Judge upholds rate rollback rebuttal

<p>The rebuttal argument appearing in voter pamphlets against Petaluma's water and sewer rate rollback initiative will stand.</p><p>Sonoma County Superior Court Judge Robert Boyd ruled that a legal challenge filed by supporters of Measure K came too late and failed to name county elections officials.</p><p>Boyd's decision did not address a claim by former City Councilman Bryant Moynihan, leader of People for Fair Utility Rates, that the rebuttal contained three false or misleading statements.</p><p>The ruling issued Tuesday means the rebuttal will appear in pamphlets as submitted.</p><p>"A win's a win," said the statement's author, Petaluma council candidate and lawyer Mike Healy. "I think any neutral person would realize there was a strong argument in support of it."</p><p>Moynihan said he did everything right, but in hindsight his lawsuit also should have targeted county elections officers to prevent them from publishing the voter pamphlet before a hearing. Some pamphlets to overseas voters have been mailed.</p><p>He said it was unfortunate the judge did not weigh in on the merits of the case because "we had what I felt was a winning argument on all three of those points."</p><p>"It's a shame our elections process does not allow adequate time to correct statements that are false or misleading," Moynihan said.</p><p>Measure K will ask voters in November to roll back water and sewer rates to 2006 levels.</p><p>Supporters claim the city council-approved increases of 15 percent a year for the next five years are not affordable for the average resident.</p><p>Opponents led by the city say that reversing the rates could cause Petaluma to default on a state revolving loan for construction of a $110 million wastewater treatment plant.</p><p>Both sides have provided arguments for voter pamphlets going out at the end of the month. Each also has a rebuttal argument.</p><p>Moynihan's lawsuit said the opponents' rebuttal incorrectly asserts the initiative would be thrown out in court because it violates the contract clause of the U.S. Constitution.</p><p>Also, his lawsuit claimed the rebuttal contained false information about average water rates and underestimated the cost of the wastewater plant, which he said is actually $165 million.</p><p>You can reach Staff Writer Paul Payne at 762-7297 or paul.payne@press</p><p>democrat.com.</p>