Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

County should pay Florida Water refund

Now that Circuit Court Judge Jack Springstead has upheld former county Judge Peyton Hyslop's ruling that the Hernando County Commission owes customers of Florida Water Services about a $3-million refund, the commissioners have a tough decision to make.

Should the commissioners instruct their team of lawyers to appeal the case to the 5th District Court of Appeal, with the hope that it will overturn Hyslop's December judgment and allow the county to spend the customers' money on improvements to the utility system?

Or should the commissioners accept the loss and return the money to customers, former and current, who paid the county government extra to provide a service that was not needed?

Given the judges' decisions, and that customers of the utility in Spring Hill have involuntarily endured years of legal fights about how their payments have been spent, and sometimes misspent, we urge the commission not to pursue the appeal.

Since 1994, customers of the utility, known then as Southern States Utilities, have had a portion of their water and sewer bills set aside so the County Commission could oversee, or regulate, the utility. The county had about a $3-million surplus for that purpose when it purchased the system from Florida Water Services in 2003.

Spring Hill residents Nick and Ann Morana think that money should be returned to customers because the county does not need to regulate itself. The Moranas filed a lawsuit to that effect and Hyslop ruled in their favor in December, saying the county improperly amended the ordinance that authorizes it to collect the regulatory fees.

The Moranas are represented by Brooksville attorney Joe Mason, who is litigating the case on contingency, meaning that if the Moranas win, Mason stands to collect about one-third of the $3-million. That possibility galls the county's legal staff members and some commissioners. We, too, would like to see the entire sum returned to the people who paid it in the first place.

But the prospect of Mason making a huge profit should not enter into the commissioners' thinking as they deliberate whether to refund or appeal. The decision should be based on the merits of the case, and what is fair and in the best interest of residents.

Admittedly, it will be a tedious task to track down the customers who needlessly paid the fee and to determine how much each person should be reimbursed. Even then, the amount of the refund will be nominal, and in some cases, minuscule.

But if commissioners agree with the judge that the fees were collected improperly, they should not allow the difficulty of the undertaking or the size of the repayment to override the need to right a wrong.

The Moranas' attorney is counting on the commissioners to base their decision, which is expected to be discussed at Tuesday's meeting, on their political self-interests. The customers who are owed money are voters, after all, and denying them what is rightfully theirs might not play well at the polls.

But we are counting on the commissioners to forego the appeal simply because it's the right thing to do. This money was earmarked for a specific purpose, and that purpose has ceased to exist. The commission should return it to where it came from - the pockets of Florida Water customers.

[Last modified June 9, 2005, 01:17:24]