It wasn’t even close.

After months of controversy and confrontation, a determined, well-organized group of protesters failed to gather enough signatures to defeat Colfax’s proposed increase for sewer service fees.

The rate increase opponents needed 354 protest letters to reject the proposed increase, but they only managed to present 224 letters at Wednesday night’s public hearing.

More than 50 people attended the hearing at the Sierra Vista Community Center.

As soon as City Attorney Scott Browne announced, “The protest has not succeeded,” Councilmember Josh Alpine moved to affirm the sewer rate increase.

Mayor Sherrie Blackmun and councilmembers Suzanne Roberts and Ken Delfino joined Alpine in voting yes.

As affirmed by the council, the monthly service fees will rise for all residents to $99.20 on Jan. 1. The rates will increase yearly to $108.66 in July 2012.

Disaster averted

Under the provisions of California Proposition 218, Colfax ratepayers could reject an increase in fees if more than 50 percent of property owners formally protested the increase.

In July, a similar Prop 218 protest was successful, jeopardizing the city’s very future. The state froze financial assistance to the city and threatened to take legal action to collect more than $7 million in loan and grant funds it had given the city to build a new wastewater treatment system.

Before the protest letter count Wednesday night, James Maughan of the State Water Resources Control Board told the council that if the protest was successful, the state would act to “get that money back as quickly as possible.”

Pamela Creedon of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board stated her agency would likewise act immediately to collect $585,000 in previously assessed fines.

Furthermore, she predicted future fines for failing to comply with state mandates “could be astronomical.”

City Manager Joan Phillipe reported the city would likely be forced into municipal bankruptcy, city funds could be seized, services would be curtailed – and ratepayers could be compelled to pay much higher sewer fees than the proposed rates under consideration.

Public still misinformed

Despite intensive public education efforts over the past months by city staff, councilmembers, the Rural Community Assistance Corporation and the press, a number of angry citizens still made claims Wednesday that were contrary to the facts.

One speaker claimed only $9 of the $27 base rate increase would go to pay back the city’s state loan. The truth is 100 percent of the base rate is dedicated to repay the $7 million loan.

Another person asserted that one-half of the sewer budget is used to pay the city manager’s salary.

One-half of Phillipe’s $96,000 salary is charged to the sewer fund for work she performs that is directly related to managing the city’s compliance with wastewater mandates.

Citizens rise to council’s defense

Although the majority of the people at Wednesday night’s hearing were clearly against the rate increase, a number of citizens – including some protesters – publicly thanked the council for their hard work.

“It’s a tough job you guys have,” protester Margie Livingston told the council. “I appreciate you.”

“I apologize that you have to listen to people who are not informed,” stated David Bright, who was in favor of the rate increase.

Former Councilmember Sharon Gieras said the city should be proud of its efforts to comply with the rigorous state and federal mandates imposed on the city.

City trying to mitigate impact

Phillipe reported to the council Wednesday that she is well into the massively complex process of applying for nearly $19 million in federal funds to mitigate costs to ratepayers.

In a letter to federal authorities, Phillipe wrote: “… the situation for the city’s ratepayers is at a critical point in terms of affordability. It is not unreasonable to say that given the household income for many of our residents, that this is an urgent request for grant assistance.”

Phillipe also listed several other efforts she is taking to obtain grants and loans to minimize the possibility any future rate increases – and gain assistance for low-income residents.