Even when he skips City Council meetings, Samuel Smith can drive Henderson officials crazy.
The Shank Street resident, who has been frustrated in his attempts to win reimbursement from Henderson for 15 of 18 years of city sanitation fees he was charged despite living outside the city, missed a council meeting for the first time since he made his problem public Feb. 14.
But he was on the council’s agenda Monday night, and his case was as divisive as ever.
City Attorney John Zollicoffer reported on a letter from the attorney for the firm that handled the revenue bonds for Henderson’s water and sewer systems. The letter came in response to a request from council member Elissa Yount for a written explanation of whether the city could cut Smith’s water rate to compensate him for the money he overpaid.
The revenue bond attorney wrote that the city may deviate from the standard water and sewer rates to correct errors and settle disputes, Zollicoffer said. That would seem to fit Smith’s situation.
But it’s not that simple, the city attorney said. “The key words (in the letter) are ‘consistent with established business practices.’ ”
Henderson’s established business practice is to apply the statute of limitations in payment disputes — although, Smith’s case has revealed, the city actually has used the wrong statute of limitations, paying people for three years when the statute calls for two.
Zollicoffer advised that the city would be violating its standard practices if it gave Smith a discount.
The second problem with granting Smith a rate reduction, according to the letter from the revenue bond attorney, is that such special rates should be used only in cases of errors involving billing for water or sewer. Smith was charged the correct water and sewer rates; the sanitation fee just happens to appear on the same bill.
The sanitation fee covers city trash collection and recycling — services that have nothing to do with the water and sewer infrastructure the revenue bonds financed.
“I think the statute of limitations is still the key issue,” Zollicoffer said.
Council members did not see the letter in advance unless they happened to check their e-mail Monday afternoon, so Yount moved that the letter and the Smith case be sent back to the Finance and Intergovernmental Relations Committee for further consideration.
Mary Emma Evans, Smith’s fiercest advocate on the council, seconded Yount’s motion, then questioned the value of going back to the FAIR Committee after she was reminded that the panel’s members are Chairman Bernard Alston, John Wester and Harriette Butler. As Alston noted, in practice any council member may participate in committee meetings, and FAIR sessions usually draw a majority of the council.
“I think the FAIR Committee members have already made up their minds about what they’re going to do concerning Mr. Smith,” Evans said.
She did not elaborate on why she feels that way about the three FAIR members and not the council as a whole, which has voted several times not to pay Smith any more money. But Alston and Wester have argued most strongly in defense of following the statute of limitations, and Butler two weeks ago said she was offended by Smith’s verbal assault on the council.
Finance Director Traig Neal has calculated that the monthly sanitation charges for the 18 years in question totaled $2,995. Smith has received $757 of that, or 37 months’ worth, from the city, and the city has forgiven $390 in late charges from the past three years to save him from having his water cut off. Smith disputes whether the $390 should count against the amount the city owes him because he says he would have avoided the late fees if the city hadn’t overcharged him in the first place.
Only Yount has voted with Evans, and she has called for creative ways to reimburse Smith, such as the rate reduction, rather than give him cash in violation of the statute of limitations.
Yount said the revenue bond letter represented a new twist, but Evans said it wouldn’t bring a new result from the FAIR members.
As Evans spoke, Butler groaned slightly, and she and Alston both rubbed their temples.
Mayor Clem Seifert asked Evans whether there was another committee she thought should take up the Smith case. She had no suggestions.
“I don’t see what good it’s going to do,” Evans said.
Mike Rainey said Yount had asked for further information, and now the council should take the time to consider it. Alston said the FAIR Committee was the right place to do it, if for no other reason than to avoid grinding Monday night’s meeting to a halt for another lengthy debate about Smith.
Seifert also argued for a further FAIR discussion: “In light of this particular information that we’ve requested, is there anything the finance committee wants to recommend differently?”
Seifert clarified that the committee will have as much time as it needs to handle the matter because it already is busy with the 2005-06 budget.
The council voted 7-0 to send the letter to the FAIR Committee for further discussions. Wester was absent.
Smith’s name did not come up again Monday night, but his case appeared to be on Evans’ mind later when Rainey asked the city staff to look into hiring a collection agency.
As discussed last week at a FAIR meeting, the city wrote off $160,000 as uncollectible utility bills at the end of fiscal 2004. Traig Neal said the problem is that people move out while owing the city hundreds of dollars on their water bills, and they leave no forwarding addresses.
Rainey said it would be worthwhile for Henderson to contract with a firm whose only compensation would be a percentage of all money collected.
“So you’re talking about money that’s owed to the city by customers, you want them to pay us back?” Evans asked.
Yes, Rainey said, drawing a disbelieving smile from Evans.
Evans asked how far back a collection agency would pursue debts, and Zollicoffer said the city could go back three years.
Challenged by Evans on whether the statute of limitations is two years or three years, Zollicoffer said it’s two years for debts the city owes and three years for debts to the city. Evans laughed.
“If they owe us money, you want them to pay us back,” Evans said.
Rainey said there’s a difference between past-due active accounts and inactive accounts considered uncollectible. But, yes, he said, he would like the city to get the money it is owed.