to city hall, advised Jane Thompson-Ibbeson with the Rural Assistance Corp.

If the rate protesters defeat the rate again – and if the city pursues a legal challenge – personally written letters from people explaining why they want to withdraw their protests could help the city’s case, she said.