Our view: New reminder for city to put house in order

New Mayor Kelly Schellong expressed hope after last month's election that the new City Council could get a fresh start following years of monetary untidiness caused by a revolving door of finance directors and the controversial approach the city took to paying for a $42.5 million wastewater treatment plant.

A recent ruling by Superior Court Judge William Follett illuminated another nasty financial problem that the city should learn from even as it tries to put its money messes in the rear-view mirror.

The city failed to follow state guidelines for increasing utility fees during a nearly 10-year period before last year's big fee increase for the new plant that caused so much consternation when it was imposed without a vote of the people. In the case of the earlier fee hikes, the city didn't allow its utility customers to formally protest the increases, as required by Proposition 218 passed by state voters in 1996.

After she was fired from her position as city finance director, Joei Sanches spoke publically about the procedural missteps and was one of about 100 people who filed claims seeking reimbursement of part of their utility payments. The city rejected all of the claims, and Sanches was apparently the only person to file a lawsuit to pursue a refund.

It's ironic that her award of $1,224.17 plus $50 in legal fees came in Small Claims Court, because City Attorney Bob Black estimates if everyone who paid the improperly imposed fee increases got a refund, it would cost the city $1 million to $1.5 million.

Only ratepayers who had their claims rejected by the city were eligible to file a suit like Sanches did, however, and the time period for them to do so appears to have expired.

Black makes the case that civic-minded citizens shouldn't be looking for a refund anyway, since it would come at the expense of an already cash-strapped city government. "To grant the claims would have been to enrich a few at the expense of everybody," he said.

In one sense, he's correct. We need a functioning wastewater system, and as a city we're better off if we can move ahead rather than getting nickeled and dimed in rebates for past transgressions. But the idea that refunding what were in essence over-payments would "enrich" the recipients is dubious.

It's important to remember that the city did follow Proposition 218 procedures when it enacted the big sewer fee increase last year for the treatment plant. The resulting protest vote fell short of the support necessary to overturn the action, although some people, including new Councilwoman Donna Westfall, still contend that vote was miscounted.

That is another story, as is the fact that the city is only now emerging from fiscal mismanagement that led to a suspension of all discretionary spending because City Hall basically didn't know how much money it had. Then there were the improper benefits that were paid to City Council members that are still the focus of a lawsuit filed by the city seeking repayment.

We have a new mayor, three new Council members and a new finance director. At the same time they strive to put the city's financial house back in order, they need to instill new expectations at City Hall that future actions such as adjusting utility rates or employee benefits will meticulously follow the law.